Dal Chand Decd Thr Lrs v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. -Y-7

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm • .V * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELH! °/° ludamentReservedOn: 19^^August.2077 judgment DeliveredOn: 19^'^September, 2011 + . LA,APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH ... Appellant' ^ : Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate ^ ( , Mr.DeepakKhosIa,Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. : Vs. UOI&ANC™er^^ ; Respondents ' Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate &jMr.SanjayKumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Slddharth Panda and Ms.K Ka.omudiKiran, Advocates foriR-l ' . j AND .. +,: LA.APP., 961/2010, LA.APP.. 1001/2010 & CM,' 1007/2010 & CM No.lS18:i/2011, LA.APP, 1009/2010,| LA,APP: lOM/2010 LA.APP JLQ3'^7^^-Q'l^-&-GMHM-0T3r2'8'S§-jQn21LAC>^^. 5/2:011iCiAAPP^ 6/2011 & No.6756/201l5'^-tA!APP ^R/9n-|f piv/i • U,APP 89/2011 LA APP LA,APP. 160/2011, LA,APP. 161/20^':u;aP^ 246/2011, LA.APP. 247/2011,' tA.APP.. 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011, LA.-APP. 3.47/2011' LA APP 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP. 387/201l' LAAPP' LA'APP. 406/2611::K.APK^ • ' • . f^Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & Award No. 06/2002-2003,Village-BhalswaJahangirPuri) ' AND / LA.App.No.999/2010.& connectedmatters •Pagel of22 + LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. .202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. .241/2011, LA.APP: 242/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. , 244/20.11, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. , 323/2011, LA.APP;346/201i, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, LA.APP. .382/2011, LA.APP. 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated

30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village-BhalswaJahangir Puri) CORAM: , HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

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

¶2To be referred to Repdrtei" or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported-in the-' ' Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAIQG. I.

¶11proceed with an apoidgyto the reader by referringto a notification issued later in-point of time and then to a. notificationissued prior in point of time; but the reaspn is that , the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed-arguments with respect to the notification issued later;and had required price to' be suitably reduced-pertaining; to the- ;notificationwhich was issued earlier in pointoftime. ..

¶2Land measuring.758-01 bigha situated in the revenue • estate of village BhalswaJahangirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.NQ.999/2010&.connectedmatters ' Page2of22 to a notification dated ,15.09.2000 'issued under'Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 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, Land Acquisition, Collector announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at^2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ^13.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed 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.ll2A/2008 titled Rai 5inah l/s. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?3,p3,534 per bigha or ?14,56,963 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. acquitted land, adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the Government as dn 01.04.2000, .notified vide'Circular dated

11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached ihasmuch as the learned-Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing the compensation, did not grant appreciation for the period from

01.04.2000 till the date notification •under Section 4-of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the' 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 price^13.82 lakhs per acre; LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page3of2i2, "r\ a

¶5Another parcel of land ad-measuring;;929-05 bigha, situatedJn the same revenue estate of, village Bhalswa' Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant 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 JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declarationunder Section,6 of the Act issued on 04,08.1998. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated , 12.03;2001, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalentto tl 1.20 lakhs per acre. •;

¶6Dissatisfied with.the assessment made .by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land owners sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in .the lead matter being LAC. No.illA/2008 titled Chandrawan Union ofIndia, assessedthe fair niarketvalue of the, acquired land .at m,46-,670/- per acre. . The difference .• in the • destination reached is on the. same reason as noted hereinabovepertainingto the notificationdated 15.9.2000i.e. the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoradopting the land rate notified by the Government with effect from 1.4.1997 vide-circular dated 25.7.1997 and Jgndring that the notificationin-question was issued on 30.7.1998a:nd the learned.Reference Court granting enhancement @,11% ,per annum, for the interregnum period.

¶7The Union of India as-well as the land owners have; challenged the assessmentmade by the Learned•Reference LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters - • '^0 4of22 rv /o Court by way of the appeals and cross objections rrientioned above. ' , •• •

¶8On behalf .of land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on . the following; documentary evidence:- •(a). The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification dated

16.04.1999 (Exhibit .PW-4/1),' whereby it disclosed its intention to charge uneiarned increase in respect of developed residential and commercial properties owned by L&DO. Relying; .on this .. document, it was' argued that in,the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which; is stated to be,close to village Bhalaswa jahangir Puri; was fixed at ?5830/- per square meter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per acre and it was urged that if 5,0% i? deducted towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of tl,17,96,200/-per acre. • • , '

(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 (a) '?425/- 'per square meter and. Exhibit PW-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCb decided.to allot the plots in Sahjay Gandhi Transport Nagar @?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • - • •• Page5of22 , documents, learned counsel for land'owners argued that rate stated in resolutions aforenoted, which, was appjicable for the'year 1976, would evidence, that fair market value of developed land'comes to ^17,19,857/-per acre and it was urged that even if 50% .deduction is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to'.^8,59,928/- per acre in ' the year. 1976 and .increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair'market value as of 15.9.2000 would be:?24,76,59^/-per acre. , - .(c) Learned counsel for land owners also placed reliance on; the auction record of plots in Rohiini. Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98,and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and 'PW^8/3). While relying on the brochure of PDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Ja.hangir Puri at a price ranging between ^23.72 lakh to ^28.4 lakh, which according to learned counsel translates to .a price of ^14,36,36,363 per acre and 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 rheasuring 2-19, •bigha was sold

(a) ?32,40,300/- on

25.04.2001, learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to ?56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha.. It was LA.App.No.999/2010&connected'matters • Page6of22 contended that this sale deed should be, relied upon, after making a reasonable deduction, towards / development cost to determine the fair market value , of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. Another.sale deed dated

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

(e) Learned.counsel for the land owners also relied -^ upon an.Agreement to Sell (Exhibit P.W-6/i). which was executed by one Shri Khushi Rarh in favour of a society 'I^^/s.Butterfly',whereunder land was agreed.to. be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in • aid as good evidence, of fair market value of land in the said village as of the date of the agreement to sell . i.e. 5.8.1996.

¶9Per contra, Sh.Sanjay .Poddar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India relied on a Sale Deed dated 05.06.1996 (ExhibitR-2), whereunder 1-03 bigha of land in village Bhalsvya Jahangir Puri was sold at a price of ^1,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum' is to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the notificationunder Section4 comes to n,94,782 per bigha, and •. thus it was argued that'since price of similar land is available-in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the ' adjoining village Or to adopt the price of developed liand for . LA.App.NG.-999/2010'&connectedmatters ' Page.7 of22 ' fixing the market value of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel ajso argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed,the fair, marketvalue of the land at a price much higherman the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference-. Court.

¶10It may be noted that when judgnnentwas reservedin the above captioned matters on 19^^August, 20.11, decision had been reserved for judgment in a batch of iand acquisition appeals,lead matterbeing LA.App.N0.266/2008titledJaiSinqh: 1/^. [JO! &Ann in which,similararguments,as 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 village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come-outin the deposition6f Shr'i Trilok;Chand'kHalqaPatwari). who appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO..112A/2008.titled 1/5 Union ofIndia in which he has explainedthe topologyof"the area while proving the /l/rs 5/z/-a Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa JahangirPuri. His testimonywould reveal that village Kadipur and .Libaspurare situated,in the North, villages Mukhmelpur.• and, Burari are situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadji and Haiderpurare situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of. village Jahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ' -Page8of22 u

¶121 may additionally note tlnat the lay out plan of the , National Capital Territory of ; Delhi, published by Government of NGT Delhi would reveal that, village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of G.T.Karnai Road i.e. National Highway No.,1. VillagesBadli, Samaipuf/ Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the western' side of National. Highway No.1.

13.. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate ..of villageJahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate, of said . village was for re-settjemeht of slum and J.J.'dwellers i.e. the character of urbanization in the area Was of a kind where potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinoh 1/5;. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) A81, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri in the area which.had sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the year 1975-

¶76It has to be remembered that the two subject acquisitions. were also for re-settlement of.slum and J.J.Clusters.

¶14The. decision in .LA.App.No.266/2.008 iai Sinati i/5. UOi 4ZZZ1 which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and. had yet to 'be pronounced on. 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue district i'..e. North-WestDelhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, ; Rajapur Kalan., Holambi Kalan,.Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters ,. • • Page9of22 rv \S .constituted a 'V ,at tlie point of intersection where G.T.Karnai Road i.e. NH-1 and Rolital< Road, i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a • common point, proceeding in different directions,' at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be highlighted tliat. village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is, outside tlie 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove : and abuts towards the east of NH-1.

¶15In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notifications issued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel, V . • ' for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated.

25.04;2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) and sale . deed dated ,24.03.2000 (Exhibit P\/\/-15/2) i.e. same sale deeds on which learned counsel for land .owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para

(d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed ,Ex.PW-l/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As • ' per the former, fair market .value for the former i comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the .latter @ ?63.478 lakhs, per acre; The learned Reference Court has rejected 2 sale-deeds as reliable evidence, to determine fair^ market value; of agricultural lands, for all the'villages in questioh on • reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of / , 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhah PW-6 who had tendered sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in. LAC Mo.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased .for religious purpose and was being used for a religious •. purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . " , -Page10 of22 been held not to be reliable evidence to deierniine fair market value of agricultural lands on' the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government . : Organization "Christian Organization" and. as per the testimony of PW-T Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price.for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used : for destitute women i.e. there was a special , circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see 111 Land Acouisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini &Ann (Refer para 6). and 2009 (14) SCC ' 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acouisitioh Off!rer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A, of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipsd facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to . . determine the market value of land in an area for reason there may be, special circumstances , which .have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well,informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by . any' special •• '^''^cumstancesor the fancy to buy a particular piece of la.nd. An informed-buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood ' , topology of the area and the prevailing prices. .If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece .of land; he may pay a much higher price and this would not be ,, a good index of fair-market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlight'that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to, the notification dated • '

27.1.2003 where-under.agriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan.was sold by an agriculturist, to an agriculturistfor a much lesser price i.e. ^1.7,74,109/- per acre as against price which comes to ^63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28 89. ' lakhs per acre-for Ex.PW-1/3. "The 2 sale deeds • . • ' • 'LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page11 of22 \1-' Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsicevidence of the fanciful'price and ex-facie destroy each other.

¶23Thus, apart from the reasoningof the learned Reference Court, with which 1 concur, afore-noted• reasons in para '21 above would beadditional reasons to hold that 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom' fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason !find that undervarious awards nearlybetween7,000 to 8,0'00 bigha offland have been acquired and when the acquisitionis of • such large an area, it would niake all the .more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsicevidenceof the transactionbeing the result •. of a fancy of the buyer. 1would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned decisLTtld -

19.12.2008 disposing,of a batch of appeals, lead ' matter being LA.App;No.193/2006 Pratao ^innh .(s/nce deceased) thru LRs 1/?. upi if-highlightedthat the saledeed therein by which L&T had purchased,8 bigha and 9 biswa of agriculttiral . ' land for expansion of its factory which ,had'been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the. • ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected, therein could not be treated as a good evidenceof value of land in the area was rejected by the Court and the price, in question with suitabledeductionon accountof the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-i/3 . should be treated as the basis to determine fair marketvalue. The argumentignoresthe reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to • 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on Its own logic as indicative of the market value, but found that if the price • by 1/3^^ the price arrived-at would be the same as would be price arrivedat with reference.to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds' LA.App.No.999/2010&comectedmatters ' ' , Page12 of22 .\2> produced by the Government were giving a price of ^1,37,000/- per bigli.a and sale deed , under ' which L&T had purchased the land gave the price ^3,26,600/-per bigha and the average would come to, ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ., T2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'' would . be-deducted. from the sum of 0,26,600/-. It may further" be • highlighted that in the said judgment the year of sale was 1993 and the ' notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was , dated •

24.7.1995 and

16.11.1995 and Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at 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 pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that 1 have ' hereinbefore already noted inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds, reflecting. fair market value."

¶16For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market, value, of agricultural land in village-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. .17. As regards the agreement to. sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village BhalswaJahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred fo.r 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 tl5,70,000/-. ,

¶18Now, if the price, as per the own showing of.the land' owners, was ?15,70,000/- per acre as on ,01.07.,2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010(fe connectedmatters . - Page13 of22 ' A difficult to •comprehend the abnormally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1which is dated 8.4.1996,in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It.is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the,line the price fell to ?15.7 lakhs per acre. 1need to. highlightthat in paragraph of its decision, learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the said price was for special, considerations and: not the price settled between^an informed willing buyer and an informed willing sdller and , without being influenced by special needs pertaining to a particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed.

¶19I have discussed this issue in my •decision dated , 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 fai Sinah 1/^. UP! & Anr. i.e. where an abnormally high price 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 . have held the same not to be good evidence to deterrnlne fair market value of a large part of land, being,the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have already been extracted by. me hereiriabovei..e. paras 22 and ,23 of the said decision; I reiterate the same. '

¶20As regards auction rates of developed plot of land'- situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, 1do not find any substance in the argunierits of,the learned counsel for the' land owners and concur, with the decision of the learned", Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premisedon the decisionof the SupremeCourt reportedas LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters Page14 of22 Chand.Vs. Union of India 2Q09 (15) SCG 769. Similar is the reasoning pertainingto the evidence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats'by DDA. , ' '

¶21In my decision dated.23.8.2011 in LA.App.No,266/200,8 jai Sinqii l/s. UOi &Qrs,, I had extensivelydiscussedthe law declared by the Supreme Court in case with referenceto price at which developed plots were allotted by differentagenciesi.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevantobservations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in iaiSingh'scase ,, are extracted hereu.nder:-

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land, sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawaha Industrial Estate.developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA.. Whetherit was 20% or 75%, we do not know The inchoate-evidence has resulted in the same • factors, being 3 in. number:which were noted by the Supreme Court in La! Chand's case (supra)/ which render this evidence as most unreliableto determine ' the value of land in the subjectcases.

¶30It is no doubt true, as held even by the.learned Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential,Scheme , and Narela ResidentialScheme, the subjectlands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the • building potentiality would translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learned ReferenceCourt, keeping .m view the observation and the findings of the SupremieCourt in LaLOjandsc^tse (supra.) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentialityrelating itself to the value, I promise the ''k^n decision, to deal with the same while 1 shal be discussing as to what should be the-fair market value of the lands. I LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • ' Page15 of22'" l/\

¶22Highlighting that ,in La! Chands case (supra) Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefrom. fair market value could be ' • crystallized. :

¶231reiterate the reasoning to hold.that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and • price-at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land. • 24. Pertaining, to price notified .by L&DO for charging, unearned increase when lease-hold property under, L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would .it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the' parity of reasoning in Lai Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with' reference to village Rithala; where l,ands vy,^re acquirepi for • .\Rohini ResidentialScheme, I negate the plea for'compensation-. . , to |be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates.noting that. I am" •: concerned with large tracj<s of lands ad-measuring^ 758:01 , . bigha and 929.05 bigha.' •

¶25From the topplogy of the area and as p^r the testimony of Trilok Chand (Hglka Patwari) who appeared. as PW-2 in LAC C . NO.112A/2008it emerges that village Burari is on. the east of village Bhalswa jahangir Pu'ri and. indeed the plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri' and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we itravel towards Mubarka Chowk .from the. Tibetan' Re-settlement,, colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu' Ka fWa. The two are adjoiningvillagesseparated by'Outer Ring, Rdad'and LA.App.Np.999/2010-(fe connectedmatters ' • • Page16 of22; thus the fair market value of land on a particulardate in th^; two villages would be comparable.

¶26While assessingthe fair marketvalue of the land situated., in village Burari, which was acquired pursuantto notifications •dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced'on

7.6..2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter.being LA. Appeal No.971/2008titled. Raiba!& Or^. Vs. Union nf lnrli^ •Qr^ In the said qiecision,-I had assessedthe fair,marketvalue . of agriculturalland at ^11,60,580.82per acre for CategoryA land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ^9,28,464.65per gcre for Category Cland pertainingto th^ notificationdated 24.7.1998. The land acquired-pursuantto notification dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed,by me at ?19,20,568/-per acre for CategoryAland and ?17,28,512/-per acre for Category Bland. : \w jai Singh'scase {supra), I had assessedthe fair marketvalue of land in 10 villagesas^unde.r;- S.No. •4. Village Name Date of Notification IFair market under Section 4 value (in lakhs per acre) Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 ^14.75 for Category 'A' ^14.3728 for Category 'B' n4;75 ^4.75' f^ Category 'A' ^14.38125 for Category 'B' ^14.835 for •Category 'A' ;^14.46413 fof Cateqo'rv 'B' . Holambi Kalan Ba wan a Khera Khurd

7.8.2000

7.8.2000

11.9.2000 LA.App.No;999/20108c connectedmatters'. • 5. Narela

2.5.2001 f 16.165 , for Category 'A' n5..76087 for Category 'B' '

¶6Holambi Kalah

22.8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811. for Category ,'B' ,

¶7Alipur , ,

22.8.2001 n6.745 for Category 'A' n6.43811 for Category 'B'

¶8Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ?

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

¶9• . • Raja purKa Ian

22.8.2001 ^16.745 for Category 'A' ?16.43811 for Category 'B'

¶10Sanoth

7.12.2001 ?17.295 • 11..- Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2002 . • . n8.655 ,

¶12Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶13Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ^8.655

¶14Alipur

23.5.2002 ?18.655

¶15Sanoth

27.1.2003 ^9.435 for Category 'A' ?18.94912 for Category 'B' • n8.47539 for Category '.C "16. •Rajapur Kalah.

27.1.2003 • ?19.435 for Category 'A' n8.94912 for Category 'B' ?18.47539 for, Category'C /^/' Sinqh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by.the Governmentfrom time' to.time,and found the same not tq be the ipse dixit 6^ the LA.App.No.999/2010 & CQimectedmatters 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 IV AD Delhi .13 Gairai Sinoh I/5. UP! & ' Ml, 2004 IV AD Delhi 2^ Ram ChandRr I/?, um m

(2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs, UO! and an unrepdrted'decision in LA.App.No.866/2005i\^ahender Sinoh UOi &'Qrs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale, deeds and other evidence land price was determined^onvariousdates betweenthe years' 1993 to 1996 and in relationto the.minimum pricefixed by the ' Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to. 53 of the said decision as urider:-

¶50The aforesaid judgments noted ,in the preceding' paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from • time to time by the Governmentof NCT Delhi notifying' minimurii price for agricultural lands in D.elhi'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 corrimencing• , from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990minimum price was ^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997I.e. the increaseis ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7' years which gives us a 115.054%increase in 7 years and the averageprice increasewould be 16.436%.;Jhe price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and'thereafterby ' 11% for the next 2,yearsand 11.5% for the:next year i.e.^ . as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would: be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in GairaJs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above. .

51.. I. ne^d to elaboratea little more with respectto the decision in GajraJs case. Discussing the evidence pert,aining to fair market value of agriciijlturahland in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996,in paras'9 to 17, LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters . • Page19 of-22' ? i ' ' '.r : If • s i Court discussed the valuation on, the basis of agriculturalyield and found.thatthe gross return peracre per annum was ?95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigationfacilities and thus capitalizedthe land price at f9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussingthe second method of land prices of coniparable lands in the .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 instancesand giving benefit of industrializationthe land price would come to ?10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31).. The Court then consideredthe 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, M highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in when the Government• issued the Tiinimum price notificationw.e.f. 1.4.1997,evidencedby ^he fact that even with respect.tps^le transaction'sthe Couft found that as against the minimum price ngtified Sr lakhs per acre, sale instances were highliightingthat the price was n0,03',364/-per acre.

52.. The decision in MabenderSingh's pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlightswi.th referenceto para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural-jandin Delhi and on the.issueof potentiality' had noted that notwithstanding.the Master Plan so projecting and the lands ,theoretically acquiring 'a potentiality,the same had not translated into,a reality evidenced by the fact that till,the year 1.996le. 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 ' exploitedthe potential. As I have already highlightedin para 49 above there is a gap between ^what would be expected to be the market growth and what the. market ' actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs caise and LA.App.No:999/2010c&.connectedmatters Mahender Singh's:, case highlight' that potentiality • -translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about

16.5% per annum and thereafter 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 Master Plan for Delhi 1990.a fairly large area came to be developed,., both residential, ,, commercial and. industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated. '

¶53The empirical ,evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied Upon by the land owners, in . respect whereof the. learned Reference Court has,given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not ' relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to deterniine fair market value, we have with us, the sale deed relied upon by the learned , Land 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. fair market value of agricultural lands would be ?19,16,040/- 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;i60/- was paid as stamp duty Would mean that ^6,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + .^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ^7,74,109/- per. acre as of • the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. . • , ^

¶28In'the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than.the minimum price nbtified by the Government from time to time, 1 hold that Learned . Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle and has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnum period between the dates, when minimum prices were notified and the date of the notification issued under L4..App.No.999/20.10&connectedmatters . ' Page21 of22 Section4of the. Land AcquigitienAct and finding no scope to; further,enliance the compensationor to reduce the same t dismiss all appeals and cross objections,whetherfiled by the land ownersorthe Union ofIndia, . : -

¶29Ileavethe,partiesto beartheirown cost. (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) SEPTEMBER19, 2011 JUDGE mm , , LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters • ... p4e22of22

1.^ $-31 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 6/2011 & C.M.No.6756/2011 (cross-objection) DAL CHAND DECD THR LRS Appellant Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG