Pratap 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 IL GAUR) JUDGE 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. % V-G m THE KlGli COURT 'OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November iS, 201-1 l^LQlU>uncedon: Januan> 06, 2012 (GRIP-A) l.A.APP.l 195/2008(VILLAGE-BHARTHAL) RANBIRSHARMA Appellant [•hrough: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr..A,initMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Sniita Maan, Mr.R.SA''enna, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.R.ohtas. Ad vocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate iVlr.S;K.Rouiand Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates, Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav..Mr.Deepak Kiiosla, Mr.Samit K.hosia and IvIr.Dhananjay Mehia\'i'at, Advoeates Mr.H.S.Raiiiela, Advocate , Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thaktrar. Advocate Mr.'Atul Tripathi, Advocate, M.r.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.RaiUela., (.rVdvocatesfo.?: responden.i in appeals filed by.IJGi) versus .... l.iNlON OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents.; '1 hrough; Mr.SanjayPoddur,SeniorAd\'Ocatcwilh Mt;Saaja.> Pathak. Mr.Mohitrao iadha'>'and Ms.NavUn Swain. Ms.K.Kaimiudi-Kiran. Advocates .tb.r Mr.Aj-ay V'erma, Ms.Becnashavv Soiii, Mx-Mukcsh Kumar, Mr S.K.Sedii, Mr.Pavvan rv/Sathiir,Mr.Kunal Shanria, Advoc;.u;e for DD/v ! ,A,/\,PP.412:'200€& •,CM.No"409i-S/20()S (Cross-Objections): (.A.APP...-i-.i>2/2008; l.A. VPP.4?3/'2008: LA.APP.588/2008 G\lNo.5W20]0' (Cross-Objections);

1.A.AV'P.(>97/200.8& CM.No.-«.3/2009(Cross-Objcctions);LA.APF.7ui/20C8& CM.No 510/2009 (Cross-Objections): lA.APP 768''2008: LA.APP.770/200^,, i.r.c. ; 19V.':Q0.=;». ^onnrxlcd •'ippfiiil.-, cifVilliiRi!Bh,irlh;il : •' ."I.-;), -'k; ronnyi !f;d .App(.-jl.sof VillafjOBi.iwiiijn i'.Anil i•','010 S; r.orui(-ai;d ofViilafjc:I'-ocnanyiir ' Piij-jii».&, \':k l.A.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & 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.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; i.A.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.Mo.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM"No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cr6ss-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; i..A,APP. 1047/2008;LA.APP.] 048/200S& CN4.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420;2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.1050/2008; LA.APP.1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1052/2008; LA;APP.l053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1059/200S & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjections); 1,A.APP.l"060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009(Cross-Objections); l.A.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); l.,A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(:Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No. 17302,'2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l086,/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No,619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093'2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP,1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103,/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l109/2008; LA.APP.l110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & • CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections)iLA.APP.H,13/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (c:ross-Objections); LA.APP.1115/2008; LA.APP-1116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008; LA.APP.n26/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009. (Cross-Objections); :,A.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP: 113!/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections), LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP.l ]35/2008 & CM.ND.7442/2009YCross-ObjectiGns); LA.APP.l 137,'2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.A.PP.1156/2008;LA.APP.l157./2008;LA.APP.l158/2008'& CM.No'.7774,/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.l 159/200S; LA.APP.l 161/2008; LA.APP.l 166/2008; LA.APP.l 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.li72./200S:LA.APP.l173/2008;

1..A..APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2005';, .LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.l 181/2008;

1.A.APP. 1182/2008; LA.APP.l 183/2008& CM,No,6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 184,^^008; LA.APP.l 1S5'2008; L,A.APP.l,186/2008& CM,No.7013,/2009 1A.App Mo ny;.i/?.pD8 a r;i)hnc!';U>dAppeal.sofVillaBOuharth;!' i.A ApD. No, Z9i./2010 !v c.onr.ectc.riAppoal.sof Village Uijwassn lJ^,Apn, No. •; l:i/.'.010 & connt;clnci Appeals of Village PochaiiDur' Page ?.or 29 % (Ci-oss-Objcctions); LA.APP. 1190/2008: [.A.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP.l 192/2008 LA,APP,1193/2008; LA.APP.l 194/2008; LA.APP 1195/2008; LA.APP.l 197/2008 LA.APP.l 198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Obiections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008 LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP.12123/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008& CM.Mo.6957/2009(Cross-()biections);LA.APP.122^/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CMNo.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008 LA.APP. 127572008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP.1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LA.APP.1284/2008 i.A.APP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA,APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 L.A.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.74/2009 L.A.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.108/2009; LA,APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.i35/2009 L.A.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 140/2009; f.A. APP. 162/2009; LA..APP. 197/2009; LA:APP.202/2009; {C-ross-Objections); l.A.,APP,211/2009;

1..A.APP.224/2009; (Cross-Objections); I,A.APP.249/2009; l,A.APP.367./2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.489/20,09; LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.507/2G09; LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.572/2009; l.A APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 1-37/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009: LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP. 138/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP: 190/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA.APP.208/2009 & LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & LA.APP,241/:2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP,466/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA. APP,49 5/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.512/2009: LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.13,/20]1: LA.APP.245,/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.AP?.447,/2009; I.A.APP,480/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.509,/2009: LA.APP.513/2009: LA. APP,45/2010; LA.APP. 1138/2008: LA.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP,1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009 LA.APP. 139/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP, 191/2009 L.A, APP.201/2009 CM.No.7027,/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.223/2009; CM.No.7206/2009 LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.305/2009 LA.APP.458/2009 LA. APP.481/2009 LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.506,/2009 LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.l 176/2008 (Relating to Notification No: F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi) (GRID-B) . . Reserved on: December OS. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE-BfJWASAN). • . DLVENDl-RKUMAR ...... Appellant Through; Mr.R.S.'romar, Mr.Virendra Si,ngh lA./^pp.!vo l3a:V.'.008 & connected Appeals of Village Bhiirlhal ' '\.App. M;;. 234/.M1Q& conneclod Apppa!,sof Village Bijwasiin l.A..'\pp No :iil/;:010 & conneclod Appeals of village Pochanpu,'- versus Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki arid Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K..Routray,Advocatesfor appellant (in R-2-14,38, 41-46,49, 50-69,73, 75,76) UOl & ANR l.A.APP 1,A..'\PP i.A.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. i A,A,PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l.A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. . 52/2010 . 56./2010 100,/2010 242/2010 282/20ro 287/2010 295/2010 346/2010 350/2010 354/2010 365,/2010 360/2010 405/2010 409/2010 723/2010 727/2010 750/2010 964/2010 77/2010 75/2010 & Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates . forUOL'LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocatesin appeals filed by UOL Mr.VirendraSingh,AdvocateinR-68,'7] & 72 in appealfiled byUOI • Mr,,BankeyBihar Sharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates for DDA. LA.APP. lJ/2010 LA.APP. 53/2010 LAAPP. 57/2010 LA.APP. 22L/2010 • LA.APP. 246/2010 LA.APP. 283/2010 LA.APP. 288/2010 LA.APP. 296/2010 LA.APP. 347/2010 LA.APP. 35L'2010 LA.APP. 356/2010 LA.APP. 742/2010 LA.APP. 361/2010 LA.APP. 406/201.0 LA.APP. 438/2010 LA.APP. 724/2010 LA.APP. 729/2010 LA.APP. 759/2010 LA.APP, 28672010 LA.APP. 80/2010 C.M.No. 964/2011 (C LA.APP. 49/2010 LA.APP. 51/2010 LA.APP. 54/2010 LA.APP. 55,'2010 LA.APP. 59/2010 LA.APP. 70/2010 LA.APP, 223/2010' LA.APP. 226/2010 LA.APP,277/2010 LA.APP.281/2010 LA.APP. 284/2010 LA.APP. 285/2010 LA.APP. 289/2010 LA.APP. 294/2010 LA.APP. 313/2010 LA.APP. 345/2010 LA.APP. 348/2010 LA.APP. 349/2010 LA.APP. 352/2010 LA.APP. 353/2010 LA.APP. 357/2010 LA.APP. 358/2010 LA.APP. 760/2010 . LA.APP. 359/2010 LA.APP. 362/2010 LA.APP. 363/2010 l-.A.APP.407/2010 .LA.APP,408/20] 0 LA.APP, 588/2010 LA.APP. 722,/20]0

1.A,APP. 725./2010 LA.APP. 726/2010 LA.A.PP.73L/2010 L.A.APP.732/2010 LA.APP. 764/2010 LA.APP.828/2010 LA.APP. 364/2010 LA.APP. 99/2010 & 'ross-objection.s) (Relating to NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000 issued under. Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) " AND l-A App. I'Jo l & connactedAppnalsofVillageBharinnl' I•> App. |-v|(.. &c'.)r:n(:c;tc.'iiAppealsof ViliagRBijwasan A.Apa, ,Mo, I-n/J()U) ,4 connecU'dAppealsof VillagePochaipuj % (GRID-C) LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR)i Res^vedon: Dp.r.pmhovjg 2011 PmiQMicedon: January06. 201? SEHAJRAM AND ORS. Through: versus UNION OF INDIA& ANR Through: Appellants Mr.B D, Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand P"ii'for appellant(in to1q' ™' « "4 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mi.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61, 64,65/2011) . . . Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.Mohitrao Ms.NavlinSwain.Advocates for UOI/LAC- • Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. l^A.APP. LA.APP. I.A.APP. la APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. r^A.APP. I A. APP. I.A. APP. LA.APP. la.api>. 111/2010 160/2010 .228/2010 .254/2010 292/2010' 307/2010 395/2010 420/2010 466/.2010 637/2010 660/2010 767/2010 919/2010 65/201] 120/201] 476/2011 523/2011 536/201]' 154/2010 165/2010 248/2010. 260/2010 293/2010 317/2010 396/2010 432/2010 489/2010 639/2010 662/2010 76S./20i0 1052/20 JO 116,/2011 121/2011 LA.APP. la.app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, 485/2011 525/2011 554-/2011 'A.AP,; Villag"BUwasan lh^Oj.0&connectedAppoalso! VillagePochanpur LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA, APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, L.A.APP-. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA,APP, 155/2010 209/2010 249/2010 261/2010 305/2010 392,/2010 397/2010 433/2010 577/2010 640/2010 741/2010 784,/20I0 61/2011 . 117/2011 129/201! 521/2011 526/2011 591/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L-A.APP 156/2010 215/2010 250/2010 270/2010 306/2010 393/2010 412/2010 434,/20]0 635/2010 657/2010 758/2010 918/2010 64/2011 119/201] 429/20] ] 522/2011 535/2011 PagGSofa? (Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated

13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 & AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 66'.0L20i2

¶1Since the groundson which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcrelbrewith the consentof learnedcounsel for the partiespresentat the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pert;aining Lo NotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/1A/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commoriorder.

¶2Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13''' December, 2000 under Section 4 of. the Land ALcquisitionAct. 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricuitural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijv/asanand Pochanpur. j. • Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaidthree-villagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, i.e., /Vwaid No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward , No.30/2002-2003granting compensation% ?13.82 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field -• with top soil) and @?12.32 1acs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil). •

¶4Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheiracquired LA.ApD. Ko, 119;;/;'008a con.ru;c:ted,Appn;iis.ofvillageBharthal. I." Apr;. No. ;'9"/?,010» ccrnoc'ed Appi?aisofViilagt;Biivva^an lAApp. NO.UI/7010&con.ne.-srodAppealsofVillagePochsnpir • . ' Page 6 of,29 o^\ agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the RefeijenceCourt vide impugned judgmenthad enhanced compensation@^is.OO lacs per acre for the I , t appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed. 5'. In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave sought compensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyingupon the precedents in the shape, of decisions in Executive Engineer, liarnataka Housing Board ra. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011)2 sec 246; Anjani MoluDessai vs. State ofGoa and Ann,

(2010) 1.3 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar(Mnd Acquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 SCC 661; RanvirSingh ami Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(I)} through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jaigaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La! vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Am\, 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana & Ors., 20] 0(9) SCAI.E 41; Chdkas vs. State of Punjab '& Ors., 201] (9) SCAIJ'; 362; Avinash DhavajiNaik vs. State of Maharashtra,(2009) 11 SCC 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors ra. State of •Haryana & Anr, (2008)'2-SCC 568; W.P.(C) No, 4143/2003titled as Snit Indu Khorana w. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheh, (2011) 7 SCC 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer, •AApp, fvio. & conruictedAppealsof VillageSharthai ' • .. A.^pp. No. 7.94/;'.0.10,& conneanclAppnalsofVlllagG Bijvvusnn A.Apfj, No 131/7.0.1.0&corrnoctedAppealsof VillagePochar'pi.r ' • ' . Page7of 29 Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 115-,kisalSingh& Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia&Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. Union of India and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GenehlManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhalJivanbhaiPatel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937: Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar V5. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238' Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627' Satpal & Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKum.ar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 26,09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled 'as Bed Rum vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and EhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia,2010

(170) DLT 371.

¶6On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be fnst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiodof tiinc and the same cannotbe linnitedto the near futurealone. / It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts, I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi IA./-,BP i\jo & coiinKcteciAppealsof VillageBharchal IA /'np. No ;!94/201.0&conncctodAppealsof Villageliijwasan •A.App MO 111/?.0.10S connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpu^ • and Oil Depots of Indian Oii and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv MuijtitowardsDwarkaSub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions;(i) North Eastern side, where IGJ Airportis located;and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFann Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalkha.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part ofthe land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Aitport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin theyear 1982 forBharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanptu-were also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentofDwarkaPhase-Iand the landson the westernside ofVillagesBaranoliand Dhool Siraswere also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks«zWmapto highlightthatthe boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpurand Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.iVIaan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and has Illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16'" October, 2000 vide which land use of the three-villages in question was changed from agricult-ura? to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entireland ofVillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in viewofthe Notificationof24°'October,1994.

¶9It was argued with inuch vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout.learned counsel for the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama IA.App,Mo,i;!«/;«08&conn.ct«dAppeak^ .AApp..fMo.,?9/I/^0-i0&connecloriAppoal!;of VillageFiijwasan . •-' App. .go,.!1]/,iQio&conneclridAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur 2sec 305. wh.ch has been co"side.-edhy {he Apex Co"rti" i, later Vdho Dass vs. StateojHaryana,&On. ^010(9)SCAir that .e potent,or the a«,anaj:r:It: «," v,ew the developmenti" the areaW aperiodofttae and san. cannot he lintited to anear a.t.re alone and if after the lhatthereis no buildingpotentiality. H). Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma.learnedcounselfor the .e ants ,,onthe sevenSaleOeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlit P-ereflectedthereinvaHedfro..52 lacsto .62 lacs^d -rely because of the said variation,these sale exemplarscannot be wn out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, because hue n basis to conclude.hat these sale exemplarsare ove.alued b-useoany specialadvantagesand as per seUled legal proposition ' own ,y the Apex Court in AtijuniMoluDessaivs. StateofGoa "OIO>-CCr,0,theaverageofsaleexe.npla.oui::: •aku, as representingthe marketpriceofthe land which comes to .57 I crc andjnccthe sale exemplarsreliedupon by the appellants - tbc comparablesale instances, therefore, rel..tce placed by the pnee ,ou.tupon the minimumrates/circleratesfordetenninin=the marketvalueofthe acquiredland is patentlyerroneous Assessmentofmarketvalue of Ihe acquiredland was sought bv .R.Godara.learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basisofthe1& ird'"""''" — --onthebasisof," ,| , • ft"- allotmentof alternate plots in the vear 7000-'^nni i<r • • po.cn,ia.i.v'or ,h of its market value is i».A«p.»o, JM/Jmo »'vniisoBnanta Page10 of 29 ."I sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkhaor alternativelyon the basis of the L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-1 or onj the basis of the Pre-DetcrminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above,i

¶12In the writtensynopsis,appellant-ImpillseIndiaPrivateLimited of LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds a) "Ignores the acknowledgementon the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated

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

7.7.2007) b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates-of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid ^down by variousdecisionsincludingin one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar.2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe land under.acquisition. e) Does not deal M>ith disparityin value of the SaleDeeds producedbefore the trial Court whereasas per the law established by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No..5475 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has 'specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigher rate shouldnot be disregardedin IA.App. ^0. ,119'i/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Uhnrthai I/*.App, i\!o. /94/2010& connec'.fidAppealsofVillageliijvvasan IA.App No, 111,/2010&c'jnnsciedAppealsof VillagePochanpur case the averagesalepriceis lower 'Furtherin Aniana ^ Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 7JO the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingofdifferenttypes of sales transactions should he' Considered ' while adjudicatingupon compensationuponacertanland f) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in JAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject landwhileignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalueofthe landis much higherthan 15 lacper c^remBlockAandf13,36.000in BlockBin violation of the law^ laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court '"d^dmg in Subh Ram vs. State ofHaryana 2010(1) .,.t T; " the impugnedjudgment tefmed to return an actualfinding on the issue No I framed on 27.2.2007. g) ^-^'aluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi the land use of Village Dhool Siras ard Bharthal was changedand these area, ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesofDelhi State he masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that mfuture land can'be subjected to residential commercial and, other permissibleuses. It is also pertinentto mentionthat the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74^^amendment Oj the Constitutioncf India, w.e.f 1.6 1993 IX 4 by virtue of which the Municipal CorporationAa was amendedand the area where the land is situated, was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor .. was electedfrom there. No PanchayM elections were held m the area. h) '2 apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467 RanvirSingh and Anr vs. Onion ofIndia • andrefusedto considerthe fact thai the developmentin ' -e area ,uis a direct effect cm the price that a wiliing purckasefwouldpayfor the subjectland n Ignored the fact that Respondent'No., ,2 'had also ..A.APP.NO. n9S/200S&cor,n.a«dAppealsof Village^ A.App. ,0. 2MUQiC&connectedAppealsof VillageBHwasan 'A..PP,!.q, -,.11/2010&conncr.,:d AppealsofVillagePochtplr . • . auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land. • j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibilityof change of the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 • although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar

(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held that the purpose for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got buildingpotentiality to be used for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m.) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands M>ere acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in better use as housesites in the nearfuture. "

¶13In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith a pra^^erthat the appellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appelJantsof the otherappealsinthesebuneh of appeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargamentsadvancedon behalfof the appcilants,it was urged by Mr.Anand'Yadav,Advocatethat the effectof '..A.App.Mo. iiaVMOS & connectedAppeal.?ofVillageBharthal i.A.App. (Mo. J94/7.010& connoctedAppealsofVillageHijwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010S connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur PapolBofza urbanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin MaheshDattairayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapi!Mehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DcterminedRates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevantto determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesrelieduponby the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands, Thus, enhancement of compensation icflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section5l-A of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence ior determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationof the property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpai& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand: V5. Union of India and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. AFP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in price ma short period cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasonsfor' such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller LA.App No. lia;i/200a& connsctedAopfiiilsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwasan .A.App rjo..r!.l/^0j:0&connecuidAppealsorVillagePochanijur ' ' ' Papel4of29 0^ and the purchase,-as no prudentperson havingtaowledgeofthe usual^ prevalenttrendin the marketwould-paysuchahigherpay as reflectedin the sale instanceof Radha S^^ami Satsang^. Beas. relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration.Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objectorthat adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DctemimedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in La/ Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBenchofthis Courtin Sushi!Kumar(supra)andRajSingh (supra).

¶16So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged by Mr.SanjayPoddar. learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the minimumindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas on 1 April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been errorieouslv determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submitted thatthereis no scopefor furtherenhancementfrom thepriceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the RclcrenceCourtwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe appreciation@12% per annum and the same deserves lo be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing' the cross-objectionsto the aforesaidextent.

¶17Alter consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon closeperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon lecordand the decisionscited,whatemergesis that the tniemarketvalue ofthe comparablelandis the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling 'A.App.No. nav;M08&connoctedAppealsofVillageBharth.l •App. No. 2;)4/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwa.san >Pl.' 10 . &':onr!e{;teclAppealsof \/;llagePochanpur Page 1,5or 7.3 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

(i) the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe cit)!or the town or village which had been growingin size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) possibilityofobtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput upon that land;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v) existence of highways, public 'roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which m.ay become availableto the occupiersof buildings,if builton the acquired land; and

(vH) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demand, for building purposes, to specify afew. "

¶181he potentialityol land for the puiposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpurposesdepends upon a large numberof factors. I'or the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for IA.Ado. No.'UHS/J.OOS& connectndAppciil.^ofVillage Bharlhal i.A.App. Mo ?.'M/;i010& connectodAppealsofVillage BIjwasan 1A.App. No. :a1/2010fi connectedAppeaLsof VillagePochanpur p ^^9 which the lands were sought to be acquired;but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash(supra).While reiteratingthe relevantfactors for detemination ofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsofsinallpiecesof land relied upon by the appellantscouldnot be aground to discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesofland were not available.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Am M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7SCC

¶714Ihe legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land. 20, It is a well establishedproposition of law that the burden of pi-ovingthe true market value ofthe acquiredland is on the State who has acquiied the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage. -1. Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe feet that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,iiospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. I'he pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserveattention,which are as under:- lA.App i\o. 11S5/200S&. corincctedAppealsof VillageBharthal IA.App, Mo. 29/l/?010&connoctHdAppaalsof VillageBijwssan IA.App. No. 111/>.010&r.nnnectodAppealsof VillagePochanpur t "The legal position is that even where there cire several exemplars wnth reference to similar lands, usually the •highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whoseprices range in a harrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as\ representing the market price. But where the values disclosed, in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted, to,. "

¶22ll would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching obsei-vations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- '7/ is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the hona fi.de sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place betw>een a. willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the nonnal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

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

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. lA.App Mo. jiyiV'-008& connected Appfialsof VillageBhartlial i.A.App No. ?.9'l/2010 & connccted'Appeals of VillaBG Bijwasan lA.App. No. ]]1/2'0.10S<connoctedAppealsofVillagePochar,pur Page 18of29 On the otherhand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas wherethe developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high and where there is constructionactivity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalationsin prices have touched even 30% to 50% or moreperyear, duringthe nineties.On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated jor years or rose marginallyata nominalrate of1% or2% 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 oflands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat bestbe onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase(o be appliedwoulddependupon the same. Normally,recourseis taken to the rhode ofdeterminingthe market value by providingappropriateescalationover the provedmarketvalue of nearbylands in previousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor accpdsition),where there IS no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.The said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale tmnsactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisition by onlyafew years, thai is uptofbur to five years. Beyond thai it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a. neighbouring la.nd What may be a reliablestandardifthe gap is only a Jew years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the,gap is larger. For example,for determiningthe market value of a land acquired in 1992, adoptiiw the annual increase meihod with refhrence to a sale or App. &conm!rt«dApp.ialsofVillageBharthai 1A Apo. NO. &cornocredAppealsof villageBiiwasan I'-Ano f-Jo. connecioclAppeahof VillagePochaiip'ir Page .19 of 29 acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This is because, over the course ofyears, the, >ate' of annual increasemay itselfundergodrasticchange apartfrom the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin pricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandard 'of increase."

¶24rhisCourtis mindfulofthe dictumoftheApexCourtin Haryana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDQ(Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesalesmethods:What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- When differentcategoriesoflands (or landswith different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the sam.epurpose sav for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference^to previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoided anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe same notification." '-5-Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deedsvide which religiousinstitutioii,i.e., RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas had purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpurat a price which varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs peracre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds(Hx.PW-I/4 to Ex.PW-1,/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand RadhaSwamiSatsang, •Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueof the land in the villagesin que.stionis the mootquestionwhichis required to bo answered. Evidently,aforesaid sale exemplars,i.e.. Sale Deeds IA App. No. l.i.W/MOg&connociedAppeal.;ofVillageBharthal i.A App. Wo.^9,i/20,)US.«!nn(ict.:!clAppc;alsof VillageBijwasan IA.Adp No. il.lA)010& connHctc-dAppyji:.of VillagePochanpur (Ex.PW-1/4 to ?62 kc5 to Ex.PW-1/10) mdicate that its price varies from ^"52 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the ^entire land of the sale exG^jiplars-Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex;PW-l/10)did not command the'same .rketprice.It was dependentupon the nature and situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to of land of these sale exemplars't^ith acquired land in ea(:h parcel questioii, js' disclosing r these lands. acking.Therefore,these sale exenlplars canno ;presentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these?agriculturalland has not been got ex amined by the appellants.Ilad the purcliaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited irom him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami be treated as Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an rice in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^ was also subjectmatterin lA. 'App, No. 266/2008titledas exorbitant p March, 200C Jai Singh k*. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011•and in LA. App. 0 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on id in the aforesaid decisions,the sale exemplarof Village Mamurpurv\'as discardedwhile holdingthat the same cannot be ti'eaied as representative price for the acquired lands-. instant'matters,though the land use of the acquired lands much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence i-ed lands were being used fo]- agnculturalpurposetill their "hus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not No. 999/20

19.9.201 lai 27, In the was changed .that the acqu acquisition. developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailijig I.A,AP(^.'Na1.195/2008&connec J.A,Apf).'No;.'294/2010& ronnech l.A.App', No') ill/2010 & connccu :ed Appeals of Village Bharthal d Appealsof VillageDijwasan d AppealsofViliagfiPoclianpur i market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until sucl: purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds (Kx.PW-1/4 ;o Bx.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶8So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, it loted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-I/ll) was le National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in needs to be i situated on t (Bx.PW-l/ll) question.

¶29Left wi situated lands ^vhcthe]•adop question.

¶30Parame highlighted b> h no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to Lion of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Dctermined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in ers governing fixation of market value of acquired lands Apex Court in its decision reported as F. Ram Reddy and ) Ors. V, Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development I Authprity Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SX'C 305 are as uiider:- "12. Ifowever, in either of the said cades whether it be the determination of the market yahie of the acqtiired land,with building sale ofI ^potentiality M'ith reference to the price fetched by jlots in a well developed layout in the neighborhood IA-App. No.:iWr)/2008 & connnctpd. Appcjalsof Village Bharl.hal I.A.App, 1A.App, . No. 234/;'.Oi.O a connfcted . No. 111/20.1.0 ft connectcd Appnals of Villajje Biiwasan • Appeals of Village Pochanpiir # or whetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueofthe acquire^land with buildingpotentialitywith reference to theprio^fetchedbysaleofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitallefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftHeparties;with referenceto theprice M'hich theplots couldhavefetchedifsold,on the date ofthe publication of the preliminarynotification under Section 4(1) oj the Act. Further,where no evidenceofpricefetched by' the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighbourhoodof the acquired^landsbecomes available, then what could be done is tofind out the marketvalue of the acquired land with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingto the actualuse to which it was putandincreaseits value by a smnll percentage having regard to the degree i/ its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be-made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of^ the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increasedvahif for ilding potentiality arises only when there is no of sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodof lired land indicating that there was no immediate as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in the such In evidenci the acqi demand, acquired land. "

¶31In view the DDA alter of the difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land charged by acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), held t:iat it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the adjoining undt^veloped freehold lancis. I'ollowing the dictum of La! Chand (Supra),a coordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of 1A.App. No..n.9!;/?.008 & conn(!ctcd , LA.App. No.2fM/.?OI.O& connoctod A LA.App. No, 11]/?0.1.0 & conneclod A \ppfials of Village Bharliisl apeals of Village Bljwasan 3peals of VillagePochanpur Page 2-3 of 29 i ' • i the undevelc has rightly n the DDA's r market value •pad acquired lands. Thus, 1 find that the Reference Court Dt adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or 're-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the of the acquired agriculturallands in question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease method wou:d be relevant criteria for assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.other villagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to. be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senic escalation at •year \9?A t Notification Notification , the Land Acc and therefor unjustified. r counsel for the respondcnt/cross-objector that even if the the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the ill the year._ 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant or developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed by uisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is

¶33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt ;icrease method in assessment of tlie market value of the 'only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyon^ that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may becomeunsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In'the instant case, the progressive i acquired lane gap between Phase-II is of mode of de the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthe ;ermining the market value by providing appropriate I.A.App. No. n9!j/2008 & conncctcd Appealsof VillageBharthal I.A.App,No. 294/2010&connectecjAppealsofVillageBijwasan l-A.App. No. 111/2010 & conner'aid Appealsof VillagePochanpur Page_24 of 29 f U cscaJation c

¶34Mr.S respondent/ granted esc coordinate ver the marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears. mjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the :ross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has alation @ 12% per annum, which is unwaiTanted as a :)ench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. ^Iter having perused the decision in lar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher of the acquired land over and above the market value by the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon Sushii Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt 12%) per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%) per annum. In this view of ic cross-objectionsof the respondent are dismissed. 'Sushil Km potentiality determined the matter, t what is to be seen is whether-adoptionof Government's ice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt 3criteriafor determiningthe Market value of the acquired

¶35Now minimum pi is reasonabl land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the ourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for the and by the Governmentw.e.f 1'' April, 2000 till the date of in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or Reference C •agricultural Notification not.

¶36Adopt pertaining t( learned cour use-of the acc lA.App. No. ]].95/>:dC8&connficlGdAppe;ilsofVillagGUliarthni I.A Ap(j. No. iyn/2010&. coniiGctPdAppealsofVillage Bijwasan l7\.App. No. D11/2010&connncledAppealsofVillageI'ochanpiir on of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land ' the-Notification in '"question has been assailed by the sel for appellantsbecause the acquired land had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in thesS-,three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land uired land had changedbut that by itself',isnotsufficientto I'age 25 of 29 o presume tha considered as aspect-of thet in question. " Satsang, Beas of the said Ian

¶37Rather, issuance of K 1894, the acq increase in pri acquired land appellants cou the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital ebeing any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlands ^ot only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami heavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ds was for agriculturalpurpose. It emerges from the evidence on record that till the otificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, uired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been :e due to higherdemand,on accoun];:of.potentialityof the upon change of their use post the year 1994, then dhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area in question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale of the land in VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitution'andanothersale instance of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-l/ll)without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas mVillage Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof VillageSamalkha(hx.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the' acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficient highei compensationv/hiJe relying upon thcl aforesaid Iherefore, in viev/ oi: the aforc-referreddictum of-the Haiyana State imhistrialDevelopmentCorporation (IISIDC)(Supra),uniform,rate ofcompensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands a minimum price ground to gran sale instances. Apex Court in .(•quiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the hxed by.the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality.Talking note of the fact that there-is agap between what I. Mo. 110:3/2008&conncctedA|ipeal.sof VillageBharthal '• ^fo. 294/?.0:i.0&connocH!dApfiealsof VillageBijwasan •iMo,. 1.11/AaiO&connHctodAofeaisof VillagePochanpur f would be ej^pected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's niinimurn 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 Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I find take a different view than the one which had been taken by lench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

¶38Tliis Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in no reason to coordinate I U'K the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Dell iMnding of th Bijwasan, of of the acquir Bharat Petro Bharthal anc i to fix the market valuQ of the acquired lands in question. e Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and Village ! there being no evidence that the potential and the situation ed lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the .evidenceon record. But I find that the aspectof higher potentialityof the acquired lands being in close vicinity of theilGT Airport, Indian Oi! and eum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village there being a 100 .meters vide road starting from MH-8 from Shiv .Mbrti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part1and Part 11, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, arid there being Farm Houses in the e acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaidlocktionaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dv/arka Phasc-1. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands' as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands is the Akp. No. 119i;/2008 &. connectKd Appeals of Village iiharlhal l/\.A[Jp.No. 294/2610& connHctcdAppealsofVillageBijvifasan lA.App. No.-l.n./?.010& connected Appealsof Village Poclianpur Page Z7 of 29 h •' t'' • • 1 settled lega position aptly highlighted by 'the Apext Court in AWirza NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords;- 7 once a conclusion is reached that there was the ility ofthe acquiredland being usedfor puttingup igs in the immediateor nearfiJtw^e, such conclusion be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland, had a ig potentialityandproceed lo determine its market 'akinginto account the increasein priceattributable "Whe, possib biiildii would bidldit value , to such buildingpotentiality."

¶39Consic ering the fact that it wouid be very difficultto providea definitevalai qua potential,and in vieAv of the fact that exactnesscan never be ach broad probab ieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is litiesofthe instantcases, whichpersuadestne to treatthem with equivalence by uniformly applying tiie Government'sminimum prices for the the acquired lands differen par with thei Village Bijwa Kumar (Supr^ agriculturallands for computingthe J^air market value of ands as there are no special features to treat the acquired t]y and so, appellants'ofVillagtePochanpurare treated at r counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and san. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil ), I dm inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the f-— u uvc: diiu aoovetne n^arketvalueofthe acquiredlands dcitermined'bythe R.ei'erci^ceCourtin these matters on account of the albresaid locational |advantages providingahigl|erbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶40Accordi awarding 10% igly, these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent of increaseoverand above the marketvalueassessedby the rt in matterspertaininglo Village Bharthaland Village .'•fercnce Coi; i3ijwasan. Whi the appellants I'^.App No. J.l.?!j/2008&connoclGd. 1A.App. Mo. ?.9'I/;;010a connoclc'dA 1A.App. iMo. .1:11/2010& connected A =treatingthe aRpcllantsofVillagePochanpurat par with )f VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof \ppeals of Village Bharthal ^peals of Village Bijwa.san • pcal.s ofVillagePochanpur [•age 23 of 29 * the appel]an;s of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these three villages Category 'A lands in ques in questionis determined@?16,50,000/-perpi^hnfor the land and @^14,69,600/-per 'gi^ha for the Category 'B' ion. I'-v

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory ben the judgmen granted, exce efits as per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are •6t for the periodwherethere is adelay in filing the appeal, ioi which per;odof delay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. These;appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ol this Court, to the conccrnedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordiiighprepared. .jr January 06, 2 pkb t)12 •J J:,-S" H n. I-':•):! LA.App, No. 1195/2008&connnctod, , , . _ tA.App. No. 234/2610&conncctcdAppealsof VillageBijwasan IA.App. No. Ill/20f0&coiinoclodAppoaLsof VlllafiePochanpur appeals of Villagt!Bharthal * -f-% •% IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI .AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SI-I/ Througl UNION OF Throng; V C.M. Appl. ^ \BMA .....Appellant 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.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiledby UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Ad;vocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mj.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates ;rsus INDIA & ANR. ..•••Respondents ir. Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,IVir.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh, Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. ' CORA.M: HON'BLE MR= justice SUNIL GAUR ORDER-

12.01.2012 •• o, 752/2012 (For correctioM). This is 'ih an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Order6f6''Januai7, 2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice .A.App;No. 1195/200 8 Page 1 /' .1' [1 »'• k t •ofthe app. given to re The decision ication.Advancecopy ofihis applicationhas alreadybeen Tiainingcounselfor the appellants. typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin tlie 6 January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the afoiesaidjudgmentthe rate ofcompensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it shotUd be "per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counselappearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this ajjplicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'perbiglra'in paragraph ao: 40 of jA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary correctionsoe cmriedout forthwith. In viewo.t the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof •JANUARY pkb AApp.No.1195/2008 12, 2012 V gg2aginF3a[B3apim3Mr>^ , Page 2

•A' % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V LA.APP. 49/2010 PRATAP SINGH Reserved on: December 08, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 Appellant Through: 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) versus UOI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates in appeals filed by 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. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR