Meena Memorial Charitable Trust v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orderssee LA.App.No.1195/2008,titledas 'RanbirSharmavs. Unionof India & Anr. ;aur) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IN THE HIGH COURT OF DElJi! Al' PKLMH )-A) • Reserved on: November IS, 20! I Pronounced on: Janunry 06, 20!2 i.,A.APP.]]:95/2008'(V1IAaGE-BHiARTHAL) RANBIRSHARjVlA . .....Appellant I'hrough: .. AMr.B.S.Maan,Mr,AhiilMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Milan,Mr.11.5.ycrma;Mr..FitinTewathia, Advocates Mr:Aj!ajj(j,Y:idayand Ms.-AhiiaToraari-Advocales. Mr-.R*''!')'as,Advocate. • ' " •/ Mr;'R.aghiiyjnder' Godara., Advt)catfc Mr.N. S,Nc,gi iriiId-Mr.-JH',S.Raiste1a, Advoc atc • .M£;^.;K.'R.ou(a'.\cl"Mi*;B'..(*:v.Routra'y,Mr.M.Azam-Ansari, Advocate:^, , ' •Nii-;Pan'jkajVivekvAd'vocate Mr-KdiesivYaci.ArA/ijrdOecpakKhosla. Mr.Saniit Kho.^fii Adv'ocatc;, ^lv1fij:H..i<auLcia,, • Ah^l-;S;Dahiya; Advciak. • !'-4i;:'?yanri(;cf!'1Jiakhii:. Ad-;'0C3S'c , K/n\/Vli;[;]ddpai:h^-Ady()c,;u(,' :vir.N.S. cgiand'iVir,id..S..Rai i;ida,(Au s Ar . respondent in-appcah filed b> DOI) versus •!'NiO.N()!MNIJiA& ANK. , .Respondeni,; n-'ougir , Mr.yarijayP.r;ddu;-..>.oiiiorAd\'ocatewdin /vd A;a;:vav Pataak. Mr.Mointr;uv,i,:idha'rand M:-, dit:\ Pn duair:,. Ms..K.KaL!inudiK.n-ai;i' Ad^l>ca)estbri AC/iK)l Mr.Ajay\'enra:,Pds,Bccnashf;wSorii. Mr.Mukcsh . Kumar,Mr S.K.Seihi;Mr.idiwauMathnr. !Vlrd<Mna! Sharma. Advocnu; idr 01.)A Id''dd'A''|°: :CM.Nn,40%/:u()X LA.APP,,52;-O0«- ^.".-.dA.Ad,'^ ' !i..rovs--0biec(ion:5);PP .,4 70j ,v. ' :C...-Obi.cd.:>n:p-A. ..APP768.dO,;R;' LAap!'-^yOAn.;;; n:jV:;OOSi a<r.T;;(;lK:••oj::; Bn;.:-!!,:,: •^'oo i\l;; •onMaiod;:vP.,:P^"; •^'.Anp, 'V,.. •r: •/fj.io i( ton"(n"d App;:;i.i viiinKOPoch"rm;ii-LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2()08; LA.APP.773/2008 .& CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.6n/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-Obiections); 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-Obiections); LA.APP'.S18/2008; .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.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.Wo.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-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM-.No.l7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008.(Cross-Objections); I.A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; i.,A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CK4.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.APP.1059/2008'& CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections); LA.APP. 1060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l073,/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); !.,.A.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. 1093..'2008; A.y\PP.] 094/2008; LA.APP, 1095/2008; LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No;3839./2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l! 12/2008 & CM.No;3831/2009 (Cross-Objectioas); LA.APP.l113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008;

1..A.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); . LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009rCross-Objections); l.A.APP.1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1140/2008; LA.APP.l 156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; L/V.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774.'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.l172/2008; LA.APP.l173/2008; LA.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.1179/2008; LA.APP, 11 81/2008-LA.APP.!182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l184/2008; LA.APP.1185/2008; LA.APP.1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2009 lA.App, No. n9.'v'?008& coniiGctedAppeaLsofVillaBKBharthiil l.A App. No. & connncUidAppealsof Villags Bijv/a,san LA.App, No. ;n..l./.'.niO&connnctec!Appealsof VillaBO PocliariDur' ' ' ' Pago / oV 29 V" % LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.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. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.210/2009 & > CM.No.970/2011. (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009 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;

1.,A.APP.3 67/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; l.A.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.495/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; 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.5 13/2009; • LA. APP,45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008; I.A.APP.ll77/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.23L/2009 (Cros^bjcctions); LA.APP.1190/200&; LA.APP,1191/2008; LAAPP.l 192/2008 TJ^-^PP1]Q^/9nnR-TAAPP 1194/2008;LA.APjUm^^ l/aPP. 1197/2008 ...^(iXAPRn98/9008.^.CMMn (^Q--.s/9nn9rrrn9s-Obiections);yA.APP.120Q/20Q8 •- " 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.'l276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008 LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; 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.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. 135/2009 LA.APP. 13 9/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 ClVI.No.7206/200 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA.APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP,506/2p09 LA.APP.510/2009 LA,APP.567/2009 .LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP. 1176/2008 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2i')00 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 20]2 I LA.APP. 294/2010 DJiVBNDERKUMAR Appellant Ihrough: .Mr.R.S.Toma.r,Mr.VirendraSingh i.A.App. i\io .ll9!S/:i!008& connGci.GdAppejilsofVillage;Rharlhal i-A.App, Mo. ?.fM/2010& connuclodApppaLsofVillage Bijwasan l.A.App, No. 1.1.1//.010& conn(!ct(;dAppfial.';ofVillage Pochanpur Pago 3 of 29 A •V Advocates Mr.S.K.Soianki 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 UOl & ANR

1.A.APP F.-A.APP

1.,A.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. [.A.APP. I. A. APP. r.A.APP. LA.APP. f.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 52/2010 . 56/2010 100/2010 242/2010 282/2010 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Ihrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates forLlOl/LAC Mr.S.K.Soianki 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 UOl Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharraa, Mr.Kunal Shanna and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 1,1/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP.

351.-'2010 LA.APP. 35672010 LA.APP. 742/2010. LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 28672010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No.964/2011 (Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 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./VPP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 Ly\.APP.'348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.a\PP. 353/2010 LA.APP.^ 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 • LA.y\PP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. 722,/2010 LA.APP. 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 •oss-objcctions) (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the .L.and AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND i/..App.!Mo. ll'jrj/-2008& conncctRdAppealsofVillagn Bharthal l-A.App. No. 29'?//.010&connficlfidAppealsprvillagnBijwasan !,A.App,No. J.i:/.?010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur . Page 4 of Z9 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18, 2017 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellantfin 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.AppNo. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents l\4r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain., Advocates for IJOl/LAC Mr..Ba.nkeyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forODA. . 111/2010 . 160/2010 . 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466,/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 9,19/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/201] LA. AFP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.API'. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.

1..A.APP'. LA.AP]>. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. -I.A.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 121/201]

485./2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, •LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA./\PP. L/V.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 521/20] 1 526/2011 591/201 1 LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. !.A.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./2011 522/2011 535/201 1 !.A.,App.No. 1.1.95/2008&conn(!clpdAppcaLsofVillap,eBha.'-lhal lA.App. IMo. 291/2010&connectodAppealsof ViiiagoBijwasan l-A.App. No •: 11/2010&connectedAppealsor VillagePochanpur Pjge 5 of :'.9 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417, dated

13.12.2000issued under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

06.0L2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, thcicioiewith the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NolificaUonNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bhailhal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedoi by this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess lor planneddevelopmentof 'Dwarka.Phci.se- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4.oi the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, peitaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid thi'ee illagcsstood acquiredby the Respoi]dcntsvide 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 Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired 1j. y LA.App. Mo. 1195/2008& connectedAppeals.ofVillaRe Bharthal LA.App. No. S connfictedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan :-A.App. No. 111/7.0.10&connectedAppealsof VillaRe Pochanpur Pafifi 6 of 29 ••4 agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourtvide 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, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellantsof Villages Bharthaland Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acrc, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; Anjani Moiu Dessai vs. State ofGoa mulAm\,

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

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthahi

(Dead) through LIls. Vs, Special Tehsiidar (Land Acquisition) & Ors,;, (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh-ami Anr, vs. Union of India MR 2005 SC 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 w. Union ofIndia tfc Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 20] 0(9) SCALfi 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCAL1'{ 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vx State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 1! see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 56'8; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003' titled as Smt litdu Khorana vs. Grant Sabha &. Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer S Anr w,. M.K. Rafiq Saheh, (2011) 7 S(X^ 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors ra. Executive Engineer, lA.App, No. ft connoctod Appeals of Village Bharthai •I.A.App. No. 7.9'I/ZOIO&• connected Appeals of Viilagn Bijwasan i.'V.App.No 1]1/2010 & connectedAppfialsofVillagePocl^ianpiir ' Page 7of29 Guiarat ami Anr., AIR 2001 SC ^"2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SGC \15-, RisalSingh Ors. F:s, Union.ofIndia Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChmdvs. Union of India and Anr,,. (2009) 15 SCC 769; Genera! Manager, Natural Gas Corporation Ltd ra. Rahteshbhai Jivanbhai Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValUyammalandAm vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 20h SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; 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; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority &. Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vx UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Smkil Kumar h. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371.

¶0,On the strength of the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'iirguingcounsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the a:quired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the develop time and the same cannot be limitedto

¶7It was pointed out'by, Mr.R.S.T Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage ra passes through the land of Village Bh i.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayI LA.App. Wo. lia5/2003&conneclcidAppealsof VillageBharthal •I A.App. No. 29^/2010&connectedAppealsof VillaBC(Jijwasan !A.App. IMo. 11.1/2010&conncKtedAppealsofVillaHePochanpur-nient in the area over a period of the near future alone. amar, counsel for appellants that I'way line of Village Biijwasan airthal, dividing it into two parts, ine is the IGI Airport,New Delhi 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 Fatm 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 northem 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 Petroleumand the lands of VillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere 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. Attentionwas drawn to the aks sizraslm'icpto highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned counselfor 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 Notificationof 16^'^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the,entire land of VillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24^'' October,1994.

¶9It was ^argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsellor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.App. Mo, 1.195/2008& connoctadAppnalsofVillage Bharthal !.A App.,l\l().291/2010& corinGclcdAppfialsofVillaoGBijwasan . lA.App.f«Io..1..11/20.10&connticlGdAppnalsof VillagePochanpur PaBc9of29 Reddt& Ofs. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,HyderabadA 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 mview the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnot mean thatthei-e is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Relianccwas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,leai-ned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deedsof VillagePochanpurto highlight thai the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because 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 AnjaniMolu Dessain. StateofGoa maAnn, (2010) 13 SCC 710,the averageofsale exetnplarsoughtto be taken as represemingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre aiid since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliancc placed by the ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. '

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.CJodara,learned counsel for the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by tlie Government'and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmetrtof alternate plotsmthe year2000-200!.KeepnrgIn vtew the location,situationand potent,ahtyof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is LA App, NO. 1195/2008&connoctGdAppealsofVillapeBharthal Ia'app'Ho' ir'SS& • J//X10& connectedAppealsofvillagePochanpur Page ID of 29 •-74 i.h sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in D^^arka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determincd Rates (PDRs) as referi'ed to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant - Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknoyvledgement on the part of the respondent about the AM'ard No.26/2002-2003 dated

¶23j 0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petidon No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated.

7.7.2007) h) Does not account for the fact thai 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

11.9.2001issuedby the GovermnentofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the Imv laid . down by various decisionsincludingin one of the m.ore recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per established,law has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe land under.acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasasper the la.\\.> established by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Faldra Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2(J07. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigher rate shouldnot be disregardedi App. No. .119:i/2008& connectHdAppealsofVillageliharlhal LA.App. No. ?y4/2010& connnctedAppealsofVillage Uijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&c'jnnecledAppealsofVillagePochanpur in Page IX of :!9 V case the average sale price is Io\ver..I'lirther in Anjana. Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the^ Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensationupon a. certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while 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 law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of 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 Notifi-cation of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land, use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal M^as changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and. Notif cations of Government Jbr land, use change show that in future land, can be subjected, to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"' cunendment 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. a.ndike municipal Counsellor was elected from, there.. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR. Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh anM Anr v^. Union of India and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wotild payfor the.subject Icmd.

i) Ignored the fact tho.t Respondent No. 2 had also • i LA.App, No.1195/2008 & connccted AppcaLsof VillafieBharthal l.A.App. No. 291/ZOlO& connficledAppealsofVillage Bljwa.san lA.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectcdAppealsof Village;Pochanpur Pgpe 12 of 29 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is M^hollyunderdeveloped 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 possibilityof change of the use of the land. althoiLgh the land. M'as acquired for development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bha.rtha.1 M'as changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 a.nd 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held, that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While, determining value of the property/ acquired the fact whetherthe Icmd has got buildingpotentiality to be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and. the said, land being occupied bv 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 thenearfuture. " .13. In 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 these bunchof appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced,on behalf of the appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effect.of I.A.App, No, .1195./2008& connectedAppealsof Village Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l.A.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsof Villagepochanpur T Page ij of ?g urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatmy 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 infect 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 reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51-A of Land /icqidsition Act, 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 purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and whileplacing reliance upon the decisions in Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009), 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. 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 SLich sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App No.1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VillageBharthal l-A.App. No. 7.94/2010& connected Appeal.sof Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pafol'lofZS and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Imowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the marketwould pay such ahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Couit in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed b}^ a cooidinateBench ofthis Courtin Sushi!Kumar (supra)andRai Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objeutoisi.hat 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 dctermmed by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) apprcci.ation@10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor fartherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as .^ixcd 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 bo brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advaneed by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon 1ecordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis that the true marketvalue ofthe comparableland is thepricepaid by vviliingpurchaserto awilling I.A.APP.No. HP..;/;^n08&conncctodAppealsof VlllafieBharthil -.APP. No. 294/voiO&connGclodAppealsof Villa^oUijwasan I/..App. No. ni/2010a connectedApp.alsof VillagePochanpur PagGl5of.Z.9 ' -7 'A seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what || has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho pass vs. State oj Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words;-' "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-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 explosivepopulation; ,

(ii) the suitabilityof the acquired landfor putting up the # buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may Be;

(Hi) possibilityof obtainingM>ater and, electricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildings to beput up on. that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquired landfor buildingpurpose;

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

(vi) benefits or advantages of, educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired, land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings,if built on the acquired land; and

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

¶181he potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for " • " - J| buildingpurposesdepends upon a large;|numberof fiictors. For the said puiposc, the Court may not only have j,o. bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. Mo. 1.195/2008& connecledAppealsofVillage Bharthal l.A.App. No. 7.fM/2010& connociGdAppfialsofVillage BIjwasan LA.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur 15 of 29 'If''- ' 'I! which the lands were sought to ' be acqliked-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 acquked 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 wctc not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Offices' & 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 potentiality 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 compensation on the ground of distance li)ctween 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 land for ;a particular purpos'e. 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 Ji Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to Vvith advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note of rhe 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 ;i observationsmade by the Apex Court In AnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App. No. 1155/2008 & connccVedAppealsof VillageBharthal iA'.App. No. 291/2010& connectcidAppealsof Viilagn Bijwasan LA,App.No. 111/2010&connedcdAppealsof Village!Cochanpiir • PaEi^l7of29 VV' : "2lae legal position is that even-where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. Where hoM>even there are several sales ofsimilarlandswhoseprices range,in a narrow bandwidth, the-average thereof can be taken, as representing the marketprice. But where the values disclosedin respect of tM'o sales are markedly different,•it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other priqe depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertainingto determinationof fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as . follows '7/ is well settled that genuine arid bpna 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 betyveen 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 markpt value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil ant! Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- ' "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, 'nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land, for developm.ent in the area, and-the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, -withoutany sudden spurts or jumps. IA.App. Mo. ] 195/2008 & connfictcd Appeals of Village Bhartlial i./\.App. No. 294/2.010 & connected Appeals of Village I3ijwa.sari l.A,App. No. 1]1/20.1.0a connectedAppealsof VillajjePochanpur Page 18of29 On the other hand, in urban or 'semi'-urban areas, where the development is faster, where 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 areas. In som.epockets 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, P 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 determ.ining 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 m.ethod is reasonably safe where the^ relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour to-fiveyears. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a, neighbouring land. What may be a reliable mandard. if the gap is only a. few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. Tor 'example,for determiningthe m.arket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method M'ilh reference to a sale or l.A.App. Mo. 119;i/200l?gi connficlnciAppealsof VillageBh'artha! ' , ' l.A.ApD. Mo. jgi/ZOlO& connnctfidAppealsofVillage(3ljwa:;an LA.App. No. .1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' PaBelSof^g •" f. acquisition in 1970 or }98G-map h'ave manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the >ate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnationin prices or suddenspurts inprices affectingthe verystandard ofincrease. " 'I •

¶24This Court-ismindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Hmymm State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC) (Supra),regarding computaLion of compensation for the] acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods:What was said by the Apex CourtinHSIDC • (Supra) is as under:- ''Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands yvith different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose. SUV for fmning of a residential layout, courts have som.etim.es felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

¶25IJndisputedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired iand of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are 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 puichased the agriculturalland inii Village Pochanpur at a price which vaj-icd from. ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26AVhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Exi.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/]0) AA'hich are basicallybetweenone set of co-owriersand Radha Swam.iSatsang Beas ni respectofthe compactblock ofI'and measuring18 Bighasand 6 BiswassituatedmVillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of Ihc landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required • to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds '..A.App.No. 1.1,95/2008&connected'XppealsofVillageBharthal L'A.App. Mo. 294/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan !.A.App.No. :l.n/20a0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur • ; • ^ -I! -• (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars - Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemxplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the -purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purciiaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got-examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swaini Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"' March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh ra. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be tj-eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instant matters, though 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 evidentthat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing I.A.App. No. 1J.9S/2008& connc^ctndAppealsofVillage iJharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Dijwasan LA.App. No. lU/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pa^eJ-lofZH marketprice of the land in questionwould pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special considerationand so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ivx.PW-IM to Itx.PW-l/lO) 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 of 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Jix.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 quesLion.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whethc)- adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Prc-Dctcrmined 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:- '72. IJmvever, in either of the said cases yvhether it be the delermination of tiae marJietvalue of the acq-uiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ofplots in a well developed,layoutin the neighborhood IA.App, Mo, .119:5/2008& connHctpdAppeals of ViHaRG liharthal I.A.App. No. 29'!/;'.01.0& connoclHclAppealsof Village; Bijwasan IA.App. No. :l,.1.1/?.0.1.0a conn(.'ctGdAppealsof VillagePochanpur P;,p,;22 of 29 or M'hetherit he the determination ofthe m.arketvalue ofthe acquired land with building potentiality with reference to theprice fetched bysale of buildingplots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becom.es inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to befetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of theparties, with reference to theprice which theplots could havefetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidenceofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could, be done is tofi.nd out the m.a.rketvalue of the acquired land with i^e-ference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its value by a sm.o.ll percentage having regard to' the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be m.a.de 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 yvhen there is no evidence of sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicating that there was no im.m.edia.te d.em.a.n.d., as such, for buildingplots even ifform.ed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands, dcvelojDingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in X«/ Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment 1ates/Pic-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands, h'ollowing 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 bemg not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of I;\.App.No..ll9,S/?.008& conncctodAppealsofVillage;L'harthal lA-App. No. 291/7010& connoclodAppealsofVillsgp Bijwasan uA.App. No. 1.1.1/^-0.1.0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu Page 23 of 2H the undeveloped acquired landa.-Thus, -Lfeid-that the Reference Court II has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the marketvalueof the acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for eissessingthe market value of the land in question while taking into considerationthe earlier acquisitionof the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for developmentof ii Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at die compounded rate of W% 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 developmentofDwark^iPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by the i.and AcquisitionCollector is more than the aforesaid escalatedprice 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 La! Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the II acquired land'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that.it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is of only oi'a few years^may becomeunsafe and unreliable standard where the gap?is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e.;, of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,itavouM be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No. ]19i>/2008& connncledAppealsof Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& conncctcdAppoalsofVillage Bijwasan lA.App, No. 1.1..1./2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur • V. # escalation over the market valac of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Courl in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12%) per annum cannot be reduced io 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsof the respondent are 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 annimi granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f l" April, 2000 till the date of Notiiication in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by thie learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut Lhat by itselfis not sufficientto I.A.App. No. II9r;/>:d08&connGctndApijenlsofVilliigeBliarthal i.A.Afjp.,Mo. JMIpmO&. connnctfidAppealsofVillageIJijwasan i.A;App.No. ]1.1/2010&connectedAppealsolVillagePochanpur Pafje 2.Sof 29 \. presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideiedas developedlands. Ihe evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Lvathci, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand, on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid their hands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to estabhshthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of VillageSamalldia(Kx.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of the Apex Court mHaryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate of compensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price hxed by the Government for the agricuhural land in Delhi, wJiich generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is agap between what iAApp, Mo. 1195/2008&connGctndAppealsof VillageBharthal '-.App.Mc. 291/2010&connectedAppeal,,of VillageBijwa.an l-A-App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I v.> would be cxpected 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 Sushi! 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),

¶38I'his Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. J-inding 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 evidence on record. But I find that 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 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part II, 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 Refei-enceCourt. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof atoresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityof DwarkaPhase-I.' What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value ol' the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the LA.App. No. 1195/2008&conneclHclAppealsof VillageBharthal l-A.App.No. 2fM/2010&connfictedAppealsof VillageBijwasan i.A,App. No. 1.1,1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur \ ) settled legal position aptly highliglited by the Apext Court in Mina NamherwcmKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, In thesewords:- Whefi once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibihtyof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value taking into accountthe increasein priceattributable tosuch buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto providea definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem witli equivalence by uniformly applying the Governmcm'sminimum prices tor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-pm-ts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhartlial and Village Bijwasan.However, while rejying upon the decision in Smhii Kumar(Supra),1am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the RefercneeCourtin these matters on account of tlie aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10«/. increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bhailhaland Village Biiwasan.Whiletreatmgthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwith appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof . .1....,1/20.1G&.onncctcciAppoal.sof VillagePochanptir Page 28 of :!9 the appellants of .Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese three villagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per bigh^forthe' Caicgoi-y -A' land and @?14,69,600/--per b^ra for the Categray? (i- '' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,cxcept for the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe a.ppeal, ioi which periodot delay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. ]hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamotint,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar Gcnci-al ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb IA.A.PP.

1.195/2008&connnctodAppealsofVillaR.Bhartha! . An*"'T'' 111 "'nnc'ctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •App. No. 1.1.1/20.10&connedGd AppeaLsofVillagePochanpur (SUN.ff.LGAUR) JUDGE p, r) /• i';!'-: Pago 29 of 251 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -F LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIRSI-IARMA _ ......Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mi-.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mi-.N.S."Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby 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 UNIONOF 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 %

12.0L2012 C.Mo AppL No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6"^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice lAApp.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 i ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6"^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aloresaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants;Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no; 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith; In vjewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof C JANUARY12,2012 JWBGE pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2 \J\%

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 + LA. APP. 1198/2008 MEENA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhoslaand Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negiand 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 COl^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR