Dayanand & Ors v. UOI

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. % % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DEIJif AT NEW DELHI (GRID-A) Reserved on: November IS, 20JI Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 •LA.APP.l195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBJR SHARN4A Appellant 'llirough: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmilMaan,Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.Smlla Maan, Mr.ll.S.yerma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Toraar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, y\dvocafe. • iMr.Raghnvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr,H.S'.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roui and Mr.B.K.Roiitray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankai Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit IChosla and Mr.j^JhananjayMehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela,' Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripadii, .Advocate. . Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.FI.S.Raulela,O\dvocaies for respondent in appeals-filedby UGI) versus U^JION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents 1hrough; Mr.SanjayPoddar,.SeniorAd\'ocate.w.iti-, Mr.Sanjav Patnak.,Mr.l\''jon.itrac..t.adha'','and Ms.Naviin LVA-ain. Ms-.K.KaumiidiKiran. Advocatesforl.AC/UOI Mr.Ajay Venr.a,'Ms.Becnashaw Sorii. Mr.Mukcsh •Kumar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mr.Fawan Matiiiir,Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for [)i.)A !..A..APP.4L:,'2008 & CM.No,4096/2008 (C-Toss--ObjcclioDs).t..'\.APP.452/2008' LA.APP.4«/2008;LA.APP,588/2008& C?4.No.5Q90/20]0(Cross-ObjeciiunslJ LA.APJ'.()97/2008& CM.No.433,/2009(Cross-dbjcctions);I,A.APP,701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Olyectioi-!;;!: 1.. V.APP 768/2008; i.A.APP,770/2008; K'o, njJV.'^OOa&connccledAppnalscif VillnBf! Bhyrlhyl I No. /91/70's0S. coiinuci-edAppc.-ulsoivillai?!:-Biiw;i!,jn IA.App.

1.1;i /;;n.io&connc-cicdAppealsofViilaRC;l-ocnanpiir PdBi' oi ZB . LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2()09 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & ClVl.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.S06/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.l795/2009 (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); l.A.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& CMNo,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.l7259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062,/2008& CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections); 1,..A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 ,& •CM,No.462/2009(Cross-Objections);

1..A.APP.1084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008' (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086,^2008 & CM.No.244.8/2008 (Cross-Objections); [,A.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.y\PP.1094/2008; LA.APP. 1093/2008; LA.APP.1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections):LA.APP. 1108/2008 & CM.No:3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.1111/2008; LA.APP.1112/2008 & CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objectioas); LA"APP.J113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1115/2008; [.A.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; LA.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.1129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeciions); i,A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.1131/2008 & Clyl.No.566/2009(Cross-Obiections): LA.APP.1133/2008;LA.APP.1135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1137/2008& CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP,1140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.1157./2008; LA.APP.1 158/2008 & CM.No.7774.'2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1159/2008;LA.APP.i161/2008; LA.APP.1166/2008 LA.APP.]167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.1168/2008 LA.APP.1170/2008; LA.APP.1171/2008;LA.APP.1i72/2008; LA.APP.1]73/2008 LA.APP. 11 75/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP.1179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008

1.A.APP.i182/2008; LA.APP.1183/2008&CM.No.6933/2009(Cross-Objections) l,A.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.11S5'2008; LA.APP.1186/2008& CM.No.7013,/2009 I.A.App. No. n95/?.008 a i;onnc!cl(!dAppeal.sof VillaKe Bharlhal LA App. No. Z!M/?.oio connncte!dAppealsofVillageBijvvascin L^.App. No. lll/.'.OlO8^ contificlcclAppealof villag.?.PochaiiDur'' ' ' • ' Page Zof 29 %• (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP.l 191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008: LA.APP.n93/2008; LA.APP.l 194./2008; LA.APP.l 195/2008; LA.APP.l 197/2008; •LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1200/2008; LA.APP.1202/2008; LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008; LA.APP.1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM,No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008;- LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008; LA.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39,/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (CrossrObjections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (CrosstObjections);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.21 1/2009; LA.APP.224,/2009; (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.249/2009; l.A.APP.367,/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; l.A.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA'.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP,210/2009 & LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.y\PP.230/2009 & LA.APP.24172009; LA.APP.245,/2009; CM.No. 970/2011 LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP:437/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.495/2()09; LA.APP.508/2n09; LA.APP.512/2009;' LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.13/2011; I.,A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.4S0/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA. AFP.45/2010; i.A,APP.1138/2008-. l./V.APP.II77/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009; T.A.APP. 191/2009; LA. APP.201/2009; CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; LA.APP,458/2009; LA. APP.481/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.50672009;- LA.APP.510/2009; LA.APP.567/2009; LA.APP.48/2010; LA.APP.l 176/2008; (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the I.,and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthkl,-Delhi) (GRID-B) • . - Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BUWASAN),'• Dl^VENDERKUMAR , ' Appellant . Through: .Mr.R.S.T'omar,Mr.VirendraSingh lA.App. |\I0 :n95/;'.00S& conneand Appealsof villageBhanhal i.A.App, No, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofViHage Bijwasnn I.A.App fVo. lll/ZOlO & connectedAppeal.sofVillagePochanpu.- i-Advocates Mr.S.K.SoIanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Roiitray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46, 49, 50-69,73, 75, 76) versus UOl & ANR i:a.app. [.A.APP. L.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. [A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. r-.A.APP. LA.APP. L.A.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 360/20.10 405/2010 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 Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for L)OI/L AG Mr.S.K.SoIanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals , • filed by UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68,'7] & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharina and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. LI/2010 LA LA.APP. 53/2010 LA LA.APP. 57/2010 LA LA.APP. 22L/20,J0 LA LA.APP.246/2010 ;LA LA.APP. 283/2010 LA LA.APP. 288,/2010 LA LA.APP. 296/2010 LA LA.APP. 347/2010 LA LA.APP. 35],'2010 LA LA.APP. 356/2010 LA LA.APP. 742/2010 LA LA.APP. 361/2010 LA LA.APP. 406/2010 • LA LA.APP. 438/2.010 LA LA.APP. 724/2010 'l.A LA.APP. 729/2010 LA LA.APP. 759/2010 LA LA.APP, 28672010 LA LA.APP. 80/2010 • LA C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-APP. 49/2010 .APP. 54/2010 APP. 59/2010 ,APP. 223/2010' APP. 277/2010 .APP. 284/2010 ..APP. 289/2010 •APP. 313/2010 .APP. 348/2010 .APP. 352/2010 .APP, 357/2010 APP. 760/2010 APP. 362/2010 .APP. 407/2010 APP. 588/2010 •APP. 725/2010. .APP. 731./2010 .APP. 764/2010 •APP. 364/2010 .APP. 99/2010 objections) 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. & 5L'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 726/2010

732./2010 828/2010 a^elatingto NotificationNo. F. 10(3())96-L&-B;LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) AND .' •• • , I.A.App. ,Mo .l.m,'3/-2008& connoctndAppealsofVillageBhaithnI LA.App. No. 2'W/?.010&connciclGtiAppealsofVillageBijwasan !.A.App.iMo. vn/lQW&con.nec'it'dAppealsofVillagePochanpur . l-age 4 of 29 •,/ ' %. (GRID-G) Reserved on: December 18. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 l.A.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANFUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 .to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through; Respondents IVIr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain.,Advocates for LIOI/LAG Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.SoraerK.Seth,Advocates forODA. . 111/2010 . 160/2010 . 228/2010 254/2010 292/2010 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 9] 9/2010 65/2011 120/2011 476/2011 523/201.1 536/201]' LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.Al'P. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.AP.1'. 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 • 121/201] 485/2011 525/201] 554/2011 • i.A.App.No. 3,195/2008&connoclndAppealsof VillageBharthal A-^pp.No. ;.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App No 11..1/2010&conncclorJAppealsof VillagePochanpur LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP, LA.APP. LA./\PP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA../\PP. • LA.APP. LA.APP-. L.'V.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 155/2010 .209/2010 .249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784/2010 61/2011 . 117/20]] 129/201! 521/2011

5.26/20]] 591/201 ]• . 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 119/201] 429/20]] LA.APP l.A.APP LA.APP LA.AI^P. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. !,A.APP. LA.APP.' LA.APP. LA.APP (JXAPP,siiiim i^Ap]-'. bib/'Km .% (Relaty-ig 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 09.1.2.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) HON'BLE MR" JUSTICE SUNIL C^AUR

¶1Since the grounds on which enhancementofthe compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, thcrclorev;ith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresent at the healing ot these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Sharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedol b}' this commonorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase- //' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 ol ihe Land AcquisitionAct. !894, peitaining to vast tract of agricuhural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue instates includingvillages in question,. i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur,

¶3Agiicultuialland 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 Block 'A' (level field -- with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre for I31ock'B'(withoutop soil).

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueofthcii'acquired LA.App. No. H!)b/2008& connectedAppealsofVillaRe Bharthal. LA.App, IMo. 29'V?.0.10&connccledAppealsof VillageBijwasan l-A.App. Mo. 11.1/:!0.10&connectedAppeal.';ofVillagePochsnpiir ' • , • • . ."age 6 of 29 i agricultural lands,-appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ? 15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ^"13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, 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 Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Anr.,

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

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SeC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, ra. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Pati!

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & A\nr., 2002 (65) DRJ ,1 (DB); Udho Dass-vs. State of 'Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SeALE 41; Chakas I's, State of Punjab-'& Ors., 201 "I (9) SCAL]'. 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of • 'Haryana& Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e)No. 4143/2003titled as Smt Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03,2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011). 7 SC'e 714; ThakarsihhaiDevjihhaiand ors ra. ExecutiveEngineer, LA.App. No. .U9,'j/?008& conrinctedAppealsof Village.Shartha; ;.A,App,No. &• connccKidAppp.alsofVillage Dijwa.^an .'A.App.No 1]1/20.1.0&conncctndAppftalsof VillagePochanpur Paj!G7of29 i Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Hmyana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 115-RisalSingh Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia& Ann, 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union ofIndia and Am\, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager^ Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Paiel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Am vs. SpecialTehsildar (land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandim vs. . Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar w. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238'; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Kv. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(201]) 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 w. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 621\ Saipal S. Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) H SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kimmr vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

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

(170) DLT 371. t). 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 situationol the acquiredagriculturalland has to be fiist understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near iiiturealone. /. It was pointed out by M,r.K..S/romar,counsel for appellantsi.hat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage raflway line ofVillage Biijwasaii passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., onthe easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi UA.App. No. l]i)?/2003&coiinectGdAppealsof VillageBharihal 1A.App. No. m/lQW&connocK-dAppealsof VillageBljwasan IA.App. No. 11:i/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur P;.Ee 8 or 29 < -V- • . and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed 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 Depotsand thereafterinthe year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquired in the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the westernside of VillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of-Fhase-IL, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraslvivc.^to highlightthat the boundai-y of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc 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 tlirec villages in question was changed from agricultara! 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 vehenience by .Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Refereiice Court by relying upon ¥. lA.App. No. 1.395,0,008& connocVedAppealsofVillage Bharthal !.A App..lMo.29/l./;>010&corinectooAppcialsof Village Bijwasan . • lA.App. rgo. 111/MlO&conneclc'dAppealsof VillagpPochanpur • ' . -V Reddi&Ors. vs, -LandAcquisitmnOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995) 2see 305, which has been consideredby 4he Apex eourt in its later decisionmUdho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors,, 2010(9)SeALE •41 holdnig that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keepingmview the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo norput the land to any use, it wouldnot meanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality.

¶10Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Shaima,learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deedsof VillagePochanpurto highlight that the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation,these sale exemplarscannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because there is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvalued becauseof any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaitiMotu Dessai vs. StateofGoa mdAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto be taken as representingthe market price of the land w-hich comes to ?57 lacs per acre aiid since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants arc the comparable-saleinstances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourtuponthe minimumrates/circlerates tordeterminingthe mm-ketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. H. .Assessmentof market value of the acquiredland was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basisofthe 1.& 00 rates fixed by the Government fuid also on' the basis of pre- . determinedrates fixed by tlte Governmentfor allottiientof alternate plots in .he year 2000-2001.Keepmg in view the location,sttuationend potentidiityof the acquu-ed land, deteiTninationof its market value is - -App No. connt;cledAppealsofVillagePochanpur Pa(?(! 10 of 29 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-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited 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

25.J0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. (Referred, to in cross-examinationof appellam dated

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the faci that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedike rates,of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land. AcqiusitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by variousdecisions includingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court Sangunthala versus Tah'sildar.2010(3)SCC 661. in d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw^ has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe land under.acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value of the Sale Deeds prod.ucedbefore the irial Court whereas as per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSuprem.eCourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 'of2007. The Hon'ble Suprem.e Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deed,showinghigherrale should,not he disregardedin IA.Aiip, l\io. .119')/2008& conni!ctt;dAppealsofVillage Bharthal L/\.ADp. No, 294/2010&connoctndAppealsofVillage Dljvvasan lA.App. No. 1:11/2010&connecledAppealsof VillagePochanpur 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 lipon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated

3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the ma.rket 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 layv laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court includiiig in Subh Ram v.y. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment •rejused to return an actual jinding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterpldn and Notifications of Government for land use change show that in future land, can be • subjected to resideniiai commercial and other permissible uses..It is also pertinent-.to mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"' amendment' of the Constitution of India. w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act yvas amended and the area Vv'here the land is situated, M'as ' • deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor ^ was elected from, there.. No Panchdyat 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 of India and refusedto considerthefatt that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser woidd.pay for the.suhjeci land.

i) Ignored the fact thai Respondent No. .2 had also I.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & conncicledAppeaLsof VillagG Bharthal I.A.App. No. I'ilp.QW& conPGCledAppealsofVillageBljwa.san LA.App. No. .11.1/2010&connGctedAppealsof VlllagGPochanpur Pgj,g 12 of 29 L auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is whollyunderdeveloped 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 VillageDhool 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 ]6.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 althovigh they clearly establish-the commercial potentialityof the said land. In Sa.nguntha.lav. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 i.t was held that the purposefor which land is acquired is a relevantfactor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe landhas got buildingpotentialityto be used for buildingpurposes in immediate'or in near future needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied bv the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands yvere acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portionoj the land is beingconsideredas house site, the adjoining lands have tlae potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

¶13In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a praverthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargamentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effectof :.A.App.No. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Bijwasan l-A.App. No. ]11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur I • i urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Makesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)& Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361, and tha,t Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infect the sale instancesreliedupon by the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of 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,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthaithoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence lor determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other fectoi's namely, nature, situationof the property,proximityto the villagecic. are also requiredto 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 La! vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009),15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushi!Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.201.1,it was urged that sharp increase in piice in a short period cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 11:1/20x0a connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' I>agol4of29 -i. and the purchaseras no prudentperson havmg knowledgeofthe usual prevalenttrendin the 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 rates/Pre-DeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court mLai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a cooidinateBench Ofthis Courtin SiishilKumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerncd,it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on ] 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 Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted • thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementb>' the RclcrenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent. • '

¶17After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon recordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marketvalue ofthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling lAApp. Nc. llPi72008&connoctGdAppealsOfVillageBh.rt^ uVApp. 0, 294 .010&connectedAppealsof Village.3ijwasan lA.App, No. a.l/20i0&connectedAppealsor Viliagepochanpur PaER 15 ol ?.9 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof 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 Hmyana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(i) the situationof the acquiredland 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 oj its explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityof the acquiredlaridfor puttingup the buddings, be ihey residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) possibilit)^of obtainingwater 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 buildingplots or developed residential extensions in the vicinityor closeproximityoftheacquired land;

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

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in dem.and for building purposes, to speci.fya few. " •18. Ihe potentialityofland tor the purposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposes dependsupon a large number of factors. the said puiposc, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for lA.App. No. 119.'")/2008& conneclGdAppealsofVillage Bharthal I.A.App. No M4/2010& conncctedAppp.alsofVlllagG I3ljwasan b^.App.No. 1.1.1/2010St xcnnectfidAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' Paeel6of29 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 compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsof small pieces of land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be a ground to discardthem especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. MJL RafiqSaheb,,{2011)1 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 compensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpuipose. 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, 2i. Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supi-a),whiletakingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in' close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had heldthat deduction of 40% towards development charges was im.proper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMohi Dessai (Supra) deserve aLtention,which are as under:- I.A.App. i\'0. 11.95/200S&corinecVedAppoalsofVillage Bharthal IA.App. No. 294/3010&connectedAppealsofVillagfiBijwasan IA.App. No. va/WIO&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pago 17 of ?,9 >2. i "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 lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of t-wo 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. " 22, It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chiindha Fakim Pad! (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 bonafide sale transactionsproxim.ateto the point of acquisition of the lands-situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value."

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

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under;- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availabilityof (andfor developmentin the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developmentin the vicinity, increase in prices' would be-slow, steady and gradual, withoutany suddenspurts orjumps. lA.App, [Mo. j ].y5//.008& conncctsd AppealsofVillageBharlhal lA.App No. 291/J.OlO& connGctedAppealsof Village Bijwa.sari LA.App. No. ].]1/2010S(connectedAppealsofVillagePochar,pur ' Page18 of 29 ->3 / 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 'sornepockets 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 M'here there was no chance of any development and hardly any, buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1%) or 2%) per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15%) per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5%) to 7.5%oper 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 reasonsfor applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to. be appliedwould dependupon 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 contemporaneoussale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said m.ethod is reasonably safe yvhere the, relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is iiptofour tofive years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliablesiandard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. Tor example,for determiningthe m.arket value of a land acquired-in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or I..';,.App.'NJa. 1195/2008& connfirtedAppealsofVillage Bh'artha! . ' iy\.ApD. No. zy/|/?,010& connnctedAppealsofVillageBijwa:;an l-A.Apu No, .1.1.1/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanp'jr ' Papcl9of2<) i acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the >ate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from, the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or suddenspurtsinprices affectingthe verystandard ofincrease. "

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictum ofthe Apex Courtin Hmymm StateIndusts'iiilDevelopnieittCorpoFafion(HSIDC) (Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different siiuationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, sav for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference toprevious status or situation should be avoided and a uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification." i5. Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionaie not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur. i.e., the seven Sale ,Deedsvide which religiousinsfitutioi],i.e., Radha SM^amiSatsang Beas had puichased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/]0) Avhich arc basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe con-ectmarketvalue of the landin the villagesin questionis the m.ootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds lA.App. No. 1,195/2008&conricctedAppealsofVillageBharthal I.A.App. No. :Je'V2010&connuclGdAppealsof Village Bijwasan l-A.App. No. 131/2030&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur ' ' (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from ?52 lacs to ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was 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 exemplarscannotbetreatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to 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 purchiaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited hom him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swaini. Satsang, Beas who had 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 ^3.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat; the same cannot be ti'eated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use ofthe acquired lands was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence •that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition. Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquiredlands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing LA.App. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. i.11/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 21 of 2!) 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 (]{x.PW-I/4 to lix.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by. the • Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/l 1) 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-l/l 1) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/l 1) 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 qucsLion. . 29. Eeft 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 Prc-Dctcrmined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of mai-ket value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in ii;s decisionreportedasP, Ram Reddy and Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) see 305 are as undcr:- •72. ijowever, in either of the said cases whether it he the determinationof the marketvalue of the acquired land with buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the pricefetched by sale ojplots in a well developed,layout in the neighborhood 1A.App. No. :iia:i/200« & connertfid.AppcaLsofVillaReBhartlial l.A.App. No. 2y4/::.01.0a connccledAppRalsofVillage Bijwasan IA.App, No. in,v;0.1.0ft connectedAppealsof VillaBGPochanpur • Pagezzofzy or M'hetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land with buildingpotentialitywith reference to thepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplotsin an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties,with referenceto theprice which theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthe publication of the preliminarynotificationunder Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the ' neighborhoodof the acquired lands becom.es available, then what could be done is to'findout the marketvalue of the acquiredland with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunderSection 4(1)-of the LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto 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 increased,value for such buildingpotentialityarises only when there is no evidenceofsales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicatingthat there was no im.mediate d.em.a.n.d., as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the acquired land. "

¶31In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged by the DIDA after acquiringthe agricultura]lands,,developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand. (Supra),held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment ratcs/Rre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold laacls. I'ollowing the dictum of La! Chand (Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) lias excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands, as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of IA.App. No..ll,9:i/7.008&conniiclodAppealsofVillageBhartlial IA.App, No, 291/2010&connnctGdAppealsof Village Bijwasan IA.App, Mo, :1,1/201.0&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur PaRR 23 ol 29 1- "21 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondcnt/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka^ Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified. •

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquiredland'onlywhen the gap is of4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly ofa few years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantease, 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. [Mc, ,119^1/2008&connoctGdAppealsofVillage Bharthal ^LA.App. No. 294/2010&conRcdedAppealsof VillageBljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connertedAppealsofVillagePochanpjr Page2'lof29 -(• escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

¶34Mi.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad 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. Alter having perused the decision in SushilKumar (Supra),1find that 10% increaseon account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt @12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum.In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsoi the respondentare dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumpiiceofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt ^is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12/'o per annum granted by the RefeienceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1"' April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deserves to be-flirtherincreased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the-Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausc the acquired land had ceased to be an agiiculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three^. villages in question to be uiban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNolificationofthe year 1994 die land Lise ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto lA.App.hJo,]]95/2d08&connectGdAppeiilsof VillageBharthitl ' i-A App. No. mp.OXO&, connectedAppe;ilsof VillageBijwasan ' l-A.App.No. 311/M10& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pufje 25 of 29 presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectoftlicrcbeingany developmentin and aroundtlie acquiredlands m question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsofRadha Svmmi Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat tlie sale ofthe saidlandswas for agrieultul-alpurpose. j7. Rathei, it emerges from tlie evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein pnce due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area mquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land in Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-I/11)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialhyofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanptirand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Bx. PW-l/ll) cannot'be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relyingupon the aforesaid •sale instances.Therefore, in view of tiie afore-refbrreddictum of Ihe Apex Court in Paryana State IndustrialDevelopmmtCorpomtion (HSIDC)(Supra),unrformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded • for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price fixed by the Government for the agriculturarlandin Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what lAApp. Mo. .1.1.95/2008&conncctodAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.^pp.No. 2!)4/mO&conriGcledAppeal?ofVillageBljwa^an lAApp. No. ui/20.10&conneci(:QApp(;alsof VillagePochanpur Page 26 of 2.9 ^ / •3^ would be cxpected to be the market growth and what the market had actuallygrown, Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas been held to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as inSushilKumar(Supra)and I find no reason to take a differentview 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 marketvalue of the acquiredlands in question. jMndingof the ReferenceCourtin matterof VillageBharthaland Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidencethat the potential and the situation oi the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from the evidenceon record.But I find that the aspectof higherpotentiaUtyof the acquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGT Airport,Indian Oi! and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part 11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on accountof aforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assumehigher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhasc-I. What persuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and above market .value ot the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the App. N». U9;j/2008& conncclpdAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofViilagG Bljv^asan lA.App. r<Jo, l.l.l./?.010&connGCU:dAppcal.<;ofVillaj;GPochanpur f r 3^ 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 possibiUtyofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup buddingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion wouM be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had a buildingpotentialityandproceedto determine its market vaiue takinginto account the increasein priceattributable to such building potentiality."

¶39Consideringthe fad 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 assessingfair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesmo to treatIhem will, equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingtlie fair marketvalue of the acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto ti-eat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bhaithal and Village Bijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in SuMl Kumar(Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above tlie marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdetemiiriedby the ReferenceCoun in these matters on account of the aforesaid locations! advantages providingahigherbuildingpotenlialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

¶40Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awardingI0»/, increaseoverand above the marketvalue assessedby the ReferenceCourt in matterspenainingto Village Bharthal and Village . Bijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsofVillageBhanhaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof lAApp Nc,. ,1,1.9V2008&conrinclfidAppealsofVillage ' •• PP No. .1..11/20.10&connoclMAppealsof VillagnPochnnpur Page 23 of IS (• -3^ the appellants of Village Pochanpur are -also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perJjSfor.the Cdtcgoiy A land and @^14,69,600/-per bipha for the Category''B' lands in question. iCh

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, siaiutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in, Sunder vs:{ UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal, ior Nvhich periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aloresaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared. ' January 06, 2012 pkb (SUNIL GAUR) lAApp, No. 1195/2008&connoclcdAppealsofVillag«Bharthal •A.App. No. 294/2010&conncctedAppealsof VlllagoBijwasan M.App. No. 111/20.10&coiinoctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur 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, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.]S[egi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi andMi-.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.Solanld 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 Sharma and 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 application for seeking typographical correction in Orderof 6^'^ January,2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No.1195/2008 ^ T PageT feiv4-:4 r V ofthe apphcation.Advancecopyofthisapplicationhas aheadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicalerror pointedout by Uie respondentin the decision of 6 January, 2012 js that in paragraph no: 40 of tlie albresaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha' • whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counselappearingfor tlie appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbigha'inparagraph , 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correcfionsbe oMiedoutforthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof IAApp.No.1195/2008 Page 2 (L GAUK) JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb 3^

% + % 5'J IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 522/201: DAYANAND & ORS versus Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Tlirough: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, 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) UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Banlcey Bihaii Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR