UOI v. Rattan Singh & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008,titled as 'Ranbir Sharma v-s. Union of India & Anr. IL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb IN TOE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November IS, 2011 Pronounced on: Jamiarv 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA:aPP.] 195/2008(VILLAGE-BH.ARTHAL) RANBJR SHARMA - Appellant rhrough: Mr,.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Sinita Maan, Mr.R.SA'erma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. iMr.Raghnvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roiil and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj V.ivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav; Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and IVIr.l^hananJay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S. Flame 1a, A dvocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripadii, Advocate. Mr.N.iS.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rauteia, (rVdvocates for respondent in app<.'alsfiled by UOI) versus IJi>IION()]•'INDIA & ANR. Respondents 1hroiigli; Mr.SanjayPoddar,Sen/orA.d\'Ocatewith Mr.Saajay Pathak, M.r.lVJoh,itrao..adhtiv and M.s.Navlin SWain, Ms.K.K.atin"iiidiKir:or'.Advocates Ibr LAC/LIOI Mr.Ajay Venna, Ms.jBecnashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr S.K,Sethi, Mr.Pawan Matlnir, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocaic; for DDA !.A.APP,4J..;V2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections),f.A.APP.452/2008; LA.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CMNo.5990/20]o' (Cross-Objections),' i,A,AP]\(>97/2008& CM.No.433/'2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP,701/20G8& CMNo.510/2009 (Cross-Obiections): I... APP.768/200R; I.A:a\.PP.770/2008; lA-App. H!JV.';008& connoi:tedArjpi!;ilscifVilhig.; Bh,;Ki.h;il !A.Ai'jp. No. /94/?010 & r:()riiu:ri,eciAppo-jl.sof'VillajjoBii.;v;iWn IA.Anp. connoa.:.,:!AppealsoiViilaKc.'l-ochanpiii- ' Pygu loiZS l.A.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2()09 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP,798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009. (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.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.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.17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008 l.,A.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CN4.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008 LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008 LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.AiPP.1059/2008 &' CM.No.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections) LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections) . l.A.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.-623/2009 (Cross-Objections) -l.,.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.APP.I094,-'2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & 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 & CN4.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & CN4.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objectioas): LA.APP.l 113/2008 &• CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 11.5/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.ri21/2008; r.A.APP.Tl26/2008;.LA.APP.1129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009(Cross-Objections); .f,A.APP.l 130/2008; LA.APP.l 131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP.l 135./200S & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA..APP.1140/2008; LA.APP. 11-56/2008; LA.APP. 1157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774,'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 159/2008; LA.APP.116172008; LA.APP.II66/2008 LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008 LA.APP. 1170/2008; LAAPP. 1171,/2008; LA.APP. 1172/2008; LA.APP. 1173/2008 L.A.APP.l 175/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008 LA.APP.l 182/2008; LA.APP.l 183/2008& CM.No.6.933./2009 (Cross-Objections)

1..A.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP.l 186/2008& C:M.No.70I3,/2009 I.A.App. No. .'1195/2008 & connoctGd Appeal.sof VillagH Bhyrthal ; • I.A Apo. No. 291/20.10 8< connectfid Appeal.sof Village Bijv/asan lV\.App. No.l.l.l./.'.OlO& conncctociAppeal,';of VillagePochaiiDur' ' ' (Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Ci-oss-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008; LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.1279/2008 I.A.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. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP.211/2009; LA.APP.224./2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; I.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2009; LA. APP,511/2009; l.A.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP. 13 8/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 :tions); .223/2009; No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506,/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA,APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008 LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/201 T (Cross LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; ' LA. LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP;230/2009 LA.APP.241/2009; •LA.APP.245./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.13/20M; L.A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009: LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP,45/2010; A.APP.l 138/2008; LA.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP,1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the l.and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi)' (GRID-B) Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BIJWASAN). DIWENDBR KUMAR Through: Appellant Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh l/v.App..i\io 1195/-00.S & connectcd Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App. No.294/2010 & r.onnnclc;dAppeals of VillageBijwasan I.A.App No, 1.1.1/2010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu.' 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 l.A.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. 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 Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadha^•^ and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for DOI/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.Soraer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. Ll/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. 356/2010 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 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010. lA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 3 52720 10 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APV. 407/2010 LA.APP. 588/2010 l.A.APP,

725./2010 la:app. 731./2010 I.A.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) 51/2010

55./2010 70/2010 226/2010 281/2010 285/2010 294/2010 345/2010 349/2010 353/2010 358/2010 '359/2010 363/2010 408/2010 722,/2010 72672010 732,/2010 828/2010 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. & (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/134l:7 dated 13:12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) • ' • ' •AND • • - • • LA.App, No 119,'j/2008 & connectnd Appeals'of Village; Bharthnl l,A,Apn. No. 2q'i//010 & connciclnriAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. l.lj/.iOlO & connpcicdAppealsof Village Pochanpui- , l-age 4 of 29 % (GRID-C) Reserved on: December

¶182011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 J.A.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through; Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Roiit, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for 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 IVds.Navlin Swain.. Advocates forlTOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates forDDA. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. r.A.APP. LA.Al'P. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.AFP. 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 . 155/2010 . 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 , 117/2011 129/2011 521/2011. 526/201 ]• 591/2011 LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP. L.'V.APP. LA.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 'LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010

434./20I0 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011

429./2011 522,/2011 53572011 l-A.App. No. 1195/2008&conncctedAppealsofVillageBharthal t7\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App No 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur. Page 5 of 29 . I (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issued under Section.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,Village Pochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R. P E R %

06.01.2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcreiore with the consentof learned counsel for the parties presentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/J3417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planned developmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Hstates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,BijwasanandPochanpur.

¶3Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., y\ward No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward , No.30/2002-2003granting compensation ?13.82 lacs per acre for IMock A (level field -• with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for Block'B'(Avithout top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired W.App. Mo. lig:i/2008 & connKctedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal. LA.App. No. 29<i/?.0.10& connfictedAppealsofVillageBijwasan iy\.App. IMo. .111/201,0&conriHctedAppealsof VillagePochanpur . . , , Page6of 29 agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 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, refcrences relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed. '5. In 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, 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, Kamalaka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai w. State ofGoa and Anr.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Am., • (2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthaia

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) S: Ors., (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

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

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors w. State of 'Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SeC 568; W.P.(e) No, 4143/2003'titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha .& Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer Anr w, M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, lA.App. No. .l.lPfj/?008 & cunnoctfid Appeals of Village Sliarthal i.A.App.No. 7.9't/?.010 &• connected Appeals of VlllaReBijwasan i.A.App. No, 1] 1/20.10 S connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ' ' ' • Pafje7of29 Gujarat ami Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industria DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC US', RisalSingh & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammaiandAnr 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(201I) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., 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 Sushil Kumm vs. Union of India, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371. •r • 6. On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned'arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limitedto the near future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S/romar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of'Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts. I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the iGLAiiport,New Delhi lA.App. No. liap/2003 & coiineclndAppealsofVillage Bharchal IA.App. No. 291/2010& conncctedAppealsofVillageIJijwasan . . , IA.App. No. ll:l/20.TO<4 connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur- • ' Page8of 29 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses 'are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalldia. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for"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. Attention was drawn to the aks sizras/m^i to highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maari, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to. appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land' in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired' land to be agricultural in' spite of Notification of 16^'^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultara!' to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceasedto be rural inviewofthe r>Totif),cationof24^'' October,1994. 9, It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave.been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.App. No. ij95/.X008&connfictedAppealsofVillage Bharthal •l-AApp.,No.234/'20'l0&connectedAppealsofVillafjeBijwasan LA.App. No. .1.1,l/;!0,'i.0&connectedAppealsof ViilagfiPochanpur . • ' Pago 9of 23 Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, {1995) 2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its later decisionin UdhoDassw. StateofMaryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiodof 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, J0. Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learnedcounsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deedsof VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said, variation,these sale exemplars caniiot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basts to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjmtiMoliiDessai vs. StateofGoa imdAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710,the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representmgthe marketprice 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 ' ReferenceCourtupon the minimumrales/circlerates fbr detenniningthe maiketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous.

¶11Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learned counselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe I.& DO rates tixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rate.s fixed by the Governmentfor allotmem of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand • potentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is I.A.APP. No. 1195/2008&connoctedAppealsof ViilaBoBharthal ' ' LA.App. No. 294/?010&connoctcdAppeal;,of VillageBijwasan LA.App No. 11J-20.1.0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur . - ' \ • 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-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶12In the written synopsis, appellant Impulse India Private Limited 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.]0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

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

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisidns of the Hon'hie Supreme Court in. Sangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the value ofthe land under.acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special.Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate should,not be disregardedin lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connocUidAppealsof Villageliharthal • l-A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVlllagG liijvvasan 1A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur , pggg^ "f 29 m case the average sale price is lower. Further 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 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 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 Haiyana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 jrajned on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the . land use of Village Dhool Siras and, Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of. Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial and. other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantlead,evidencein respectofthe 74^''amendment of the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of M^hich the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from, there.. No Panchayat elections were held in. the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR. Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir .Singh, and Anr vs. Union of India and refused to consider the fact that the development in ' the area has a direct effect on the price tha.t a willing purchaser would,pay fcrr, the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent 'No. had also I.A.App, No. .1.195/2008& connccled AppeaLsof Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 29'1/?.010& connected Appealsof Village BijWd.san - ' ' • . LA.App. l\!o. 111/2010& connactf:dAppealsofVillagePochanpur ^ . Page 12of29 auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped, land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the 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 Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held, that thepurpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got buildingpotentiality to be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a mmiber of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture. "

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

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfof the appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethatthe effectof l,A.App. No. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVHIago liljwasan . ' i.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof Villagepochanpur " ' ' • • . pagel3of29 urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapi! Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation 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 Counselurged that though as per Section 51-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence hut 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 ere. 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 ReferenceCourt and whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DFJ 227, Saipat & 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 of India, decidedoh 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase ill price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008 & connected/Appealsof VillageBharthal IJV.App. No. 2!M/?,010& connectedAppeal.sofVillage Bijwasan l7\.App.No. 11.1./,''.OiO&connectedAppealsofVillagePoctianpur ' ' and the purchaseras no prudentperson having Icnowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrend in 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-DetcrminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been, followed by a cooidinateBench ofthis Courtin SmhilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So fat as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectoisthat 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, maiket value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted . thatthere is no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RcleienccCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation 12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while granting appreciatjon @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. ;

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the. Sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon record and the decisionscited,what emergesis that the true marketvalue of the comparableland is the pricepaid by M'illingpurchaserto awilling i.App. No. llP^./2008&connoctodAppealsofVillageBharthal ..App, No. 294/:!OlO&connuclndAppealsof Village I3ijwa.san I..A.App.No. 11:1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur. '

1.A LA, 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 marlcet value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass k?. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(ij the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) possibility of obtaining water and electric supplyfor occupants of buildings to beput up on that land;

(iv) absence ofstatutory impediments or the likefor using the acquired landfor building purpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity 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 around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demmid for building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose,of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for IA.App. No, .1.19lj/?008& connectpd Appeiils of Village Bharthal l.A,App. No & conneciHd Appeals of Village Bijwasan ' • , W.App. No. 1.1.1/2010& connecledAppcal.sofVillage Pochanpur Page 16of29 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 detemiination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

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

¶714The legal proposition which emergeisfrom 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 agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is ori the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage,

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- L•^.App. iNio. 11G5/200S& conncc!:edAppealsof VillageBharthal IA.App. No, 291/2010& conncctciiAppealsof Village Bijwasan lA.App, No, 11..1./>.010&conneci'oclAppealsof VillagePochanpur "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, will be considered. Where however there are several sales, ofsimilar laridswhoseprices 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'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 price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to. "

¶22It wo aid be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Paiil (Supra), which are as . follows:- "// is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of cicquisition 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 ami 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 development in surrounding area, availability of la:nd for development in the area, and the dem.a.nd 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, without any sudden spurts or jumps. iA,App. No. & connnctfld Appeals of Village Bharthal . ' ' i.A.App.No. 2.91/2.010 & connccted Appeals of Village BIjwasari l-A.App. No. 1] 1/20.1.0a connected Appeals of VillagePochar.pur • m On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural, areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid, development and high demand for land, the escalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of. any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5%o 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 byproviding 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 a few yedr.s, that is iipto four to-five years. Beyond that it .may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only a^ few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired-in 1992,. adopting the annual increase , method M'ith reference to a sale or I.A.App. Mo. ''200!? & connficiGdAppoalsof Village Bhartha! • ' ' , ' • '..A.Apo.No. ?.9/|/2010& conrifictpdAppeals of VillageEijwasan LA.Apu No. .11.1/2010& connected Appiialsof VillageFochanp'jr • ' ' Page19 of29 acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course-of years, the "rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence ofvarying periods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts inprices affecting the very standard of increas e. " ,

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Hmyana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for, the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods; What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- 'When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different , siiuatio.nal advantages) are acqiiired for the same purpose, 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 imiform.rate of compensationshould be awardedfor all lands acquired imderthesame notification:" •

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale ^ Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochafipur at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Bx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which . are basicallybetween one set ofco-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang Beas in respectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswas situatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds I.A,App. No. 119!;/2008& coniiectodAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 2fJ'V20.10& conntiCtGdAppealsofVillage Bijwasan . . l7\.App. No. 1:11/20:0&connoctndAppc;alsof VillagePochanpur ' ' Page20 of 29* /' (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 dependentupon the nature and situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale 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 agricultural land 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 Irom 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 purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executed,on 25"^ March, 2000 was also subjectmatter in LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.201r and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh w. Union of India, decided on

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

¶27In 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 evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing I.A.App. No. 1.195/2008& connfictedAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. No. 294/2010& ronncctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan LA.App. No. ill/2010&connecifidAppealsof VillagePochanpur m 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-lM to lix.FW-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 appellantsis concerned,disclosing exorbitantprice 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 (P:x.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be' treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

30.' Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the' determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale ofplots in a.well developedlayout in the neighborhood IA.App. No. :i1.0;i/2008 & connfirtnd.Apptials of Village Bhartlial I.A.App. Nc. 234/;?01.0& connccled Appeals of Village; Bijwasan lA.App. (vjc. IIVV.0,1.0& connectodAppealsofVillage Pochanpur ' Page 22of29 or whether it he the determination ofthe market value 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 becomes 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 oftheparties, with reference to the price which the plots could havefetched ifsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice 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 tofind out the market value of the acquired, land with re.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 small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentiality ascertained on the basis ofevidence to. he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased, value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land, indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate-ofland charged by the DDA alter acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (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 Chand (Supra), a coordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No. U'jlD/P.OOH& conncctcdAppoalsofVillaRO Bhartlial • - l-A.App. No. 29l/.?010& conncclRdAppealsofVillage riijwasan I.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaksof VlllaBfiPochanpur• , tlic 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-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

32.. Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into considerationthe earlier acquisitionof the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of 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 the compounded rate 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 developmentof DwarkaPhase-II,still the price fixed by the Land''AcquisitionCollectoris more thanthe aforesaidescalatedprice and. therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt' progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the .acquired land'only when the gap is of 4-5 years-andbeyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of 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 o'i sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode, of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. IMo. .119:i/2008& ct)nni!ctGdAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& conncctndAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePodianpuT escalation over the market value 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 Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (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 viewof the matter,the cross-objectionsof the respondentare dismissed.

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

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notitrcation 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 urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use olthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App, No, ]195/2d08&conneclcdAppe;ilsofVilliigHBharthni lA.Apfj.No. i91/2010&, connoclfidAppciilsofVillageGijwasan ITV.App. No. n.:i./;!0.1.0&cofiiiKctodAppealsof Village;Pochanpur ' ' • ' ^ presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideiedas developedlands. Ihe evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpuipose.

¶37Rather, 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 other sale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeed appellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence,to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsoiRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplar of VillageSamalkha(Kx.PW-1/11)are 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 oi: the afore-referreddictum of-the Apex Court in Haryana State hidimrlalDevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded lor the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price tixed by the Governmentfor the agricultural'landin ^ Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is a gap between what rA.Ap|xNo. n9S/2008&cnnnmndAppealsnf VillageBharthal ' ' ' W.App. No. 294/20,10&connacrcdAppeal?of VillageBIjwasan lA.App. No. 1.11/20,10&connnctcdAppealsof VillagePpchanpLK • • would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price'has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in 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. iMhding 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 fmd 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 tlirough Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 liom Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aloresaid locational advantages,the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands'as assessed by the Reference•Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the lA.App. No,1.191/2008& connected Appeals of VillaRG Bharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijv/asan ' ' ' I.A:App.No. 1,11)2010&connectedAppeal.sofVillagePoclianpur Pggg jy settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, inthesewords:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a . buildingpotentiality and proceed to determine its market value takinginto account the increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto provide a 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 acquiredlands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands dillerentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e!, appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra),I am inclined,to grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the Reference Court in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,-the appealsof ' I.^.AppNcxUlMSconnoctodAppealsofVillageBharth.l • • . ' A.App.No.2J/l,,>010a connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan • • lA.App. No. .U1/V.0.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ' ' the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the-extent indicated above. 1hus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these three villagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^Jh^rthe Category 'A' land and @ ?14,69,600/-per bmha for the Category 'B' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siaiulorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwhere there is a delay in filingthe appeal, lor which periodol delayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid, "llieseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42'fhe above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit,the compensationamount,if any, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. January 06, 2012 pkb lA.App. No. .11913/2008&connficlndAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App, No. 294/2010&connocledAppealsof VillageBijwasan IA.App. No. 111/20.10&connocLedAppealsof VillagePochanpur (SUNIL GAUR). W'- ^ ^ n ol yS>j u =1= IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + LA. APP. 1195/2008 - RANBIRSI-IARMA Appellant Thi-ough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJaiPrakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rolitas, Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S.J^egiandMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentinappealsfiledby UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for ' Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA&ANR. Respondents Through; Mr.Sanjay Poddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, • Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %•

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 Page1 t ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis apphcationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typogiaphicalerror 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 appearmgfor the appellants!Accordingly,this apphcationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary cDrrections be caiTied out forthwith. .In view of the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb LA.App.No.1195/2008 fSUNIL GAUR) JUDGE' Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November , 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 245/2009 UOI Appellant 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 versus RATTAN SINGH & ANR Respondent Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder 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.Sandeep Thaldiur, 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