LA.APP./298/2010 of DEVENDER MOHAN ANAND Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ LA.APP. 298/2010

Appellant

DEVENDER MOHAN ANAND Through: Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate.

versus

Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, [Senior ]Advocate with [Mr.Sanjay ]Pathak, Advocate for UOI.

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE [PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ]

ORDER % 26.09.2011

For orders, see LA.App.No.358/2 007.

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2011

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AMULYACertify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

19th Judgment Reserved On Augst, 2011 • /udgment Delivered On..26th September, 2011

LA.APP. 358/2007

HEM CkANDER MALIK . •. ... Appellant Through: Mr. JV. Rana, Mr.Deepak KhosI, Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.S.K.Verrha, Advocates

... Appellant

UÔI & OTHERS ... Respondents Through: Mr.Snjay Poddar, Senior Advocate Fx Mr.Sanjay Kumä.r Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1.

... Respondents

.+ LA.APP. 62/2004, .LA.APP. 136/2004,:. LAAPP.• 166/2004, -RFA 422/2001; RFA 304/2002, RFA 448/2002; RFA, 481/2002, RFA 49712002, RFA 572/2002. . .. . -RFA 422/2001; RFA 304/2002, RFA 448/2002; RFA, 481/2002, RFA 49712002, RFA 572/2002. . .. .

(Relating to Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisiton Act 1894 dated 23.12.1994 & Award No. 13/1996-97, Village- Shahbad Daulatpur) • .

AND

~± LA.APP. 573/2009, A.APP. :298/2010e LA:APP. 599/2010, LA.APP. 791/2010, LA.APP. 3 /2011, LA.APP. 396/2011 . •

• ± LA.APP. 573/2009,

(Relating to Notification under Section 4 of th.e Land Acquisition Act 1894 dated 28.04.1995 & Award No. 1/1998-99, Village- Shahbad Daulatpur). .

AND

. . + LAAPP. 353/2008, LA.APP. 354/2008, LA.APP. 35812008, LA.API. 372/2008., LA.APP. 524/2008, LA.APP. 884/2008, LA.APP: 1000/2008, LA.APP. 1005/200.8 • LA.API. 372/2008., LA.APP. 524/2008, LA.APP. 884/2008, LA.APP: 1000/2008, LA.APP. 1005/200.8 •

• • LA.App.No.358/2007 & connted mafters

Page 1 of 10 • .

(Relating to Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 dated 27.10.1999 & Award No. 29/2002-03, Village-Shahbad Daulatpur)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG

Whether the Reporters of ldcal papers may be allowed to, see the judgment? to, see the judgment?

To be referred to Reporter or nOt?

'3. Whetherthe judgment should be reported in the

Digest?

•PRADEEP NAN DRAIOG, L

Vide three awards as afore-noted pronounced pursuant to three notifications issued under Section: 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on 23.12.19941 284.1.995 and 27.10.1999, agricultural lands in village Shahbäd Daulatpur were acquired fordevelopment of Rohini Phase-IV. It may be highlihte.d that lands for the colony Rohini were first acquired in the year 1961 and fromtime to time acquisitions were made as and when Rohini Phase-I, Rohini Phase-Il and Rohini Phase- • Ill were dedloped and colonized. The effect of what I have highlighted Js that by the time subject acquisitions were effected, the surrounding lands had not only been acquired but had, been fully developed and largely colonized and thu's the subject lands had acquired building potentiality

Whenjudgment was reserved in the ihstant appeals on • 19.8.2011; arguments were advanced and decision vas reserved in Appeals pertaining to acquisition of 'land in the adjoining village Rithala Agricultural lands of said village

LA.App.No.358/2007'& connected rnaers •

• Page 2 of:1O •

---•----'--••'-•••• •••-'•-'--'•••-•-•-'•-•-- ------

•••••--'•--'•-•-•••-'-•

Rithala were also acquired for the expansion 'of the Rohini Residential Scheme pursuant to notification dated 21 7 1993 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 3 Arguments advanced in the instant appeals were the same as were advanced in the appeals pertaining to village Rithala and thus, since I have dealt with the arguments while pronouncing decision today in the appeals pertaining to village Rithala, I need not re-pen the arguments and my reasons dealing with the same

4 Suffice would it be to state that amongst other arguments, one argument advanced was with respect to • subject lands having acquired building potentiality, This was, one of the many arguments advanced in the appeals pertaining to village Rithala arguments, one argument advanced was with respect to • subject lands having acquired building potentiality, This was, one of the many arguments advanced in the appeals pertaining to village Rithala

5 I had rejected all arguments save and except the one qua building potentiality, and for which reasons could be gathered from the decision pronounced today pertaining to village Rithala and the lead matter is LA APP No 656/2008 Sushi! Kumar vs UQI & Ors The same may be treated as incorporated by reference in the present decision building potentiality, and for which reasons could be gathered from the decision pronounced today pertaining to village Rithala and the lead matter is LA APP No 656/2008 Sushi! Kumar vs UQI & Ors The same may be treated as incorporated by reference in the present decision

6 With reference to the decision of, the Supreme Court reported as 1995 (2) 5CC 305 PRam Seddy & Ors vs Land AcquisitIon Offier, Hyderabad Urban DevelOpment AUthority& AcquisitIon Offier, Hyderabad Urban DevelOpment AUthority& Ors on the principle of subject lands having acquired building potentiality, but there being no reliable evidence to translate the potentiality into money value, as held in the building potentiality, but there being no reliable evidence to translate the potentiality into money value, as held in the decision in PRam Reddys case (supra), on the basis of market value determined as per actual user I have, to give effect to building potentiality acquired, enhanced the price by 10% and value determined as per actual user I have, to give effect to building potentiality acquired, enhanced the price by 10% and

LA.App.No•.358/2007 & connected matters

Page 3 of 10

on said basis, pertaining to the notification dated 21 7 1993 have determined fir market value of land in village Rithala'as of said date to be '1,53,000/- per bigha and would highlight that the said sum was arrived at on the basis that as per actual user fair market value on said, date would be' 1;3'.9,026.40 per bigh.

7. Giving same benefit to the subject, lands and with reference to the fact that as of 21.7.1993,. factoring in the benefit of building pot'entiality, for adjoining village Rithala I have determined fair market value at 1,53,000/-, taking the said price and the said 'date as the base indices, pertaining to the notifications datd 23.12.1994 and 28.4.1995, incesing, the land price by 10% per annum, I determine the fair market value to be1,69,5 15.61 per bigi1:e. 8,13;672e7cr, . runded off to(8,13,675/- per acre as of 23.12.1994)and . —T90.1 - per bigha or 8,80,273.95 per acre rounded off to ' ,80,275/- per acre. • . • reference to the fact that as of 21.7.1993,. factoring in the benefit of building pot'entiality, for adjoining village Rithala I have determined fair market value at 1,53,000/-, taking the said price and the said 'date as the base indices, pertaining to the notifications datd 23.12.1994 and 28.4.1995, incesing, the land price by 10% per annum, I determine the fair market value to be1,69,5 15.61 per bigi1:e. 8,13;672e7cr, . runded off to(8,13,675/- per acre as of 23.12.1994)and . —T90.1 - per bigha or 8,80,273.95 per acre rounded off to ' ,80,275/- per acre. • . •

.peals by the land owners pertain'ing to the said to notifications are partially allowed by incr'eaing . the compensation payable as above. •

'Pertaining to the notification dated 2.10.19.99, it needs to be highlighted that the learned 'AdditionaF District Judge has • deterrnned fair market value at 12,96,455.89 per acre on the stengh, of the minimum price notified by the Government for agHcultural lands as of 1.4.1999. • . .

. 'If! were to adopt the land p.rice at.1,53,00O/- per bigha as of 21.7.1993 and increase the 'same by 10% per annum, as I have done for the previous two notifications, the land price would come to 11,89,728/- per aré, which would be less than

LA.App.No358/2007 &'connected rnaers' • . ' Page 4 of 10 '.

the Vmihimum price notified by the Government with effect from 1.4,1999. ' ' ,• '

11: do not do sO for the reason,. in my judgment delivered. on 23.8.2011 deciding batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.APP. No.266/2008 Ia! Singh vs. 'UQI & Anr., discussing the notifications issued by the Government' of[ Delhi from tirne.to ]. time enhancing market value of agricultural lands and dedsions by Courts on' the issue ofmarketvalue of agricultural' lands on various dates and in particular the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (IV) AD (Delhi) 13. Ga/ra! S/ngh vs. UQI & Anr., in paragaphs 49 to '52 I had' '

. observed as under:-

"49. ' ' I have, in para 37 above, noted 'a decision of Djvision Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.66/2005 'decided on [11.5.2006, ]Mahender 5/17gb vs. UQI & Ors. Wherein pertaining to village Bawana, fair market value determined as of 15.11.1996 is 1,99,904.68 per bigha which 'equals to , 9,59,542.46 per acre.. The said decisionwould, be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision- notes that ' ' the subject lands i.e. the lands with which the ,Division Bench was concerned, had acquired potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth, 5 villages 'in rural Delhi were identified for providirg major health facilities schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted that G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access.. to village B.awana and that the Master Plan fOr, Delhi notified in the year 1990 had indicated the land use ' in the area to be changed' in the future to industrial . and comniercial, but had also observed that nowithstanding this, for the reason no zonal plan . ws notified as contemplated bySection hA of'thë '

, LA.App.No.358/2007 & connected thafters [. . ][' ][,' Page 5 of 10 ]

Delhi Deve!opme.nt Act 1951, thelands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 19961 any land use had been actually changed and put to the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to potential land value with reference to the area being known to all as being required in the future for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference to the potentiality i the lands being, in the near future capable dfbeing built upon. To put it differently, the decision; though not so expressly stating, would be proposition that there is difference between the Undeveloped land having building potentiality in presenti vis-a-vis land having building potentiality, in futuro As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date 15 11 1996, fair market value determined was 9,59,542.46 per acre and which l highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i the notification dated 25 7 1997 where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price. fixed by. the Government as of 1 4 1997 was Z10 lakhs per acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Ga/ra/ S'ihqh v. 110/ &Ahr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan •where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was a:cquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11!1996, fair market value determined. for Category 'A' lands was 9,76,121/- per acre and for • category 'B' lands was T9 ,51J21/-. per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to be highlighted that while determining the-fair market value as of 15.11.199.6 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court In para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality With reference to development work carried out in the surrounding lands ws considered. I -would highliht that another

LA.App.No358/2007 & bonected matters.

- Page 6 of 10

Division Bench of this Court, in anothè.r adjoining village in the same 'V1 i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singholá determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 © 1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. 6,26,510.40 per are., The .dedsion isreported as 2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram .C'hander vs. Qi'and the same Division Bench, as per the decision reported as 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sin cih vs. (JO!, pertaining to notification . dated 14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value © , 1,40,230/- per bigha i 6,73,104/- per acre

50.1The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of N,CT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by, me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990 As of 27 4 1990 minimum price ws Z4.65 lakhs per are which rose to T10 la'khs per ' acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is T5.35 lakhs 2 spread over 7 years which gives us 115.054% increase ih 7 years and the average price- increase would be 16 436% The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the nex.t 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows,that due to urbanization,'betwèen the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division 'Bench of this Court in Ga/rats case (supra), which I have di'scussed in para.. 49above.51. ' ' 1 need to elaborate little more ' with respect to the deciion in Ga/rats case. Discussing , the evidence pertaining to fairmarket value of agricultural land' in village Holambi Kalan as of 15 11 1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agriculturalyield and found . that the gross return per acre per annum was 95,000/-. for multiple crOpped land and having good

LA App No 358/2007 & connected matteis

irrigation facilfties and thus capita li ze the land price at. T9.5 .lakhs per acre. Discussing, the seon.d method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the. Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhogarh where FCI Godowns had cOme up and based on sale instances foundthat based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of indUstrialization the land price would come to 10,03,364/- per acre (efer para 31). The Court then considered the prices notified by the covernment as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus woked out the mean average fi'ure of 9,76,121/-per acre for Category 'A' lands and 9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision hightights that the potentiality had been weU-fact.ored in when the Government issued the minimum price notification w 1 4 1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions: [ theCourt' ]found that as against the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at Z10 lakhs per acrC, sale instances were highlighting that the price was 10,03,364/- per acre.

52. The decision in Mahender Sincjh's case,, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para'49 above, highlights with reference to pra 28. to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, comhier'iai and industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring potentiality, the same had hot translated into .a reality evidenced by pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para'49 above, highlights with reference to pra 28. to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, comhier'iai and industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring potentiality, the same had hot translated into .a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year J996 i.e. the date ofthe notification with which the Division Bench was concerned; virtually no development had 'taken place in. village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and 'nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a.gap between what would be dxpected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions notification with which the Division Bench was concerned; virtually no development had 'taken place in. village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and 'nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a.gap between what would be dxpected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions

LA.'App.No.358/2007 & connected matters . ' ' Page 8 of 10

in Ga/rats case and MahenderSingh's' case highlight that potentiality, translated its&f into 'a reality, between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by abdut that potentiality, translated its&f into 'a reality, between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by abdut • 16.5%, per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% •per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi .1990 fairly large area came to be developed, both residntial, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got Saturated." . . . that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi .1990 fairly large area came to be developed, both residntial, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got Saturated." . . .

The decision highlights that by the year 1997 i.e. when ,W.e.f. 1.4.1997 Mini'murh price determined by the Governmet was U0,00,000/- per acre, building potentiality impacting the value of agricultural lands in Delhi had already been factored in and thus I hold that pertaining to the notification dated 27J0.1999, the land value determined . by the learned Reference Court is correct and thus all appeals pertaining to said notification are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

To summariZe:-

(a) All 'appeals pertaining . to the notification dated 23.12.1994 stand disposed of determining fair market value to be paid to the land owners in sum of 8,1.36,750/- per acre together with statutory.benefits as explained by the Suprehie Court in the decision reported as 2001 (93) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UO/plus proportionate costs; 23.12.1994 stand disposed of determining fair market value to be paid to the land owners in sum of 8,1.36,750/- per acre together with statutory.benefits as explained by the Suprehie Court in the decision reported as 2001 (93) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UO/plus proportionate costs;

(b') "All appeal' pertaining to the notification dated 28.4.1995 stand disposed of determining fair markt value to be paid to the Jand owners in sum of 8,80,275/- per acre together with statutory benefits a's explained by the Supreme Court in 'the stand disposed of determining fair markt value to be paid to the Jand owners in sum of 8,80,275/- per acre together with statutory benefits a's explained by the Supreme Court in 'the

LA.Ap.No.358/2007 & cormected'matters

. ' ' Page 9 of 10 '