LA.APP./1176/2008 of UOI Vs AMIT BANSHAL AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: November 18. 2011

Pronounced on: January 06, 2012

+LA. APP. 1176/2008UNION OF INDIAAppellantThrough:Mr.SanjayPoddar, SeniorAdvocate with Mr.SanjayPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOIversusAMIIT BANSHAL AND ORS.RespondentsThrough:Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, AdvocatesMr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates.Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.Mr.RaghuvinderGodana, AdvocateMr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari,Advocates.Mr.Panlcaj Vivek, AdvocateMr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Kliosla, Mr.Samit Khosla andMr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, AdvocatesMr.H.S.Rautela,AdvocateMr.l.S.Dahiya, AdvocateMr.Sandeep Thakhur, AdvocateMr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate.Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appeals filed by UOI)Mr.AjayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.MukeshKumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma,Advocatefor DDA

CORAM:

^ ^HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR

ORDER06.0L2012

For orderssee LA.App.No.1195/2008,titledas 'RanbirSharmavs. Union of

India & Anr.

JANUARY 06, 2012pkb

GAUR)JUDGE

Signature Not Verified

Reserved on: NovemberIS, -20J IFronounced oii: Jcmuarv 06^ 2JIJ_2

(GRID-A)

LA.AP.P.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE- BHARTHAL

RANBJR SHARJ\4AAppellantThrough:Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, AdvocatesMr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates.Mr.RohTas, Advocate.Mr.RaghiivinderGodara, Advocate•Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout and Mr.BJC.Koutray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari,Advocates.Mr.PankaJ Vivek, AdvocateMr.Rajesh Yadav.Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit IChosiaand Mr.l^hananjay Mehlawal, AdvocatesMi-.H.S.Rautela,AdvocateMr.l.S.Dahiya, AdvocateMr.Sandcep Thakhur. AdvocateMr.Atiil Tripathi, Advocate,Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Raulela,(.Advocateslorrespondent in appeals filed by IJOI)

vers^is

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Respondents

Ihrough;Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdA'ccatewith Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.lVjohitrao-.1ddha'v and Ms.Na\'!in owairi,Ms-;K.Kaumiidi-Kiran,Advocates for LAC/UOIMr.AJay Ven]?a, Ms.Becnashaw Soni. Mr.MiikcshKumar,Mr S.K.Sethi,Mr.Pawan.Matiiiir,IVir.KunalShariTJH, Ad^'ocal:e for DDA

!..A..APP.412/2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objeclions),f.A.APP.452/2008;'LA.APP.453./2-008;•LA.APP.688/2008& CAlMo.5990/20]0'(C>oss-Objecli'ons)ii..A.APJ\(>97/2008& CM.No.433,/2009(Cross-Objections);L/\.APP.701/2008&CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); I..-AP}^768/200R; l.A.APP.770/2008;I.A.A;ip.I\{). lty:i/?008 & coiincctedApppalsofVilliigniA.Aijp. No.i'.. connuC.edAppealsof Vill.^(5(;IA.App.i:ll/:n):10&-conn^a^idAppealsofViilaRc..i-ochanpiir

Pagi' I oi 29

LA-APP.771/2008 &CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.773/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/200b<5^CM No 611/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008;LAAPP.777/2008;'lA.APP.782/2008&CM.Ng.940/2009 (Cross-Objectionsj;LAAPP.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.81j/2008CM 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;1AAPP 829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008;LAAPP 844/2008- LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 &CM.No.779/2011(CrosslObjections);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.No.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(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.l7340/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APIM032/2008&CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l046/2008;LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.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.l 052/2008;LA.APP.1053/2008& 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.xNo.1557/2011(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008.& CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections);LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008&CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009(Cross-Objections);1,.A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & 'CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.1084/2008& CM.No.l7302/2008 (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,! 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cr.oss-Objections);LA;APP.l108/2008 &CM,No:3839/2009.(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l109/2008; LA.APP.l110/2008 &CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.l111/2008;LA.APP.l112/2008&CVlNo.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA,APP,1113/2008&CM,No,3826/2009(C.'.ross-Objections);LA,APP,111.5/2008; .lA.APP,1116/2008; LA,APP,1121/2008;'•[.A.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.l129/2008 &CM.No,550/2009(Cross-Objectionsj;,f-A,APP,1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l133/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,1140/2008;LA,APP.1156/2008;LA.APP.l157,/2008;LA.APP.l158/2008& CM.No.7774,'2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l161/2008; LA,APP,1166/2008;LA,APP,fl67/2008& CM,No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008;LA.APP.l170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.li72/2008; LA.APP.l173/2008;LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; L..A.APP.1181/2008;LyV.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933.^2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1184/2008;LA.APP.l185/2008; LA.APP.ri86/2008&CM.No.7013/2009l.A.App. No. .n95/?.008 & tonnncUidAppeal.sof VillageIJharlhal• .l.AApp, No. Z91/20.10& connected AppcaLsof VillageBijwa.wnLA.App. No.& connncleclAppealsofVillage! PochaiiDUr'l.AApp, No. Z91/20.10& connected AppcaLsof VillageBijwa.wnLA.App. No.& connncleclAppealsofVillage! PochaiiDUr'

l^age'Zol29

(Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.l190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008;LA.APP.1192/2008LA.APP.l193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008;LA.APP.M95/2008;LA.APP.l197/2006LA APP 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1200/20081AAPP 1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP.1223/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008&CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.124l/2008^>i:CM No 3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/200^LA APP.1275/2008;LA.APP."l276/2008;LA.APP.1277/2008;LA.APP.1279/200^1AAPP 1280/2008;LA.APP.1281/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/200^LA.APP.31/2009;LA.APP.33/2009;LA.APP.37/2009;LA.APP.39/200SLA.APP.42/2009 &CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/200SLA.APP.73/2009 &CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/200fLA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 &CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-ObjectionsLA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009; LA.APP.l35/200^LA.APP. 136/2009;LA.APP. 137/2009;LA.APP. 138/2009;LA.APP. 139/200^LA.APP. 140/2009;LA.APP. 143/2009;LA.APP. 144/2009;LA.APP. 145/200^LA.APP. 162/2009;LA.APP. 187/2009;LA.APP. 190/2009;LA.APP.l 91/200CLA.APP: 197/2009;LA.APP. 198/2009;LA.APP..! 99/2009;L A. APP.201/2009LAvAPP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 &CM.No.7027/2009(Cross-Objcctions);LA.APP.210/2009&CM.No.976/2011(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.2] 1/2009;LA.APP.220/2009;LA.APP.222/2009;LA.APP.223/2009;LA.APP.224/2009;LA.APP.227/2009;LA.yVPP.230/2009 &CM.No.7206/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.241/2009;LA.APP.245/2009;LA.APP.246/2009;LA.APP.249/2009;LA.APP.257/2009;LA.APP.295/2009;LA.APP.305/2009;1..A.APP.367/2009;LA.APP.437/2009;LA.AP?.447..'2009;LA. APP.45 8/2009;LA.APP.459/2009;LA. APP.466/2009;LA.APP.480/2009;LA.APP.481/2009;LA.APP.489/2009;LA. APP.490/2009;LA.APP.491/2009;LA.APP.493/2009;LA. APP.494/2009;LA.APP.495/2009;LA.APP.503/2009;LA. APP.506/2009;LA.APP..507/2009;LA.APP.508/2009;LA.APP.509/2009;•LA.APP.510/2009;LA.APP.511/2009;LA.APP.512/2009;LA.APP.513/2009;LA.APP.567/2009;LA.APP.572/2009;LA.APP. 15/2010;LA. APP.45/2010;LA.APP.48/2010;LA.APP.404/2010;LA.APP. 13/2011;.A.APP. 1138/2008;LA.APP.l 176/2008l./V.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/LM17 dated 13.12.2000issued 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 08, 2011Pronouncedon: January 06. 20J2

LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BIJWAS.

DEVBNDER KUMARAppellantThrough:Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh

lA.App. No a.l9,'j/^-00S& coiineclRclAppeals of Village BharthalIA.App. No, 7.94/201Q& connnctfid Appeals of Village BiiwasanLA.App, No. .11.1./Z010& connectc:d Appeal.';of Village PochanpurIA.App. No, 7.94/201Q& connnctfid Appeals of Village BiiwasanLA.App, No. .11.1./Z010& connectc:d Appeal.';of Village Pochanpur

(Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No.28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi)

AND

LA.App, No. .l.lQ.'j/ZOOB& conncctnd Appealsof VillagG BharlhnILA.App. No, 2'M//01Q& conn(ictGdAppnulsofVillageBijwasan!.A,App,No.connncU'dAppealsof VillagePocha.npur

. Page; 4 of 2.9

(GRID-C)

Reserved on: December 18, 2011Pronounced on: January 06, 2012

i.A,.App, Mo, 1.1,95/2008& connoclfidAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 2.94/2010&conneclfidAppealsof Village BljwasanLA.App No 111/2010& ccinneclcdAppealsofVillagePochanpur.

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 &Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER06.01.2012

1.Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationissought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical,therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present atthe hearing ot these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining toNotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000, relating• togeographicallycontiguousVillagesBharthal,BijwasanandPochanpur are being disposed of by, this common order.

2.Acquisition process for planned development of 'Lh'varkaPhase-//' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of: 13"'December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block. comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question,i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

3.Agricultural land of the appellajits herein in the afoi'csaid thi-eevillagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards,i.e., yWai-d No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award, No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@ ^"13.82 lacs per acre forBlock 'A' (level field -- with top soil) and @ ^12.32 lacs per acre forBlock'B'(withouttop soil).

4.Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentof market value of their acquired

LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals.of Village Bharthal.lA.App. No.29'i/?-010& connccted Appeals of VillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/20.10& connpcted Appealsof Villape PochanpurlA.App. No.29'i/?-010& connccted Appeals of VillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/20.10& connpcted Appealsof Villape Pochanpur

agriculturallands, appellantshad sought referenceunder Section 18 ofthe LandyicquisitiohAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourtvide impugnedjudgmenthad enhanced compensation@?15.00 lacs per acre foi theappellants'acquired land in Block 'A' and @?13.36 lacs per acre fortheir Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas,referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave beendismissed.5.In these appeals,furtherenhancementofcompensationsoughtbythe appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate ofRupeesFifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave soughtat the rate of lacs acrecompensationRupees Thirty per by relyinguponthe precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer,Karmitaka HousingBoard vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer, Gadag amiOrs,, (2011)2 see 246;Anjani Molu Dcssai vs. State ofGoa andAnr.,(2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana andAnr.,(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala(Dead) through LRs. Vs. SpecialTehsiidar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Sand Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgmm,2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227;Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndiaAm\,2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of'Haryana&Ors..,2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs'. State of Punjab '&Ors., 2011 (9)SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,(2009)11 SCC 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors w. State ofHaryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No, 4143/2003' titled asSmt. Indu KhoranaGrant Sabhd &Ors, decided on 26.03.2010;Special Land Acquisition Officer iS Anr w. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011)7 SCC 714; TltakarsibhaiDevjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer,LA.App. No..UP!)/?.008& connoctKdAppealsof VillageBharthaiLA.App. No. 7.94/?.010 &• connected Appeals of Village BijwasanIA.App. No in/20.10 Si connected Appeals ofVillagePochanpur''Page 7 of Z9LA.App. No. 7.94/?.010 &• connected Appeals of Village BijwasanIA.App. No in/20.10 Si connected Appeals ofVillagePochanpur''Page 7 of Z9

Gujaratand Ann,AIR 2001 SC 2424; HaryanaState IndustrialDevelopment Corporation,(2010) 11, SCC 175; Risal Singh & .Ors, Vs.Union ofIndia & Ann, 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB); Lai Chand vs. Unionof India and Ann, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd v.?. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel andAnr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyamma! and Am vs. Special Tehsildar(Land Acquisition)and Ann, AIR-2011SC 2937; KiranTamlonvs.AllahabadDevelopment Authority,(2004) 10 SCC 745; MaheshDattatray Thirthkar V5. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238;Kapil Mehra (Major General) &.Ors. Fs*. Union of India S. Anr,176(201n DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh vs.Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Ann, decided on 24.04.2008; OmPrakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. Union ofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627;Satpal &Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP.No.656/2008titled as SiishilKumar w. Union of India, decided on26.09.2011;LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Rant vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BkuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010(170) DLT 371.,^

6.On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, itwas urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned arguing counsel for the appellantsthat the locationand situationoi the acquiredagriculturalland has to befirst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must beadjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over period oftin.ieand the same cannotbe limitedto the near foture alone.

7,It was pointed out by Mr.Jl.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthatDelhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of'Village Biijwasanpasses through the land of Village Bharthal,dividingit into two parts,i.e., on-theeasternside ofthe railway line is the IGI Airport,New Delhi

LA.App. No. 13.35/2003& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

IA.App. No. .?yi/20.1.0& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan

l.A.App. No. 111/20.1.0& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and road 100meters wide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv Murti towardsDwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides,the agricultural land into twoportions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii)South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on theland of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointedout by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northernpart of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extensionof IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 forestablishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in,the year 1982 for BharatPetroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur werealso acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I andthe lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras werealsoacquiredfor the developmentof Phase-Il,DwarkaSub-City.Attention was drawn to the aks sizraslm'd.\)to highlight that the. boundaryof Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arecontiguous.8.It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for theappellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate thepotentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and hasillegallytreatedtheacquired' landtobeagriculturalin spiteofNotification of 16"' October, 2000 vide which land use of the threevillagesin- questionwaschangedfromagriculturaTtoresidential/commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthalhad ceasedto be rural in view of the Notificationof 24^" October,1994.9.It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Roiit, learnedcounsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have beenwrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Ramal.A,App.No.& conncctad Apppal,s of Village Bharlhal•!./:^.App., No. 294/7.010&connectMAppealsof Village BijwasanLA.App. [\lo. .111/20.1.0& connecVcdAppeals of VillaRG Pochanpur•!./:^.App., No. 294/7.010&connectMAppealsof Village BijwasanLA.App. [\lo. .111/20.1.0& connecVcdAppeals of VillaRG Pochanpur

Redds & -Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, (1995)2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its laterdecisionin Udho JDass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over period of time andthe same cannot be limited to near future alone and if after theacquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, itwould notmean that there is no buildingpotentialitv.10.Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for theappellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlightthat the sale price reflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs andmeiely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot bethrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, becausethcic is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvaluedbccause of any special advantagesand as per settled legal pfopositionlaid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of GoaandAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto betaken as representingthe market price of the land which comes to ?57lacs acre and since the salerelied the per exemplars upon by appellantsarc the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by theReferenceCourt the minimumrates/circlerates fbrtheupon determiningmarketvalueoftheland iserroneous. acquired patently11.Assessmentof market value of theland was acquired sought byMr.R.C}odara,learned counselfor the appellantson the basis of the L,&DO rates hxed the Government and also on the basis of by predetermined rates fixed by the Governmentfor'allotmentof alternateplots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationandpotentialityof the acqun-ed land, determinationof its market value is

LA.App.LA Mo.1!°'^ M4/7.010&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageBliarthalVillageBijwssanLA.App No. 11J/2C;10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpurLA.App No. 11J/2C;10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

Pape 10 of 2S1

sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur andVillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis ofthe L& DO rates ofthedeveloped lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Dctcrmined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.12.In the writtensynopsis,appellant- ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimitedof.LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton thefollowing grounds

a) "Ignoresthe acknowledgementonthe partof therespondentaboutthe yiwardNo.26/2002-2003dated.23.J0.2002beingflawedinthecourseoftheproceedingsCivilWrit petitionNo.19012of 2006.(Referredto in cross-examinationof appellantdated7.7.2007)respondentaboutthe yiwardNo.26/2002-2003dated.23.J0.2002beingflawedinthecourseoftheproceedingsCivilWrit petitionNo.19012of 2006.(Referredto in cross-examinationof appellantdated7.7.2007)

b) Does not account for the factthat the Public Noticedated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land inthe area for more than 15 years before the Notificationunder Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ^'vasissued.dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land inthe area for more than 15 years before the Notificationunder Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ^'vasissued.c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated11.9.2001 issued by the GovernmentofNational CapitalTerritory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the laM> laid.down by various decisions in.clud.ing_in one of the morerecentdecisionsof the Hon'bleSupremeCourtinSangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3) SCC 661.11.9.2001 issued by the GovernmentofNational CapitalTerritory ofDelhi is not in accordance with the laM> laid.down by various decisions in.clud.ing_in one of the morerecentdecisionsof the Hon'bleSupremeCourtinSangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3) SCC 661.

d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as perestablished law has to be considered before ascertainingthe value ofthe land under acquisit ion.established law has to be considered before ascertainingthe value ofthe land under acquisit ion.

e) Does not deal with disparity• in value of the Sale Deedsproduced before the trial Court whereas as per the lawestablished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recentcase of Chinda Fa.ki.ra Fatil versus Special LandAcquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. TheHon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held, that SaleDeed,showing higher rate should not he disregarded inproduced before the trial Court whereas as per the lawestablished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recentcase of Chinda Fa.ki.ra Fatil versus Special LandAcquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. TheHon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held, that SaleDeed,showing higher rate should not he disregarded in

(.A.App. No. ll:j;i/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhalLA,App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Villageliijwasan17\.App.No. .1.11/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin AnjanaMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, theSupreme Court has also held that the highest of theexemplars and not by averaging of different types ofsalestransactionsshouldbeconsideredwhile certanland.Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, theSupreme Court has also held that the highest of theexemplars and not by averaging of different types ofsalestransactionsshouldbeconsideredwhile certanland.adjudicatingupon compensationuponf) Reliedupon judgment dated3.3.2008 •inLACNo.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subjectland while ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat themarket value of the land is much higher than 15 lac peracre in Block and 113,36,000in Block in violationof the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtinchiding in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1)SCC 444. As consequence, the impugned judgmentNo.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subjectland while ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat themarket value of the land is much higher than 15 lac peracre in Block and 113,36,000in Block in violationof the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtinchiding in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1)SCC 444. As consequence, the impugned judgment•rejused to return an actual finding on the issue No.Iframedon 27.2.2007.framedon 27.2.2007.

g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although videNotification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, theland, use of Village DhoolSirasand Bharthalwaschanged and these areas ceased to be agricultural andcame now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State.The masterplanand Notifications of Government forland, use changeshow thatin. futureland, canbe-subjectedtoresidential,commercialandotherpermissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that theappellantlead,evidencein respectofthe 74'''amendmentof the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, byvirtue of which the MunicipalCorporation.Act wasamended and the area where the land, is situated,y\>a.sNotification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, theland, use of Village DhoolSirasand Bharthalwaschanged and these areas ceased to be agricultural andcame now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State.The masterplanand Notifications of Government forland, use changeshow thatin. futureland, canbe-subjectedtoresidential,commercialandotherpermissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that theappellantlead,evidencein respectofthe 74'''amendmentof the Constitution of India, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, byvirtue of which the MunicipalCorporation.Act wasamended and the area where the land, is situated,y\>a.s• •deemed municipal area and the municipal Counsellorwas elected from, there. No Pan.cha.yat electionswereheld in. the area.was elected from, there. No Pan.cha.yat electionswereheld in. the area.

h) Refused to apply the lo.w laid down in AIR. SupremeCourt 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr v.?. Union of Indiaand. refused to consider the fact that the development in.the area has direct effect on the price that willingCourt 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr v.?. Union of Indiaand. refused to consider the fact that the development in.the area has direct effect on the price that willingpurchaser would pay for, the.subject land.

No. 2 hadalso

i) Ignored,the factthat Respondent

LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connccted Appeal.s of Village BharthalLA.App. Mo, 294/?.010 & connGcted Appeals of Village BiiWd.sanLA.App. No. 111/2010 & conncctnd Appeals of VillagePochanpur

Page 12 of 29

auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocksat the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that thesaid land is wholly underdeveloped land.

j)The valuation of the subject land is even lower than thepre-determinedauction rates set by Respondent No. 2for similarly situated land.pre-determinedauction rates set by Respondent No. 2for similarly situated land.

k) Does not take into account the possibility of change ofthe use of the land although the land, was acquired fordevelopmentpurposesof lyvvarka. PhaseII.Itisreiteratedthat the land use of Village Dhool Siras andBharthalwas changed and these areasceased to beagriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State.the use of the land although the land, was acquired fordevelopmentpurposesof lyvvarka. PhaseII.Itisreiteratedthat the land use of Village Dhool Siras andBharthalwas changed and these areasceased to beagriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State.

I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994althoughtheyclearlyestablishthecommercialpotentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held, that thepurposeforwhich land is acquired is relevant factor.Whiledetermining value of the property acquired the factwhether the land has got buildingpotentiality to be usedalthoughtheyclearlyestablishthecommercialpotentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar(LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held, that thepurposeforwhich land is acquired is relevant factor.Whiledetermining value of the property acquired the factwhether the land has got buildingpotentiality to be usedfor in immediate or in near future buildingpurposes buildingpurposesneeds to be considered.

m) The presence of number of buildings on the landsacquired and the said land being occupied bv thebuildings are to be treated as house sites. The landswere acquired for purpose of putting up residentialquarters. As portion of the land is being considered ashouse site, the adjoining lands have the potential ofbeingput in betteruse as housesites in thenearfuture. "acquired and the said land being occupied bv thebuildings are to be treated as house sites. The landswere acquired for purpose of putting up residentialquarters. As portion of the land is being considered ashouse site, the adjoining lands have the potential ofbeingput in betteruse as housesites in thenearfuture. "13.In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No.347/2009,the factual details have been,providedwith prayerthat theappellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof theotherappealsin thesebunchof appeals.347/2009,the factual details have been,providedwith prayerthat theappellantsof this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof theotherappealsin thesebunchof appeals.

14.Supplementingthe aforesaidarguments advancedon behalf of theappellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof

i.A.App. No. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

tA.App. Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan

f7\.App. No. ni/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur•

urbanizationof the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change inland use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatmy Thirthkar vs. StateofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)AOrs, Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Deternlined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant todetermine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the saleinstances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to havebeen relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct marketvalue of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensationreflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is. sought in these appeals.15.Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. SanjayPoddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51-A ofLand Acquisition Act, 1894, certified copy of the Sale Deed is anadmissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidencefoi" determinationof themarketvalueunlessand untilthesameisproperly connected with the land in question and element of specialfancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of theproperty, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be consideredand the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correctmarket value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by theiReference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai Laivs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal &Ors vs. Union ofIndia,(1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chaml V5. Union of India and Anr.,. (2009), 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushi! Kumar vs.Union of India, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increasein price in short period cannot be taken'to be realistic until reasons forsuch sharp increase are explained by producingin evidence the seller

LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwasanLA.App. No. 111/?.010& connected Appealsof VillaRG Pochanpur''LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBiiwasanLA.App. No. 111/?.010& connected Appealsof VillaRG Pochanpur''

Page14 of 29

and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledgeof the usualprevalenttrend in the marketwouldpay sucha higherpay as reflectedinthe sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by theappellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended onbehalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision ofApex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by acoordinateBenchofthis Court in SushilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh(supra).

16.So far as potentialityof the land is concerned, it was urged byMr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-• objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing theminimujiiindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentas•on r' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% perannum, maiket value of the acquired lands has been erroneouslydetermined by the Reference Court,, as in' Sushi! Kumar (supra)appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submittedthatthere is no for furtherenhancementfrom theof scope priceacquiredlands as fixed the Land.Collectorand the by Acquisition so, impugnedjudgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancementby the 'RcfeicnceCourt,whiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% annum and the same deserves to be in line whileper brought grantingappreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.17.. AJler considering the rival submissions advanced by both thesides and upon closeperusalot the impugnedjudgnient,the evidenceonrecord and the decisionscited,what emergesis that the true marketvalueof the comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling

l.A.App. No. ligVXOOS& connoctficiAppealsofVillaBe BharthalI.A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Villageliijwa.5anlA.App. No. 1,1.1/2010a connectHd-AppealsofVillap,ePochannur'„Pagfi 15 ot Z9I.A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Villageliijwa.5anlA.App. No. 1,1.1/2010a connectHd-AppealsofVillap,ePochannur'„Pagfi 15 ot Z9

seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. Whiledealing with the question of potentialvalue of the acquired land, whathas to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stEindsreiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana .cSOrs., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

"(i)the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city orthe town or village which had been growing in sizebecauseof its commercial,industrial,educational,religious or any other kind, of importance or becauseof its explosive population;the town or village which had been growing in sizebecauseof its commercial,industrial,educational,religious or any other kind, of importance or becauseof its explosive population;(ii)the suitability of the acquired land for putting up thebuildings,betheyresidential,commercialorindustrial, as the case may be;buildings,betheyresidential,commercialorindustrial, as the case may be;

. (Hi)possibility of obtaining water and electric supplyfor• occupants of buildings to beput up on that land;• occupants of buildings to beput up on that land;

(iv)absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor usingthe acquired landfor buildingpurpose;the acquired landfor buildingpurpose;

(v)existence of highways, public roads, layouts ofbuilding plots or developed residential extensions inthe vicinityor closeproximity ofthe acquired land;building plots or developed residential extensions inthe vicinityor closeproximity ofthe acquired land;

(vi)benefits or advantages of educational institutions,health care centres, or the like in the surroundingareasof the acquired land which may becomeavailable to the occupiers of buildings,if built on theacquired land; andhealth care centres, or the like in the surroundingareasof the acquired land which may becomeavailable to the occupiers of buildings,if built on theacquired land; and

(vii)lands around the acquiredland or the acquiredlanditself being in dem.and for building purposes, toitself being in dem.and for building purposes, to' •spec ify afew. "

18.1heof land for theofas also for potentiality purpose developmentbuilding purposes depends upon large number of factors. I<or the said the Court not have to bear in mind the forpurpose, may only purpose1A.App. No.1195/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharlhalLA.App. No, 7.fM/:?010& connocted Appealsof Village BijwasanLA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppeal.';ofVillagePochanpur.page 16 of 29

which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequentevents to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court inAvinash (supra).While reiteratingthe relevantfactors for determinationofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Courtin Aima Singh (supra)that the-exemplarsofsmall pieces ofland relied thecouldnot be ato discardthemupon by appellants ground especially• when exemplarsof largepiecesof land were not available.

19.Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special-Land AcquisitionOfficerAnr ra. MJL Rafiq Saheb,'(2011) 7 SCC714. The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsrelieduponon behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic differenceeither in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which' aresimilarly situated having similar advantage available to them even asregards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing thecompensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated landsand the acquired land.

20.It is well established proposition of law that the burden ofproving the true market value of the acquiredland is on the State whohas acquired the agricultural land for particular purpose. But, it isequally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensationawarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of theApex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage.

21.Apex Court in Valliyamma! (Supra), wdiiletaking note of the factthat the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residentialcolonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deductionof 40% towards deveiopment charges was improper. Tlie pertinentobservations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mohi Dessai (Supra)deserve attention, which are as under

lA.App, No. l.lS5/2008 ,& conriccted Appcialsof Village Bharlhal1A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appfiaisof VlllagflBijwasanLA.App. (Mo. .11.1/201.0& conneci Gd Appeals of VillagePochanpur1A.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appfiaisof VlllagflBijwasanLA.App. (Mo. .11.1/201.0& conneci Gd Appeals of VillagePochanpur

"The legal position is that even where there are severalexemplars with reference to similar lands, usually thehighestofthe exemplars,which is bonafide transaction,will he considered. Where however there are several salesofsimilarlandswhosepricesrange in narrowbandwidth,the average'thereof can be •taken, as representing themarketprice. But M>here the values disclosedin respectoftM'O sales are markedly different, it can only lead to aninferencethat are with referenceto dissimilarlands or theythat the lower value sale is on account of under-vahiationor other price depressing reasons. Consequentlyaveragingcannot be resorted to.. "

22.It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations •pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands madeby the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as.follows:-

"Itis well settledthatgenuineandbona fidesaletransactions in respect of the land under acquisition or inits absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to thepointofacquisitionofthelandssituatedintheneighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similarvalue or utility taken place betM'een a. willing vendee and.the willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect thetrue value, as agreed betyveen reasonable prudent personsacting in the normal market conditions are the real basis todeterminethe market value. "

23.Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands asreiterated by the Apex Court in Oil ami Natural Gas Corporation Ltd

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:-

"Primarily, the increase in .land prices depends on fourfactors - situation of the land, nature of development insurroundingarea,availabilityof land, for developmentinthe area,and the demand for land in the area.In ruralareas unless there is any prospect of development in thevicinity, increase in priceswould be slow, steady andgradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps.

i.A.App.No. 294/2010 & connccted .f^ppeals of VillaRG Bijwasan

!A.App. No. 1] 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Villaf;e Pochar.pur

'On the otherhand, in urban or semi-urbanareas, where thedevelopmentis faster, where the demandfor land is highand where there is constructionactivity all around, theescalation in market price is at much higher rate, ascomparedto ruralareas. In som.epocketsin big cities, dueto rapid development and high demand for land, theescalations-in prices have touched even 30% to 50% ormoreper year, duringthe nineties.On the otherextreme, inremote rural areas where there was no chance of anydevelopmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnatedforyears or rose marginallyat nominalrate of 1% or 2% annum. There is thus difference inper significantincreases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urbanareas and increases in market value of lands in the ruralareas.Therefore if the increase in market value inurban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%> per annum,the correspondingincreasesin rural areas woiddat best beonly around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%per annum.This rule of thumb refers to the generaltrend in thenineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specificevidence relating to increase in prices. Where there arespecial reasons for applying higher rate of increase, orany specific evidence relating to the actual increase inprices, then the increase to be applied would depend uponthe same.

Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining themarket value by providing appropriate.escalationover theproved market value of nearby lands in previous years (asevidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where thereis no evidence of any contem.poraneous sale transactions oracquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. Thesaid m.ethod. is reasonably safe where the, relied-on-saletransactions/acquisitionsprecedesthe subject acquisitionby only few years, that is upto four tofive years. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it. relates to q neighbouringland. What may be reliable standard if the gap is only a.few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard,where the gap is larger. For example, for determ.ining them.arket value of land acquired: in 1992, adoptingtheannucdincreasemethodwithreferencetoasaleor

l.A.App. No. 119Ij/200f?& connnclfidAppaalsofVillage Bh'artha!lA.App. No. ?..9t/2010 & connnclfid Appeals of Village BijwasanlJ^.App. No..H.l/?.010 & connected Appeals of Village Foctianp'jrlA.App. No. ?..9t/2010 & connnclfid Appeals of Village BijwasanlJ^.App. No..H.l/?.010 & connected Appeals of Village Foctianp'jr

acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This isbecause,over the course of years,the^rate' of annualincrease may itself undergo drastic change apart from thelikelihood of occurrence of varying periods ofstagnation inprices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standardof increase. "

24.This Court-is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in HarymmState Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regardingcomputation of compensation for the acquired lands by adoptingcomparative sales methods: What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC(Supra) is as under:-

"When differentcategoriesof lands (or lands with differentsituational the sameadvantages)are acquiredforpurpose,sav for forming of residential layout, courts havesometimes felt that determination of their value withreference to previous status or situation should be avoidedand uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedforall landsacqidredunderthe same notification."

25.Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and aroundacquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period inquestionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyreJiedupon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven SaleDeeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., Radha SyvamiSatsangBeashad puichased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at pricewhich varied from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. '

26.WhetheraforesaidSale FJceds (Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)^A'hichare basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang,Beas in respectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue ofthe land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis requiredto be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds

LA.App. No. 1.1.95/2008& connected.AppealsofVillageBharthal•.i.A.App.LA.App. No.No. .1.1.1/2010 2S'V20.1.0&&conneclodconnectedAppealsAppealsofof Village VillagePochanpurBijwasan'...PageaOofZS•.i.A.App.LA.App. No.No. .1.1.1/2010 2S'V20.1.0&&conneclodconnectedAppealsAppealsofof Village VillagePochanpurBijwasan'...PageaOofZS

(Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacsto ?62 lacs acre. the entire land of the sale per Meaning thereby,-exemplars Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command•sthe same marketprice. It was dependentupon the nature and situationofthe aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantagesattached toeach parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land inquestion, is lacking. Therefore, these .sale exemplars cannot be treated asdisclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. Thespecial need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in VillagePochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW--l/4to Ex.PW-l/lO) has not beenbrought out as the purchaser/vendee of.these agricultural land has notbeen got examined by the appellants. Had the purcl.iaser/vendeeof theaforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have beenelicitedfrom him as to why he had agreed to pay such high price forthese lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha SwainiSatsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at anexorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^'^March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titled asJai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App.No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Siiigh vs. Union of India, decided on19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof VillageMamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treatedas representativeprice for the acquiredlands.27,In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired landswas changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidencethat the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their,acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat'the acquiredlands were notdeveloped lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing

iy\.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsof Village Bharthal

LA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage BijwasanLA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpurLA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

Page 21 of 29

marketprice of the land in questionwould pay such ahigh price unlessand until such purchaseis meantfor specialconsiderationand so, in theconsideredopinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds. (jix.PW-lM to lix.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by theReferenceCourt.

28.So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)reliedupon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000, itneeds to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) v/assituated on the National Highway - 8 and because, vide Sale Deed(Ex.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnotonlythe land butthe structurethereonincludingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture, lane, by-lane,etc., therefore,it had fetched such high price. In,view thereof, this sale exemplarcannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands inquestion.

29.Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarlysituated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as towhether adoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands andPre-Dctermined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to beadopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands inquestion.

30.Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired landshighlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy andOrs.V, Land AcquisitionOfficerHyderabadUrbanDevelopmentAuthority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

"12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be thedetermination of the market value of the acquired land withbuilding potentiality with reference to the price fetched bysale ofplots in well developed layout in the neighborhood

IA.App. No. l.iyrj/ZOOS & connocted Appoals of VillaRe Bharthal

I.A.App. No. 294/2010 & conneclHcl Appeals of Village Bijwasan

l.A.App.No. .11.1/201.0ft connectcd Appeals of Village Fochanpur/

or whether it he the determination of.the market value of theacquired land with building potentiality with reference totheprice fetched by sale of buildingplots in an undevelopedlayout of building plots in the neighborhood,it becomesinevitable for the Court to find out what will be the pricefetched or to befetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts,relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the pricewhich the plots could have fetched ifsold on the date of thepublicationof the preliminarynotification under Section4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice fetched•by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in theneighborhoodof the acquiredlands becomes available,then what could be done is tofind out the market value ofthe acquired land with re.ference to the relevant date ofpublication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according tothe actual use to which it was put and increase its value bya sm.all percentage having regard to the degree of itsbuildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidencetobe made available in that regard. small percentageincrease to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the marketvalue of the land found out according to its actual usersince resort to the method of giving increased value forsuch building potentiality arises only when there is noevidenceof sales of buildingplots in the neighborhoodofthe acquired land indicating that there was no immediatedemand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in theacquired land. "31.In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged bythe DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, andtransferringperpetual leaseholdrights, the Apex Court in' Lai Chmid(Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotmentrates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of theadjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of LaiChand (Supra), coordinateBench ofthis Court in Jai Singh (Supra)and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua thedevelopedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of

the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find-that the Reference Courthas rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land orthe DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing themarket value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

32.Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increasemethod would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of theland in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition ofthe year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development ofDwarka Phase-I. 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% per annum is taken from theyear 1984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening theNotificationfordevelopmentof DwarkaPhase-1 and theinstantNotification for developmentof Dwarka Phase-II, sfill the price fixed bythe Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan the aforesaidescalatedpricefand .therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court isunjustified.33.Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum ofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adoptprogressiveincrease method in assessmentof the market value of theacquired land'only when the gap is 9f,4-5 years and beyond that it maybe unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouring land. What may be areliable standard, if the gap is of only of few years, may become unsafeand unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, thegap between the two Nofifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and DwarkaPhase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthemode of determining the market value by providing appropriate

LA.App. No.:i.9ii/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

l.A.App. No.2.94/2010& connected Appealsof Village Bljwasan

l.A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 24of29

esca]ationover the market vahie of the nearby land of the previous years.

34.Mr.SanjayPoddar,learnedseniorcounselfortherespondent/cross-objectorhad urged thatthe ReferenceCourthasgranted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as acoordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has grantedescalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision inSushil-Kumar (Supra), I find that 10%) increase on account of higherpotentiality of the acquired land over and above the market valuedeterminedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relyingupon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the ReferenceCourt12% annum cannotbe reducedto 10% annum. In this view of@ per per• the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

35.Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government'sminimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourtis reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquiredland and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% annum the per granted byReferenceCourt from the date offixationofthe minimumprice for theagriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^ April,2000 till the date ofNotification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased ornot.

36.Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturallandpertaining to the- Notifrcation in question, has been assailed by thelearned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased tobe an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"^ October, 1994declaring agriculturallands in these three villages m question to be•••-.urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe 1994the land yearuse ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto^ l-A.App. Mo, Jiss/adcs & connectedAp|je;ilsofVillage BharthnlLA.App.LA.App. Mo. [^Jo. 291/2010 M.1/2010&&. conncclfidconnectcdAppealsAppealsofofVillage!VillagePochanpurBijwasan' pape25of29

presume that the acquired lands had, gained potentiahty for beingconsideiedas developedlands. Ihe evidenceled is lackingon thej vitalaspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlandsin question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radhg SwamiBeasrelied thedisclosethat the saleSatsang, heavilyupon by appellantsofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.j7.Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till theissuance of Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct,'1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there beenincicasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityoftheacquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, thencould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the areaappellantsmquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe landin Village Pochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instanceof Village Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence toestablishthat the qualityand potentiality'.ofthe sale exemplarsofRadhaSwami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarofVillageSamalkha(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewiththe acquiredlandsand so the contiguityot the acquired land with the sale instance ofVillage Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficientground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid=sale instances. Therefore, in view ofthe afore-referreddictum of.theApex Court in Haiyana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDQ (Supra),uniform,rate ofcompensationdeservesto be awardedfor the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of theminimum price lixed by the Governmentfor the agricultural'land mDelhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higherpotentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is gap between what

l-A.App.Mo, 1195/2008&connectodAppealsof VillageBharthalLA.App, No, 291/2010&connectedAppeal?of,VillageBijwasanLA.App, No, 291/2010&connectedAppeal?of,VillageBijwasan

l.A,App,No, 111/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

Page 26 of 2.9

would be cxpected to be the market growth and what the market hadactuallygrown,Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas been heldto be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquiredlands,in Jai Singh (Supra)as well as in Sushil'Kumar(Supra)and I fmdno reason to take different view than the one which had been taken bycoordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jcii Singh(Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

38.This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court inthe matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has relied the Government'sminimum forrightly upon price agriculturallands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question,landing of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situationof the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from theevidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of theacquiredlands being in close vicinityof the IGI Airport,Indian Oil andBharat,Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through VillageBharthal and there being 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part II, dividingtheacquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in thevicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of theReference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account ofaforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainlyassume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I.What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above marketvalue of the acquired lands' as assessed by the Reference Court onaccount of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the

iy\.App. No. 1195/2008 (4 connected Appeals of Village BharthalI.A.App. No,294/201.0& connected Appeals of VillagG BijvyasanI.A.App. No,294/201.0& connected Appeals of VillagG Bijvyasan

lA.App. No;111/2010 & connected Appeals of VillaBe Pochanpur

Page Z7of 29

settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in MinaNamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, inthesewords:-

"When once conclusion is reached that there was thepossibilityofthe acquiredland being usedfor putting upbuildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusionwould be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had abiuMingpotentialityand proceed to determine its marketvalue takinginto accoimtthe increasein price attributabletosuch buildingpotentiality."

39.Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto provideadefinitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscannever be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it isbroadofthe instantwhichme to treatthemprobabilitiescases,persuadesWith equivalence by uniformly applying tlie Govermnent'sminimumprices tor the agriculturallands for computingthe fair market value ofthe acquired lands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquiredlandsandofare treated at differently so, appellants VillagePochanpurpar with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal andVillageBijwasan.However, while relying upon the decision in SushilKumm (Supia),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above themarketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtinthese matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantagesprovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

40.Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent ofawarding10% increaseoverand abovethe marketvalue assessedby theReferenceCourt in matterspertainingto Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan. Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par withthe appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof

l..A.App.I. M". Mo, .11^^2008&connnclcdAppealsof VillageBharthall-A.App,"HP. .Mo.a conncctodAppealsof VillageBijwasan •LAApp. Mo. .Ul/20.10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extentindicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands of thesethreevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per_,bi^:Jpi-gh;^forJ theCategory 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per bi-phalbrthe Category 'B'lands in question.-i.-'

41,On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded,siatutQ])'benefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedinthe judgment reported in Sunder vs\ UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 aregranted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal,lor which periodoi delay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshallbe paid, 1hcse appellants,would be entitledto proportionatecosts.42.The above captionedappealsand cross-pbjectionsare disposedofin the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit thecompensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the.RegistrarGcnej-al ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheetsbe accordinglyprepared.

JUDGEJanuary 06, 2012pkb•J/"•'IrO'i0-'

LA.App. Mo. 1195/2008&connnclcdAppealsofVillageBharthallA.'App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VlllagGBijwasanlA.App. Np. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclnanpur

'IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI-f-LA.APP.1195/2008RANBIR SIIARMA• .AppellantThrough:. Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitinTewathia, AdvocatesMs.Anita Tomar, Advocate.Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, AdvocateMr.N.S.JSfsgiandMr.H.S.Rautela,AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates.Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(AdvocatesforIMr.Sudhanshurespondentin appealsTomar,filedAdvocateby UOI) for .Mr.R.S.Tomar.Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki andMr.S.K.Rout,Advocates>versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.RespondentsThrough;Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith.Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavandMs.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran,Advocates for LAC/UOIMr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh,Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaandMr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA.9CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAURORDER%12.01.2012C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correction).This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectioninOrderof 6^'^ January,2012.Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe noticeLA.App.No.1195/2008'Page1

ofthe apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeengivento remainingcounselfor the appellants.

The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin thedecision of 6"^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of thealoiesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha',whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learnedcounsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationisallowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraphno: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be .read as 'per acre'. Necessarycorrections be carried out forthwith.-

In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof

;UNIL GAUR)JUDGE

JANUARY 12, 2012pkb

lAApp.No. 1195/2008

Page 2