Chameli Devi & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm \ & * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ludament fudoment 'erved On: 19^/^Aimust 2011 /I ^ T ^ IveredOn: 7Q'' SeotPmh^r ynn + LA.APP. CM No.6549/ 999/2010 & 2011 (Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH UOi & ANOTHER & Mr.Sa Nawani, Ka.omud AN Through: Mr.B.S.iyiann,Advocate^^"^"^ Mr.DeepakKhosia,Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. /s. -Th.- u r/, ^ ••• Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate I\/I r-ly. ijay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Fanda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-l + LA.APP. 961/2010, . No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100 1009/2010, LA. LA.APP. 1001/2010 & 7/2010 & CM No.15181 1010/2010, Ca Oll^A.APP.5/2011, LA ttrlLA.APP. 38/2011 & No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. (Relating to Notification u/ 11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA , LA.APP. 161/2011, LA LA.APP. 247/2011, LA , LA.APP. 3.47/2011, LA, , LA.APP. 387/2011, LA, , LA.APP. 406/2011, LA. .APP.' APP. CM .APP. .APP. .APP. .APP. ,APP. APP. ec. 4 dated

15.09.2000 & A . — W-JCV-. UdLtiU lD.Uy..(:iUUU Award No, 06/2002-2003,Viliage-BhalswaJahangirPuri) AK D LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattdrs Page 1 of22 • + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 244/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. ^2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA./\PP. 408/2011, 14/2011. (Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi 'Sec. dated '30.07.1998 & lage-Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJQG

¶1Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment? local papers may be aliowed

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

¶1I proceed with an apolog]/to the reader by referringto a notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir learned counsel for arguments with respect to the 30int of time then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notification which was issued earlier in point of time.

¶2Land measuring 758-01 estate of village Bhalswa Jaha LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmati bigha situated in the revenue igir Purl was acquired pursuant ers Page 2 of22 % s. to a notification dated

15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of tlie Land AcquisitionAct 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fa land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigh lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at?13.82 lakhs per acre.

¶3Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act, The Learned Reference, Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No,112A/2008 titled Raj Singh i/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or n4,56,963 per acre.

¶4It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price fbr agricultural land fixed by the Government as on 01,04.2000, notified vide Circular dated 11,09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition <r Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired a, which is equivalent to T13.82 i/alue as of 15,09.2000 was fixed Collector, while assessing compensation, did not grant Eippreciationfor the period from

01.04.2000 till the date notif Land Acquisition Act was is ication under Section 4 of the sued on 15,09.2000, but learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the pri:e ?13,82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Pages of22 A <c-

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring : 929-05 bigha, :nue estate of village Bhalswa ursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of by a declaration under Section .1998. After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated

12.03.2001, whereby he assessed fair market value of the acquired land at ^2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalent to ?11.20 lakhs per acre. , •

¶6Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.inA/2008 titled Chandrawati Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair marketvalue of the acquired land at ?11,46,670/- per, acre. The difference : in situated in same reve Jahangir Puri was acquired p JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on

04.08. process, the Land Acquisition destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated

25.7.1997 same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 I.e. :ollector adopting the land rate with effect from

1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the. learned Reference @ 11% per annum for Court granting enhancement interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as challenged the assessment rc well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat;ers

4.f: Court by way of the appeals above. | • I

¶8On behalf of the land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance weis placed on following documentary evidence:-

(a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification nibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in "esidential commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was arguecJ that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which, is stated to be close to village BhalajswaJahangirPuri, was fixed dated

16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by and cross objections mentioned eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhancei;:! compensation in sum of ?1,17,96,200/- per acre. at.^5830/- per square rr acre it was urgec

(b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705 dated

23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby. MCD decided to allot. developed plots to the transporters @ ^425/- per square meter Exhibit PW-3/2, a copy of the

21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ f4,500/- per squ material and good evidence. kelying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & comiected matters P "I;#' '^i!> documents, learned counsel for the land owners argued that rate stated in resolutions aforenoted, which was applicablefor the year 1976, " market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deductionis made on account ofthe development costs, fojr undeveloped lands, fair market value would confie to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increiasingthe same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be ?24,76,592/- per acre

(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the would evidence that fai land comes to ^7,19,85 on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ranging between ^23.7/ according to, learned col for land owners also auction record of plots in Rohini ResidentialScheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99(ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, N" the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square re in Jahangir Purl at a price lakh to T28,4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of ^4,36,36,36:3 per acre counsel urged, that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land,

(d) Relying on a sale, deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ^3 learned counsel urged th 2,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat:ers

¶9contended that this sale after making a reas Jahangir Puri. Another. deed should be relied upon, enable deduction towards developmentcost to detlerminethe fair marketvalue of undevelopedagriculturalland in village Bhalswa sale deed dated

24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpurwas sold to Radha Swami SatsangVyas at a price of ?26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon,

(e) , Learned.counsel fcir the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w 5ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a thereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996(5 ?18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of i village'Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay , appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ='pddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of ?1,40,000and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given on said value, notification under Section 4 co thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would adjoining village or to adopt the price as on the date of the , mes to ^1,94,782 per bigha, and price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters fixing market value of having a vast area. Learne learned Land . Acquisition C market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and Court.

¶10It may,benoted that when judgmentwas reservedin the August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition .App.No.266/2008 titled laiSinoh 1/5. UOI.& Ann in which similarargumentsas ;were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response to the arguments of learned counsel for the land owners, the. arguments.which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response. , ^

¶11The topography of villcige Bhalswa jahangir Puri has come-outin the depositionof Shri Trilok Chand {HalqaPatwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Raj Sinah above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the Dllector has assessed fair price nnuch higher than the one so has the learned Reference 1/5 Union of India in which he 1" area while proving the Ai<s Si. as explained the topology of the Ta Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa jahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in fhe North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the Eiast, villagesSamaipurBadli and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola ' Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of. village Jahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010& coimectedmatters irf^

¶12I may additionally not^ that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory Government of NCT Delhi w village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due of Delhi, published by Duld reveal that village Bhalswa JahangirPuri is situated on the eastern side ofG.T.KarnalRoad i.e. NationalHighwayNo.l. VillagesBadii, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamobrjDur.(Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l,

¶13It needs to be highlightedthat whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPuri, post acquisitionof agriculturallands in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was, of a kind where to. urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah ]/s. Union nf India iV) aD (Delhi) 46'i, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c

¶76It has to be remembered were also for re-settlement of, it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had f emergency i.e. the year 1975-that the two subject acquisitions lum and J.J.Clusters.

¶14The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 la! Sinah l/:^. UOi ^ Ann which was reserved on 12.8.2011 had yet to be pronouncedon 19.8.2011,whesn instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 1, would highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in ;.0 revenue estates in the same' revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Bawana, I had noted t .LA.App.No.999/2010 & comected mati t Delhi being revenue estate of " Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat topology of the area ers Page 9 of22 constituted a 'V at the point of intersectionwliere G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point,, proceeding in different directions, at Sa.bzi Mandi. It needsto be hig^^lightedtliatvillageBhalswaJahangir Puri is outsidetine 'V aforesaidand as explainedhereinabove and abuts towards the east of NH-l.

¶15In the.appeals relatingto the said 10 villageswhere land ifferent notifications issued from were acquired pursuant to c time to time I had dealt with notificationsissued in the year 2000, 2.001, 2002 and 2003. for the land owners had re

25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/ .24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) which learned counsel for reliance upon as noted in sub In those cases, learned counsel lied upon the sale deed dated 1) sale deed dated i.e. the same ,sale deeds on land owners have placed '-para

(d) of para; 8 hereinabove. In the said judgmentdated 23.8.2011,I have discardedthese two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunden-

21.' The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ^63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No..68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religiouspurposeand was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters been held not to be rel fair market ,value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on th;e L^j JUMUO Ull Lllti reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian " ' • • the testimonyof PW-7 SisterAnnie,the secretaryof rhp nrrf;::ini-7a-hfr\n <-4—4-u^i. j_i_ _ ... . ^ the organization stated pay the price for the sai only plot of the requ Organization" and as per ihat the organization had to d piece of land as it was the site size suitable for —^1-41 cci iL/i LMti requirement,ofthe organizationand is being used for destitute women ' ~ i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee. decisionsreported as 1995 (1) see 717 Land Acquisition Officer Ehm, ^ nr. •/. para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC <s-. Land Acauisit/nn nfficer Isti Rohini Anr (Refer Mohd. Raufuddin I /Dpfpr n;:.r=> t3( V-.T 4- . KJmcer qaip rioorf h K ^''^'^sactionsevidenced in a saiedeed which are tenderedin evidenceby virtue of Section 51A of the LJA.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to eterminethe marl<et value of land in an area for the reason there may without being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An.informed bi studied the market and k 1^ ^." special circumstances which have led the buyerto pay a higherprice. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informedseller \A/irhrvii'f-t need by any special y to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all , _ •-'PHI locu

iii))):5eii ui dll available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index^offair marfe value of the lands in the ' "M do not highlightthat the upon the sale deed dated accepted by learned area, 1, would be failing i Union of India had relied

20.5.2002, which was ReferenceCourt pertainiipgto the notificationdated

27.1.2003 where-underagriculturalland :in village Rajapur Kalan.was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. ^17 74 109/- per, acre as against th T63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre for Ex.PV LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds .'-f Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from t he_ reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec note an unreported . counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya

19.12.2008 disposing o matter being LA.App.N (since, deceased) thru / bove would be additional sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair ^ . .--t lands can be determined and more so for the reason Ifind that under various awardsnearlybetween7,000to 8,000 bigha ofland nave been acquiredand wiien tlie acquisitionis of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsicevidenceof the transactionbeingthe result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to ecision cited by learned 3eing decision dated a batch of appeals, lead

0.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh Bs ]/s. UO! Si Or<^. It was highlighted that the sale had purchased 8 bigha land for expansion of i ignored by the learnec ground that L&T had a 1 hence price reflec treated as a good evide area, was rejected by t question, with suitable d deed, therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural factory which had been Reference Court on the ancy for the said land and ed. therein could not be ice of value of land in the he Court and the price in Bduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th market value. The argur in the decision of the Di\ 38' wherein the Division value in the sale deed on of the market value, bi therein was reduced by would be the same as wo reference .to the averag produced by the Union le instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-l/2 Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair lent ignores the reasoning ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the ' its own logic as indicative It found that if the price 1/3'"^ the price arrived at Jid be price arrived at with rate, of the sale deeds f India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattet's produced by the Govern 3,7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ment were giving a price of sale deed under ed. the land gave the price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to J2,31,800/- which was near about the price of f 113^^ would be deducted ,600/-. Jt may further be said judgment the year of nd notification under Acquisition Act was dated

24.7.1995

16.11.1995 Court determined fair market yalue as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedanticallybut meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, ^2,15,160/- per bigha, from the sum of ^3,26 highlighted that in the • the sale was 1993 a Section 4 of the Land appreciation for 2 given. I would highligf hereinbefore already years had required to be t once again, that 1 have noted . inherent contradictionin the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and th destructive evidence of fair market value." s itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deeds reflecting

¶16For.the reasons therein, present case also as r determine fair market value Bhalswa jahangir Puri.

¶17As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village BhalswaJahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ns lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated

01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 Bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at n5,70,000/-.

¶18Now, if the price., as per the own showing of the land owners was ns,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters reject these two sale deeds in eliable good evidence to of agricultural land in village r i ' 11 ly difficult to comprehend Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ?18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzlethat in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ?15.7 lakhs per acre! I ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.pW-6/1 has op ned that the said price .was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer, and . without being influenced by particular land, and had thus

¶19I have discussed this

23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where ah abnormally high p have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with an informed, willing seller special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefr^omfair market \/alue of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 iai Sinoh i/5. UP! & Anr. i.e. ice for a parcel of land is with evidence, of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-informed and there being a special feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said ,decision. 1 reite

¶20As regards. auction ral situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumer land owners concur wit Reference Court contained in "ate the same. es of developed plot of land Transport IMagar, I do not find ts of the learned .counsel for the h the decision of the learned )aragraphs 29 and 30 which are premisedoh the decisionofthe,SupremeCourt reportedas La/ LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters i reasoning pertaining to tine e of residential plots or flats by

¶21In my decision dated lai Sinoh l/s. UP! & Om. i hs Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769: Similar is the evidence relating to auction rates DDA. ^3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 3d extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Ciiand-. case,with referenceto price at which ceveloped plots were allotted by differentagenciesi.e. DDA and D5IDC. Relevantobservations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in iaiSinoti'scase are extracted hereunder:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with hv nt?nr Industrial Estate developed hv developed by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in the same Der which were noted by the ^ iivjLcu uy Liie Supreme Court in Lai Ciiand's case (supra), which •l-l-.:.- ,;_J_ _ . .... lit render this evidence as the value of land in the s most unreliable to determine Jbject cases.

¶30It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area, and Narela Residential S acquired a building pc would be what would building potentiality would as_ held even by the learned with development of Rohini Residential Scheme :heme, the subject lands had tentiaiity, but question be value to which translate itself.,

¶31I in view the observation and the findings of" the SupremeCourt in Lai Ciiandscase (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence ^s reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. • hold,thatthe learned ReferenceCourt, keeping LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmattdrs p ^iljl 7^

¶22Highlighting that in La! ChancT^ case (supra) the SupremeCourt held that such raw data was meaninglessand was too . inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be crystallized.

¶23, Ireiteratethe reasoningto hold that price at which MCD allotteddevelopedplots in SanjayGandhiTransportNagarand price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevantto determinefair marketvalueof agriculturalland.

¶24Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-hold property under L^DO is transferredby the perpetuallessee,sufficewould it be tjo state that the same relatesto developedplots and on the pLrity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this I<ind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with where lands were acquired for legate the plea for compensation to be enhancedwith-referenceto L&DO rates noting that Iam concerned with iarge tracl<s of lands ad-measuring^Iss.Ol bigha and 929.05 bigha,

¶25From the topologyof th| area and as per the tesiimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appearedas PW-2 in LAC :No.I12A/2008it emergesthat village Burari is on the east of village Bhalswa jahangir Purl and indeed the plan foe Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhaiswa JahanglrPurl and Burari are separatedby the outer ring road as weltravel towards Mubarl<a Chowl< from the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous purudwara Majhu Ka Tila. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparatedby 'Outer Ring Road' and reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I n LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Pagel6 of 22 i-- thus the fair market value of two villages would be compar

¶26While assessing the fair in village Burari, which was a dated

24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I record i.e. evidence in land on a particular date in the able. market value of the land situated cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of lad considered the material on my. decision pronounced on

7.6.2011 in a batch of.LA.Appeals, lead matter being LA. Appeal No.971/2008titled Raiba!& Ors. i/^. Union of India Qrs^ In the said decision, 1ha of agricultural land at 01,60 d assessed the fair market value ,580.82 per acre for Category A land, no,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464.65per acre for Category C land pertainingto tlie notificationdated 24,7.1998. The land acquired pursuantto notificationdated 18.07.200.:' had been assessed by rvte at ng,20,568/-peracre for CategoryAland and ?17,28,512/-per acre for Category B land., in jai Singh'scase {supra), I had . S.No. Village Name' Dat unc e of Notification er Section Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

1.

¶2Pooth Khurd Holamhi k'plan

7.8. Q 2000 wm -v-1 y ?14.75 for Category 'A'

04.3728 for Category 'B'

¶3I lWlU41Mk^| JNaidll Bawana / .O.

7.8. i i ! 2000 ^14.75

04.75 for Category 'A'

04.38125 for Cateaorv 'B'

¶4Khera Khurd

11.c .2000 ^ v"» 1 y 1 J

04.835 for .Category 'A'

04.46413 for Category 'B' EA.App.No.999/2010& comectedmatters J . /f'Tv .5. Narela

2.5 .2001 n6.165 . for Category 'A' n5-.76087 for Category 'B'

¶6Holambi Kalan

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

7.. Alipur

¶228.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' a6.43811 for Category'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

¶228.2001 ^

16.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶9Rajapur Kalan

¶228.2001 ij . ^6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B' • 10. Sanoth

7.1 2.2001 n7.295

¶11Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 ^8.655

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 n8.655

¶14Alipur.

23.5.2002 ^8.655 15, Sanoth

27.:1.2003 ?19.435 for Category 'A' a8.94:912 for Category 'B' n8.47539 for Category 'C

¶16Rajapur Ka ah

27.; L.2003 — • fl9.435 for Category 'A' ns.94912 for Category 'B' T18.47539 for Category 'C

¶27In Jai Singh's case (su minimum land rates enhancec to time and found the same 3ra) I had also analyzed the by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit oi the LA.App.No.999/2010&cojmectedmattdrs I? Government officers and had found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 JV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah \/s. UO! MJl, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Ws. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005'Mabender Sinah l/y. UOJ & Qrs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t various dates between the years to the minimum price fixed by the Government 1 had highlighted in paras 50 to: 53 of the said decision as under:-

¶50The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphsas also the parlous notificationsissued from •time to time by the Governmentof IMCT Delhi notifying minimum pricefor agrici^lturallands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As bf 27.4.1990minimum price was ^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to no lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997i.e. the incrdaseis ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054%increase in 7 years and the averageprice increasewould be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years Jr is by 11.2% and thereafter by ; and 11,5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. . It shjows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborativeevidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gairafs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

¶51^ Ineed to elaboratea little more with respectto the decision in Gajrafs case. Discussing.the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in Village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in parasto 17 LA.App.No.999/2010& comiectedmatte:rs F •fl Court discussed valuation on basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ^9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCl Godowns had come up and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court theh considered,the prices notified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands The decision highlights •• • • well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as ags that the potentiality had been Government issued 3n w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions _ inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ?^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthat the price was ^0,03,364/- per acre

¶52^The decision in MahenderSinah's case, pertaining -ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, strial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding Master Plan so nds theoretically acquiring a to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court w commercial indu agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwlt projecting and - the la potentiality,the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with |which the Division Bench was concerned,virtually no developmenthad taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had potential. As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the market ecisions in Gairafs caise para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The c LA.App.No;999/2010& connectedmatters Mabender Singh's • ca translated itself into a when prices rose by ise highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 . and 1997 , about

16.5% per annum thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to iviaster Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial indus;trial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated!.

¶53The empirical evic from the 2 sale deeds r6:lied upon by the land owners, in ence in the instant case, apart jrned Reference Court has given upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not :iful sale deeds, to determine fair with us the sale deed relied upon Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be a9,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which,was sold for ^5,39,690/- and ^70,160/-was paid as stamp duty would respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras relying upon, being fane market value, we have v by , the learned Land mean that ^6,09,850/- spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 (?5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were ice ^17,74,109/- per acre as of

0.5.2002.

¶28In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than th Government from time to-t e minimum price notified by the ime, 1 hold that Learned ReferenceCourt has rightly a(joptedthe correct principleand has relied upon the correctev dence and has given the correct appreciationsby suitably increasingthe price to make up the interregnumperiod between the dates when minimum prices were notified and, the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct and finding no scope to further enhance the compensationor to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections,whetherfiled by the land owners or the Union of India.

¶29. I leave the parties to bear their own cost. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters •T—7 (PRADEEPiMANDRAJOG) JUDGE

$-29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.1036/2010 & C.M.No.l2865/2011(cross-objection) CHAMELI DEVI & ORS Appellants Through: Mr.Deepak Khosia Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates. versus % UNION OF INDIA &ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG