Kamal Narain Bhagat v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vj'. Union of India & Anr. 5UNILGAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06,2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. m THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ; Reserved on: November IS. 2011 (GRID-A) LA.APP.]195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) ^ ) RANBJRSHARMA ; Appellant Ihrough; Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smila Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.AnandYadav and Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocates, Mr.Rohtas •Advocate. Mr.Raghuyinder Godara, Advocate . Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.PI.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roiiland Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla, Mr.Samit IChosla and Mr.rJhananJay Mchlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Kautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Ad-vocala Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocale. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.FI.S.Raniela,(rVdvocaieslor respondentin appeals filed by IJO!) versus U'NION 01' INDIA& ANR. Respondents rhrough: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorA.dA'ocatewith Mr.Saniav Pathak, Mr.lVlolutrao Jadha\- and Ms.NaA'iin Swain. Ms.K.Kaunuidi Kiran. Advocates for I;./\C/UOI Mr.Ajay Venr.a, Ms.Becnashaw Sorii. Mr.Mukcsh Kumar, Mr;S. K.Sethi, Mr.Pav/an Mathur. IVIr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate lor DDA i.A.AFP.412,'2008& CM.No,4096/200-S (Cross-Ol^jcctions).LA,.APP.452/2008; l.A.APP.453/2008;LA.API'.688/2008& C?.lNo.5990/201o' (Cross-Objeclioios); i-A.API'.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i'/20C8& CM.'No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections!; L\,APP.768/200H; [.A.APP.770/200H. l-A-App. liy.V.vOO-S& connccted AppnalscifVillagi;Bhanhal ; -''.Arjp. Nu. & r.onimci.cdApp[;ols of VillatjcBiiwaion IA.App, iVi.i. i:l:i./?niO&. connc-a'idAppcaiiofViilaRt:l-ocnanpur ' Paf;o 1. Oi ZS LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008' & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; •LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.83q/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.S19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572,/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.AP1M032/2008 & CM.No.5:99/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; l.,A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 • (Cross-Objections);LA.AiPP.1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.-623/2009(Cross-Objections); lA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.109:3./2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & Cx\4.No.3839/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.1112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objectioas); LA.APP.1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.y-VPP.l116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; . fA.APP.n26/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP.l 13:5/2008 & Crvl'.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.1157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774.'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.1167/2008 & CM.No.802/20Q9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171/2008;LA.APP.li72/2008;LA.APP.l173/2008; LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008; LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.lip/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l184/2008; LA.APP.^n^008;LA.APP.1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 1A.App. NO. 3195/M08 St connected Appealsof VillageBharthal LA App. No. Z91/2010& connected Appealsof VillageBIjvvasan , ' . . . l./^.App.No. :i.,U/.'.f)10&connectecJAppealsofVillagePochaiiDur' Page2ot 23 % (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.l 190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA.APP.l 193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.l 197/2008 LA.APP.l198/2008& CM.No.69'35/2009(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.12l3/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Obiectio!ns);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008 LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.128il/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7|]03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953./2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP; 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.224,/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.y\PP.230/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.24l/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; ].,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. 137/2009 LA.APP. 143/2009 LA.APP. 187/2009 LA.APP. 198/2009 LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.210/2009 , LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA. APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP-.437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009: LA.APP.49q/2009; LA. APP.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP,13/20]1; I"A.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; i.A.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP. 13 9/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.3 05/2009 LA.APR.45 8/2009 L A. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 I.A.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (Relating to Notification No. R10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the;Land Acqaisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002i Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December

¶082011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE:- BIJWASAN). DliVBNl^ER KUMAR Appellant Through: | Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh |.A.App. iMo 1195/';.008 fi connected Appeals of Village Bharlhal IA.App. No. 294/2010& connGctcdAppealsofVillageBijwasah •l.A.App No..11.1/7.010& connected Appeal.';of VillagePochanpur versus UOl & ANR Through: 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) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Pod.dar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathalc, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Nav-lin Swain, Advocates for LIOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,'71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 l.A.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 24:6/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP, 283/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288,/2010 LA,APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA./VPP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 35:6/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010-LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 • LA.APP, 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP, 286/2010 LA,APP, 77/2010 LA.APP..80/2010 LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cr LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55./2(jl0 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010' LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP.277/2010 , LA.APP.281/2010 LA.APP.284/2010 ' LA.APP.28.5/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA..^PP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.y\PP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP, 722./2010 lA.A??. 725/2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 731./2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & •Qss-objections) (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. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) ' :AND 'LA.App. No. .1.19.'j/-2'008& conncclRdAppealsof VilliigGBharlhfil Ij'N.App. No. 294//010 & conncicted Appeals-of Village Bijwasan '..A.App.No. 113/2010 & conneclod Appeals of Village Pochanpur , l-agc 4 of 29 (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 20 '/! Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 l.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGE SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: POCHANPUR) Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.SoIanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor 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,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61,64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in 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 forUOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates forDDA. . 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011 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. , 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 31712010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 •639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 l,A.App. No, 1195/2008& conncctodAppealsofVillageBharthal ; l>'..App,No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan ! i.A,App No 311/2010&conneclodAppealsof VillagePochanpur.: 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 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011-526/201 ]• 591/2011 LA.APP, LA,APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA./\PP. 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./201I 522/2011 53572011 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

06.01.2012

¶1Since the giounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in, these bunch of appeals arc identical, thereforewith the consentofilearnedcounsel for the parties present at the hearing ol' these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedpi by this commonorder. Acquisitionprocess lor;planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,BijwasanandPochanpur. Agriculturalland of thd appellants herein in the aforesaid thi-ee villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e.. Award No.26/2002-200^; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ?13.82 lacs per acre for^ IBlock A (level field —with top soil) and ^"12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (withouttop soil). . 4. Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired LA.App, No. 1195/2008& conneclGdAppeals.ofVilla/jeBharthal, •t.A.App. No. Z9<i/?.010& connectedAppeal;ofVillageBijwasan liA.App. No. 111/7.010& connc.ctRdAppealsof Village! Pochanpiir Page 6 of 7.9 agriculturallands, appellants|had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, farther enhancement of compensation sought by , the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fiftylacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensation at the rate of Riupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board V5. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; AnjdniMain Dessai vs\ State ofGoa and Anr,,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs.. Union ofIndia Si Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Bass vs. State of'llaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SeALE 41; Chakas Slate of Punjab '& Ors., 2011 (9) SeALIi 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik i-x State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors w. State of , Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003-titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Grant Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsihhai Dfvjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, lA.App. iMo, .119.')/;?008& connocted Appeals of Village3harth;d! ;.A.App.No. 7.94/;'.0.10&• connected Appeals of VliiaBe Bijwasan •A.App. No 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ' • Pago 7 of 29 Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2Q01 SC 2424; Maryana State Industrial DevelopmejitCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \1 RisalSingh& Ors. Fs. UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769; Genera!Manager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr SpecialTehsildm •• (LandAcquisition)and Anr,, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Battatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. F^. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(20]]) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SiimtSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushi!:Kumarvs. Union ofIndia, decided on

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;'andBhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371. ;

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, il was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationol the acquiredagriculturalland has to be fiist undeistood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near Mure alone. 7, It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No. ll:J.';/2003& corinectcdAppealsof VillageBharthal • IA.App. No. 2yi/?.0].0& connectndAppoalsofVillagGUijwasan ' iAApp. No. 11:1/2010&conncoctodAppealsof VillagePochanpur; ' p-ggg 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-II again, divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalldia. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned'counselfor the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bha.rthalwas 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-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks\sizraslm'd\) to 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 ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 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 l.<\.App.No. liarj/i'-OOS& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal! !.A App..No.291/7.Q10& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. .1.11/;;01.0&connficledAppealsof VillaBOPochanpur Page9of 23 Reddi<4 Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass ra. StaleofHaryana<S Ors., 2010(9)SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingmview the developmentin the area over aperiodoftime and the sajiie cannot be limited,to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe audroritiesdo not put the land to any use, it would not meanthatthereis no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of Uie said yaiiation, these sale exemplarscannot be thrown out as has been illegal^'done by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantages'andas per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex eourt in AnjamMoluDessaivs. StateofGoa andAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsouglttto be taken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sal(^exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the coriiparablesale instances, thereibre, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circleratesfor determiningthe maikctvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. . II. Assessmentof market value of (he acquired land was sought by IMi.R.&odara,learnedcounsel fpr the appellantson the basis of tlie L& DO rates hxed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the ;Governmemfor' allotment of alternate ,plots in the year2000-2001.Keeping in view the location,situationand poicntialityof tlie acquired land, determinationof its market value is I.A.App.No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVlllagoBharthal ' LA.App. No. 294/?010&conncctedAppealsof Vlilagt!Bljwssan l-/J'.App No. Ilj/2[;i0&cop.nocledAppealsof VillagePochanpur i sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

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

25.]0.2002 being fl.aM>ed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) \ b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates of land in the areafor more thaj^ 15 years 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 II.9.2001 issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin'one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar.2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence 'and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining^ the valueofthe land underacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasasper the law •established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Chirida Fakira Patil, versus Special Land. AcquisitionOfficer, Clyil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Coutt has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigher rate should,not be disregardedin LA.App. No. 1135/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Uharthal | I.A.App. No. 291/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageDijwasan I LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ! Papu n "f29 case the averagesale\price is lower. Further in An]ana Molu Dessai vs. State, of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions \should be considered while t . adjudicating upon compensation upon a. certan land. r f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC ' No.97A/2006 to decid,e the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the Imv laid dowrj. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram v-s'. State of Haiyana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rej'used to return an '.actual finding on the issue No.1 ^ framedon 27.2.2007. \ • I 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 permissibleuses. It is\alsopertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74^'^ amendment of the Constitutionojf 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 • • deemeda 'municipalarea and' the municipal Counsellor was elected from there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. ; . ' • . I h) Refused to apply the': law laid down in AIR. Supreme . Court 34^67, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of India and refused to consider thefact that the developmentin the area has a direct]effect on the price thai a willing purchaser wouldpayfor, the.subjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent'No. ,2 had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connoctedAppealsofVillaBGBharthal | l.A.App. No. 291/P.OlO& connecledAppealsofVillageBljWd.san ; • ' LA.Aop.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVlllagp.Pochanpur! . fageizofzg auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationof the subjectland is even lower than the , pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated Ipind. k) Does not take into ac.coimtthe possibilityofchange of the use ofthe land although the land M'as acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was change^d and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentialityofthe said land. In Sangunthalav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was heldthat the purposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes',in immediate or in near future needs to be considered, m) The presence of a mmber 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 acquiredfor purpose of'putting up residential quarters. As a portion oj the land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by ;Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details hai'e been providedwith a prayerthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsinthese bunch ofappeals,

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfof the appellants,it was urged byMr.AnaridYadav, Advocatethat the effectof !7\./\pp.No. 1195/.'!008& conriecledAppealsof Village Bharthal l./>.App.No. 294/2010& conncctedAppealsofVlllagB Bijwasan l7i;.App.No. 3J.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePociianpur ' Page13 of 29 urbanizationoftlie lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh Battatray Thirthkarvs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major Genera!)& 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 pf the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ot the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket A^alue for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals. i

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A of Lewd AcquisitionAct, 1894,\a certified copy of the Sale 13eed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidence loi" determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the :land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand otljierfactors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect •market value of the acquired'landshave been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplapingrelianceupon 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 Anr.,

(z009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APR No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar V5'. Union ofIndia, decided on 26.09,2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller I LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal^ lA.App, No. ?,9'l/2010& connectedAppealsofVillaf?eBljwasan ' lA.App. No. ail/2010&connectedAppealsof VlllaBC Pochanpur ' PaBcllofzg and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeof the usual p]evalenttrend in the marketiwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special qonsideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objectqr that adoption of L& DO ratcs/Pre-DctcrminedRates cannot be;countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai C/jawrf|(supra)•which has been followed by a cooidinateBench ofthis Courtin SushilKumar (supra)andRa] Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerncd, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned spnior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on P' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, maiket value of the acquired lands has been erroneously dctennincd by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted - thatthere is no scopefor fortherenhancement.fromthe priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition(Collectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be mojdilied deleting the enhancementby the ReiercnccCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves Lo be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. ••

¶17Alter consideringthe rjval submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon itcoidand the decisionscited,what emergesis that the true marketvalue of the comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling l.A.App.No. 1195/:?.008&connoctGclAppealsof VillageBharthal | LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectadAppealsof Village Dijwasan ; l-A.App, l\)o. 1,1.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur; . C\ ' seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionofpotentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or vdlage which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind,of importance or because of its explosivepopidation;

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

(ill) possibilit}^ofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquired.landfQr buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidential extensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acqtdredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centre's, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which m.ay become available to the occupierscf buildings,if built on the acqtdred land; a.nd\

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand for building purposes, to ' specify afew. " '•

¶181he potentialityofland for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for 1A.App. No. llflS/MOS & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. ?.94/?010& conncciedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan i LA.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ! . Page 16 of29 which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Aima Singh (supra) that the-;exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

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

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behall of the appellants is ;that where there is no basic difference I ' either in location, situation or; potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land. :

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

¶21Apex Court in Valliyamsiml (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development' charges was improper. The pertinent • observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under LA.App. No. 11,S5/200S& connocted Appealsof VillageBharlhal ! IA./\pp. Np. &CHnnectcidAppealsof VillagB Bijwasan | I. A.App.No. n.1/2010 & connficlGd Appeals of Village Pochanpur • "The legal position is that even M'here there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the, exemplars, \which is a bona fide tr-ansaction, will be 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 'fUfferent, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale\is on accountof under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted, to.. " ; I

¶22Il would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching obsei'vations pertainingto determinationof fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Faklra Patil (Supra), which are as . follows;- I "It is well settled that' genuine and bona fide sale transactionsin respectof the land under acquisitionor in its absence the bonafide 'sale transactionsproximate 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 mark^etconditions are the real basis to determine the market value. " • '

¶23Principlesto determinethe market value of the acquired lands as I reiteratedby the Apex Court in; Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd,

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:-: "Primarily, the increase', in land prices depends on four factors - situation of th&, land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts orjumps:• lA.App. No.3195/2008 & connncted Appeals of Village Bhartlial lA.App. No.294/2010 & connccted .Appealsof VillaRG Bijwasan | LA.App. No. i:i/2'0iaa connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur \ Pagel8of29' On the other hand, in iii\ban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, iyhere the demandfor land, is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural ared^. 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 margikally 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 jmarket 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 cdntemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcom.pardjblelands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisition^i 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. For example, for determining the m.arket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method Mnth reference to a sale or l.A.App.No. 1195/200(?& connficledAppaalsofVillageBhartha^l lA.Apo. No. 291/2010 & connficted Appeals of VillageEijwa.sanl LA.App. No. 11.1/7.010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanp(ir acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increasemay itselfimde,rgodrastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard of increase. " \

¶24This Comlis mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin SMe IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under;- ; "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different sUuationaladvantages)a,re acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a \residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with Iefeience to previousstatus or situationshould be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor alllandsacquiredunderthe same notification."

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

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Dj^eds (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/l0) ^vhich aie basicallybetweenone set ot co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePoehanpurret^ectthe correctmarketvalue of I the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds l-A.App,Mo. 1.195/2008& coniiGctcdAppealsofVillageBharthal t.A.App. No. 2!M/2010&connuclGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan \ . , • , l.A.App.Np.l:l.l/7.0]0iiconnectedAppealsofVillagePoehanpur ; ' Page 20 of29' (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10).indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs I to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale I exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.;PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was! dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the•advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pocharipurvide Sale Deeds |(Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been I brought out as the purchasei;/vendeeof these agricultural land has not I been got examined by the appellants.Had the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for 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 subjecl;matterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raf Singh w. Union of India, decided on

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

¶27In the instant matters, ithough the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their, acquisition.Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing 17\.App. No. 1.195/2008& connected Appealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& r.onnectedAppealsofVillageBijwasari LA.App. No. ill/2010 & connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur PagGZlofZ!) Vy' ; I ( marketprice of the land in questionwould pay such a high price unless I and until such purchaseis mea:(itfor specialconsiderationand so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (.lix.PW-1/4 to lix.PW-1/10)ihave been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. I I

¶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 relatiiigto Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was « ! situated on the National Higljiway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon I I including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar I cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question. '

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly I ; 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-Dctcrmined Rates for the lalternate 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 itis decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and I Ors, K Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors.', 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. However, in either \ofthe said cases whether it he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality M'itk reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood IA.App. Mo. .11^5/7.008& conner.ted.AppnalsofVillageBhDrthal ; LA.App. No. 29'!/;!0.1.0& conncclfidAppealsof Village Bliwa.san | 1A.App. No. .1,1.1/?.010& conncctnd Appeals of Village Pochanpiir; or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots \in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedhy the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhayefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliifiinary 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 becom.es available, then what could be done',is to find out the marketvalue of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which zYl was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found \out according to its actual user ' since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidenceofsales of bunchingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indica'tingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquiredland. " \

¶31In view of the dilficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and I transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand I (Supra), held that it is not safe|or advisableto rely upon the allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in:determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehol^i lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chanel(Supra), a coordinateBench of Ihis Court 'in Jai Singh (Supra) ,and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not rejevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of lA.A'pp. f\lo..ll.y!)/?.008& connRctcdAppnalsofVillage Bharthal ! >I.A.App. No. 291/2010 & conncclcd Appealsof Village Bljwasan LA.Ap'p. IMq. 111/20.1.0&connecledAppGali;of VillagePochanpur | the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DIDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the. marketvalue of the acquiredagriculturallands in-question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villages for developmentof I Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year. 20!00, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-1 and the instant Notificationfor developmentjofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by I the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.' :

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chakd (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincrease method'in assessmentof the market value ol the acquiredland'onlywhen the;gap is of4-5,yearsand beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofa few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,itwould be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the | market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. 119:3/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bhai-1;hal LA.App. No. Z94/Z010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 1.11/2010&connHctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, ; learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorh^d urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12%; per amium, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebcnch of this Court in Siish.ilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Smhil Kumar (Supra), 1 finld that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquiredj land over and above the market value determinedby the Reference:Court has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra)lescalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe!reducedto 10% per annum, hi this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

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

¶36Adoption of Governm|ent'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notificaticin in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausc the acquired land had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallandsjin these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaidNotificationof the year 1994the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to lA.App, No. ]].9r)/2dog& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharlhiil iA App. No. &, connoclnd Appeals of Village Sijwasan I.A.App. No. ]i:i/Z010& connectedAppealsofVillage['achanpiur Page 25of29 V/ : -a V-/ presume thai tlie acquired ijmds had gained potontiahty for being consideredas developedlands;. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands , m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rather, it emerges froip the evidence on record that till the issuanceof NotificationunderiSection4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were:put to agriculturaluse. Had there been mcrcascmpricedue to higlierdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirihandson otliersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscamiotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samall<ha (Bx.PW-VIl)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha W/ Salmng. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exempla,-of VillageSamalWta(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the af;quired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (l;x. PW-l/ll) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to gram higher compcni|ationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances.Therefore, in vi(jw of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State\IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the • minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor tlie agricultural'land in Delhi, which generally factors|in the rise of price due to higher potentiality,laking note of the fact that there is agap between what IA.App, No: im/zooss connocludAppealsofVillageBharthal i LA.App, No. 294/20.1.0&connecledAppeal:-,of Vlllai?eBIjwasan I lAApp. No. m/20.10&connectRdAppealsof VillagePochanpiii I- / v.. would be expected to be the |market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's!minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (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 I the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. I landing of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the t evidence on record. But I fmdjthat the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport; Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and; of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 1:00 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part 11, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands;has somehow'missed the attention of the Reference Court.'In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of ^aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phasc-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands las assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the l/i.App.No. 119^2008 & connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal liv.App,No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljv^asan; lA.App, NO. T.11/2010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur souicd legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mina NausltemanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- I "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its market value takinginto account the increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentidlity."

¶39Consideringthe fa^ th£|t it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,a^id in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the mattjers of assessingfair compensation,it is bioadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem, with equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices lor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquiredlands as there are: no specialfeatures to 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 SmsMI Kumar (Supra),I am inclinedtb grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourt in. these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providinga'higherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding]0% increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBhartl^aland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof l.'^.App Mo. l.l.e;i/2008&corincclcdAppealsof VillageBharthal I ' i-'N.App. No. ?.yi/;i010&contiGctudAppealsof Village Bijwasan • 1 l-A.App No. .1.11/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 1 the appellants of Village Poqhanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the maijketvalue of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^^alforthe Category 'A' land and @?14,:69,600/-per bipha"forthe Category'B' lands in question. i .

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutoiybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are I granted,exceptfor the periodA^iherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ior ^\'h]ch periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hcse-appellantswouldjbeentitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof •in the aforesaid terras with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe Registrar General of this Court, to the concernedReference:'Court.Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb l.A.App. No..1195/2008& contiRctcdAppeals of VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010 & connccted Appealsof VillageBijwasan l.A.App. No. 111/2010& connecled Appeal.";ofVillagePochanpur Vjr JUDGE . -< • !'"• '• Pago 29 of 29 UN =1= • IN THE HIGH COURT OF :DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 ; RANBIRSliARMA | ' Appellant Through: Mi-.B.S.Maan•Mr.AmitMaan,Mi-.JaiPrakash, ,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Aldvocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.>Iegiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.kout,;Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentinappealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshii Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Shaiina, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout; Advocates I versus ; UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. i Respondents Through: Mi'.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPdthalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, • Mi-.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharaiaand Mi-.SomerK:Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: ' HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER ' %

12.011.2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 IFor'CorrectioE). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof6^''January,2012. ; Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice U:Arp.No.1195/2008 ' ! ^ I'. ofthe application.Advancegopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. - The typographicaierror pointedout by the respondentin the decision of 6'" Januaiy, 2012 is that in paragraphno: 40 of the aloresaidjudgmentthe rate o;fcompensationassessedis 'per bigha", whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this apphcationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1193^008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsbe cajTiedout fortliwith. I In viewofthe aforesaid,jthisapplicationstandsdisposedof. JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb .A.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

vV * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA. APP. 1185/2008 KAMAL NARAIN BHAGAT Appellant Tlirough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav,Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananj ay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, 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 Thimigh: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate forDDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR