UOI v. Hawa Singh & Ors

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JANUARY 06,2012 pkb ilh GAUR) JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. I: •n. 0/' /() IW THE. liIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (GRJD-A) Reserved on: November IS, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.Ai^IM 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BliARTHAL) RANBIR SHAR]\4A Appellant I'hrough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.Smila Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, ; Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghnvinder Godara, Advocate ; Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate • ; Mr.S.K'.Roul and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.PankaJ Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav.Mr.DeepakKhosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.l3hananjay MehlaAvat,Advocates Mr.fiS.Rauiela, Advocate Mr.I:S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandcep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocale. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.LlS.RaiUela, (rVdvocatesfor respondent in appi;als filed by IJOl) versus ()!• INDIA & ANR. ...... Respondents l:hrough: , Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorA.dA'ocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak., Mr.lVlolutrac Jadhirv and M.s.Nav'sinSwain, Ms.K.Kaumndi lCiran,Advocates for [..AC/UOI, Mr.AjayVerma,Ms.BecnasliawSoni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr S.K.'Sethi,.M]-.Pav/anMathur, IVlr.Kunal • ! Sharma, Advocate foi-DDA 'i !..'\.AFP.,4t2/2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections).LA.A.PP..452/2008:, IA.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& C:\4.No.5990/20]0(Cross-Objeclions); i.A.AIT.(>97/2008& .CM.No.433,/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP,701/2008& CM.No.510/20()9 (Cross-:Ohjections); 1". -V.APF.768.'2008; t..A.APP.77()/2008; I.A./'l.-'p,K(i. liy;)/.';006& conncctedAppnalsofVillagr;Bharlhal 1A,.nr..p. No. ;>94/?010 .coriiieri.edAppt.-jlsofVillage;Biiwasan A./*|pp. ll.1./:;o:lO&;connna'!dAppealsofVi;la(!(;I'-ocnanpiir Pafjc 1 of ?3 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/20,09 (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-ObjcGtions); 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; i.A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.AP]'.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/20b9 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.9] 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.l 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APIM032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008; ].,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.l050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l

052./2008; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.l766/2009 (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~Objection3) 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)

1...A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No,462/2009(Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No.l7302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l087/2008& 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-Objections);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 112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; [.A.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APPJ.130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); i.A.APP.1133/2008;LA.APP.1135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); [.A.APP,1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.1161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008 LA.APP,.1167./2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/200^ LA.APP.1170/2008; LA.APP.l 171/2008; LA.APP.l 172/2008; LA.APP.l 173/2008 LA.APR 1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.l 181/2008 LA.APIM182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933,/2009(Cross-Objections LA.APP.l 184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.I18,6/2008& CM.No.7013/200 l,^,App. No, ,n9:i/?.008 a connoctedAppGaLsofvillage sharthiil I.A App. Mo. Z9i/?.0,10& connRctedAppeal.sofVillageBijv/asan LA.App. r-Ja, .•LXl/.iniO&connectedAppealsof VillagePochaiiDur'' . ' [^ageZol'29 n % (Cross-ObjccUons);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP.l 194/2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; LA:APP.1275/2008;LA.APP."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.33/200^ LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP,42/2009 & CM.No.74^/^11 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No7/ro3/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; l.A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.^/2009 & .CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.^CT. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; LA.APPJ36/Z009, LA.A1^40/2009" LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objections);

1..A.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.224,/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.APP.367/2009; 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; LATAPP.137/2009; ..APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.241/2009; 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.245,/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447,.'2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP,45/2010; .A.APP. 1138/2008; 17V.APP.1177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP.201/2009; CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-^Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA. APP.481/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.506/2009; LA.APP.510/2009; LA,APP.567/2009; LA.APP.48/2010; LA.APP. II76/2008; (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002,VillageBharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08. 2011 . • Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJW ASAN), • DEVENDBRKUMAR ....Appellant . Through; Mr.R.S.'roraar,,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. i\io ,119;j/Z00cS& connectcd Appealsof Village Bhiirthal 'A.App. No. 294/2010& connficledAppealsofVillage Bljwasan LA.App No, ,1.1..1,/Z0i0& connected AppeaLsof Village Pochanpu.' :v Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanj ay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.NavIin Swain, Advocates for UOI/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. i LA.APP. U/2010 LA.APPi 52/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APPi 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.Al^P: 100/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 LA.APP 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP; 282/2010 LA.APP, 283/2010 LA.APPi 287/2010 LA.APP, 288/2010 LA.APPj 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP; 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP; 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LA.APPI 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APPi 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APPi 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APPj 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 • LA.APPi 409/2010 LA.APP..438/2010 •LA.APPi 723/2010 LA.APP.724/2010 LA.APPi 727/2010 LA.APP.729/2010 LA.APPi 750/2010 LA'.APP. 759/2010 LA.APPi964/2010 LA.APP,286/2010 LA.APPi 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APPi75/2010& C.M.No.964/2011(Ci LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 5L'2010 LA.y\PP. 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.APP. 285/2010 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.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 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-objections) (Relatingto Notification:No. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002|-2003,VillageBi.iwasan,Delhi) • : AND • • • LA.App, .Mo. .119.'5/'2008& connGctfidAppnalsof VillageBharlhnI I.A,Ap)p, No. Zg'i/xOlO&! conncctGdAppealsofVillage BIjwasan !-(\.Apip,iMo. 112/2010,&j con.nectedAppealsofVillaBe Pochanpur . rap.e 4 of Z9 iS % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 l.A.APP.1]1/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR) •• SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki 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 for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihari Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP J.A.APP LA.APP. I.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.AI'P. LA.APP. -LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 154/2010 . 165/2010 248/2010 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 768/2010 1052/2010 116/2011 121/2011 485/2011 525/2011 554/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.y\PP. ' 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 129/201] 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA,APP, LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010

41.2/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 9] 8/2010 64/201] 119/2011 429,/201] 522/2011 535/201 ] I.A.APP. No. ]195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillafieBharlhal lAApp. No, 2.94/2010&connectcidAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App No 111/2010&conriGclRdAppealsof VlllagfiPochanpur. Ih V (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 %

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcieforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to ' NoUflcaUon No.F.10(30)96-.L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to gcogiaphically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder. 2, Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhcise- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 oi the Land A.cquisitionAct. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block conipiisingof thirteen Revenue Lstates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. ( j Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaidthree villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward . No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@?^13.82 lacs per acre for IBlock 'A' (level fi.eld -- with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(withouttop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired l-A.App. IMo. 1195/2008& connectedAppeals.ofVillage Bharthal. I.A.App. No. ?.9'V2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. No, 113,/ZOlO& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanptir ' • , • /> V agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt 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 dismisse.d.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon •the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Kamataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag ami Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai ra. State ofGoa and Am\,

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

(2010).l see 444; Sangmtthala

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

(D) through LRs ra. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaigaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ TH\ Rama Nand (since deceased)through LRs vs. Union ofIndia Sc Ann, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALIi 41; Chakas fs. State of Punjab '& (Qrs., 2011 (9) SeALJ'i 362; Avinash DhavdjiNaik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 see 171; Atnia Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisition'Officer Anr vs. M.IL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 S(.C,714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, lA.App. No. & C0nru!CtRdAppealsof Villagfiaharthal ;.A.App. No. 7_9'l/2010& connectndAppfial.sofVillage Bijwasan iA.App. No lJl/20.10&connecl(?dAppealsof VillagePochanpur . Page7of 29 [& -V Gujarat and Am\, AIR 2001 SC 2,424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC \15] RisaiSingh & Ors.. Vs., Union ofIndia & Ann, 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd w, RameshMai Jivanbhai Patei and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 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(20.11) DLl j61; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Am., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs and Ors vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushi!Kimmr vs. Union of India, decided on

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

(170)DLT371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned arguing counsel for the appellants ^ that the locationand situationof the acquiredagriculturalland has to be fiist undeistood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developraentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near foturealone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.7.omar, counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewan-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of'Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividmg it into two parts, I.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi l-A.App. No, 1195/2003&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal IA.App, No. 2<11/2010&connectedAppealsof Village[iijwasan lA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillasePochanpur Page 8 of 7.9 n • V 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 Farni Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned counsel for the appellants,that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension ol IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslm2cpto highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite 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 ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notificationof24^' October,1994,

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counselfor the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been v^/rongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama IA.App. No, 1.195/^08& connpctedAppealsofVillage Bharthal !,A App.,N().29/1/2010&connnclndAppealsofVillaBeBijwasan , !.,A,App,No. ,l"l]/;!010&connededAppoal.sofVillagePochanpur Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over 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 thatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Shai-ma,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale DeedsofVillagePochanptirto higlilight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely bccause of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because theic is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMo!u Desmi vs. StateofG"a andAm,. (2010) 13 SCC 710,the averageofsale exemplarsouglitto be taken as representingtlie tnarketprice of the land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circleratesfor determiningthe maiketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson tlie basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determmed rates fixed by the Govern,nentfor allotmentof alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentialityof the acquu'ed land, determinationof its market value is -A.App No. 11J/2010&connMedAppealsOf ViliagGPochanpur Page 10 o( 29 y ^ 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 Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Dctermirted Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds:- a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 being flawed 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 account for the faci that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section J of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the laM' laid doMm by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar.2010(3)SCC 661. (' » d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe land underacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deed,showinghigherrateshould,not be disregardedin lA.App. No. 119:i/2008& connRctedAppualsofVillage Uharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connRctndAppealsofVillageHijwa.san LA.App. No. .1,11/2010&connectsdAppealsof VillagePochanpur . ' Pa ell f29 v case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Molu Dessai 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 compensation upon 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 m.aterial 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 v.y. Sta.te of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejvsed to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land, use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal M'as 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 permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"' amendment of the Constitution of IndAa, w.e.f

1.6.1993 IX A, bv virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act ^'Va.s amended and the area where the land is situated, was d.eem.eda municipalarea and the. municipal Counsellor was elected from, there. No Panckayat-elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr v^. Union of India and. refusedto considerthejdct thai the developm.entin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wouldpayfor the subject land.

i) Ignored the fact tha.t Respondent No. ,2 had also I.A.App. No. 1.195/2008& connccled Appcialsof VillagG Bharthal I.A.App. Mo. 294/?.010& connGcledAppealsofVillage BijWdsan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connactndAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pagg 12 of 29 2^ v 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 RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthe possibilityof change of the use of the land although the land was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras and Bharthal was 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 and 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 relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe land hasgot buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of biuldings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portion ofthe land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingptit in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture.

¶13in the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual detailshave been providedwith a prayerthat the appellants'ofthis appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsofthe otherappealsin these bunch ofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof LA.App, Mo. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Uijwasan I.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 1/^ V LA urbanizationof the lands in the Villages in question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh DaMatray TMrthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (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 instancesreliedupon bythe appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation rellcctingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

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

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in piice in a shortperiodcannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor sLich sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller •App No, 1195/2008& connexlRdAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App, No. 291/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Biiwasan LA.App.No.111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur |'-.-.14 V and the purchaseras no prudentperson having knowledgeof the usual p]evalenttrendin the marketwouldpay 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 rates/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBenchofthis Courtin SmhilKumar (supra)andRaj Simgh (supra),,

¶16So fai as potentialityof the land is concerncd,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredmto, while fixing the minimumindicativeprice oftlie agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneoiLsly determnicd by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting Uie enhancementby the RetereneeCourtwhiletalcinginto considerationtlie appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while granting appreciation @10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-- objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and:uponcloseperusalofthe impugnedjudgmem,the evidenceon • recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis that the true marketvalue ofthe comparablelairdis the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling |-A App. yo. rL.5/2008&connectedAppealsOf VillageBhartol .M.APP.1^0. 294/^010&connt;ctadAppealsofVillageIJIjwa.san •A.App. No. ai/iow&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 15 of Z9 V 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 Udlw Dass w. State of Hmyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or a.ny other kind,of importance or because of its explosivepopulation; the suitabilityof the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; possibilityof obtainingwater and electric supplyfor occupants of buildingsto 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 m.ay become available to the occupiersof buildings,if built on the acquired land; and

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

¶18Ihe potentialityofland for the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposes dependsupon 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. 119,')/2008& conneclpdAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. & connGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' I- ( i 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 Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Am vs. MJi. 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 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 agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon(Supra)can bereferredto Vvith advantage,

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammul (Supra),while takingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoiu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App. No. 1195/2008& conncctedAppealsofVillagG Bharlhal IA.App, No. 29't/?,010& connectodAppaaisofVillagnBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connecicdAppealsofVillagGPochanpur P;iRC17 of 29 "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, ^Anll 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 where the values disclosed in respect of tM>q 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 price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

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

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated;by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation 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 developmentin 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, withoutany suddenspurts orjumps. I'v.App,No. ]1951/2008& connnctedAppfiaLsof Village Bhartha! IA.App. No. Z91/2010& connGctpcl.Appealsof Village l!ijwa.san LA.App. No. 1]1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pggg jgQf jg >>1 -ST V On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land, is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a. much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10%} to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and. specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes 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, m.ay become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe m.a.rket value of a land acquired,in 1992, adopting the annual increase method M'ith reference to a sale or LA.App. .No. 1.1.95,'200f?& ronncctnd Appealsof VillageBharth'a! l.A.App. Mo. 294/20.10& connnctodAppealsofVillageEijwa.san l-A.App No. l.U/2010&conneciGdAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' Pago 19 of 2<) acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is beca.use, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodof occurrenceofvaryingperiods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts inprices affecting the verystandard of increase. "

¶24This Court-is mindfuloftlie dictum,of the Apex Court in Hmyana SlateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(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 situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification." i5, Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquiicd land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., Radha SwamiSatsangBeas had purchased the agricultural land in' Village Pochanpar at a price which varied from ^^52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetween one set of co-owners Radha SwamiSatsang Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds LA.App. No, 139V2008&conripctGdAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 2St/-;.0.10&connactedAppealsof Village Bijwasan lA.App. No. l:ll/20]0& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur (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-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same marketprice. It was dependentuponthe nature and situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as, disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the 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 subjectmatterin 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 Raj Singh ra. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Villae,e Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be ti-eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. ^7, In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the'acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition, fhus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. ill/2010&conneclfidAppealsof VillagePochanpur market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (I'^x.PW-lM to Itx.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the • Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^'l,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.?W-1/11) was , situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (lix.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon 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 cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas to whether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands and Pre-DctcrminedRates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors, R Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as undcr;-

¶12IJxmeyer, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acqviiredland,with buildingpotentialityM>i.th referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in. a welldeveloped,layoutin the neighborhood. :A.App, No. .1.195/2008& connectRdAppnaLsofVillage Bhsrthal LA.App.lNo.294/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillaee Bljwasan IA.App, No. 1.1.1/20.10&connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur " , ^ Piige22of29 'v 3 or whetherit he the determmatiofiofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land 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 befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales ofthe plots in layouts ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be 'done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquiredland with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceof sales oj buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicatingthat there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionofi-ate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chanel (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment ,ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lai Chaml(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of 1A.App. No. l]9:,/?.008&connoctpdAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 291/JOlO&conhnctpdAppeal,?of VillageBIjwasan LA.App. No. 1.11/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur V/' the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternate allotments for fixing the marketvalue of the acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in questionwhile takinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof 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 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,still,the price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold.goodin view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chcmd (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofa few years,ma)' becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App'. No. n9!V2008& conneiclGdAppealsofVillagR Bharthal lA.App. No. ?.91/2010&connccludAppealsofVillage BIjwasan l-A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthepreviousyears.

¶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 coordinatebench of this Court in Sushi!Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsoithe respondentare dismissed. .35. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's mmimumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired ' land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o per annum granted by the RefeienceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f l" April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be further increasedor not. 36, Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned,counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be Luban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationqfthe year 1994the land use ol-the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App, No. liss/zdos&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. mpmo &conncctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 3U/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 25 of 2!) presume thai the acquired laiids had gained potentiality for l^eing consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radha Swami Satsang.,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosetliatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. j7. Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accouMofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then ^ appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.I'W-I/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat die qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang. Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamallclia(bx.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired -land with, the sale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex. PW-l/ll) ciuinot 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 in Baryana State IndustrialDevelopmem Corporation rimOC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded ior the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agricuhuralland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what lA.App. No. Ui/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur f'ase26of29 would be expected to be the maiicet 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 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 NIT-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and PartII, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity .oi: the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhasc-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value oi' 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& connected Appealsof VillageBharthal iy\.App.No. 294/2010& cormeclRdAppealsofVillagG Bljvi/asan lA.App.No;111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpui-PapoI7of2g 5^ settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NausherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting up • buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture,, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increaseinprice attributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very diffteultto providea definite:value 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 with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices lor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there are no special featuresto treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedat par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sas/iil Kumar(Supra),t am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awm-ding10»/" increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby the RcterenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with Ae appellantsof VillageBharthalai,d VillageBijwasan,the appealsof A..-\pp.No. .U1/20K)&connactcciAppealsof VillagePochanpur 't the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese three villagesin questionis determined@ 6,50,000/-perfor the Category 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per bipha for the Category lands in question. ' 'ri.-' 41,- On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgjnent reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,except for the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ioi v\'hichperiodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb •j" I Q C GAUR) rv-( 1"• LA.App, No. 1195/2008&conncctedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 2'M/2010&connoctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l/\.App,No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur S ^1= IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-IARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.tl.S.Rautela, Advocate Mi-.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.Solankiand i Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma,Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.BanlceyBihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharnia and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. '.r'' ^ ' CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.012012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice .A.App.No.1195/2008 Page 1 ( > ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicaleiTor 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 orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no. 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be ca3.Tiedout forthwith. . In viewof the aforesaid^this applicationstandsdisposedof • rr pkb 12, 2012 Page 2 LfO

O % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 140/2009 Reserved on: November m • 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 UOI Appellant Tlirough: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.SanjayPathak, 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 versus HAWA SINGH & ORS Respondent Through; Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, MrJai 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 Godara, 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.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.SandeepThalchur,Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR