Baldev Singh & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06,2012 pkb JIL GAUR) JUDGE 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. .H *• . IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November IS, 20.11 Pronounced on: January 06j 2012 (GRJD-A) ! LA.APP. 1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARIslA , Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr..TaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghiivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Megi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate N4r.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav' Mr.l^eepak Khosla, Mr.Sariiit Khosla and Mr.phananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.Ii.S.I'laute1a, /'»dvocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocale. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.i'I.S.Rautela, (rUlvocates for respondent in appsjals filed by IJOi) versus O UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ' Respondents • 'Hirough: Mr.SarijayPoddar,SeniorAdA'ocatewifh Mr.Saajay Patbak,, Mr.Mojutrao. .'adhtiv !,ind Ms,Na\'lin ovvaiii. Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Veniia, Ms.Beenashaw Soni. Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Matliiir. Mr.Kunal Sharn'iH, Advocaie fer DDA ! AFP.412/2008 & CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-'Objections).f.A.APP.,432/2008 ].A.APP.4«/2008;LA.APP.688/20084 CMMo.5990/20J0(Cross Objcciions) i,A.APJ'.697/2008& CM.No.433,'2009(Cross-Objections);[.A.APP.701/2008 & CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-01:yections); I./\,APP,768''200S; l.A.APP.770/2()()8 hio, l.iy.V-:008& connectcclAppp.alsofVillaBC : No. S coniuir'.edAppoulsof Villaj^o Liijwiisjii 1A.App. Ill/;)0:10&conncacidAppcaliof ViilaRC l-otnanpui' Pj,,,,i r,; -g [5 }- i LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008 CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM No 615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross^Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008 & CM No 1795/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP'.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; lA APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; 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.9()1/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.1734072008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1046/2008; LA.APP.l047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009.(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No.17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008& CM.No.416/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008& CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); 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); LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/200S & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.17302/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086./2008 & CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.44l/2009 (Cross-Objections);LAiAPP.l108/2008 & CM.No:3839/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l109/2008; LA.APP.l110/2008 & CK4.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.lLl1/2008;1.,A.APP.1112/2008& CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.11 i3/20()8 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l11.5/2008; LA.APP.l116/2008; LA.APP.l121/2008; lA.APP.l 126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objeclions); l.A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM,No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objeclions);

1.A.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1140/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008;LA.APP.l157/2008;LA.APP.l158/2008& CM.No.7774./2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l16172008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.l 170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.1172/2008; LA.APP.l 173/2008; LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& •CM.No.6.933./2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l184/2008; LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 IA.App. No. n9.'j/?-f08 & conneclGdAppeaLsofVillagfi'Bharthal l.A App. Nc. Z9i/7,0.10& connGcted Appeals of VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 1.1.]./;>010a connectGclAppealsofVillagG PochaiiDur' Page;!of2g V ) V % (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.AP'P.l197/2008; LA.APP.1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008; LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008;LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008; LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008;LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/200^ LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/200J LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/200^ LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/200^ LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA,APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP. 135/200^ LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA. APP. 199/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009;

1.A;APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009, & (Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-Objections

1.A.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/200 LA.APP.224./2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245./2009; LA.APP.249/2009; l.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP,404/2010; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA. APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2()09; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.l 3/2011; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA. APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; • LA. APP.45/2010; LA.APP.l 138/2008; LA.APP.l177/2008;LA.APP.1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/200^ LA.APP. 145/200 LA.APP. 191/200 LA.APP.201/200 CM.No.7027/20( CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I..and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award.No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bhartlial, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.-BIJW ASAN). • . DIWENLJIERKUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh lA.App. No 1195/^.008 fi conneclcd Appeals of Village Bharlhal ' A.App. No. 294/2010 & connecUidAppealsof Village Bijwasan l.A.App, No. lll/ZOlO & connectc;cl Appeals of Village Pochanpu,'- )<r 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 Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC : Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals • filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 'VI & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 L.A.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.y\PP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP.56/2010 LA.APP.57/2010 La!APP. 59/2010 LA.APP.70/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP, 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351.^'2010 LA.APP.'352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 • LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/201.0 • LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 LA.APP. 722,/2010 LA.APP-. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 • LA.APP. 731/2010. LA..APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 .LA.APP. 364/2010 • LA.APP. 77/2010 . LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP.75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bi^jwasan,Delhi) Am LA.App. No,.119.'j/-2008& connncted Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 2'M//010 & connectnri Appealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. No. 1.13/2010& connected Appealsof VillagePochanpur . l-a'ge4 of ^9 •\ •% (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on.: January 06. 2012 .A.APP. 111/2010(VIIXAGE POCHANPUR) SEH/ 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) iVfr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant m R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.SanJay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.

1..A.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 9] 9/2010 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.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, L.A:APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP. L/V.APP. LA.APP. LA../VPP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 . 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 535/201 1 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. i,A.App. No. ]..l,.95/?.008&connuctfidAppeaLsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No, 2.94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan !-A.App No ].1.,1/?.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur o •V (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

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

06.01=2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancement of the comiDensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(3())96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating - to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, I3ijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

¶2Acquisition process for planned development of 'Dwarka Phase-If in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 1.3"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

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

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentof marketvalue of their acquired LA.App. No.119!j/2008 & contiHctedAppeals of Village Bharthal, I.A.App. Nn. ^.G'J/ZOIO& conncctedAppealsofVillageEijwasan LA.App. No, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 6of 29 N agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourtvide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' and @?13.36 lacs per acrc for their Block .'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, refcrencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancementof compensationsoughtby the appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate ofRupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate ofRupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, KarmitakaHoming Board vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 see 246; AnjaniMolu Dessaivs. StateofGoa andAm\,

(2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. StateofHaryana andAm\,

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

(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jaigaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India tS; Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors.., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALI'^ 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs'. Gram Sabha Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land AcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCX] 714; Thakarsihhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, l7\..App.No..Uf?,')/;'008a connoctpd Appeals of Village.Bharthal i.A.App. No. 7.94/20.10&• conncctod Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No in/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur ' ' f! N Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC \15\ Risal Singh Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Ann, 2006 (89) DPvJ 527 (DB); Lai Chand ra. Union of India and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769; Genera! Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Ann, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority,

(2004). 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar V5. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors, Vs, Union of India & Anr, 176(20]]) DLr 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr^ decided on 24.04.2008; Om. Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors ra. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC 621\ Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled.as Bed Ram ra. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhideRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010

(170)DLT371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the deveiopraentin the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limitedto the near iliture alone. 7, It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tom.ar,counsel for appellantst.hat Delhi-Rewaii-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No. 119,'^/2003& corinfictedAppealsofVillage Bharthal IA.App. No. 291/201.0& connectedAppealsofVillagel!ijwasan lA.App.l\)o. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' PaBc8of?.g nP J and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 , meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-ll 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 Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalldia. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizraslm'^^ipto highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

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

¶9It was argued with much 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 1A.App. No. liyii/ZOOS& connnctad Appeals of VillageBharthal '.A App.,No.294/2Q10& corineclcd Appeals of VillagG Bijwasan LA.App. No. .1.11/2010& conncclcidAppealsof VillagG Pochanpur Pa^c9 of23 V Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential,of the acquired land must be adjudged 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 would not mean thatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ^52 lacs to ^62 lacs and merely bccause of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, bccause 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 AnjamMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa. amiAnr., (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 are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the RcforcnceCourtupon the minimumraLes/circlerates for detenniningthe maiketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquired land Vas sought by Mi.R.Godara,learned counselfor the appellantson the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Governmentfor allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquired land, determmationof its market value is I.A,App. NO, 1195/2008a connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal U.App.Mn.294/?0.10&connncledAppealsof VillageBIjwasan l-A App No. UJ/2010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur n2^ sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Poehanpur and Village Samalldia or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above. .12. In the written synopsis, appellant - Impulse India Private Limited of,LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailed the impugned judgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Aw^ard No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.10.2002 being fla-wed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred, to in cross-examination of appellani dated

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

11.9.2001issued by the GovernmentofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid • d.own by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining 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 Suprem.e Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Fatil versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate should,not he disregardedin .I.A.App,|\{o. .l.l:J:i/2008& connectedAppualsof VillageUharlhal J.A.App. No. J94/2010& connectGdAppealsofVillageDijwasan LA.App. No. 1,11//.010&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePoehanpur Pap^,n of 2C| case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Mohi Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certanland. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and X13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the lew laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Cozirt including in Subh Ram v.y. State oj Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the: impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 jramed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land use change show that in future land, can be subjected to residential, commercial and other pennissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantlead,evidencein respectofthe 74'''am.endment' of the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land, is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Pan.cha.yat elections were held in. the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Suprem.e 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 tha:t a willing purchaser would payfor the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had. also L/\.App. No. 1195/2008 & conncclsd AppGal.sof Village Bharthal I.A.App. l\lo. 2M/?.010 & connected Appeals of Village Biiwasan LA./ipp. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur Page 12of29 >1 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and. concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped, land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rateS'set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated, land. k) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land w^as acquired for development purposes of Dwarka . Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v, Ta.hsi.ldar

(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 propert)^ acquired the fact whether the land has got buildingpotentiality to be used for building purposes in imm.ediate 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 oj the land is being considered,as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in better use as housesites in the nearfuture. "

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

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfof the appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof l.A.App. Mo. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.Ai^p. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppeal,sof VillagePochanpur ! -< urbanization of tiie lands in the 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; Kapil 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 to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthat though as per Section51-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence for determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and A\nr.,

(z009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushi! Kumar w. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase jn price in a short period cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. No. ?.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' I'apeMofZS /• and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeofthe usual p]evalenttrendin the marketwouldpay such ahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon b}' the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& •DO ratcs/Pre-DctcrmincdRates cannot be countenanccdin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) Avhich has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SmhilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned, it was urged by Mi.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1'^ April, 2000 and by granting.appreciationthereon (§ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10%.perannum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthere is no scopefor fiirtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the ReierenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves Lo be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby alloAving the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closepemsalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon rccordand the decisionscited,what emergesis thatthe truemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling l.A.App,No. ll9:,/,)008&connectftdAppealsof VillageBharthgl W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwa.san IA.App. |\)0. rn/2CI0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page IS of 29 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue 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 Hmyiina itS. Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationof the acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandfor puttingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(iii) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupantsof buildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsorthe likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of bidldingplots or developedresidential extensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe 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 become availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builton the . acquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to specif})afew. " IS. 1he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large number of factors. I<\)r the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No. 1.195/2008& conneclRdAppeiil,sofVillage Bharlhal LA.App. No. ?..'M/2010& connGctedAppsalsofVillageBijWdSan l-A.App.No. U.1/20.10&connectedAppcaLsofVillagePochanpur ' Qh / \ which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiteratingthe relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

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

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialit> of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

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

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammai (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Moiu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- LA.App. No. 1155/2008 & connoctGd Appeals of Village Bharthal 1A.App. No. 294/2010 a connecUid Appeals of Villagfi Bijwssan i. A.App. No. 111/2010 & connecicd Appeals of VillagePochanpur 1^1 "The legal position is that even where there are ^several exemplars Mnth reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will he considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But M'here the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are M'ith reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

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

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

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for developm.en.tin the area, and the demand for la.nd in the area. In rural areas Unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts orjumps. IA.App. No, ]195/2008 & connected Appnalsof Village Bharthal lA.App. No.2.94/2.010& connnctfid Appeals of VillaRG Bijwa.san lA.App. No. 1]1/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page ;l8 of29 # ; I ( On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land, is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2%) per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15%) per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%)per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved, market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a. few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard, where the gap is larger. Tor example,for determ.inin.gthe m.a.rket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopVmg the annual increase method with reference to a sale or I.A.App. No. U9:j/200^ & connficled Appaalsof Village Bhartha! . • !.A,App.No. & connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App No. .1.1.1/.7010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanp'jr acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the rate' of annual increasemay itselfundergo drastic-changeapart from, the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard ofincrease. "

¶241his Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Hmyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computalion of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.What was said by the Apex Court inHSIDC (Supra) is as under:- 'When differentcategoriesoflands (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 referenceto previousstatus or situationshould be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification." i5, Undisputedly, 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 SwamiSatsang,Beas had puichased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acrc.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/l0) vs'hich are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha Swam.iSatsang Beas in respectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurrellectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds LA.App. No. 1.195/2008&connectGdAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. No. 2f)4/20.10&connectodAppealsof Village Bijwasan l-A.App. No. .n.1/2030&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur I . t (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the nature and situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purciiaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, dien it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25'"'- March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App, No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sirigh ps. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be tj-eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch prior to their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition. Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur / (• market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4 to ltx.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed.of27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) v/as situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Jtx.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶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 adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Prc-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalue of the acquired land with buildingpotentialityMnth referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a well developedlayoutin the neighborhood lA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connfictedAppealsof Village Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/?.010& connpcledAppeaLsofVillage Biiwa,san lA.App. No. 111/2010&conncictodAppealsofVillagePochanpur or whetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land with buildingpotentiality,with reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becom.es inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the-layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, •then wha.t could,be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put andincreaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales oj buildingplots in the-neighborhoodof the acquired land, indicatingthat there was no immediate d.em.a.nd., as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view pi the difficultiesin adoptionofrate ofland charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai ChaHd (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DetcrminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai , Chand (Supra),a coordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No. & conncctodAppealsofVillageEharthal LA.App. No, 2m/20ia& connoctociAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010&conneclHdAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^ PagR 23 of 29 t \ the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevant criteria for assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villages for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, ' learned senior counsel for the respondeiit/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if. it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phasc-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by, providing appropriate LA.App. No. ]19i;/2008& connficledAppealsof VillageBharthal i.A.App. No. 294/2010& connocledAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No, 111,/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pagp 24 gf 29 escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a cooidinatcbench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12/'o per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt Irom the date offixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertainmg to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Nofificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use olthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App, Mo, 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVilliigcBharthnl i.A.App.No. .^91/2010&. conncctndAppealsofVillage Bljwasan l-A.App, No. ],1.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 5^ presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundtlie acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang.Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosetliatthe sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein pricedue to higlierdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post tlie year 1994, then appellantscouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldta (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadhci Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-l/ll) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale mstanccs. Therefore, in view of the afbre-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Baryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (JISIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturarlandin Delhi, which generally factors in tlie rise of price due to higher ^ potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there i.s agap between what lA.App. Mo. U.9.V2008&conncctodAppeal.,ofVillageBh.rthal LA.App. No. 294/;.OlO&connsctGdAppo^alfof VillaijeBIjwasan lA,App. No. 1,11/20.10&connectedAppsalsof VillagePochanpur Page 26 of 2.9 I t would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe 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 aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi,to fix the marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question. Jnndingof the ReferenceCourtin matterof VillageBharthaland A/illage Bijwasan,of there being no evidencethat the potential and the situation ol the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectof higherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH--8 from Shiv Murti sideto DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part 11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on account of aloresaid locationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the l-A.App, No. 119.'j/2008 & connGcteidAppeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& corinecl«dAppealsofVillageBijvi^asan lA.App. No.-1.1,1/2010&connectedAppealsof VlliagGPoclianpur settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Minn NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords;- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would he sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a ui ing potentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringtlie fait tliat it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatIhera with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan,However, while relying upon the decision in SushU Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto gram 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals ai-e partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Biiwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lA.App. |\|c, .1.1..9;i/2008&corinnclGdAppealsofVillageBharthal A.App. No. .'010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwa.san .A.App. No. .1.1.1/20,10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pase 2S of 29 the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these three villagesin questionis determined@?16,50,00()/-per^^S'^forthe Category 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per b^^ha ibr the Category'B' lands in question.. \-%-\\ V'

¶41On the aloresaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siaiutorybenelitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vx UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are gianted,except tor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi which periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hcse appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶421he above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof m the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,if any, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar (jcneral ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb LA.App. No. U.95/2008&conncctodAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App, No, 294/2010&conneclGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan I4.APP. No. 1],1/?.010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (SUNIL GAUR) I-a- \ On. I / /T (• 1•' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -V LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SliARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mi".AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.AnitaTomar,A°dvocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.01.2012 C.M. AppL Noo 752/2012 ("For correctiom). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 oftlie application.Advancecopyofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. Tlie typographicalerror pointedout by tlie respondentin tlie decision of 6'" January, 2012 is tliat in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthattliereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No: 1195/2008'be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbecarriedout forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof. LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2 "(SUNIlGADR) JANUARY 12. 2012 pkb

X r- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ^ % Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA. APP. 1192/2008 BALDEV SINGH & ORS Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Panlcaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) 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 Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR