Kamlesh Kumar v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 - For orders see LA.App.Nb. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of I india & Anr.'. JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb 0/ /0 UN TUE H1G1I COURT OF !)ELH! Al" NEW I)ELH1 L.:Q?ccc! on:Janua,'vO6,2O12

(GRJI)-A)' • LA.i\PP. 1195/2008 (VILLAGE-BUARTHAL) 1\ANB]R. SHARMA . Appellant Fhreuih Mr.ftS.Maan, MrA.mit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr,R.SVerma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates MrAnand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohas, Advocate. Mr. Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and MrH.S,Rau:tela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B..K, R.outrav, Mr.M.Azarn Ansari. Advocates. Mr.Pankai Vivek, Advocate MrRajesh Yada., Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Sai.nt K.hosla and Mri)hanaiia'y Mehiawat, Advocates Mr.11S.kautela, Ad\ ocate. Nh I S J)alii Ad. ('t d1 l\/Ir.Sandcep Thakhur. AdvocaLe N'Ir. Atul I npat.hi, Advocate M.r.N.S.Ne.gi and Mr.1I.S.Raute.Ia, dvocates lor responden in appa1s tiled by t21) versus INJ)IA & i\Nk. Respondents 'I lii-uu.h; J\/lr.Sanja\' J.d:iar, tno A ,: ae 'i0i \4r.Saiay Pathak.. /tr.?'c itra ..adia' irlci MS. N'ii 3aif. lVI E lc( JinUd' 1\ b dl' '\.d\ (..cU( t( I " . i\4r.i\..av Verina. •Ms.t3ccnashaw Soni, iVIr,1\lukcsh K uniar. Mr ? Sc thi, Mr.Pa:yvun khathur. v1r. K unal Sharma. Advcc.ac; fc DI)/ 0 &, CM.No.40)o/'oQ

(C)ss-.)hjctjons' t.A.APP.432/2c() jo5'0Q/70 I U (Cross. Obeei ions): 2008 &, C M,No.fl.'2o(y Cro;s-Ojcet ions): A.APP 701 M N .51 0v'1000 (ci ss-O:.cc0 , ; •\ 1P 75,';() :\ PP.770/2008 . cii rcc:cd op;iiS if iii 1 F, IhziihI I'Ji, 9400JC coriiei'd Appc,.iI. oVII Evr) A.\i.i \ I . !? Oifl & : ricd A7p oViiIgi oc,rar)w ,v7 LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-ObjectiOns); LA..APP.772/2008;

1..A.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.61 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; 1,A.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No940/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.783/2008; 1,A.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; 1,A.APR798/2008 & CM.No.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP799/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections): 1,A.APP.8 18/2008; 1-.A.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; I A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; 1,A.APP.833/2008; LA.AP11.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,.A.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.9011'2008; LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; L.A.A.PP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Ohjections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA APP. 1 029/2008& CM,No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1031/2008 &. CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); I A.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP 1046/2008; J.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. I 051/2008 & CM,No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.4 16/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA. APP. 105512008;LA..APP. 1057/2008 & CM.No.752/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 105 8/2008& CM.No. I 557/2011 (cross-objections); LA.APP.1059/2008 & (: M.No.17259/2008(Cross-Objections); I A. A PP.1 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.54612009 (Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.N.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1 ..A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections);

1.A.APP. I 084/2008& CM.N. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086./2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections): LA..APP.108712008& CM.No,619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APP. 1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008; . 1 A.APP. 11 03/2008 & CM.No.441 /2009 (,CrOs-Objections:LA..APP. 1108/2008 & CM.No3839 12009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; 1,A.APP..1 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.1 111/2008; LA.APP.1 I 12/2008 & CM.No.383 1/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA APP. 11.13/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 ,Coss-Objections): LA.APP.1 115/2008; .LA.APP.1 116/2008; LA.APP.1 121/2008; A.AP1'. 1126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/2008 '& CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP.I 131/2008 & CM.No.5661'2009 (Cross-Objections); A.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 1135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objeclions); 1A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. ] 140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP. 1157/2008; LA.APP. 1 1 58/2008 & CM.No.7774'2009 Cross-Obiections); LA.APF. 1159/2008; LA.APP. 1161/2008; LA.APP. 1166i2008; LA.APP. 1167/2008 & CM.No.80212009 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP. 1168/2008; LA.AJP.1 170/2008; LA.APP.] 171/2008; LA.APP.1 172/2008: LA.APP.1 173/2008; I..A.APP. 1175/2008; LA.APP. ii 78/2008; LA.APPA 179/2008; LA.APP. 1181 /2008; I .A.API). 1182/2008; 1_,A.APP.1 183/2008& CMNo.6933'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; 1.A.APP. 1.1 86/2008& CM.No.701 3/2009 I !\.App. No. 195/2008 & i:oneected Appeals of Village Jlharthal LA APO. No.29/1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Biwasan LA.App, Jo. 111/2010 & connectea AppeaR of Village PochaI1ouI 74, . S (Cross-Objectiois); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.A1P. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008; LA.APP.1 193/2008; LA.APP.1 194/2008; LA.APP.1 195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008; LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross7Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008; LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008; LA.APT. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CMNo.6957/2009(Cross-Qbjections): LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241/2008& (I'M,No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 243/208; LA.APP.1252/2008; I A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2:008; LA.APP. 1279/2008; I.A.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP 183/2008; 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.746/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.AP].73/2009 & CM.No,7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; 1,A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009: LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009; LA.AJP. 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. 1451/2009; LA.APP.162/2009; i.A.APP.187/2009:

1.A.APR190/2009;

1.A.APP.191/2OO9; LA.APP 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009: LA.APP. 1991'2009; LA.APP.201/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA. APP.2 10/2009 & CM.No.970/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LA.AP1.2 1 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009;

1.A.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; 1,A.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.720612009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LAAPP.246/2009; I A.APP.249/2O09; LA.APP.257/2009;

1..A.APP.295/2009; .LA.APP.305/2009; .l.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.AP?.447/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.459i2009; LA.APP.466/2009: LAA.PP480/2009; LA.APP.48 1/2009; LA.APP.489/2009; LA.A.PP.490/2009; 1,A.APP.4911/2009: LA.APP.493/2009; I A APP 494t2009, I A APP 495/2009 E ' APP 503,2009, LA APP 506'2009 I A APP 507i2009, [A APP 508/2009 1 A APP 5091200') LA APP 510'2009 1,A.APP.5 1 1/2009; LA.AP1.5 12/2009: LA.APP.5 13/2009: 1,A.APP.567/2009; I A.APP.572/2009; LA.AP}. 15/2010; LA.APP45/201 0; LA.APP.48/201 0;

¶1A,APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011: LA.APP. 1138/2008, LA.APP.1 176/2008; IA.APft1 177/2008; LA.APP1201/200$; 1-A.APP.23 1/2009 (Relating to Notification No F. 1 0(30)/96/L& B/LA/i 3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village T3harthal, Delhi)

(GRJI)-B) Ly±2ecerQ8,2OL1 Prollounced

LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BIJWASAN). I)F\/LND1:R KUM.AR Through I A4pp, e'o 5195/2003 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal A.App, No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasan A.App No .1 1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu Appellant rvir.R: S.'.I'oniar, J\4r.Virericlra Singh Page.3 of 29 Advocates Mr.S.K.Solankj and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B .K. Routray. Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 3841.46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) versus VOl &. ANR R.espondents Through: Mr. S anj ay Poddar, Senior Advocate with • Mr.Sanjay Kurnar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadha\.r. .and Ms.Navljn Swain, Advocates for UOJ/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanjcj and Mr.S.K.Rout and • Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by LJOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71. & 72 in appeal filed by TJQJ Mri3ankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K. Seth, Advocates for DDA. LAAPP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA APP. 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. I 00/2010 LA.APP. 221/2010 1 'AApp.223/201 0 LA.APP. 226/2010

¶1•A.APP. 242/2010 LA..APP. 246/21)10 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!20.() LA.,APP.289/2jçj LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 I A.APP 346/2010 LA.APP 3471/2010 LAAPP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351;2010 LA.APP. 352i'2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 354/2010 I.A.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LAAPP. 760/2010 LA.APP. 35912010 I A.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.AP.P. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 i.A.APP. 4051/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 L..A.APP. 407/2010 LA.APP. 408/2010 LA.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/201() LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. 722/2.010 1 A.APP; 723/2010 LA.APP. 72412010 LAAPP. 725/2010 LA.APP, 726/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LAAPP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 31/2010 LA.APP732/201O .LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 .LA.APP. 828/2010

1.A.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LAAPP, 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/2010 . LA.APP. 99/2.010 & LA,AP.P, 75112010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No I 10(30 o-1 & BILA/13417 daled 1312 000 issued under Sectioji •4 of the Land. Acquisition Act; 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, 1)elhi) • AND 1 Ape. No 195/2008 & conriecl,od Appeals of Villsge Bharthel .I\.App, Nc. 29l./2,O1() & conrle(:tpd 4ppeats of Village !3ijwasao .'\.Aup. No connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur O [1 . ~x (GRiD-c) Rfycon,J)ecmi8jj FJPflOUncedoflJanuarjj2 LA.APP. I 1112010 (VILLAGE POCHANpLJ1) SEHAJ RAM AND OR.S. Appellants Through: Mr.B .1). Sharma, Mr. S .K. Soiankj 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.}3. Kurnar, Advocate for appellant in LA.APp NO 61,64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay POddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanj ay Kuni ar Pathak, Mr.Mohjtrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navljn Swain. Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Banl(e\' Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and M.r.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA: LA.APp, 111/2010 LA,/\pp 160/2010 LA.App, 154/2010 LA.APP 165/2010 LA.APP• 1551010 LA.APP 156/2010 LA.App 228/2010 LA.APP. 248/2010 LA,App 209/2010 LA.APP. LA.App, 215/2010 IA App 254/2010 LA.App 2602010 249,2010 LA.App. LA.APP 250/2010 LA.jpp 292/2010 LA.APP 293,'201 0 261/2010 LA.APP. LA.APP 270,'2010 LA.pp 307/2010 LA.App 317/2011) 305/2010 LA.APP LAAPP. 306/2010 LA.APP 395/2010 LA..App 4200010 LA.APP396/7010 392,'2010 LA.APP 397/201O LA.APP 393/20i0 LA.App lA APP 466/2010 LA.App 432/210 LA.App 489/2010 LA.App 433/2010 412/2010 LA.APP 434/2010 LA.\pp 637/2010 LA.APP 660/2010 LA.APP 639/2010 LA.APP 577/2010 LAp 640/201.0 LA.APP, 635,'201 0 LA.APP 767/2010 LA.APP. 662/201 LA.APP 768,"2010 LA.App 741/2010 LA.APP 657/2010 LA.App 758/2010 ' 19/7O LAApp 65/201 A.APP. 1052,/201() LA.App. 784/2010 L..App 61/2011 A.APP. 918/2010 P. 120/2011 LA,App 116/201j LA.App l2l/2Q11 LAApp 117/2011 LA•;App, 64/2011 LA.APP 119/2011 I /PP '1 /6'20j I IA APP 485'201 I LA.APP 129/201 [A AP )21/201 LA.APP 4?Q/2011 1,A1pp 523/2011• LA.,pp 536/2011 LA.APP 525/20j 1 LA.APP LAAPP 52/2O1 1 LA APP 622 2011 LA.pp 535/2011 554/2011 LA.•App 591/2011 p No. 3-5/ 0 & connected Appeals I.A.Apo. No, 9412otp & Connected Appea is of Village 8harthal I Il "pp No 11 ],'?fllo& connE'cted Appeals of Village BijWasan of Village Pochanpr . . . (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13,12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the J.and Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.1222002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: H()N'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, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Not4fIcaf/on No.F. 10(3096-L& B/LA/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 Dwarka Phase-1/' in I)clhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13th December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricuilural land in one compact block ' comprising of thirteen Revenue. !states including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur. Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003• Award No.28/2002-7003 ;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation Z13.8.2 laos per acre for l3lock 'A' (level field with top soil) and

12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (without top soil). • . I)issatisfied with the assessrnclTt of market value of their acqufred A,App. No. i 19s/2008 & Connected Appealsof Village Bharthal I.A. App. No. 290/01,0 & Connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I.A.App. No. 1 V2010 & c000er.tpd Appeals of Village Pocharput Page 6.ot 29 it . \ agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Refèi'ence Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation ( 15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and Z13.36 Iacs per acre for their Block '13' land in Villages I3harthal and Bi)wasan; 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 Pochañpur 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 SCC 246; AnjaniMohi Dessai vs. State of Goa andAnr.,

(2010) 13 SCC 710: Subli Rain and Ors vs. Slate of Harvana andAnr.,

(2010) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehslldar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010)3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AiR 2005 SC 3467; chindha Fakira Pall!

(I)) through LRs i's. The Special Land Acquiition Officer, Jalgaon, S 011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! i's. Union of india, 2002 (62) I)RJ 227; Raina A'and (since deceasëd) through LRs i's. UniOn of India & Anr., 2002 (65) I).RJ 1 (013); Udho Doss vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 20] 0(9) SCALE 41; Ghakas Stixte of .Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCA1.E 362; Avinash D17OVIEjI A'all' is. State of Ma/:arashtra (2009) 11 SCC 1 71; Atma Singh (Dead,) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Harpana & Anr, (:2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P..(() No, 4143/2003' titled as Sint. indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & (irs, decided on 26.03.2.010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr i's. MK. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, A App. No .J.itY7o & connected Appeals of Village 3ha'tha A.App. No. 794/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan A/pp. No 1 112010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanp,ir ' Page 7of29 • Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial l)evelopment Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 1 75; Risal Sing/i & Ors. Vs. Union of india & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Ghand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; Geneal Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd i's. Rameshbhai, Jivanbhai Pate! and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valilyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Ailahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 scc 745; Mahesh .Dattatrap Thirthkar vs. State of .Maharashtra, AIR 2009 Sc 2238; • Kapil .Me/ira (Major Genera) & Ors. Vs. Union of lAdia & Anr, 176(20] 1) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Sing/i i's.

i)ellri Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Oni Prakasli (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

26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Rain vs. Union of india, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhuie Ram i's. UnioA of India, 2010 (1 70) Dl.]' 371. On the strength of the aforesaid decisjons, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.13.S.Maan, learned arguing couneE 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 be adjudged keeping in viw the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot he limited to the iiear future alone.

¶7It was pointed out by Mr.R.Sj')rnàr, coüise1 for appellants that J)e]hiRewariod1pui. broad gage raiiay line of Vi1lag Biijwaan lasscs through the land of Village Bharthai, dividing it into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the ra.flwy line is the IGI Airport, New Delhi - I /\.Anp. No. I '/2OC8 & connected Appeals of 'village ltharthal /\ tpe. No. :.4120I.0 & Connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan i A.App. No .1/2030 & connected Appeals of VillaRe Poch;inpur • and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Mui 4ti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-Il again divides the agrcu1tura1 land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Aiort is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Fann Houses are located on the land of ViFlages 13harthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed Out by Mr.S.K.Sojafll(j learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first, acquired for the extension of 1(31 Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for • establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village 'B,harthal and Village Pochañpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the deveJopmejt of Phase-Il.) Dwarka Sub-City. Attentioii was drawn to the aks sras/rnap to highlight that the boundary oE Village Bhartlial, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are Contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by MrJ3.S.Maa, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land7 in the light of,ii:s location and has illegally treated the acquired•• land to he agricultural in spite of Notification of 16th October, 2000 vlde which land use of the three villages in question was changed frOi'n agricultural to resideniial/ COfl]merciai/industrja1, etc. and infact the eitire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notficatjon of 24 October, 1994.

¶9it was argued with much vehemence by MrS.K.Rout, learned counsel for the aPpellants that the aforesaid two Noifkations have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying Upon P. Rama I\App. No. 1 95,'2O08 & connected Appeals of ViHage Bhartha; A Apt,, No, 24/2010 & cornectpd Arpeak of VlIage Bijwasan I' App. No. 11 J/2QQ & cOnnCctcd App,,ps of Village Pochanpur S H Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Offlëer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been Considered by the Apex. Coup in its later decision in Who Dass vs. State of Haryani & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquirdd land must he adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be 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 buildingPotentiality JO. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.DSharma learned counsel for the , appellai-i5 upon the seven Sale I)eeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from 52 lacs to 62 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 the is no basis to Conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued hccausc of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Anjan/ Mo/i, Dessaf v. State of Goa (Un/An,..,

(2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land Which c Jacs per omes to57 acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants are the Comparable sale instances threfi)re reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates for deteniiining the market value of the acquired land is patently eroneous 1 1. Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& Do rates fixed by the Goverjiinent and also on the basis of pre deteJlnhlle(j lates lixed by the ( oVLIflmCfl1 for allotment of alternate plots in the year 0002O1 Keening in View the locati pote on, situation and ntiality of the acquired land, A App 11 9'/2 u déteirnination of its market value is og &

[A App coIlnpCtod /\Ppeas of VilIa,p harthç No 294/;oio & Coflfl(CtCd Appe jc & of Vilfagp Bijwasan I A App Nc, 1/2Cj connpcted Appeals of Village Pochar)p sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Sainalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in I)warka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-

i)etermjned Rates (PDR.$) 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:- 'ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the AwOrd No. 26/2002-2003. dated

¶2310.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006. Refèrred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

77.2007,) Does not accountfor the jci that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area /br more thai 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. I L) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001 issued by the Government of National 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 i/on 'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthaict versus Tahsiidar, 2010(3) SCC 661. a9 Ignores the evidence and other t?ctors which as per established law has to he considered hef&re ascertaining the value (?/the land ündè, acquisilion. e) Does not deal with dsparitv in value of the Sale Deeds produced be the trial Court whereas as per the la established by the Hon 'h/c Supreine (ourt in the recent case of Chinda Fakird Paid versus Special Land Acqu/sjton Officer, Civil Apeal IVo5475 of 2007. The lion 'hie Supreme Coi.,rt has specifically held that Sale l)eed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in A.Ap. No .i15/2oog & conreted Appeals of VWIae Bharthal Lc.App, 'Ic. 794/Q1J & connected Appeals of VlIage I3ijwasan Atop. No. 1,11/2010 & coniectçj Appeals of Village Pochnnur Page 11 of29 I. case the average sale price is lower. Fuiher in Anjan Mo/u Dessai vs. State of Goa, 20]0(13) S(C 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest qf the exemplars and not by averaging of dfferent types qf sales transactions should be considered while aqiudicating upon compensation upon certan land. .1) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LA C No. 97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and T13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the lion 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Rain vs. State of Hai'yana 2010(1) I.. SCC 444. As a consequence the impugned judgment re/used to return an actual fInding on the issue No.] framed on 27.2.2007. g,) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipai Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and B ha ri ha 1 was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of J)e/hi State. The 'nasterpian and A'ott/?cations Of Government for land use change show that in futture land can be subjected to residential commercial andother permissible uses. it is also perti.'ent to meitin that the appellant lead evidence in repect of the 74th amen dment' of the constitution f India. w. ef 1.6. 1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situatec was deemed a munjcial area and the municipal counsellor - was elected from there.. No Panch(yat' elections were he/din the area. Refused to apply the law lai w d don in AIR Supreme court 347, J?anvir Sing/i and Anr vs. Union of India and rfused to cons ic/c...the kict that the kvelop&nt in the area has a direct e!èct on the price that a willing purchaseK would pay f2r Ines ubject land. Ignored the .,~~ct that Respdflt A1 . 2 hd also LA.App No, .il99,2O3 & connec -, ed Appeals l3harth al

.A.App. No. 294/2010 & . COflfl(?c(r Appeals of Village Bijwasan A.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connectcd APPOCIS of Village Pochapr auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about Z2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped lard. /) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the jre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dwarka Phase H. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthai was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries • of Delhi State. I) ignored Notifications dated 16. /0.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land, in Sangunthala 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 propth-ty acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to he used jhr building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lana's have the potential of being put in better use as hOuse sites in the near flilure. 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 other appeals in these bunch of appeals. Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of tApp. £Jo. 1195/;?oog & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010 Ls connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan 1AApp. No .IJ]/2QjQ & connected Appeals of Village Pochaopur urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkãr vs. State of Maharashira, AIR 2009 Sc 2238; Kapi! Mehra (Major Genera1 & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 1 76(2011) I)LT 361 and that Pre-l.)eterrnined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the, acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, 'fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior counsel urged that though as per Section 51 of Land 4cquisilion Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence tr 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 decisions in JaiLal i's. (Inion of India, 2002 (62) l)RJ 227, Salpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) Ii SCC 423; La! (.hand vs. UniOn of India and Am-.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. A.P.P. No.656/200 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union 0/india, decided on 26.09.201 i, 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 evidence the seller LA.App No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L.App, No, I u.pOo & connected Appeals of Village Pochaneur N O 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 Thu, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoptidn of L& 1)0 rates/Pre-

i)ctermjned Rates cannot he countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La! c7iand (supra) which has been f011owed by a coordinate I3ench of this Court in Sush,1 Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So lar as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr. 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 Govemmeit as on I April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired 1ands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi! Kumar (supra) apprecia1i @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as flxed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhanceneiit by the Rcicrence Court while taking into consideration the appreciation @ 12% per annum and the same deservesto be brought in line while granting apprCciation @ 10% per annum and therhy allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17Aflei- considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upo.ñ close perusal of the impugned judgmeni, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that th e true market value o (' the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchasr to a willing I.A No j l9/7orj8 & c0000ctod Appeals of Village harth)l i\ipp No. 294 12013 & connected Appes of Village Bijwasan IA App No. I I/2picI & connct(d APWCak , 01 Viliage Pocharpur S seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of thb acquired land, what has to he considered in assessing the marketvalue thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- '(1,) 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 acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants qf buildings to he put up on that land, absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purpose; (i;) existence of highways, public roacs, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close pro:vzmitv of the acquired land, 1A

(vi) benefits or advantages of c'ducational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers 0/ buildings. if built on the acquired land, and (vil,) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.

¶18the potentiality of land for the purpose of develojrnent as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for A.Ap, No. .1i9,/2OO8 & connected Appeals of VlIage Bharthal A.App, No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasn LA.App. No .....1/?Oio& Connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur . . * * which the lands were sought to he acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observd by the Apex Court in A vinash (supra). While reiterating the rele'Iant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in A/ma Sing/i (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land relied • upon by the appellants could not he 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 potentialiiy of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land. 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 ptoposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with a.th'antage. Apex Court in Valliyamma/ (Supra). while taking note ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in ClOSe vicinity of residential colonies, educationaL institutions, hospitals, etc., had. held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Móiu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lJ\./\pp No, .1 195,'2003 & connected Appeals of Village Bhartha I /\.App. No. 294/o10 & connected.Appjs of Village Bijwasan IA.App, No. 1.T1i'2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 17o1 29 O "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lnds, usually the highest qf the exemplars, which is a bonafIde transaction, will he considered. Where however thrë are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a rarrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect qf two sales are markedly diffrrent, 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 Ia." 22, It would 'he worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations 19 pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Pall! . (Supra), which are as follows: - "it is well settled that genuine and bona fIde sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide, sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisitiOn of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willin,g vendee and the willingi.'endor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons actIng in the normal market condit Ions are the real basis to determine the market value.

¶23Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas corporation Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in Lana' prices depends on four fciors •- situation of the ianc nature of development in surrounding area, availabilit3.' of land /br development in the area, and the demand for lcmd in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or Jumps. l.A.App. No. J 195/2008 & connected Appeals of VWage Bhrthal LP\.App No. 294/2010 & connected .4ppeak of Village Bijwasari J\.Apo. No, U 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur Pa8e 18 of 29 * S tO On the other hand, in urban or semi-u,han areas, where the development is faster, where the ç1eniand for land is high and where there is construction actvity all around, the escalation in market price is at g nuch higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big citIes, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations, in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any, buyers, the prices stagnated• for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant djfference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semjurban 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 he only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to he adopted in the absence of clear and specfIc 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 neariiv land in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitioji) where there is no evidence of any contempc1)rineous sale transact ions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably so/C where the riied-on_sa/e tranac1ions/acqujsjtinc precedes the subieci acquisition by univ a.few years, that is upto /Our to five years. Beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it, relates to a neighbouring land. Iat may be a re/icth/e standard f the gap is only a few years, may become unsaft and unreliable standard where the,,gap is larger. FOr example. fOr determining the market value of a lancI acu lied in 1992, adopting the annual increase method lvilh . re/rence to a sale or No. & coonectod Appeals of Village Bhrtha' A Apo. No. 1 941"01() & conectd Appeals of Village 12(twasan

LA.Apu No .ii.i21l13 & connected Appeals of Village Pocbanpr 5k acquisilfoji in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, th 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic dhaige apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varyihg pe-iods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices effecting the very standard 0/increase"

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haiyana State Industrial Development corporation (IISIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "14'hen different categories of lands ('Or lands with different situational advantages) are ?cquired for the same purpose, sa for !hrming of a residential iaydut courts have sometimes fell that determination of their value with re/C rence to previous status or situation should be avoided and uniform rate of compensation should be awarded for all land acquired under the same noqfication. '

¶25llndisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired Jand 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 \1illa;e Pochanpur. i.e., the seven Sale I)eeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang. Beas had purchased the agricultural hind in Village l'ochanpur at a price which varied from Z52 lacs to T62 lacs per acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale I)eeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) which are basically between one set of CO-OWI1.CIS and Radha Swami Satsang, Becis in respect of the compact block of land rneaiiring 1 8 Bighas and 6 J)iswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the coec.t rriaket value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to he answered I:videiitly, aforesaid dale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds A App. No. 1i9/2008 & connected 4ppcls of Village l3harthal .A,App. No. 2l34/2010 & conceded Appeal 01 Village Bijwasan A App. Nc,

1.1 /2010 & conncctc.d Appeals of Village Pochenpur A 5T (Ex.PW-1 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from Z52 lacs to Z62 lac per acre. Meaning thëieby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (ExPW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish• the advant;ags attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchasei-of these agricultural lands in Village Pocharipur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW.-i/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. Had the purci.iaser/vendee of the aforesaid sae 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, Bekis who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of ian.d at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale I)eed executed on 25111 March, 200 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Sing/i v. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 , and in I.A. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh -'s. Union of India, decided on

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

¶27In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired, lands was changed much prior to thir acc1usition, but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural rpose till their. acquisition. rFhus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lnds. No prudent person. having .knpvlbdge of prevailing LA.Aop. Nø. 1195/2008 & co LA.App. N. 294/2010 & con IA.App. No. 111/2010 & con d Appeals of Village 13harthal Appeals of Village Bijwasan Appeals of Village Pochanpur maiket price of the land in questionwould pay such a high price unless and intil such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds 0 ix.111W-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. So far ilds the sale exemplar of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-l/l 1) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing èorbitant price of 1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed 0f27th January, 2000, it needs to be ioted that because this sale exemplar (1-Lx.PW-1/1l) was . .situated on the National Highway -8 and because vide Sale ][)ecd (L.PW-l/1 l) 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 1ands 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-I)etermincd Rates for the alternate plots by the DI)A ught to be • adopted to dtcrmine the true market va1u of the acqui.ed lands in • question. " Param eters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands 'highlighted b Apex Court in its decision reported as .P Rum Redd3.' and 'Ors. ,'. Lun( Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Autlwritp 11y4erabad and Ors,, 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "/2. however, ineither of the said cases whether it he the dcteriniatjon u/the market value of the acquired land vvit'h building potentiality with re?rence to the price fetched by sale c?tIlots in a vvell developed layout in the neighborhood A,App. No, 1 i9/2OO8 & ronnected Appeals of Village Bhrthal I,AApp, No. 2f4/:fo,O & connc'cedApppals of Village Ntjwsan .AJ\pp. Nc. I 1l/,O,1fl & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur •' or wheter it be the determination of the market value of the • acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plos in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitale for the Court to find out what will be the price fè1chedor to be fetched by the sales ofplots In the layouts, relied upon by any of the partie, with refernce7o the price whtch tie plots could have ftched if sold on the date of the puhiicaion of the preliminary o4fIcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fttched by the sales of the plbts in layouts of building plots in the • neighbr hood of the acquired lands becomes available, then wlat could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publicaion under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its vathe by a small percentage havin regard to the degree of its huildinpotentialiiy ascertained on the basis of evidei'1ce to he maale available in that regard. 4 small percentage • increas' to be given shall not exceed 715th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since rsort to the method of' giving increased value for such hzilding potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plot's in the neighborhood of the acqiiured land indicating that there, was no immediate demand, as such, fbr buidii'ig plots even if/brmd in the acquired land. .31. In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the I)l)A afleracquiring the agricuJtra! lands, developing the same, and • transferring prpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! G/wnd (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment' ratcs/Pre-I)etcrLined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undçveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! cfiand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of ihis Cpurt in J.ai Singh (Supra) • and Sushi! Kumar (Supra) has excluded the iI)i)A. rates qua the • developed lands as being not relevant Ir assessing the market value of I A.App. No 119/2008 & connected Appeals of Village L'hartiial LA.App. No. 294/20,1,0 & connected 4peals of Village Bijwasan LA.fpp. No. 11.11201.0 & connected Apeals of Village Pochanpur • Page 23 or 29 the undeveiLed acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed lancE or the DDA.'s Pre-I)etermined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question. Now vhat is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in queston while taking into onsideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of

i)warka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned seni 9r counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of . 1 0% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e.,, for the period intervening the Notification, for development of I)warka Phase-i .., and the instant Notification for development of I)warka Phase-Il, still the price fixed by the Land Accuisition Collector is.mor than the aforesaid escalated price and thcrcfor, the enhancement grnied by the Reference Court is unjustified. Aforeskid argument does not hold good in view of the clictt.im of the Apex Coirt in La! Gluind (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progssrve ip.crease method in assessment .:f the market value of the' acquired lan' only when the gap is 91 45 years and beyond that i may he unsafe, een if it relates to a rc.ighbouring land. What may he a reliable standard, if the gap is 0.1 only of a few years, ma).' become unsafe and unreJiahlL standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e.. of I)Warka Phase-i and Dwarka. Phase-Il is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the niarket \(aiue by providing appropriate LA./\pp. Nc, 1 19S/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthl LA.App. No. 2.9412010 & conr.octej Appeals of V4lage flijwasan IJ\.App. No. 311/2910 & COnnectedAppeals of Village Pochanpur 1 > I escalation ver the market value of the nearby land of the 1revious years Mr.Snjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/ross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted esdalation 12% per annum; which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Sipra), has granted escalation IO% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increas& on account of , higher potentlality of the acqvired land ovr and above the market value dtermined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court 1 2% per annurn cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, tie cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed. Now 1what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum piice of the agricultural land in I)lhi, by the Reference Couit is reasonable criteria for determining. the. itiarket value of the acquired and and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Relerence Court from the date of fixation of the minim u1 price fbr the agricultural larid by the Government w.e.f. i April, 2000 till the (late of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not. Adoptoii of Government's 11n.imun1 rates of agricultura1 land pertaining to the Notification in qiestion has been assiled by the learned coLlsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to bc an agricuturai land by virtue of Notication of 24' October, 1994 declaring aricultura1 lands in these three. villages in question to be urban. it is true that vide aforesaid Noiification of the year 1 994 the land use of the accuired land had changed ht that by itself is not sufficient to A.App. No. ] 1.95/2OC & conneced Appeals of Village i3hartltaF If\.I\pp. No. .04/2010 & cannectcd Jsppeals of Village Bijwasan L.A.APD.NO 11/20 1 0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being .onsidered as developed lands. The evidence led is 1cking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question.Not only this, even the sale e*emplars of Radha Swami Salsang, Bea heavily relied upon by the appeJlants 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. Had there been hcrcase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1 994, thcn appellants coud have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in ciucstion. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village. Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village •Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 I) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potenlialit of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Saiscng, l3eas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalla (Ex.PW - 1/1 1) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the . contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Sdrnalkha (I x PW-1/1]) cdii not e ii catcd to be sul l]ci cut ground to grant higher compensation while rcjving upon the afbresaid sale instances. Therefore, in \'ICW 01 the a1orc-refri'ccl dictum of thc Apex Court in Haryana State .tndzisfria/ D ell)elopment corporation (IISID'c (Supra), uniform rate of col-nper-sation deserves to be awarded for the lands aquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land in I)elhi. which .generally factors in the rise of price due to higher pptentialiy. Taling note of the fact a gap between what A.App. No. 1101/2098 & c0000ctod AppeJs of Viliuge Bhrtht I A.App, No, 294/29.0 & Connocled ApoaIC of ViUage Bijwesen AApp. No. 111/20.10 & connectod Ao ~. eals of ViUege Pochonpur . . . I'e 26 o f 29 Ilk would he to be the market growth and what the market had actually grovn, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reason.b1e basis for, assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate iench 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 T3harthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in I)ellpi to fix the market: value of the acquii-ed lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of1there being no evidence that th potential and the situation of the acquiied lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne outfon the evidence on iecord. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of ihe IG1 Airport., indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum J)epots and of Railway line passing througl.i Village Bharthal and there being a 1.00 metcs vide road starting from Ni1-8 from Shiv Mrti side to I)warka Sub-(i.ity, Part I and Partil, dividin.g the acquired lanis in two portions, and there being Farm i-louses i.n the vicinity of tile acquired lands has •sonebo\v missed the attention of the Reference Curt. in the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaid. loctiona] advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume highi- building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phasc-i. What persuades this Court to grant 1 O" increase over and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building poten.talitv in the acqufred lands is the App. No. 1 19/?008 & conneced Appejis of Villege 0hirthaI J\.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeels of VPIage Rijwssan I [App. No: 11112010 & connected Appeels of Villaige Pocheripur Pegn 27 ol 29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NausIierwwi K/ian vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, lii these words:- "W7ieh once a conclusion is reached that there as the possibiiity of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or nar future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a buiidiig potentiality and proceed to determine its market value faking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentialit'.

¶39Consiring the fat that it would be very diffic1t to provkle a• definite valucl qua potential, and in view Of the fact that exactness can never he achieved in the matters of assessing fair cornpenation., it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades mc to treat them with equivalnce by uniformly apphving the Government's minimum prices fbr the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired iands as there are nospecial features to treat the acquired lands differcitJy and so, appellants of Village Poch.anpur are treated at par with theiL counter-parts, i.e., aplicliants of Village Bharthal and Village .Bijwasan. However, while relying upoh the decision in SuIvil Ku;iiar (Supra), I am inclined to grant .1 0% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the afiresajd locational advantages proiding a higher building potentialit\' ir the acquired lands in question.

¶40A.ccordhgjy, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding 1 OIX0 11 over and above the rn?rket \'alue assescd by the Reference Cort in matters pertaining to Viilae Bharthal and Village

i)J.wasan. While treating the appellants of Village Poáhànpur at par with the appellants OfVillage Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of .A.App No.] 1.9/2008 & connected AppeIs of ViJIge Bhrthf I A.App, No. 29'12010 & Conr1ect(d Apef of ViIIgd Bijwasall I.A.App, No. .1 .I i 20.10 & connected AppeIs of ViIIe Pochanpur FThht' 23 of 29 tic appellants of \/illage Pochaiiur are also allowed to the extent indicated abvc. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villages in question is determined @ 16,50,000/.- per bigh4 for the Category 'A' land and @ 14,69,600/ per biha for the Category 'B' lands m qucs ion. On the aforesaid enhancemeiit in the compensation awarded, sl.awtorv benflts as per the Land Accuisition Act, 1 84 as explained in the judgmeni reported iii Sindei vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 arc granted, exc.ct for tile period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensatioh shall he paid.. 1'hese appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. The ahvecaptioned appeals and crossobjections are disposed of in the afoi.-esid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the corn pcnsationamount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of thi Court, to the concerned Reference Court. 1)ecrce sheets he accordink{ prepared. January 06, 2012 pkh (SUNI GAUR) JUDGE •1 A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village flharthal I.A,App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan lJ\.App. No. 1.11/201.0 & connected Apeals of Village Pochanpur A IN THE HRH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1,A.APP.1 195/2008 RNBIR SIA ..... Appellant Throuli: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Arnit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Srnita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tornar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N. S Jegi and Mr.I-I. S .Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rbut, Mr.B,K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tornar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates us UNION OF & ANR. Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar,.Senior , Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay \/erma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Arnita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Shrma Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: H'BLE JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. Appi. No. 752/2012 (For correclion). This isl an application for seeking typOgraphical correction in Order of 6th Jnuary, 2012. Couns1 appearing for the appeUants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/200 Page 1 of the application. Advance copy of this applicatio: has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the resj3ondent in the decision of 6111 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid ididgrnent the rate of compensation assessed is per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not 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 A.AppNo. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary con-ectj ons e caiTied out forth with, .Ili view, of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. JANUARY pkb GAUR) 12,2012 XSUNIL JUDGE

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on. December 18, 2011 Pronounced on. January 06, 2012 + LA.APP. 65/2011 KAMLESH KUMAR Through: Appellant 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) versus UNION OF INDIA & 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.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR e