Mukhtiar Singh & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb 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 fl]E FilCH tOUR F OF DL.Uil Al NEW DELHI Resei"vedon: November 18, 201,1 Pronounc'ecl : January 06,101

(GRII)-A) • LA.AIPP. 11 95/2008 (VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANB]R SHARMA Appellant through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash,lVJs,Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates • Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.RohTas, Advocate. Mr. Raghuvi nder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and MrH.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and 1\4r.B.K.ftoutrav, Mr.M.Azarn Ansari. Advocates, Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav. Mr.1.)eepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and 1\4r.J)han.aiija11' Ivichiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.R.aue!a, 1'dvocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya. Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul i'ripathi, Advocate. MrJ"4.S..Negi and Mr.l1.S.Rau.tela, (Advocates fir respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus • t.NION 01' INDIA & ANR. Respondents '1 hruugh J\/Ir.Sanjav Poddar. Senior Advocate with MLSLUy Pathal<., Mr.l\'lohitrao .idha' arid Ms.Navfln wajn. JVIs K Kaumudi Kirc m. &d ua: fo I &C 'UOT l\4r.A jay \`erwa, Ms.f3eenashaw Soi.d. Mr.Mukcsh JK.umar, Mr ?. K Sethi, iVft.Pa;van Mathur, Mr. K unal Sharrna, AdvocaR; fbi DDA .A.A PP4 I 2/2008 &; (If.No,409(Y2.UQ (CToSS01-)JeCtj1-,)l]S), • f.A.APP1j2/2008 IA.APP.453f'2008: LA.APP.688/2/fl)8 & (.A1.No.5990/20] 0 (Cross-0bjecions); &• (\4.No.433/2U09 Cross0hjections): Li\.APP.701/20C8 & CM.No.5 I 0/2009 (Cross-Obctioi .......• \. APP.768'20(; L.A.1\11P.770/2008 •i\.,4p. No. 112)/03.1 & coonected AopelI Is Of Villngo Bh.;d •\.Aoo. No. ?94/20:i0 coriJno:led Appc:jk of ViIIgo F3hwzisati A.App. No.112. 0010 & i:onnccv.d Appeas of ViiIa Focninpiir P1J1L t 01 2-) // S I 1,A.APP.77 1/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.AP11 .773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.61 I /2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; 1,A.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 & (TM.No.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.9 3 1/2009 (CrossObjections); LA.APP.805/2008 LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.8 1 3/2008 & CM.No. 1 795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.8 18/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008 I A.APP,829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.83.3/2008;

1..A.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008: LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; 1,A.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986i2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objedtions);LA.APP.993/2008;1-A.APP. I 029/2008& CM.No. 1 7340/2008 '(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 103 1/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); I i\.A.PP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008;

1.A.APP. 1 047/2008;LA.APP. 1 048/2008& CM.No.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No. 420'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008; LA.APP. 1 051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.41 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1055/2008;LA.PP. 1057/2008 & CM No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No. 15.57/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(Cross-Ohjections); LA.APP. I 060/2008;LA,APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections);

1..A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1 084/2008& CM.No. I 7302!21'08 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); E.A.APP. 1 087/2008& CM.No.61 9i'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. I 0932008; A.APP. 1.094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; LA.APP. 11 03/2008 & CM.No.441 /2009 (Cross-Objecti'ons):LA.APP. 1 108/008 & CM .t'Jo3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008: LA.APP. 1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.API?.1 111/2008; LA,APP.1 112/2008 &' CM.No3831/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.I 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (('mss-Objections); LA.APP. 1115/2008; LA.APP. 1116/2008; LA.AP1'. 1121/2008; LA.APP. 1 126/2008; LA.APP.1 129/2008 & CM.Nc 550/2009 (Cross-Objections); .1 A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.1 131./2008 '& CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 11 35/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 .137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); 1,A..APP.1. 140/2008; LA,APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP. 11 57/2008; LA.APP'. ii 5/2008 & CM.No.7774!2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1159/2008; LA.APP. 1161/2008; L.A.APP. 1166/2008; LA.APP. 11.6712008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.APP. 1170/2008.; LA.APP.] 171/2008; 1.A.APP. 1172/2008; LA..APP. 1 17.3/2008; LA.A.PP. 11 75/2008; LA..APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP.1 179/2008; LA.APP. 1181/2008; I i.A..APP.i 1 82i'2008; LA.APP. 11 83/2008& CM.No.6933!2009 (Cross-Objections); I..A.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP. 1 1 86/2008& CM.N'o.701 3/2009 I .4App. No. 95/2008 & i:onnected Appeals of Village I3harthl l.A App. No, 29' 1/20.1.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA.App. No .:1i..L/2)1O & connected Appeais of Village Pochanour

l'age 20129 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008; LA.APP. 1193/2008; LA,APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP. 1 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 12 10/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008; LA.APP. 12 12/2008 LA.APP. 121 3/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& (TM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP.1T 1/2008& CM.Ni/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008; I A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; LA.APP. 1280/2008; LAAPP.1281 /2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008; LA.APP.3 1/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA. APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CMNo.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; LA.APF. 79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. I 09/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009; I A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. I 45/2009; . 1 A.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009; LA.APP 197/2009; LA.APF. 198/2009; LA.APP. 1 99/'2009; LA.APP.201/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA..API>.2 I 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP:245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009; I A.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; l..A.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009; i.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; 1-,A.AP?.447/2009; LA.APR458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; 1,A.APP,466/2009 LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.48 1/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.A.PP.491/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; i.A.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503 /2009; LA.APP.506/2009; I A.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009:, LA,Aj?P.5 10/2009; LA.A11P.5 11/2009;, LA.APP.5 12/2009: LA.APP.5 13/2009; 1,A.APP.567/2009; LA,APP.572/2009; LA.API. 1 5/201.0; LA.APP45/2010; LA.APP.48/2010; 1 A.APP.404/201.0 LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP.1 176/2008; I.A.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 S (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Vii lage Bharthal, Delhi)

(GR11)-B) S Yo Jesei'vedon:DecemberO2OJJ LQ1'7ounced on: January06, 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-B!JWASAN). . S J)EVENDl.R KUMAR . . . . ..... Appellant Through: Mr.RS.'Fomar, Mr.Virendra Smgh IA.App. No 1195/7003 & connected Appeals of Village Rharthal A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasari 1A.App No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu S / . Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B . K. Routray. Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus 1JOI & ANR Respondents Through: 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 UOL Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71. & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr. B ankey B ihar Sharma, Mr. Kunal Sharma and Mr. Sorner K. Seth, Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 IA.A.pP. 52/2010 . LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55/2010 LA.APP. 56/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP. 100/201 0 LA.APP. 221/2010 LAAPP, 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 242/2010 LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP, 277/2010 LA.APP. 281/2010 LA.APP. 282/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 346/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010

1.A.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LJ\.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 LA.APP. 356/2.010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 365i'2010 LA.APP. 7421/2010. LA.APP. 760/2010 LA.APP.359/2010 LA.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.A1P. 406/2010 LA.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010

1.A.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2010 1..A.APP. 588/2010 LAAPI. 722/2.010 LA.APP. 723/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 1.A.APP. 72/2010 I.A.A.PP. 726/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/201 () 1.A.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 732/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/20.10 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828/2010 LA.APP. 964/2010 I.A.APP. 286/2010 . LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 77/20 10 LA.APP. 80/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP. 75/20 10 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. FJO(30)96-L&•B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND . .. IA.App. No 1 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village 8harthel LA.App. Nc. 2980i0 & concocted 4ppea!s of ViHage Bijwasan \.App. No. 111/20.1(1 & connec(ed Appeals of Village Pochanpur S . . (GRiD-C) Reserveclon: December , 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.AFP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR) SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. Appellants Through: 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.SB. Kurnar, Advocate for appellant in • LA.App.No 61,64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INI)IA & ANR Respondents ThrOugh: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and 1\4s.Navlin Swain, Advocates for IJOL/LAC Mr. B a.nkev B ihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr. Sorner K. Seth, Advocates for i)DA. LA.APP. 111/2010 LA.APP, 154/2010 LA.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 165/2010 LA.APP. 209/2010 LA.APP. 215/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LA.APP50/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LA.APP. 260/2010 LA.APP. 261/2010 LA.APP. 270/2010 LA.APP. 292/2010 LA.APP. 293/2010LA.APP. 305/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.API. 307/2010 LAAPP. 317/2010 LA.APP. 392/2010 LA.APP. 393,2010 LA.APP. 395/2010 LA.APP. 396/2010 1.A.APP. 397/2010 LA.APP, 412/2010 LA.A1P. 420/2010 LA.APP. 432,2010 LA.APP. 433/2010 LA.APP. 434/2010 LAAPP. 466/2010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA.APP. 5771/2010 LA.APP. 635/2010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 639/2010 LA.APP. 640/2010 LA.APP. 657/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LA.APP. 662/2010 LA.APP. 741/2010 LA.APP. 758/2010 LA.APP. 767/2010 LA.APP. 768/2010 LA.APP, 784/2010 LA.APP. 918/010 LA.APP. 919/2010 LA.APP. 1052/2010 LA.A.PP. 61/2011 LA;APP. 64/2011 LA APP 65/2011 LA.APP. 116/2011 LA.APP. 117/2011 LA.A•PP. 119/2011 LA.APP. 120/2011 LA.A.PP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 129/2011 L A .APP.429/2011 LA.APP. 476/2011 LA.APP. 485/2011 L.A.APP. 521/2011 LA.APP. 522/2011 LA.APP. 523/2011 LA.APP. 525/2011 LA..APP. 526/2011 LA.APP. 535/2011 LA.AP.P. 536/2011 LA.APP. 554/2011 LA.APP. 591/2011 J.A.App. No. 3.195/2008 & connected AppeIs of ViUap,e Bharthal LA.App. No, 294/2010 & connected Appeais of Village llijwasan l.A.App No 11112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur. : • (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Poclianpur, Delhi). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

06.01.2012 Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcrefoie with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at S the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Noui/Ication No.F. 10(30)96-L& B/L,A/1341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relating • to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order. Acquisition process for planned development of 'iiwarka Phase-1/' in I)clhi, commenced with the issuance of NotifIcation of 13" December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition. Act, 1 894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact bidck comprising of thirteen Revenue Lstates including villages in questioh., i.e., Bharthal, i)ijwa.san and Pochanpur. Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i .c., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2 003 ;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation 13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @ 12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (without top soil). . I)issatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acquiied LA.App. No. 119512003 & connected Appeals of ViUage Bharthal. l..App. No. 29d12010 & connected Appeak of VWlage Bijwasan I.A.App. No .i.1/7.0i.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

S 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 @ Z15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ Z13.36 lacs per acie for their Block '13' 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 relyingupon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnatuka housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State ofGoa andAnr.,

(2010) 1 3 SCC 71 0; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State of Haryana andAnr,,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (LandAcquisition,) & Ors., (2010)3 SCC 661;'RanvirSingh and Anr, vs. Union of India AiR 2005 SC 3467; Ghindha Fakira Paul

(I)) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) I)RJ 227; • Rama Nànd (since deceased) tInough LRs vs. Union of India & Anr., 20 O2 (65) 1)RJ 1

(DB); Lid/i o Doss vs. State of 'Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas i. Slide of .Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALJ' 362; Avinash Dhaviiji A'àllf vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 1 71; Atma Sing/i (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No, 4143/2003 titled as Sm.t. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sob/ia & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Of & Anr vs. M,K. Rqfiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devlibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, !.A.App. No. .1 160008 & connoctedAppoals of Village 3harthai .A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

' • . • ' Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr,, 2006 (89) I)RJ 527 (DB); La! ('hand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyrnnmal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr.. AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatra' Thirt/ikar vs. State of' .Maharashtra, AIR 2009 sc 2238; S Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of india & Anr, 176(2011) f)LT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Sara! Sing/i vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of india, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of india, decided on

26.09.2() ii; LA. APP. No.591/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011; and Rhule Rain vs. Union of India, 2010 (1 70) Dli' 371. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it t op was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan. learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has tO be fIrst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must he adjudged keeping in viw the deyclopment in. the area o''e' a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone. It was pointed out by Mr.R.S,Tomar, counsel, for appellants that I)elhi-Rewari-Jocthpur broad gage rathwa)' line of Village Biijwasan passes throug.h the land of Village .Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e.., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, Nev Delhi IJ\.App. No. 1 2 )5 12003 & connected Appeals of Village Bharhal LA./\pp. No .29'1/7O1,Q & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan lA./\pp. No. ii :l/2W0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur S .' and Oil I)epots 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-TI again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii). South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on' the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of . 1(11 Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for • establishing Indian Oil Depots and thercaf'er in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and i)hool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizrds/map to highlight that the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village iochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are Contiguous. It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the S potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to he agricultural in spIte of Notification of 16th October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agriculturat to residential/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land bf 'Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notificition 0f24tu1 October, 1994. it was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for 1;he appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rarna I /\.App. No. 1 95/200N & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A App.,No. 294/2010 & cor!nectec Appeals of Village Bijwasan t.A.App. No.1.11/2010 & Connected Appeffis of Village Pochanpur Page 90129 S (~Y Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haiyana & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot he limited, to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharrna, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from Z52 lacs to 762 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Aiijm Mo/u Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of , sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the Piarkel price of the land which conies to Z57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon . the minimum rates/circle rates fhr determining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

¶11Assessment of market value of the àöquired land was sought hi Mr.R.Qodara learned counsel for the appellants On the basis of the L& DO rates flxed by the Government and also on the bais of pre determined rates fixed by the GovernmOnt for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the locatio, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is .App. No. ].195 / 2008 & connected Appeas of VNage Bhartha LA.App. No. 294/201.0 & connected Appeal, of Viflage Btjwasan LA.App No. /11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur S sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Sarnalkha 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 (PI)Rs) as referred to above.

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

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No. 19012 of 2006. (Refrred to in cross -examination of appellant dated

¶772007,) • h) Does not account tbr the .1b.ci that the Public Notice dated 18.9. 1987 adverse/v afideted the rates of land in the area fbr more than 13 years before the Notification uiicier Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued c.) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued &v the Government of Nat jonal Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the 1-/on 'hie Supreme Court in. Sangunthala versus Thhsiidar. 2010(3) SCC 661. ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishe' law has to he cons idered b(--bre ascertaining the taiue of the land under acquisition. Does not deal with disparity in vciiue of the Sale L)eeds produced before the trial Court whereas as per the iai' established by the Hon'hle Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patti versus Special Land Acqujsttion Officer, Civil Apeal ]Vô. 5475 of 2007. The lion 'h/c Supreme Court has spec zfzcally held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in I.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected ApeaIs of Village l3harthal LA.App. NC). 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan Ii\.App. No, 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanour case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana Màlu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. 1?elied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC .No.97A12006 to decide the market value of ihe 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 ZI3,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Rain vs. Stale of Haryana 2010(1) 8CC 444 As a consequence, the impugned judgment refused to return an actual Jinding on the issue No.] framed on 2 7.2.2007. Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide lVotficaiion of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhooi Siras and Bharihai was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of i)elhi State. The masterplan and lVot1/CattOfls of Governn'ient for land us change show that in /iture land can be subjected to residential. càmmerciai and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in re11:2ect of the 741h amendment q.0 the Constitution f India. w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, b virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area. • h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Aur vs. Union oJ india and refused to consider the frict that the development in the area has a direct c/fret on the price that a willing purchaser would pay /r.. the. subject lan 1). Ignored the luict that 1?esponclent No. 2 had also S LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Villagp Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected AppeSis of Village Biiwasan LA.App. No. 11112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks / at the rate of about Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. Ic) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of 1)warka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Sims and Rharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of.Delhi State. I) ignored NotijIcations dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In San gunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whet her the land has got building otentialit; to he used frr building purposes in immediate or in near future needi to be considered. in) 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 acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near future. In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal he treated at par with the co-appellants of the othcr appeals in these bunch of appeals. Supplementing the aforesaid argLlrnents advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of I.A.App. No, .11952008 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasn LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . H urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar i's. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapi! Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 1 76(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-l.)etermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area re relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands, Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged thatthough as per Section 51-•A of Land /.Lcquisilion Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence ir determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decjsions in Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpa! & Ors vs. Unim of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; La! Chand vs. Union of India and Ani'.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vsj Union of india, decided on 26.09.201 ii., it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase 'are explained by producing in evidei-ce the seller LA.App No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan . I I.A.App, No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

' . ' and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in 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-

i)etermined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision.. of Apex Court in La! Ghand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate l3ench of this Court in Sushi! Kuinar (supra) and Raf Siigh (supra).

¶16So Iai' as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by M.r.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross_ objectors that the same has already been faCtored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as SI Apri1 1 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12 0//0 per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 1 O% per annum has been granted.. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as Fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the R.efirence Court while taking into eons iclerät ion the appreciation 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ IO% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent. 1 7. After considering the rival suhnissions advanced, by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgment the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value ol the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to a willing l.A.App. No. 119i2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthl LA.App, No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan LA.App. No. 11112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocharipur Page 15 of ZJ

¶1•: seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udlio Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- '(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because qf its explosive population; the suitability of the acquii'ed land for putting tp the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land, ('iv) absence of stat utory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purpose,

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land, P

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

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand fir building purposes, to specify afew

¶18The potentiality of land for the purpose. of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have 1.0 hear .inmind.the purpose for I A.App. No. 1i95/2OO & connected Appeds of Village Bhurthal IA.App. No 294J2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan LA.App. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur 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 for acquired lands, jt has been held by the Apex Court of compensation in Alma 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. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are sinilai-1y 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. It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage. Apex Court in Valliyarnma/ (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired. land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was impoper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo/u Dessai (SLipra) deserve attention, which are as under:- I i\.App. No. I .1.05 /20O & connected Appeals of Village Bhartha IA.App, No, 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l..A.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur I "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lanc/, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar 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 two sales are markedly dijjrent, 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. It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations p-ertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindlia Pakira Paul (Supra), which are as follows:- "ft is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale irinsactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the honaflde sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utilit)) taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to rejiect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent cprsons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to S determine the market value. Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four fliclors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availabthti' / land for development in the area, and the demand for lavid in the area. In rural aieas unless there is any prospect of development in the v/c in/tv, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without an)) sudden spurts or jumps. IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Viage Martha LA.App No. 294/2010 & connected .6ppeais of Vifaige Bijwasari LA,/\pp. No. 111/2010& connected Appe.sls of Village Pochanpur On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. in some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development, and high demand Jr 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 fr years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of] % or 2% per annum. There is thus a sign fIcant dlfference in increases in market value o,f lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural 'S * 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 ahou 5% to 7.5% per, annum. This rule of thumb ref rs to, the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to he applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved, market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition,), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous, sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably sate where the. rcued-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few yectrs, that is upio t)ur to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even i/it re/ales to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard f the gap is only a ,fe'w years, may become unsaj' and unreliable standird where the gap is larger. For example. ,fir determining the market value of a land acquii"ed. in 1992, adoptihg the annual increase method with re7?rence to a saie or i...App. No. 1 '195;'200l & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal .A,.Apo. No, 7911/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Illiwasan l.,'..Apo No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocanp.r 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 oJ varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales metho'ds What was said by the Apex Court in HSII)C (Supra) is as under:- "When different categories of lands ('or lands with derent si/la/tonal advantages) are cicquired for the same purpose, sal' [or orming of a residential layout, cOurts have SometImes felt that determination of their value with refCrence to previous status or situation should be avoided and i untform rate of' compensation should he awarded for all lands acquired under the same notflcation." Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale J)eeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural 'and in Village Pocharipur at a price which varied from Z52 lacs to 762 lacs per acre. Whether aforesaid Sale 1)eeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/1.0) which are basically between one set of co-own.ers and Radha Swami Satsang l3ecis in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6

1.31swas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct i'naket value of the land in the villages in question is the moOt question which is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Elharthal LA.App. No, 294/2010 &. connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from 152 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars - Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-l/lO) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exei-plars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Flad the purciiaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land t an exorbitant price in Village Marnurpur vide Sale Deed executed on 25th March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Sing/i vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. • No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sing/i i's. Union of India, decided oi

19.9.'201 I and in lzhe afnresaid dei.inns th cIp. ernn1r nf \/i112oi Marnurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acqu.ire.d lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired land was changed much prior to their acquisition but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till theii acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not

developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of Drevailinp -. .. .i lJ\.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I LA.App. No. i.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 21 of 29 1 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 (Ex.111W-1/4 to Lx.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/l 1) relied UOfl by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of 1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale I)eed of 27th January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was n situated on the National, Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/1 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 he treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question. Left 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& 1)0 circular rates for the developed lands and Pi-cJ)eterrnined Rates for the alternate plots by the DD.A Ought to be OR adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question. Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram'Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Aut/writyHyderabadandOrs., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. 1,/owever, in either otthe said cases whether it be the determination o/'the market value oft/ic accjuired land with building potentiality with re/rence to the price fetched by vale 0/plots in a welt developed layout in the neighborhood I A./spp. No. :1

1.95/2008 & conner.tedAppeals of Village F3harthal t.A.App. No. 294/201.0 & connected Appeak of Village Bljwasan LA.App. No.1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur /0 or whether it he the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price Jèiched or to he fetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties., with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched i/sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary not i!Ication under Section 4(1) of the Act. further, where no evidence ofprice fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of pubiicaton under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its vahe by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to he made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 115th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, fbr building plots even f formed in the acquired land. 3 1. In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the J.)i)A after acquiring the agricultural lands; developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/Prc-I)etcrrnin.ed Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand(Supra), a coordinate I3enc.h of this Court in Jài Sing/i (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra) has excluded the I)I)A 1ates qua the developed lands as being not relevant lhr assessing the market value of I A.App. No.1 1,9/2008 & connected Appnal.s of ViUage Bharthal LA.App. No. 2911201.0 & connected Appeak of Village liijwasan LA.App. No. 111/70.1.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the I)DA ' S Pre-I)etermined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question. Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of l.)warka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 1 O% 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 otification for development of Dwarka Phase-IT, still the price fixed by the l.and Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is UfljUSti lied. Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La! Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, i.f the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwark.a. Phase-il is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate LA.App. No, 1 199/2008 & conncted Appeals of Vifage Bharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the preious years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-.obj ector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation 1 O% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi! Kurnar (Supra), I find that 100/'o increase on account of higher potentiality of the acqvired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi! Kuniar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court ( I 2% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. jSt April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be furt.her increased or not. Adoption of Government's minirnuin rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned coLinsel for appellants because the acquired land had cased to be an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 24h11 October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Nolification of the yCar 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to I A.App. NC). 11 95/2008 & connected Appeals of.Villsige I3harthai l.A.App, No. 204/2010 & connected Appeals 0 Village L3ijwasan LA.Apo. No. fli/•'00 & connected Appeals of Village Pochainpur F'ae 25 of 29 presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect Of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Salsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, I 894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use I-lad there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their haids on other sale ihstances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Scilsang, I3eas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW1/1 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale Instance of Village Samalkha (Lx. PW-1/1 1) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensation while rcl'ing upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the dore-referred dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State industrial Development corporation (tlSJD'c) (Supra), uniform rate of compensatibn deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land in 1)elhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fct that there is a gap between what LA.App. No. ]i.95/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LAApp. No. 294/20.10 & connected Appea: of Village Bijwasan .AI\pp. No. 1.11.12010& connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 26 of29 would he expected to be the mai'ket growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases• of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kurnar (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 I)clhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding olthe Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the 1(11 Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village E3harthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv .Murti side to I)warka Sub-City, Part 1 and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm I-louses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered Opinion of this Court, on account of atoresaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of I)warka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to graiit 10% increasC over and above market value of the acquired lands• as assessed by the Refereice Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the LAa\pp. No, 119b/2008 & connected Appeals of Village 0hrthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village llijwasan l.A.App. No 11.1/2010 & connected Appeols of Village Pochãnpur P settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the J7OSSibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building. potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into accouth the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality.

¶39Considering the fat that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never he achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpür are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushi! Kuinar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands deteiThiri.ed by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages proviclinga higher buildingpotentjaljty in the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding 1 0% increase over and above the market value asessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village .Biwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of I .A.App No. I19!/2008 & connected Appeals of Viflage Bharthal l.A.App. No. 29412010 & connected Appeals of Villagd Bijwasan IA.App. No ...... 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined 16,50,000/- peçbigha for the Category 'A' land and @ Z14,69,600/- per bjh'a for the Category 'B' lands in question. - -h '- 4 1. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, sl.atutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001

(93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, • .fhr \vhich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall he paid, i'hese appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals aid cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the Compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of" this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets he accordingly prepared. . - (SUNIL GAUR) JUI)GE January 06, 2012 pkb l.A.App, No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village l3harthal l.A.App. NC), 204/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.App. No. 1.1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Arnit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.egi 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 Tornar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Saniay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Arnita Singh, • Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: IION'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. Appi. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order 0f6thl January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1 41 , of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6111 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.AppNo. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be caried out forthwith, in view of the aforesaid., this application stands disposed of. (SUNIL GAUR) JANUARY 12, 2012 JUDGE pkb ft LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Novembe, ), 2011 Pronounced on: January06, 2012 LA.APP. 1225/2008 MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anahd Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.RaUtela, Advocate S Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azarn Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF ThDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with .Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi • Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh KUmar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate forDDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR