Attar Singh v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

06.01.2012 For orders see LA.App.No. 1195/2008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of. India & Anr. '. JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 0 e 1N TUiE !f-HGH COURT OF DJEL]Jl AT Nl(W DE!LJHil (GRID-A) Br~ S:f!J.·J!.~d-Q!L t{Q}J__(i(7lb(T:._[8,_)j)_{f Pmnounced on: Januarv 06 20 I 2 ........ --·········---- ....... -.- -- ... --. ·---- --- J. --- -- - ·-· L/\.APP. l 195/2008 (VILLAGIE-BHARTi-IA.L) R/\NBJR SHARM.A ..... Appellant rlrrm1gh: Mr.B.S.l\1aan, .Mr.A.mit .Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, lVls.Srnila Maan, l\1r.R.S.Vcrma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates l'vlr.Anand Yadav and Ms.An.ita Tomar. Advocates Mr.Rohtas, Ad\ ocate. versus Mr.Raghuvi1vJer Gnr..hua, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and JVir.l--I.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roui and Mr.B.K.Routmy, l\1r.M.Azam Ansari. Advocates. lVlr.Pankaj V1vek, Advocate 1Vlr.Rajcsh Y~:1cav. l'v'tr.Deepak Khosla, !Vlr.Samit Khosla and .Mr.Dhanar\jay Mchlawat, t\dvocates Mr.H.S.I~:auwb, /\dvocate l\lfr.I.S.Dahiy<:1, /\d1. ccate l\1r.Sandecp Thald1:1r. Advocate Mr.Atul Tri.pnthi. ,\dvocal1.:. l'vlr.N.S.Negi and JVir.II.S.Rantela, (t 11GVDcatcs ft,r respondent .in apr>~:'tls filed by UO!) c.:>JION 01-' fNDIA & ANR. . .... l~esrxndcnr~: 'I 'brUllf.'.h: Mr.Sanj<:iy Poddar, ~;I_Tiior A-::h·xa;:e vv.iUi ;VIr .Sit.''t.ia:. Patbal<, Mr.J\;Johitrac .. ,tdhw; and !.Vl~;:·~,h~~:\i,, :.·>.,,ain, Ms.K.Kaumudi K1n.lr:. ,"-...dvc,cate~.; for 1 . .1-\C.'UOI Mr.A_iay Verma, ~/l~.decm1shaw Soni. Mr.Mukc~;h K.umar, Mr ~; .K. '~r.: thi, l\i(r.PaYvLm IVlathm. 1\'lr. K una] Sharma, Advocmc J4::;- DD/\ · I _l, __ /\ PeA J :?'2008 &. Ci\I.No A006/200S (Cross--()bjr.~ctions ). L:\./\PP. ·-!5:?./:'~l)()~~; ., fl. \ nn ·i c:'.! ,.; ·)(··o. l 1\ '\ f>j> ··Qo ,., 'J(. o ~·. ... \ 1 · , "C)C)(' "'(' l · , - · ....... : '·' •. 'T-'--'!" .. 1 1o, .n.1... .·.)uo/L· . . ;~:, ... .,_;, \.._,, ... [':().~' . J(c:.., U ('~ ros::-Ubjcei!on~;): 1 .i\.APP.C)?/2008 & Cl'v1.No -:U3!2U(n (('_,-,_1ss--O~i·-~Ltion:5): l.A.i\~"P 7f)!(?.::JCS & C\'1. 0-h 51 0/2 009 ( Cross-Ob_!,·~c1 i·ms ~: !. \.:\ P P ?6iS,)Otit·•>. l. '\.1\ !'F. nnnun;.;, 1 .-· • ..1\;:p. ~:r:. 1l'J:,r:o3-~ & wPnccted ,~ PP<~<il~ of ··iili<lF,r~ 13h<t'Unl ; :;,!\On. N~). /9'1//())[ t~ COflll(!(t:;~d /\ppC;.JIS ol· ViJirlf,C: [)i_lWi.l!dtl I t\.1\pp i\•~.1. } ... t·! /'>010 & cbnnc,cv·.d /\pp:~a:i, of Villtlg<: Foc.r.dnpur LA.APP.771/2008 & Cl'v1.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774!200g & CM.No.611 /2009 (Cross-Objections):. LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); · LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; l.A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; l.A.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008: LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.771J/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA .. APP.901/2008; L\.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & Cl\1.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; Lt-\..APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.i-\PP.1 029/2008& CM.No. 17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 031/200S & CI\I.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); l.i\.APJ>. l 032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 046/200S; L.A.APP.l 047/2008;LA.APP.l 04RnOU8& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 049/2008 & CM.No.4:?.0i2009 (.Cross-Objections); LAAPP.l 050/2008; I .. A,APP.l 051/2008 & CM.No.J7262/2008 (Cro5s-Objections);LAAPP.l 052/2008; LA.APP .1 053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 054/2008 & CM.No.l766/2009 (Cross-Objections); L\.APP.l055/2008;LA..APP.l057/200g & CM .No. 75212011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 058/2008& CM . .No.l5 ~i7/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 059/20og & C'v1.No.17259/2008(Cross-Ob.ic~:tions); J .A. APP .1 060/2008 ;LA.APP .1 062/2008 &· CM.No. 546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 073/2008; LA.APP.l 074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP .1 075/2008; LA.APP.l 081 12.00~~ & ('M.No.·i62/2009(Cross-Objections): LA.APP.1 084/2008& CM.No.l7302/2(108 (Cro:::~;-Objt:ctions\ LA.f\PP.l m:6l200H & CM.No.2448/2008 (C~·oss-Objl.:ctions): L/\..f\PP.l 087 /2008& CM.No.6J9/200(J (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 093<?.008; A .. APP.l 094/200S:, LA.A.PP.l 095/200~; T.A.APP. I .1 03/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 1. Cross-Objec.tions):f.A.APP.ll 08/?.008 & CM. No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1 109/2008: LA.APP.lll 0/2008 & Ci\.1.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. L\..J\PP. 1 llli2008; L!\.APP.l112/2008 & crvtNo.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections)~ L/\ . .!\PP. J 113/:iO(H~ & CM .No.3~U6.'20(J9 . . . . tC·oss-Objections); LA.APP. 1 11512008; r.A.AP.P.ll 1 6/2008; L\.APP.112l/200X: !A.APP. 1 126/2008; LA.APP.ll29/200g &: C~v.l.No.SS0/2009 (Cross-ObjecT ions); : ,;\./\PP.ll30/2008; LA.APP.ll31i200J.; & CJviJ\o.566/2009 (Cross-Obj·~ctior:sr i .A.APP.ll33/2008; LA.APP.l J 35/2001-l rSc: CM.No. 7442/2009 (Cross-Objez:~iuns); LA.APP.ll3 7/2008 & CM.No.17283/20U8 (Cross-Objections); L!\.A.PP. 1 14U/20U8: LA.APP.l156/2008; LA.APP.ll57/2008; LA.APP.1158/2008 & CM.No. 7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.ll59/2008; LA ... :\ PP.ll6112008; LA.APP. J J 66/20\)H:. LA.AP}>.JJ67/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.ll70/2008; LA.APP.ll71/2008; LA.APP.1172/2008; LA.APP.ll73/2008; LA.APP.l175/2008; LA.APP.ll 78/20('18; L!\.i\PP.1179/2008; L '\.APP.ll g 1 /2008; f ./\.1\PP. l 18'2/2008; LA.APP.1·1 8)/2008& C'I\!1.No.693312009 (Cross-Objections); L/\.:\PP.Il84/2008; LAAPP.ll85 1200;,:; LAAPP.1186/2008& CM.\lo.7013/20()9 I 'U\pp. No :1 19~.;i7.D08 /:', connected /\rpeal~ of Villap,p Bharthal

1.1\ i\po. No. i':lll/7.010 E. con;ot!cted /\ppeals of Village !lijiNas~n L~./\pp. f·Jo. :i.l 1/:'fllO L~ connect.ei:f /\ppe<J!s of \Iii lag·~ Pochanour· · Pap,e L of 29 0/. /0 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l190/2008; LA.APP .. ll91/2008; LA.APP.l19:2/2008: LA.APP.Jl93/2008; LA.APP.l194/2008; LA.APP .. 1195/2008; LA.APP.ll 97/2008: LA.APP.ll98/20Q8& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l200/2008; LA.APP.l202/2008; LA.APP.l203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008; LA.APP.1211/2008; LA.APP.l212/2008; LA.APP.1213/2008; LA.APJ->.1223/2008; LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections): LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.384112009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.l252/2008; l.A.APJ->.1275/2008; LA.APP.1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP.l279/2008; LJ\.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.l28J /2008; LA.APP.l283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008; LA.APP.3112009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.4212009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009; LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 08/2009; LA.APP.l 09/2009: LA.APP.l2112009; LA.APP.135/2009; L/\.APP.l36/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.138/2009; LA.APP.l39/2009; Li\./\PP.140/2009; LA.APP.l43/2009; LA.APP.l44/2009; LA.APP.145/2009; LA.!\PP.l62/2009; LA.APP.l8712009: LA.APP.l90/2009; LA.APP.I91 /2009; LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP.198/2009: LA.APP.199/2009; LA.APP.20 1/2009; LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA . .i\PP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.21 0/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2ll/:?.009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.22712009:, LA.!\PP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206i2009 (Cross-Objections)~ LA.APP.241 /2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009; L/\.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; l..A.APP.JOS/2009:. LA./\PP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.AP?.447i2009; LA.APP.4Sg/2009:, L'\.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009: LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.481 12009; ]j\.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2.009; LA.A.Pf'.491/2009; LA.APP.493/2009; L!\.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LJA.APP.SOJ/2009: LA.APP.506/2009; l.i\ .APP.507/2009; LA.APP.SOS/2009: LA./\PP.509/2009: LA.A.PP .51 0/200Y: U\..APP.Sll/2009; LA.APP.512.'2009: LA.A PP.S 13/:2009: LA .!\PP.567/2009: l-.t\.APP.572/2009; LA.APP.l5/201 0; LA.APP.45/201 0; LA.APP.48/20 1 0;

1./\.APP.404/20JO: LA.APP.lJ/2011: LA.APP.ll38/2008. LA.APP.J17f.nOOiL I .A.APP .1177/2008; LA.APP.l201/2008: L:'\.APP.23 I /2009 (Relating to Notification No. F.l0(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) B.f!_§f!ved.s~~~;_Q~cg_mbeJ~-Q~~_lQU_ {!_~QJZC!Z·JJZ·ced Q_n:_j_anuQJ]!_ Oo~_}jlj 2 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- B!.JWA.SAN) DJ.:VENDER KUMAR A t ..... .ppe an Through: M:·.rt~S.'f'omar, Ivir.Virendra Singh IAI'.pp. i\>o U9:i/.'008 & ~onnected llppeals of Village Bh<~rtilal I .11./\pp. t~o. 294/2010 & conr.ecll!d Appeals of Vil!age Biiwasan t ~, .. 1\pp 1\!o. J .U./2010 & connected ,\ppr.als of Village Poct>anpu: P;lf3e 3 or Z9 versus uor & ANR U\.APP. 52/2010 r .A.APP. 56120 l 0 L./\ .APP. 1 00/20 l 0 L.A.APP. 242/2010 L/\.APP. 282/2010 IiA.APP. 287/2010 LA.APP. 295/2010 U\.APP . .346/20 l 0 Through: Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr:B.K. Routray. Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38. 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76) ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and JVJr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. · Mr.Vircndra Singh, Advocate in R-68. 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.8a~1key Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DY)/\. LA.APP. 11/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LA.APP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 221!20 J CJ LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/~010 ~ LA .. AP P. 5 4/2 0 1 0 ....__r-A-.--...... A-r.P:T>P-;. 5;::;5-:-;;.-' L...;--;:0~1 _LA.APP. 59/2010 _, . )P. 70/2010 LA.APP. 223/2010 LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP. 277/2010 LA.APP. 28 1!201 0 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.:'\PP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA. A PP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/20 I 0 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 1/u\PP. 350/2010 LA.APP. 351/2010 LAAPP. 352/2010 L-\.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 3:~H/20l0 LA/-\PP. 359/:•oJ 0 LA.A.PP. 363/2010 LAAPP 408/:20 I 0 l..A.APP. 7::2/.2010 L .A .. APP. 7':'.6.'20 I 0 l.A.APP 7T21:2() 10 LA.APP. 354/20 I 0 LA.APP. 356/:?0 l 0 L.1\.APP. 357/2010 L/\.APP. 365/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LAAPF. 7~0/201 0 l.!\.APP. 360/2010 LA.APP. 361/20'/i'i L:\.APP. 362i2010 LA.APP. 405/2010 LA.APP. 406/2010 · L/\.APP. 407/::2010 U\.APP. 409/2010 LA.APP. 438/2.010 i..A.APP. 588/2010 U\.APP. 72312010 LA.APP. 724/2010 l.A./\PP. 725/2010 LA.APP. 727/2010 LA.APP. 729/20!0 LA.APP. 731/2010 LA.APP. 750/2010 LA.!\PP. 759/2010 l.A.APF. 764/2010 . LA.APP. 828120 J 0 U\.APP. 964/2010 LA.APP. 286/2010 Ll\.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 77/2010 LA.APP. 80/20.10 ~.A.APP. 99/2010 & LA.APP. 75/2010 & C.M.No. 964/2011 (Cross-objections) (Relating to Notification No. F.t0(30)Y6-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Aware No. 28/::002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND· lA!Ipp. ~o J 1'.15/2008 & connccwcl /\p;:>cals of Villaec Bharll>~l :,\.1\pp. Nc.. :?')~j/.010 & connecterll\ppea!s· of Viliage Bijwasan !AIIpp. i\Jn. ·11; /?010 & connectl'cl r,ppeals of Village Por.ha~pur Fag<~ 4 of l9 . 0/ /0 (GRID-C) . Reserved on: Decen?ber 18~Qll. Pro~1ounced on: JanumJ;_Q{j._l-_QL£ L/\.APP. 11112010 (VILLAGE POCHANJ>UR) SEI-IAJ RAM AND ORS. ..... App'ellants Through: versus JVlr.B.D. Sharma, IVlr.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.Apr>.No. 61, 64, 65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R -22) UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: ..... Respondents t\1Tr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kmi1ar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and l\1s.Navlin Swain .. Advocates for UOULAC LA.APP. 111/2010 LA.!\PP. 160/2010 LA.APP. 228/2010 LJ\.APP. 254/2010 L!\..1\PP. 292/201 0 L!\.APP. 307/2010 U\.1\PP. 395/2010 r A AJ>P. 42012010 LA.APP. 46612010 LA.APP. 637/2010 LA.APP. 660/2010 LAAPP. 767/2010 LA.APP. 9.19(7.010 L!\.APP. 65/2011 L/\.t\PP. 120/2011

1./\.APP. 476/2011 L/\ .AlJJ>. 523/20 11 L/\ .. APJ>. 536/201 I .Mr.Bankcy B.ihari Sharma, l\t!r. Kunal Shurma and M.r.Somer I<. Seth, Advocates for DD.L\. LA.APP. 154/2010 LA.APP. 155/2010 LA.APP. 156/2010 LA.APP. 165/201 0 LA.APP. 209/201 0 LA.APP. 215/2010 LA.APP. 248/201 0 LA.APP. 249/20 I 0 LA./\PP. :~50/20 10 LA.APP. 260/2010 U\.APP. 261/2010 LA.APP. 270/2010 LA.APf>. 293/2010 LA.APP. 305/2010 LA.APP. 306/2010 LA.APP. 317/2010 l.A.APP. 392/2010 LA.APP. ~;93,2010 LA.APP. 39612010

1./\ .. A.PP. 397/2010 LA.APP. 412/2010 LA.APP. 432t::OI 0 LA.APP. 433/2010 LA.APP. 434'20 10 LA.APP. 489/2010 Li\.APP. 57 7 /2010 LA.APP. 635/2010 LA.APP.639/2010 f_A./\.PP. 640/20 I 0 LA.!\PP. 65'!/?.0 10 LA.APP. 662/2010 L\.APP. 74112010 U\.APP. 75812010 LA.APP. 76S/2010 L.A .. APP. 784/2010 1 .. !\.APP. 91))/2010 LA.APP. 1052/20 I 0 f~A.APP. 6112011 LA.APP. 64/20 I J LA.APP. I 16/2.011 LA.APP. 117/2011 LA.APP. 1 I C)/201 1 LA.APP.l21/20ll U\.APP. 129/201 1 LA.APP. 42t)/2011 LA.APP. 485/2011 l.A.APP. 521/201 J LA.APP. 522i201 I LA.APP. 525/20 1. 1 LA.APP. 5:?6/201 1 LAAPP. 535/2()1 I LA.APP. 554/2011 LA.APP. 591/2011

1.11./\pp. No. J 1.95/?00S & connected /\ppe~ls of Villar,c llharthal l./\./lpo. No. 294/2010 & conncc•.ed /\ppeais of Viliagc 13ijwasan l 1\./\pp No J 11/?.010 & connected 1\.ppcals o( Village PochanpL'r PJge 5 of 29 (Relating to Notification No. F.l 0(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR I. ORDJli~-~

06.01.2iH2 Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, therefore \Nith the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Nottflcation No.F.l0(30)96-L& /3//_.A/13417 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pocbanpur arc being disposed of by this common order. . ') Acquisition process for planned development of 'Dwarka Phase-fl' in Delhi, commenced \Vith 1bl~ issuance of Not{(ication of !3' 1' !Jccetnber, 2000 under Section 4 of 1.he Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pCL"taining to vast tract of agricui1u ral land in one compact block comprising of tl1irteen Revenue Estates including villages in qucstirm, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

¶31\gricultural ]and of the appellants herein in the aJ~)rcsaid three villages stood acquired by the Resp(mdcnts vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award _No.28/2002-2003;and Award No.J0/2002-2003 granting compensation :If! f13.82 lacs per acre lor Bfock ';\' (level field -- witb t(.lp ~oil) and @) :<'12.32 lacs per acre for Block 'B' (without top soil).

¶4Dissatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acquirr:~d LIU\pp. No. 119Sj;'008 & connected /\ptJeals of Village Bh~rth~L 1/u\pp: Nn. /.9<!/;>0J.O ,~ connected /\ppeols of Villogc Bijwason J\.1\pp. No. 11 c./2010 & cor.m!r.tf!d Appeals of Village Poch~npur agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of· the l,and Acquisition Act; 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ ~15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' anq (j:y ~13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon th(~ precedents in the shape oi~ decisions iri Ex:ecutive Engineer, !(arnataka Housing Board vs. !Land Acquisition {~fficer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; Aniani Jtlohrt lYessai Fs. State of Goa atul Anr. 9

(2010) 13 SCC 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs.. State ofHm:vana and Alnr., (20 1 0) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. 5§Jeciai Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (201 0) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and A.nr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Faftira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Lomd Acquisition Officer, Ja.fgtwru, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La/ vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) thtough LRs l'S. Union ofhulia "~ "'J!nr., 2002 ( 65) DIU 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Jlm:~mnlu & Ors., 20 l 0(9) SCALE 41; Clwkas vs. Suu~te of Punjab L~ Or.>;·., 2011 (9} SCALE 362; Avinash Dhav(ai J\'{dli i··:~ . .S'tate ofMr.dwra.~·htra. (7.009') 1 1 SCC 1 71; Atma Singh (Dead) tlu.rough. LRs and Ors l'S. State ~.~l flaryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; VV.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. lndu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr PS. M.J(. Rafiq Salteb 9 (20 11) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibh.ai Deliibhai (and ors. vs. Executive Engineer~ · /\ ''PP· 1\Jo . .! l~'~,/;>008 & cu;1nected /\ppeuls of Viii<J[l(' Ghorlh<1' . .1\.App. rio. 7.!J<I/?Ol0 &·connected 1\ppoals.of Viilagr. £lij~'asan .. ~.App. Nc.. 1 J 1/7.01.0 & cunnc~ctc!d ,,ppr:als of Villaeo P:JthJPpur Paf!.e 7 of 29 ~ Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2.424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 sec 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union oflndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La/ Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SeC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 sec 745; Valliyamrna! and Anr vs, Special Tehsildar (Lan.d Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; /(iran Tmulon i'S. Allahabad Development Autlwri(y, (2004) 10 SeC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of lJ1aharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; f(apil Mehra (Mt~jor General) & Ors. Vs. Union of india & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(e) No .. 4284./2007 titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Ovn Pralwsh (dead) by LRs and Ors Ps. U!l11ion (~/'India, (2004) l 0 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union i~f india, (1997) .11 SCC 42.3; LA. 1\PP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kwnar vs. Union of india, decided on ' ;6.09.20 11; LA. 1\PP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Rmn vs. Union t~l india, decided on 07.06.2011; and /Bhule Rmn vs. Union .t~llndi{fl, 20 I 0 (i 70) DLT 371.

¶6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by l\1r.B.S.Maan: learned· ctrguing counsel for the appcllcmts that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate iis potential which must be ad_judged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to 1h·~ ncar future alone.

¶7lt was pointed out by M.r.R.S.Tomar, cowiscl for appellants rhal Delhi-Rcwari-Jodhpur broad gage raih.vay l.ine of Village r3iijwasan passes through the land of Vi!Jage Bharthal, dividirig il into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the raihvay Lnc is the tGl Airport, New Delhi 11\.1'-op. l~o. l ~:)~·)2003 & wnncctcd /\ppeals of Village Bhanha! 1 11.11 pp. No. :~,~~/2.010 & connected !lppeals of Village llijwasan · /\.1\pp. No. 11 :lj~OJO & cnnnected /\ppc<Jis of Viliarw Poch<tnpll' and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from 'Shiv 1\llurti towards Dwarka Sub-City Pmt-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses arc located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter ~n the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Viilage Bhanhal and Village Pochanpur were ·also acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side uf Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development ot Phase-ll, Dwarka Sub-City. ;\ttention was drawn to the aks sizraslmap to highlight that the boundary ot' Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶8It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel tor the appellants tl~at the Reference Court has fa.iled to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land· in the light of its location and has i ilcgally treated the acquired · land to be ·agricultural in spite of Notification of 16 h October, :2000 i_,jd(~ which land use of the three villages in question was changed h·6rn agriculture.! to rcsideni.ial/ commercial/industrial, etc. and infac:t the. etitin: land of ViJlage Bharthal . . had ceased to be rural in view of the Notific(Jtion of 241; 1 October, ] 994.

¶9ft was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the a1(Jrcsaid two Notifications have hccn wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. f?.ama

1./\./\pp. No. L <J5/:!00~l & connccti!d 1\pp<'als of Village 13harthal !/\ 1\pp .. No. 29~/i.O"tO &. connected l\~p£>al> of Village 13ijwasJn 1,.~./\pp. r~o . .1.11/;~01.0 & conn£>cted /\pp£>als ofVillap,c Pochanpur Pagr. 9 of :~g Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors9 (I 995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 201 0(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited 10 a ncar future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land tb any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel J~)r the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pocbanpur 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 throvm out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale. exemplars arc overvalued b(~cause of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the· Apex Court in A1~j1.mi JY!olu De.~":-;ai vs. Stade l~l <D'oa lmd Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to ~57 lacs per acre ai1d since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellants arc the comparable sale instances 1 tl!crcf()rc, rc.liance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates ior determining the e market value ofthc acquired land is p3tently erroneous. I 1. Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought bv l\1r.H .. Godara~ learned counsel for the appellants on tbc basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-· determined rates fixed by the Go\'cTnmcnt for allotment. of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in v icw the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, detcnninatio~ of its m~-1rket value~ is : /\.1\pp. No. 11%/200H & connected 1\ppeais of Village 13harl!wl l 1\.,\pp. No. /.94/7010 & connected Appeal~ of· Village Bijwasan lt\.,\JO>o Nc'. U l/2Cl.O & connr!cced 1\rpeals of Village Pochanpur Pap,e 10 of 29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of. Village Pochanpur and Village Sqmalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre·- Determincd Rates (PDRs) as referred to above. J 2. In the written synopsis, appellant'_, Impulse India Private Limited ofLA. J\pp. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- a) "ignores the acknowfed,gement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.2612002-2003 dated 2 3 . .I 0. 2002 being flavved m the course of the proceedings Civil Writ peUrion No.J90 12 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of appellam dated

¶77.2007) hJ Does not accotint (or the f(icl that the Public Notice .... .. dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates ~f land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Sec.:tion 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. c) 'Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated ! 1.9.2001 issued by the Governrnent ofNational Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one ql the more recent decisions ~f the Hon'ble Supreme Court u? Sangunthala versus Tahvildur. 2010(3) SCC 661. d) ignores the evidence and other factors which as per established law has to be considered before ascertaining the value ~{the land unde,. a.cqz.:isition. e) Does not dec! with disparity in 1.:o!ue of the Sale Deecl.Y produced before the trial Court whereas as per the hnv established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case ~f Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special !_.and Acquisition Officer, Civil llpea! 1Vo.5475 ~f 2007. The Hon 'ble Supreme Court has spe_cijically held that Sale Deed showing higher rat~ shoulJrzot be disregarded in ':,J;pp. No . .ll:·J'i/200/l & wnnected /\ppeiJIS o1 Vi!!age llharthal . ; .. 1\pp. l~o .. ?'!4/2010 & connPcted /'.ppc~ls of Viii<Jge llijwasan . ;\ 1\pp. No. 1.11./2010 & C'Jn'H~cted Appeals of village f'och;Jnm;r P;1p,e 11 of 29 case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana lvlolu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 201 0(1 3) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating 'upon compensation upon a c..:ertan land. f) Relied upon judgment ddted

3.3.2008 in L!J.C No. 97 A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the marerial which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ~13,36,000 in Block Bin viulation of the law laid down by the lion 'ble Supreme Court including in S'ubh Ram vs. State of f{a;~vana 2010{1) 5X~C' 444. As a consequence, th~ impugned judgment · re.fitsed to return an actuaL .finding on the issue N(J. 1 j!·amed on 2 7. 2. 2 00 7. g) ]'-''valuated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundar,.ies of Delhi Swte. The masterplan and .Not(;7cations (Jf Government .FJr land i-tse change show that in fitture Land can be su~jected to residential, cxHnmercial and other permissible uses. It is also ;:.x:.rtinent to mention that the ll I d . 'd . f' h 7 '111 I appe ant ea . evt ence m resJX::ct o, t e . 4 C.ii'IU:'m.ment qf the Constitution of lndu:r. ~·r.e .. f 1.6.1993 IX A. b,1· virtue of which the AJimiczjxd Corporation Act HYlS amended and the area when,.> the land is situated, was deemed a municipal area unci the municipal Counsellor was elected .fi,.om there. No Panchctyat elections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the !a1v laid do11-·n in AIR Suprem.e Court 34~7, Ranvir SiNgh w1.cl Anr vs. Union qf India and refitsed to consider the foct that the development in the area has a direct effect :Hl the price that a 1villing purchaser H'ould payforthe suhject fond.

i) ignored the fact thot Respo.r1denl ·No. 2 had o.!so

1./\./\pp. No. 11951 ?.'JOfl & connected llppeals of Village Gharthal

1.11./\pp. No. 294/).010 & wnnected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l1\.!1pp. No . .1.11/2010 & conneclr~d llppeals of Village Pochan~·ur P<q;<! lZ cf 29 az,tctioned sitnilarzy situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ~2. 6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. .f) The valuation of the subject land is even lu'vver than the pre-detennined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibility of change qf the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of D>varka Phase 11. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these qreas ceased to be agrin(!tural and came novv under tfie urban boundaries of'!Jelhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated _!6. 10.2000 and 2 4.1 0 . .1994 although they clearly establish the cornmercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar {LA), (201 0) 3 SCC 661 it was heLd that the purpose for ·which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value c~f' the prc)perty acquired the .fact whether the land has go! building potentiali(v to be used for building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number of bZ-tildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The landfJ were acquired for pwpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the iand is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands hove the potential ~l being put in better use a!: house sites in the near.fillure. "

¶13In the brief synopsis by V ed P'al and others of LA. App. No. 34 7/2009, the factual details have been provid.xl \vith a prayer that the appc.llants of this appeal be treated at par wit!: the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

¶14Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of !Ai\pp. r.Jo .. i 1.9S/2.008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

1.1\.i\pp. No. 294/2010 & connectr:d Appeals of Village llijwas<.n :JI.f,pp. No. J 11/2010 & connect~d /l.ppeals of Vii lag<' PochaQpur urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in .Mahesh .V,attatray Thirthkar l'S. St.rtte ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; l(apil1l1ehra (Mt~jor General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the inarket value of the acquired lands and in1:act the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference COLni to assess the correct market value or the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation rc11ecting just, fair and adequate markd value for the acquired lands is . sought in these appeals. ! 5. Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51···A of !Jmd /lcquisition Act, 1894, a ccrti f]ed copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence i~x determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and clement of special fancy of tbc purchaser and other factors narl1ely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. at(~ also required to be consi.clercd and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct mC:lrket value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in J,rui Lru! ~'.~J'. Union of India, 2002 (62) DHJ 227, Satpal & Ors Ps. Union '~l india, (1997) 11 SCC 423; La/ Chand vs. Union of India and .4nr., (:2009) .15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! J(umar vs. Union of India, decided on 26.09.20 I~, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for ~;LiCh sharp increase are explained by producing in. evidence the. sd lcr Li\.1\pp No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

111.1\pp. No. ?911i/.010 & connected Appeals of VillaP,e 13ijwasan Ll\.1\pp. No.1 Il/:'.010 & connected Appeals of Vil!ap,c Pochanpur l'<lP,\! 14 of 29 and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in La/ Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far 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 Government as on l '' :'\pril, 2000 2nd by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously ·determined by the Reference Coun., as in Su-shi! Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum bas been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned j udgmcnt deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the I{efercnce Court while taking into consideration the appreciation ((~. 12(% e per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ l 0% per annum .and thereby allovv·ing the cros:.;-- objections to the aforesaid extent. . ' l 7. Aftei· considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upt1I1 close perusal of the impugned judgment, tbc evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the COmparable land is the price i)Hld. by \ViJling purchaser to a willing IA!\pp. No. l1'l:;.;;wos & conncctc~a Appeals of Village BhJrt~nl t.'l.i\pp. No. 29~/2010 & connected l1ppeals of Villar,e ilijwasan I f\.1\p~.·. No. ~.1 "t/2Cl0 ~~ conn(~C:t~~d Appe~ls or V\liage ?ochc~r~pur Page 15 nt 2.'1 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. VVhile dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udlw Dass vs. State of Harymw & Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these '~'ords:- 1 ') X. ·· (i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village 1vhich had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population:

(ii) the suitability of the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be the,y residential, commercial or industrial, as the case nury be,·

(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply fiJr occupants f?f buildings to be put up on thaz land;

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired landfor building pzapose;

(v) existence f?f high-vvays, puh!ic roads. layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close pr::ni1nity qlthe acquired land;

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

(vii) lands around the ccquired land or the acquired land ilself being in deh·wnd _Fn-building 'purposes, to specify a few." The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have 1.0 bear in mind the purpose for I (\.1\pr;. "!o. ll!J~/?008 & connected llpreals of V!llage Bhvrthvl L.lu\pp. No 1'!4/;101() & connected Appevls of Village 8ijwo~3n LA.f,pp. No. 111/20.10 & co:1nectt!d Appeals of Villap,e Pochanpur Pap.c 16 of 29 A . .. vvhich the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Cou.ti in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶19Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special · Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. lV!f.f(. Ra.fiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 7 1 4. The legal proposition which ~merges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are 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. /0 ft 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 trw:~ that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this pro1;osition, the decision of the~ !\ pex Court in /(iran Tandon (Supr3) can be referred to 'Nilh ad van tag(~.

¶21Apex Comi in Valliyammal (Supra). while taking note of the ract 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 i:1 A1~jani 1Wolu Dessai (Supra) deserve altcntion, which are as under:~ .;\.1\pp. No. J TSS/2008 & conncc!;ed 1\ppt!als of Village i3harlh'l: .1\.1\pp. No. !.'.lti/7UJO & conn~<:ted i\ppo!ais ofVil!age Bijw2san · !',:1\pp. No. 1'1'!/J.OlO & r.onncclcd flppt~als of Village Pochanpur On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas. where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and ·where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a rnuch 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 ./(;r years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of' lands in urban/semi-urban ./ areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in m.arket value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it; that is about 5% to 7. 5% per annum. !'l1is rule qf thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear (_-rnd ,spec?fic evidence relating to increase in prices. ~Vhere there are special reasons for appl_ving a higher rate of increase. or any specific evidence relating· to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be appiied would depend upon the sanze. · Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved nwrket value of nearby la.ndr.: in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions cr acquisition), where there is no evidence of anJ' contemporanemis s(:t!e transactions or acquisitions of compm'able lands in the neighbourhood. lhe said method is reasonably sale where the. rdf,:_~d-·on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the .Yuhiect acquisition by only a few years, that is l.tplo .f(;ur to.five year.~. Beyond that i.t rnay be unsafe, even if it relates to a neigl?houring ·land flf/hat 1nay be a rc!iahie standard (f the <'?,Dj} i,\ onfJ' a .feH; years, may become unscrje and unreliable standard w·here the gap is lmger. For exmnple. for determining the 1narket value of a land CI(Xj'Uireci in 1992, adopting the annual increase 1nethod lJ'ith n::f~~rence lo a safe o.1· 1 .. ' .. /\pp_ \Jo. ! ;_<_p;; 2001< e, car~n.:cl<'d llppcals of Village Bh-<~rth2! ~AIIpo. ~!o. ""JI!/2010 & co,nP.cted /1ppeals of Village Gi_iw<,:;an I :u1po r"o-lllt:J.OJO & conm'cred 1\pp<~~i; of Village Pochan;::•_;r "The legal position is that even 1'vhere there are several exemplars with reference to sim.ilar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsim.ilar lands ·whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in re::,pect of t-vvo sales are markedly d(flerent; it ccm only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. ''

¶22It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindlw Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- "It is ·well settled that genuine and bona .fide sale transactions in respect of the lm1d 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 val-ue or utility taken place bet,veen a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between ''easonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to derennine the market value. "

¶23Principles to determine the marke1 value of the acquired land:; as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and .Natural Gas Corporation !Ltd.

(ONGC) (Supra), arc as under:- "Prim.arily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - sititation of the land. nature of development in surrounding area, availability C?fland for development in the area, and the demand (or lavzd in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of developm.ent in the vicini!y, increase in prices ·would be slo·w, steady and [p~adual, without anysudden spurts orjumps. - I /\.1\pp. No. J J cl:;;;•oo8 & connr!cted 1\ppr~als of Viilage llholrtllal • t~_l\pp No. ?.94/2010 & conncctPd _.:,ppcals of Villap,c llijwasan Ll\.f~pp. No. U JJ201U s, connected 1\ppeals of liillap,e Pocha~pur acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pi{falls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihpod of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in . . prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the ve1y standard of increase. "

¶24This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in llm:ymuu State Industrial Development Corpormion (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acc~uired lands by adopting comparative sales methods. What was said by the Apex Court in I-ISTDC (Supr2) is as under:- " When different categories of lands (or lands with different situational advantages) ore ocquiredfor the same purpose. S{i1' for fhrming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situati011 should be avoided and ct uniform rate ofcompensation should be awardedfor all lands acquired under the same not{fication. "

¶25Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars m and around acquired l&nd of Village Bharthal., \/i ilagc Bijwasan of the period in question are nol availab~e and the soli1ary sale exemplar strongly rel icd upon by the appellants is of Village PochaLpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide vvhich religious institution, i.e., Radha SH·arni Satsang, Beas had pw-chascd the agricultural land i:n 'Village f'ochanpur at a pric.: \Vhich varied from ~52 lacs to ~62. !acs per acre.

¶26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.P\V-· l/4 to Ex.P\V-1/J 0) which arc basically between one set of co .. rJwners and Radha Sv.iami Satsang, Beas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Poche:mpur reflect the correct market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required to be answered. Evidetitly, aforcsuid sale exemplars, i.e .. Sale Deeds

1./\./\pp. No. 1.195/2008 & cor.nccted 1\ppEals of Village Bharthal

1./\./\pp. No. /.'l•l(W.IO &. COI"nectca /\ppeills of Village Bijwasan i./\.1\pp. No. I :11/2010 & conn0.cted 1\ppe;lls :Jf \tillage Poch~'lpur Pap,e 20 ol2.9 (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that i.r.s price varies from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire lai1d of the sale exemplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1110) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land m 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 purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PvV-114 to Ex.PW-111 0) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellarns. Had the purc.l.taser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had ~greed 'to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of tht:~ purchaser, i.e., Radha Svi1ami S'atsang, Beas who had purchased rnore tbm 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale Deed executed on 25 M.arch, 2000 was also subject matter ·in r ,A. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union oflndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. A.pp. No. 999/20 l 0 titled as Raj Singh ~·s. Union of India, decided on l 9.9 .2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Vi llagc M.amurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶27In the instant matters, though the land usc of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their . acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing iA/\pp. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village llharthal · L/\.1\pp. No. 294/2010 & r.onnccted Appeals of Village 13ijwasan

1.1\./\pp. No. I 1.1/2010 & r.onncrtr.d Appeals of Village Pochanpur P~ge :!1 of 29 rr.:tarket price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Fx.P\V-1/4 to Ex.PW-1110) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1111) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ~1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 2t 11 January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sal c exemplar (Ex.PW -1 /] 1.) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/1 I) 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 vievv thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in qucslion.

¶29Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to \vhether adoption of L& DO circular 1~ates for the developed Jancb and Pre~Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value or the acquired lands in question.

¶30Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its derision reported as P" Ram Redd~.o and .. . Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer l-!yderafJad Vdum Develr~tmtent Authority 1-fyderabad and On,-., 1995 (2) SCC 305 arc as undcr:- "/.2. Uowever, in either ofthe sait! cases whether it be the determination ofthe market value of the acquired land -vvith building potentiaiity -vvith reference to the price fetched by sale c:{plots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood ! 11./lpp. No . .I VJ:i/~OO'l & connew~d /\ppr!als of Village Bhar! hal IA/Ipp. Nc. 2~M/?01.0 & cn;mected Appeal~ of Village Bljw<•san : 11.1\flp. Nc. lJ 1;' /.0.1 0 /1, :onnected lip peals of Village Pochanpur

¶31or --whether 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 plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the. nei.ghJ:norhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales of plots in the layouts, reli~d upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched i.fsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notffication under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence of price fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then vvhat could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Ac( according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its vahie by a small percentage havin.?; regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed J/5th of the market value qf the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value .for such building potentiality arises only -vvhen there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of ihe acquired land indicating thcrt there was no immediate den'!and, as such, for building plots et·::n ifformed in the acquired land. " In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the DD/\ after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La/ Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisabk to rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lanes. Following the dictum of La/ Chand (Supra), a coordinate Bench or this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! J(umar (Supra) hm: excluded the DDA rates qua tbe developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of I ,~.App. No. 1 ~ %/7.008 & connt!ctcd Appeals of Village Bhartilai I i\.App. No J<J~/?0 lO & conneW!d Appeals of Village 8ijw<1sar1 I :\.f•pp. No 1.1.1/7()10 & connected Appeals of Vil!ap,t' Pochanpur Pilr,e 23 of 29 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA' s Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶32Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-!. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 10% p.er annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of· Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-II, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and there.fore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaid argument docs not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La/ Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessmem of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even .if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe and unreJ iable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e.: of D .varka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-II is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate I r .. /\pp. Nc. 119~;/2008 & conn<'Clcd Appeals of Village Bharthal L/\.1\pp. No. 2.91}/2.010 & conr.ected 1\ppP.als of V1llagc Bijwasan

1./\./\pp. No. H 1/:>.(JlO & conn~cted Appeal~ of Village Pochanpur rage 24 of l9 escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned semor counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Comi has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, .. yvhieh is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra), has granted 8scalation @J 10% per annum. Aft.er having perused the decision in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra), I find that J 0% mcrease on account of higher potentiality of the acq1,1ired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court bas been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi/ Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court (f~, 12% per annun1 cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections o!tlw respondent arc dismissed.

¶35Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of GoverniTtent's minimum price of the agricultural Jand in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the rr..ark:et value of the acquired .land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of" fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w:c.f. 1st April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserve!: to be further increased or not.

¶36Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Noti:fication in question has been assailed by the tcarned counsel for appellants because the acquired land bad ceased to be an agricultural land by virtue ci{ Notification of 24 111 October, !994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforc~aid No1iiication of the year 1994 t:hc land usc~ of the acquired land had changed bLit that by itself is not sufficicntlo I 1\.ll:~p. No. l19~i/20C3 & connHtcd ilppe;tls of Village 13harth;tl . 1/\ 1\IJIJ. rJo. !.'.ltl/~010 & wnncctP.d /,ppeals of Village 13ijwasan IJ\.IIpo. No. J 1.1/).0'!1) & cor.nectr.d llppP.als of Viliap,e l'ochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose. · '"'7 _) ' . Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that tiJ:I the issuance of Notification un4er Sectiop 4 of the L,and Acquisition 1\ct, 1894, the acqui1:ed lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demanrt on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their usc post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their hc:nds on other sale instances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannqt rel~· upon the sale of the land : ; in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Vi1lage Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW -Ill I) arc comparable with the acquired lands a:nd so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) canno( be treated to be su1JJcicnt ground to grant higher compe11satioJ~t whil-e relying upon the aforesaid e sale instances. Therefore, in vicv; of the 3fCll-c-rcfcrred dictUJil of the Apex Court in Haryana State .Industrial Developn1ent Corporation

(HSJJ)C) (Supra), uniform rate of compensation desc.rvcs to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Goverrimcnt ·for the agricultural land in Delhi, which generally factors .in the rise of txicc due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what I A./\pp. No. 11'6/20'18 & connected Appeals nf Village BharthJI ~1\./\pp. No. ;194/201.0 & conn~cted .~ppeal!: of Village 13ijwasan IA~pp. No. J H/2.010 & connect.:d /\upeais of Village Pochanpur would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi/ Kumar (Supra).

¶38This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal. and Village Bijwasa.n has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out fi·om the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGl Airport., Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starti.ng from NH-8 Crom Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part 1 and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions,. and there being Farm Houses i.n the e ricinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the tZcferencc Court. ·In the considcnid opinion of this Court, on account of · afo_rcsaid l.ocational advanta.ges, the acquired lands in question, certainly ~ssume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dv;arka Phas;;-1. \Vhat persuades lhis Court to grant 1 or;.·;) increase ovet~ and above Jitarkct: value of the acquired lands_ as assessed by the Reference Courl on account of the higher building potentiality in the aequiJ;ed lands is the i.t, 1\r.;p. Nn. 11%/2008 8, con~ected /\ppeJis of Viliage t3horlhJI

1.11.1\pp, No. 7..'.!4/2.010 & connected Appl~als of Village Bijwasan IA!Ipp. No: 1..11./7.010 & co~nect1~d llppe;!ls of Village Pochanpur l'~p,r. n of29 settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Comi in Mirza Nausherwan J(han vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a cone! us ion is reached that there was the possibili~y of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed ro determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Considering the· fact that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them \Vith equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices !err the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of ·the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par .with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, \vhik relying upon the decision in ..:S'ushil f(umar (Supra), T am inclined to grsnt. 10% increase over and above the market value of the acquired !al1ds determined by the Reference Court in these matters on account of the :::d~rresaid locationu.l advantages e prov!ding a higher building poteniiali~y in the acquired lands in question.

¶40/\ccordingly, these appeals arc pmily allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pe1iaining Lo Village BharthaJ and Vil!.age Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of ! ~.J\pp No. J l(}!i/?.001\ & ccnnr.ctr.d /\ppr!als of Viilage llharthal . .'· .. ,~.pp. No ?.9,1/2010 & wnnectC'cJ ,'\ppcals of Village Bijwasan . /u'\pp. No. J :Ll/7.01G & connected ;'\ppcals of Village Pochanpur rage 23 of 2~ the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these t::L..L"'-u.:~ . ... ; three villages in question is determined (cy ~16,5~,000/- per ,.l>igh~c:..-~?..~ ~~t . &'/...-<: .. 'U!.. ... · (.) . Category 'A' land and@~ ~14,69,600/- per 9-i~ha for the Category 'B' ~--·· lands in question. \~ \ 1, .. , .. ~, .:J.l. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, stmulory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOi 2001 (93) DLT 569 arc granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

¶42The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the com pcnsation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar Cencral or this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared. January 06, 2012 pkb I.A,flpp. No. lJ 'JS/2.008 & connected Appeals of Village 13harthal 11'../\po. No. 2'J<li:W10 & connected flpp(!als of Vill~ge 13ijw<Jsan I /\.App. No. lll/7.010 & connected Appeals of Vi.llagc Pochanpur (''• ' y· ~ ·' ' . ' ., ; ''i' ,J IJ '· (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGJR: (.' \' I ' ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.]\legi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. versus Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.l(.Rout, Advocates UNION OF INDIA & ANR. . .... Respondents Throt1gh: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, ~vir.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi IZiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh: CORAM: Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, .Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

12.01.2012 C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6 111 January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice Page 1 . • of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6th January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha':, whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is 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 . ~ . n.o: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary co:.Tections be carried out forthwith. In view of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb L/\..App.No. 1195/2008 (~=::;;;;.r~---.. --- .... -..._ --""'-'_::-;-{g:UNIL GAUR) JUDGE Page?

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 2012 + LA.APP. 55/2010 ATTAR SINGH versus UOI&ANR CORAM: Through: Through: ..... Appellant Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38,41-46,49,50-69,73, 75,76) ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOIILAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by UOI. Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71 & 72 in appeal filed by UOI Mr.Bankey Bihar Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR