UOI v. Sunder Lal & Ors

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 06,2012 pkb % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Reserved on: November IS, 20 JI Fronounced on: Jcmuory 06, 2012 (GRID-A) LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL RANBJR SHARI\4A Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,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.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosia and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate, Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesibr respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION Ol' INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdA'ocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak,Mr.Mohitrao.JadhaN-and Ms.Nax-linSwairk Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocatesfor LAC./UOI Mr.AjayVernia,Ms.BeenashawSoni. Mr.Mukesh Kumar,Mr.S,.K,.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocjite for DlDA J.A.APP.4J..:/2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections) f.A APP 452/''008-JA.APP.4«/2008;LA.APP.688/2008.& CM,No.5990/20]0(Cross-Obiecli;ns); .I-/V.A1P.()97,2008 &. CM,No.433,'2009(Cro.ss-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-OWecl:ions); LA,APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008; l.'\,A;?p.[Vo, 11;J!3/.':00,H& conn,-;H;ledAppoiilsof VillnRO Bhar[h:il I'-^Aoo. Na. /9n/7(no&ainiuin.KdAppe.-.ilsofVillage;Biiwiisdri 1A.App, iv". 1.11,00.10&connrandAppt^aliofViilaRc:l-ochjinpur Pasc 1 of ?.9 J # LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2Q08; 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-Obiections); 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-Obiections);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; LA.APP. 1047/2008;LA. APP. 1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjection3); LA.APP. 1060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); . LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/200S & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1087/2008& Cl\4.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; 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. 1109/2008; 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; LA.APIM 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); J.A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/200?? & CM,No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.1135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.1161/2008;LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.1172/2008;LA.APP.1173/2008; LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; L4.APP. 1181/2008' LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections); •LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.l 186/2008& CM,No.7013/2009 IA.App. No. n95/?008 & connpcted Appeals of VillagK Bharthal . . LA,App. No, Z94/203.0& corinGctedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan ' , • • LA,App, No, 1.1.1/2010&connecleclAppeal.sof VillaB" PochaiiDur' Page2ol'29 r# % (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.) 193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008;LA.A^.1281/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA/PP.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.7^ LA.APP.W20'()c LA.APP. 136/2009; l.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 I.A.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.249/2009; l.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; A.APP.95/2009 & A.APP. 109/2009 LA.APP. 137/2009 LA.APP. 143/2009 LA.APP. 187/2009 LA.APP. 198/2009 CM.No.953/2011 LA.APP. 121/2009 LA.APP.138/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 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.295/2009; • LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008;. (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.i35/2009 LA.APP. 13 9/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA. APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA. APP.45 8/2009 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. 1176/2008 LA.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP,1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009 (Relaliiig 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. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) '(GRJD-B) Reserved on: December

¶082011 Pronounced on: January 06. 20J2 I-LA.APP.294/2010-(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). •' D15VENDERKUMAR Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh l.A.App.No. 119.')/Z008&conneclGcl/^pealsofVillage;Bharthal !.A.App.No. 294/2010& coniifictodAppeal,?ofVillage Bijwasan LA.App No, 1,11/2010& connectedAppeaLsofVillage Pochanpur J Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for ajopellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus UOI & ANR LA.APP LA.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, L.A.Al^P. 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 & Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 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, 35],/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. 286/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010' C.M.No. 964/2.011 (Gi LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.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 NofificationNo. 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,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) aia ino. AND l..A.App,No. .119,'-)/.2008&conncclndAppfialsofViliagn Bharlhal LA.App. No, 294//010&conri(!c:t(!dAppnalsof ViliagG Bijwasan lA.App. No. &connpcU'dAppoalsof Villagepochanpur ' • . l-agc 4 of 29 •% (GWD-C) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 n J.A.APP.111/2010(VIIXAGEPOCHANPUR) SEHAXRAM 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.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocatewith Mr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain.Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. 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 9] 9/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/2011 536/2011' 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.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. • LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP . LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.-APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 526/2011 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 412/2010 434/2010 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/2011 429/2011 522/2011 535/201 1 A.App. No. 1195/2008&connoclodAppealsof VillafieBharthal IA a""' ^ connectedAppealsofVillaeeBijwasan -\.App No ni/?.010&connectedAppealsofVillaBfiPochanpur (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated .13.12.2000issued under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) .HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR %

06.01"2012

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcieloicwith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresent at the healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoUflcationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

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

¶3Agriculturalland 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 IBlock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32.lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired LA.App. No. 119S/2008& connocledAppeals.ofVillage Bharthal. LA.Ape. No. 29'I/2010S connnctedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. No. .111/2010&connnctedAppealsofVillapoPochanpur ' , agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants'acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the 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, Karnataka Homing Board Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani MIoluDessai vs\ State ofGoa and'Asm,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

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

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of JIaryana & 2010(9) SCALI'i! 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALIi 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 see 171; Atm.a Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003'titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. MJL RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 S(X] 714; ThakarsihhaiDevjibhaiand ors ra. ExecutiveEngineer, l.A.App. No. .119,')/?_008a connocted Appnalsof Village liharlhai l.A.App. No. 7.9'l/ZO.lO& connocUidAppealsof VillaRG Bijwasan iA.App. No in/?.O.lO&connc!ct(;dAppfialsof VillagePochanpur ' • . PaBe7of2':i \1 Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Ilaryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 115] RisalSingh Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Aim, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs\ Rameshhhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Am vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)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. Fs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union of India, dcclded on

26.09.2011, LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Eed Ram. ra. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia, 2010

(170) DLT 371. On the strength of the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned',arguingcounsel 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 overaperiodof time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near foture alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewan-Jodhpurbroad gage,railway'1me of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharihal AApp, No. .391/2010&connectedAppealsof Villageiiijwasan •A.App. IMo. 1]..1/20.1,0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depots and thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamrioli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslm-d^to highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor 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 agriculturar 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 wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P, IA.App. No, I19s/20m&connocledAppnalsofVillage Bharthal I.A;App.,No,294/2010&connuclGdAppt^alsof VillageBijwasan L^App. No. 1.11/2010&conneclcdAppealsofVillage!Pochanpur " ' , Pago 9 of 29 t-Redfh&Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, {\99S) 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 oftime 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 meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality. J0. Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma.learned counsel for the appellantsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlight lhal the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said vaiiation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there Is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by (he Apex Court in An/amMolt,Dessai vs. Stateof Goa ondAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsaleexemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe marketprice of Ute 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/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. _ II. Assessmentofmarketvalue of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determinedrates fixed by the Govenrmentfor allotmentof alternate . plots ,n the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view Ihe location,situationand , potent,ahtyof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is lAApp. No. l.ia5/2008&conncctedAppealsof Vilbpc.Bharth.l PP IVC.UJ/.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndia PrivateLimited ofLA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds;- a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent-about the Aw^ard No.26/2002-2003 dated

23.J0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19612 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice : dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rales of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Vahung the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar2010(3)see 661. Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the valueofthe la.ndunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds prod.ucedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Pa.til versus Special Land • • AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 'of2007. The , Hon'ble Supreme Covirt has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin l-A.App.I\)o, 1195/2008&conneciudAppcuilsof Villageliharlhal LA.App. No. 291/2010&connGctodAppealsof Vlliap,cHijwasan 1-A.App.No. 111/2010&connscledAppeal,';of VillagePochanpur PapGHof29 case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana. Molu Dessai v^. 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 m.uch higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) '- Evaluated the land as agricidtural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dh'ool 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 Governmentfor 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"' am.endm.ent of the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, M>as • • deemeda municipalarea a.nd the municipalCounsellor ^ was elected from, there. No Pancha.yat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Suprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr v^. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthe fact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser wovildpay for the.subject land.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 -had also LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connccledAppcial.';of VillaBG Uharthal lA.App. Nf). 294/7.010& connfictedAppealsofVillaRe Bijwasan L^.App. No. m/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur PapelZof29 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-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated, land. ; k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange 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) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of thesaid land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was held,that thepurposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As aportion,ojthe land,is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual detailshave been providedwith aprayerthat the ; appellantsof.this appeal be treated at par v\ath the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals. ^ .

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behcilfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof !.A.App. No. 1195/2008&connecledAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 794/2010&cohnectedAppsalsof Village Bljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur 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; Kapil Mehra (Major General) Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLl^ 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 ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

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

(2009) 15 SCC 769; l.A. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar wr. Union of India, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase iji price in a short period cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor such sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal IJ\.App.No. 294/2010& connectedAppeal.sofVillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur % and the purchaseras no prudentperson having laiowledgeof the usual prevalenttrendmthe marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin Sushi!Kumar(supra)andRaj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof tlie land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior coimsei for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing tire minimummdicativeprice of the agi'iculturalland by the Governmentas on I Apiil, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Smhil 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 dcsei-ves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RetercnceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationdie appreeiation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be broughtin line while grmiting appreciation @ 10% per annum and (liereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the -idesand upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thattlietruemarketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchasertoawilling

1.A.APP.No, 119,/,008&conrtect^dAppealsof Villafie IA Ad"' ^ connectedAppalsof VillageBijwasan . •• " &connectedAppealsof Villagepochanpur seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potentialvalue of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho.Dass vs. State of Haiyana Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(ij the situationof 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 any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

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

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants ofbuildingsto beput up on that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buddingplots or developedresidential extensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which m.ay become availableto the occupiersof buildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

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

¶181he potentialityofland for the purpose,ofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdependsupon a large numberof factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for lA.App. No. 1.195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. IMo. 7..'?4/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan U.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeal.sof VillagePochanpur 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 & Anr vs. MJi. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon 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 acquiredland 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 be referredto with advantage,

¶21Apex Court in Vailiyammal (Supra),while takingnote ofthe feet 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 AnjaniMolii Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under;- lA.App, No. 11.35/2008& conncctedAppealsofVillageBharlhal . lA.App. No. 291/2010&connectudAppealsofVillaBe BIjwasan LA.App. Mo. 11.1/2.010&conneclcdAppealsofVlllagGCochanpur "The legal position is lhat: even M'here there are several exemplars Mnth reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars,which is a bonafide transaction, Mnll be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilarlands whosepricesrange in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the m.arketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are yvith referenceto dissimilarlands 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 determinationof fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira 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 bet-ween reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

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

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Prim.arily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation, of the land, nature of developmentin. surroundingarea, availabilityof la.ndfor developmentin the a.rea, and-the dema.ndfor kind in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospectof developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices'would be slow, steady and grad.ua.l,withouta.nysuddenspurtsorjumps. lA.App, No. 1195/2008&connoctedAppnalsof VillageBhartluil ' ' LA.^pp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillaBo Bijwa,san lA.App. No. 1]1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, M>here 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 i.o 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 IVo or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in u.rba.n/sem.i-urba.n 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 a.ppl.yinga 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 accjuisition),where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitionsofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonably safe where th.e_ relied-on-sale transac.tions/acquisi.tionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only afew years, that is uptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ifit relates to a, neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unrelia.ble standard where the gap is larger. For example^for determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992,. adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or l.A.App.No. 1.195/2008&connncledAppealsofVillageBhiirtha! . l^.Apo.No. 29/;/2010&connnctedAppealsof Village!Biiwasan l-A.App No,.1U/2010&connedndAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page a 9 of 29 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 of varyingperiods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts inprices affecting the very standard ofincrease. "

¶24'Jliis Court-ismindfulof the dictum,of the ApexCourt in Hmymm 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 differentcategoriesof lands (or lands with different sifuational advantages) are acquiredfor the same purpose, sav for fnining 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 of com.pensationshould be awarded,for all landsacquiredunderthe sam.enotification."

¶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., Radha SwamiSatsangBeas ^ had puichased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur 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 basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand RadhaSwamiSatsang, Bea.i in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6 I3iswasSiu.atedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof Ihe landin the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered, Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds

1.A.APP. No. 1195/2008 a con,' • ^.^.App. No. 2.,/I/20.l0&conneclndAppualsof VillageBijwasan -A.App.No. 1.1.1/2010&connnclodAppeal;of Villagepochanpur (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetliat its price varies from ^"52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question,is lacking.Therefore,these sale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village 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 purchaser/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 Swarni Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^' March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instantmatters, thougli the land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence thatthe acquiredlandswere beingused for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No pnident person having knowledge of prevailing l./\.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppnaisof VillageBharthal l.A.App.No. 294/2010&r.onnectodAppealsof VlllagG Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (h:x.PW-l/4 to lix.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the : Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (fix.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• Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabad and Ors., \995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- '72. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acqtiiredland.with, buildingpotentialityM'ith referenceto the pricefetchedby sale ofplots in. a well developed,layoutin. the neighborhood. LA.App. Mo. .1195/2008& connsclnd,Appcalf;ofVillafieBhnrthal t.A.App. No. 29'!/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwa.san IA.App. No. 1.11/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur ^^2 of 29

¶1or yvhetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land, with buildingpotentiality with reference to thepricefetched,by 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 publicationof the preliminarynotification under 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 acquired land with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1) ofthe IA 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 be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvalue for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate dem.and, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. " In view pf the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same,and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon tlie allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the • adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lat Chand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in JaiSingh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IlA.App.No.,11%/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ' AApp. No. 2!M/2010&connecindAppealsof VillageBijwasan ILA.App. No. 1.1.1/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing tfie marketvalue of the acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whether progressiveincrease method would be relevant criteria for assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhile takinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor 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 Notificationfoi 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.

¶33Aloresaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincrease method in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly of afew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. Mo. ]1.9;i/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageRijwasan l-A.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur d escalationoverthe marlcetvalue of the nearbyland of the previousyears.

¶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 Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been 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 niatter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

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

¶36Adoption 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 he an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be Liiban.It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectHdAppealsof Villiigc!Bharthal ' ' ' i/\.App.No. impmo &conncctcidAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App.No. 11.1/2010&conne.clndAppealsof VillagePochanpur A picsume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars ofRadha Swami Satsang,Beas heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose. '

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquiredlands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquiicd 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 SamalWia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(bx.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot^be treated to be sufficient compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale mstances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of-the Apex Court in Haryana State Indmtria!DevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price lixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise, of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is agap between what 'IA.App. 1195/M08&ccnnoaodAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. IMo, 2J4/;,010&connpctGdAppeal,of VillageBijwa.=an lA.App. No. 1.1.1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpu Page 26 of 2.9 # 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. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bhaithal and Village Bijwtisan,of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.ButI find that the aspectof higherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,IndianOil and Bharat PetroleumDepots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,PartI 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 aioresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhase-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account ofthe higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the iy\.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal ITV.App, Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillage Bljvi/asan l-A.App.No.-111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Pago 27 of 39 4: settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza : NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:- When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddings ui the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that ^he acquiredland had a buildmgpotentialityand proceedto determine its market value takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fatt that it would be very difficultto providea . definitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthem will, equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeatures to 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 relyingupon the decision in SmhU Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtin Hk ™ locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals ai'e partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalueassessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bharthaland Village Bywasan. WhiletreatingtheappellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasait,the appealsof pp. NO. ,1.1.1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthese three villagesin questionis determined@ 6,50,000/-perj^i^hjiorthe Category 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per biplaa for the Category'B' lands in question. h-i.-'

¶41On the aloresaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,e.xceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ior which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Tiieseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the afoi-esaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordinglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb l-A.App, Mo. 1195/2008&connnctodAppealsofVillageBharthal !.A.App.No. 291/2010&connectedAppeaLsof VillageBijwasan IA.App. IMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VliiaBePochanpur (SUNILGAUR) , 1_," f,. i-r; n'o • •'-] 11 f 0 / (y"i I' '' "' * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SliARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitm Tewathia, Advocates. Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharaia and Mi-.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER %

12.0L2012 C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 TFor correction). ,1 his is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Orderof6"' January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 ^ •'"l; 5;?:' ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin tlie decision of 6 Januaiy, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the afmesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha", whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App,No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessaiy corrections be Garried,out In viemio! the aforesaid,thisapplicationstandsdisposedof "" pkb 12, 2012 -U.App.No.1195/2008 Page 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 108/2009 Reserved on: November 1%,. 2011 Pronounced on: Januarv 06. 2012 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.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 SUNDER LAL & ORS Respondent Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.RajeshYadav,Mr.DeepakKhosla,Mr.SamitKhoslaand Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR