LA.APP./120/2011 of BALBIR SINGH DEC THRU LRS & ORS Vs UOI & ANR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: December 18. 2011

Pronounced on: Januarv 06. 2012

+ LA.APP. 120/2011

BALBIR SINGH DEC THRU LRS & ORS ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Adyocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71)

Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.App.No. 61,64,65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22)

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao ladhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER 06.01.2012

For orders see LA.App.No. 119512008, titled as 'Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. '.

JANUARY 06, 2012 pkb

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.

;: J ~: I

IN THE lHllGII COURT OF DKU1:H AT NI(W DE,LH[

.1i:(~~?-J.T~cLQJ1;}!Qy!~p!bn~-L8LlQlr Pronounced on: Januarv ..•. ___ ._._. ______ • ___ •.• __ • ______ . ______ ~ __ . ___ 06 '-.1 ______ 20 .. __ J 2 . __ _

(GRID-A)

LA.APP.] 195/2008 (VILLAGF> BHAR.THAL)

RANBIR SHARl'd.A ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, _Mr,A_mil J\1c:~an, MrJai Prakash,l\1s,SITlita Maan, l\1r.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates IV1r.Anand Yadav and lYIs.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.RobrCls, A(hocate. Mr.Raghuvill'Jcr Gouara" Advocate Mr.N.S,Negi and IVlr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and MLB.K, Routray, Mlr.M.Azam Ansari. Advocates. Ml".Pankaj V1Vi~k, Advocate lVlr.Rc~jesh Yada\·, l'vlr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhannr~iay IV(Chl,l'wal, Advocates Mr.H.S.Pameb, /\,dv()c:ate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, /\.d\"(lcale l\t1r.SandeepThakhuL (Advocate [\-1r.Atul Triparili, ,\dvocaLe, Mr.N.S.Negi and J\1r.H.S.RaiJlda" (t\dVDCcfLCS for responcienl in app\~als filed by UOJ)

versus

U,'JlON OF INDIA & ANR. . ..... P \ .. t., O>'S'"{'\" __ .,J\,J'C ~("1-!"'<' .. .t,_,

'J'hruugh: -]\1 11" .0 "at1]' .. c~.v "" 1) J (\(l; ..1_ ... __ ;( I'l" \~ 1),_'1 r.;; 1"-1 .•. i I )1' ,.J /\ rJ\'('l"'<-f~ ~I .(.lL.~ •.. \71/1' j' Id !-. 1 '\II(r .1._'(~I',.I~) ~> I'l i: I" Pathak, rVJr.lVlohitrac ,-:ddha\' and I'/I:·;.J",J<",!!.in ~:>.\ain_ Ms.K.KaumudiKin)n.,;\ .. (h,\ca"i.e~) f(i[1]'l./-\C,\J()I 1\·1-" IV 1. A' lav 'v-[r]ellJ.d",-l,1.))t,cn.l:i " ,c ~./'" 'J." ,,-,'j"'--' lell'v 00ld. (,' --' rVl'"1\.1 1, - U.\I. 1'-"'-' ... ,n Kumar, Mr- S.K,';';cthi, lV(r.Pav"'-lI1 IVlathuL Mr.KunaJ Sharma, AdvOCi\H~ ii~r DD/\'

1,/\'/-" PPAI :/2008 & ClVLNo ,A 0 ':)6!2Ul),S (Cross·-iJbjectiollS), L.'\./\PP.'i5=~/:·~UOg; '1 .,"_-,.,,' 1\ .\1ID .1' .L,.-,,"_., /":~\/,J;-)(·'8· -', L _I\'j·~ !\f)l) .',)O(}/L.. -"QOi'/IJI"R -1-_.' i\-: L'r ('-\1 ' __ ,.i.'·1.1HJ._l ~r, CO()I\ '_'U/L' ".'('J C-l , ('-" ,-c.lO~_,-\)[).!U_.I]()ll.)., '.;' •. ,', '~.-.', "'-'j' j,;\.APPF)7i2008 & CM.No:-l-33/20'Yi (C;:-')~;S--Ob.icctiOlls)~ 1,i\./\l'P.701/?'(JCB '& Civ1.N'JSl 0/.2009 (CroSs-Obji,~cti')il~;): 1 .. \.-,\pp 7U~:)O(}g:, L'\.APf'.n(":/2Um;"

If,,/\;~p. ~~(l. 1.1~)~)/~OJ·~ & COPllccted I'\ppr~(tls of\/ilj;lW! I3h;Jrth;.1I ! ·\""\l".Ii,). N:.). /9[/]U7U)[ E.~ conner.j.;~d l\ppc:]ls of VillrJf,{~ [3i.!Wll~,~trl 1'\J\pp. ;\',-'. 1.1:' l:J[)1O & cor;I'('w-_ci ;\ppc,J'; of \ljiIClgl: I'o(hdn!)ui"

PJf-.~,l\ it. 0; }9

LA.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 & [r ]

LA.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.1',[o.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008;. Li\.APP.785/2008; LA.APP,798/2008 & CM.No.61S12009 (Cross-Objections); LAA.PP,799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.80S12008; 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.8I812008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.S32/2008; LAAPP.833/2008; LA,APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP,873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA:APP,892/200S & CM.No,799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.S99/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA".APP.915/2008; LA.APP,951/2008 & CM,No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.959/2008; LAAPP.973/2008; I."AAPP,97412008 & CM.No,5l9!2009, (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,97:S/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LAAPP.978!2008; LA.APP,986;'2008 & CM,No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.993/2008;LA,A.PP.l 029/2008& CM.No, J 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 03112008 & eM.No,17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); L;\./\PP, 1032/2008 & CM.No.S99/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 046/2008; LA.APr), 1 047/2008;LAAPP.1048/20U8& CM.No.78S1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1049/2008 & CM.No,420n009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I050/2008; LA.APP.l 051/2008 & CM.No.1726212008 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP, 1 052/2008; LA.APP.I0S3/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.IOS4/2008 & CM.No,1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1. OSSI2008;LAAPP, 1057/2008 & CM,No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.l058/2008& CM,No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,1059/2008 & CYLNo,1725912008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1 060/2008;LAAPP, 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1 073/2008; LA.APP,1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1 . . 075/2008; LAAPP,1081J2008 . & 'CM.No,462/2009(Cross-Objections); . . . LA,APP.I084/2008& CM.No.17302/2C.IOH (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 m:6[l]200H & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections)~ LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619l200() (.IOSS-·C'· ·'Ol· JJectlOns, , )' IAAPI)10C)"'i")rV')Q~ r, , •• )":.1 .. \,0) n 1\ ... 1 \'PP"094'iOOS' .J, i"-' , TA'Ap~-.-.,I [n].... 1C19"I'OC"_ )0, [t]), LAAPP.I103/2008 & CM,No.441/2009 fCross-Objections):LAAPP.lI08/2008 .& CM,No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.i\PP.I10l)/2008; LA.APP.1 I 10/2008 & ClVl.No,382812009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l11Ii2008; LAAPP.l112/20()8 & T\. n~'l""l IV .1'O,.J "'S"'1/7009' .J __ (·C· ... 10SS-Ob' JCCtlOl1S). . '. Lrh ... -\"· ~·I)P ..111"·/")·{)C)8· .. ~/L..\ & ~ ('M1\..,J .,\)0 • .. '11>"/('2(1(0' )0"':,-" \~J;t (Cross-Objections); LAAPP, J 115/2008; IA.APP,l 116/2008; L\.APP.1121!2008; r :,1.:. 1\ ..A •. p.!) ' J l7b' ...... I~ n008' ~ L .l-t. /:, APJ) . 11 J __ 0/"') , '.~. ()(). '." P -ex', 0, '.~rv r'T'.'J ... 1<10 'l .. _.J ') <:: 0/2 -' or)Cj \... (CI·os"-()·l-'J' ',./ L,,:) \ .. ", C'''j'I()11\,.. .• [1]1,-", '')' .f ,J\,!\PP, l130/2008; LAAPP, 113 U20()}, ,S:; C\i!.I\;o,566/2009 (C'ross-ObiectionSL LAAPP.1133/2008; LA.APP,1.l3512008 & CM,No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); L!\,APP., 1140/2008; LAAPP, 115612008; LA.APP, 1157/2008; LA.APP']1 58/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.1159/2008.'; tA./\PP.116112008; LAAPP.1166i200R; LAAPP,116712008 & eM,No.802/200S! (Cross-Objections): LAAPP.1168/2008; LAAPP,1170/2008; LAAPP. J ] 7112008; ~rA.APP.l] 72/2008:, LAAPP,1173/2008; LA.APP.1175/2008; LA,APP,1178/20(,18: L/\,APP.1179/2008:, LA.,APP.1181/2008; LA,/\PP .1182/2008; LA.APP.] J 83/2008& CIVl.No.69J3I2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.1185[1]200E;LA.APP .. J 186/2008& CM.No,7013i2009

Il\.llpp. No. ~ll95i~008 8, r:onnr.clcd Arpeals of Village' flharlhal l.A !\po. No. Z'.l!l/7.0lCJ & corinl~ctE'd /\ppeals of Village i3ijwas,}n I./\./\pp. ND. :l11j:1mo & connr.c[c:iJ Appea:s of Villag;, Podial1our' l.A !\po. No. Z'.l!l/7.0lCJ & corinl~ctE'd /\ppeals of Village i3ijwas,}n I./\./\pp. ND. :l11j:1mo & connr.c[c:iJ Appea:s of Villag;, Podial1our'

Page I: 01' 29

(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1190/2008~ LA.APP.II91/2008; LA.APP.1192!2008: LAAPP.I193/2008; LAAPP.l194/2008; LAAPP.1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008; LAAPP.1198120Q8& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1200/2008; LAAPP.1202/2008; LAAPP.l203/2008; LAAPP.1210/2008; LAAPP.1211/2008; LA.APP.12I2/2008; LA.APP.I2l 3/2008; LA.APP.1223/2008; LA.APP.I225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.384I12009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008; 1,!\.APP.1275/2008; LAAPP.1276/2008; LAAPP.1277/2008; LAAPP.1279/2008;' I LAAPP.1280/2008; LAAPP.1281/2008; LA.APP.1283/2008; LAAPP.1284/2008; LAAPP.3112009; LA.APP.33/2009; LAAPP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.S9/2009; i LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.710311009 (Cross~Objections); LAAPP.74i2009; , LAAPP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 108/2009; LAAPP.I09!2009: LAAPP.121/2009; LA.APP,135/2009; I-I\.APP.136/2009; LAAPP.13712009; LA.APP.138/2009;' LAAPP.139/2009; LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP.144/2009; LAAPllJ.145!2009; LA.APP. [62/2009; LA.APP.187/2009: LA.APP.190/2009; LA.APP.191/2009; LA.APP.197/2009; LAAPP.198/2009; LA.APP.199/2009; LA.APP.20112009; LA.APP.202/2009; LAAPP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM,No.702:7/2009 , (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/20J 1 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.21112009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LAAPP.223/2009; LAAPP.224l2009; LAAPP.227/2009; LA.APP.nO/2009 & CM.No.n06/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.241/2009; LA.APP.24S/2009; LA.APP.246/2009; 'LA.APP.249/2009; LAAPP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LAAPP.30:5/2009:, LA.APP.367/2009; LAAPP.437/2009; Li\.AP?447/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; LA.APP.459/2009; LAAPPA66/2009: Ij'LAPP.480/2009; LA.APP.481!2009; LA .. APP.489/2009; LAAPP.490/200C); LA.APP.49112009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LAAPP.495/2Q09; LA .. APP.503/2009; LAAPP,506/2009; 1.A.APP.S07/2009; LAAPP.508/2009; LA .. APP.509!2009: LA.APP.5J 0/2009: U\./\II.SJl/2009, ) ) , . LAAPP.S I.e., ~ n ~OU, )(,]' ,j\.APr '"> .::dx-'..U(H, --i ''1 -.. ' LiL-.PI.)6/ILJ)09, T) .. ,-, n' . LA.APP.572l2009; LA.APP.lS/2010; LA.APPA5/20l0; LA.APP.48/2010; l.l\.APPA04/2010; LA.APP.IJl201 L Ll\.A.PP,1138/2008~ LA.APP.1176/2008:, L/\.APP, 1177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008~ L/\.APP.23 [/2009

(Relating to Notification No. F.IO(30)/96/L& B/LAI13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & AwaJ'd No. 2,6/2002-2003 dated 23.10.20.02, Village BharthaI, Delhi)

B_t?:§§rved O~l: Dec(},mbeL_Q~~ 2QU_ P[Q"V!C!uIlced QJ1:~9nuaJ~'!!. ()Q~--,JJLI2

LA"APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE,- BUWASAN)

DE'VEN])ER. KUMAR ••••• Appellant Through: M:-.R,S,Tomar, lVlr.Virendra Singh

I (U'pp, 1\10 :l1%/?OCS & <:Ol1necl.ed Appeals of Village Bharthal I/U\pp, I~o, 7.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Vil!age Hiiwasan

I f\,App No lLl/2,OW & conncct(~d ,\ppr.als of Village Pocranpu~ P<Jge 3 of 29

Advocates Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout and l\1r.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R-2-14, 38,41-46,49,50-69,73,75,76) versus

(Relating to Notification No,. F.10(30)96-L&BlLAI13417 dated 13.12 .2000 issued under Section 4 of the UUld Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No.

28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi) AND

1,/\ App, No 11~5/2008 & conneCl(~d ,~ppeals of Village [lhartil;,1 I,/\.I\pp. No, 2'J~/)010 & con0(;cter]lIppea!s' of Viliage Bij-'\,<ls<lll !.IIApp. No. 11.jj:WlO is, connect(>d f'PfJeals of Village Pocha:1pul' I,/\.I\pp. No, 2'J~/)010 & con0(;cter]lIppea!s' of Viliage Bij-'\,<ls<lll !.IIApp. No. 11.jj:WlO is, connect(>d f'PfJeals of Village Pocha:1pul'

[);;lge 4 of .29

(GRID-C)

Reserved on: Dece111ber 18, 20U Pronounced on: Januw:"'L 06L 2JJ12 ..

LA.APP. 11112010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR)

SEHAJ RAM AND ORS. . .... Appellants Through: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30.33, 36 to 40, 44 to 49,59,63 to 71) Mr.SooB. Kumar, Advocate for appellant in LA.i\pp.No. 6],64,65/2011) Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellant in R-22) versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ... ". Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav. and 1\1s.Navlin Swain .. Advocates for UOULAC l\11r.Bankcv Bihari Sharma, lY1r.Kunal Sharma. and Mr.Somer K.Seth, .. dvocates for DD/\.. LAAPP.11112010 LAAPP.154/2010 LA.AP? 155/2010 LAAPP.156/2010 LA.APP.160/2010 LA.APP. 1651201 () LA .APPoo 20912010 LA.APP. 215/20] 0 LA.APP. 228/2010 LA.APP.248/2010 LA.APP. 249/2010 LAooAPP. :~50/2010 LA.APP. 254/2010 LAAPP. 260/20] 0 tA.APP.261/2010 LAAPP.270/20lO LAAPP.292/2010 LAAPP.293/201O LAAPP.305/2010 LA.APP.306/2010 L/\.APP. 307/2010 LAAPP.317/201O LAAPP. 392/2010 LA.APP. 393/2010 LA.APP.395/2010 LAAPP.39612'01O LA .APP. 397/2010 LA.APP.412/2010 LA.A.PP.420/2010 LAAPP. 432/2010 LA.APP.433/2010 LA.APP. 434.12010 LA.APP. 466/2010 LA.APP. 489/2010 LA-APP.57[7]/2010 . LA.APP. 635/201 () LA.APP.637/2010 LAAPP.639/2010 LA. APP. 640/2010 LA.APP. 657/20 10 LA.APP. 660/2010 LAAPP.662/2010 LA.API'.74112010 LA.APP.758/2010 LA.APP.767/2010 LA.APP. 76g/20 10 L/\.APP.784/2010 1 .. AAPP.9J8/2010 LA-APP. 1052/2010 LA.!tPP.6112011 LAAPP.64/2011 JA.APP. 116/2.011 LAAPP.117/2011 LA.APP. 1 J 9/2011 LA.APP. 121/2011 LA.APP. 129/201 ~ LAAPP.429/2011 LAAPP.485/2011 LA.API='.521/2011 LA.APP. 522[i]2011 LA .APP. 523/2011 LAAPP. 525/20) 1 LA.APP.526/2011 LA.APP.S3S/2Ull LA.APP.536/2011 LAAPP.554/2011 . LA.APP.591/2011

1.l\.l\pp. No, J.1.95/200S & connected I\ppe~15 of Village Bharthal LJ\./\pp. No, 294/2010 & connected IIppeais of Vi/iag" l3ijwasan LJ\./\pp. No, 294/2010 & connected IIppeais of Vi/iag" l3ijwasan

1.1\1\01" No 111/7..010 & connected I\ppeals of Village PochanpL'r

PJge 5 ot 29

(Relating to Notification No. F.I0(30)96-L& B/LAI13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of th~ Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER 06.01.2012

J . Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at' the heeding of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining. to Notification No.F.10(30)96-L& BHA/13417 dated 13.12.2000:, relating to geographically contiguous ViUages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Acquisition process for planned development of 'Dwarka Phase-/1Il' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notffication (~l 13; December, 2000 under Section 4 of I.he Land Acquisi.tion Act, 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricuhllral land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in questi()ll, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

3. Agricultural land of the appellants hereln ill the afiJrcsaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, i.c., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003 ;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation :EJ. ~13.82 lacs per acre for Block '1\' (level field ---. with top soil) and @) :(12 . .32 lacs per acrc for Block 'B 1 (\vithout top soil).

4. Dissatisfied with the assessment of market valueof their acqu irt::d

I./\./\pp. No. lElS/2008 & connected /\ppeals.ofVillap,e Bh;Jrth~1 III.i\po. No. 29<1/:'010 Ii, connected /l,ppeals of Village Bijwasan III.i\po. No. 29<1/:'010 Ii, connected /l,ppeals of Village Bijwasan

I./\./\pp. No. 112./7.010 g, cor.nect"d /\ppeals of ViliaRe Poch'lnpur

PagE 6 Cli. 29

- ~----.-.~~--y---~.-.----~-~"-----"-~------~----'---

"---'--

, i I.: ,. i.

agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the [,and Acquisition Act, J 894 and the Reference COUli vide impugned ',' judgment had enhanced compensation @ ~15.00 lacs per acre f~or the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and (cy ~13.36 lacs per acre f()f their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed. 5. In these appeals, further enhancet'nent of compensation sought by t.he appellants of Villages Bhalihal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupcc':s Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Execut.ive Engineery J(arnatakaHousing Board vs. land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors" (2011) 2 sce 246; An;ani IVlolu lJessai VS'. State olGoa and Anr. y (2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Rmn and Ors VS" ,State of/{m:vana and Anr., (2010) , 1 sec 444; Sangunthala , (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Teh.\'ildar (Land Acquisition) & Drs" (.2010) 3 sec 661; Ranvir Singh IllndAnr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fa/(ira Patif (D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer9 Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lal ~'S. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) thtough LRs liS. Union of India.& Alff1Jr' j 2002 (65) DIU 1 (DB); Udho JJ'ass VS', State o/l/aryafuu & Ors. y c[j ]20]0(9) SCALE 41; Chakas WI. State of Punjab & Ors. y 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash DhavlOi ]Valli ~.'s" ,S'tate of Alalii,Uyg,§'htra, (2009) 1 1 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) throu.gh LRs and Ors VS. State (~l flaryana & Anr, (2008) 2 sec 568; vV.P.<C) No, 4143/2003 litled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Grain Sabha & Ors! decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Of/iceif' & AnI' vs. M.l(. Rafiq Saheb, (201]) 7 sec 714; Thakarsibhai Del:iibhwi and Of'S VS. Executiv~ Engineer,UUlpp. No, :!1[!~) /7008,<'" connected App(~als of Vill~l3e 3h;Jrtha' U\.I\pp. No. ~~H/7.010.& connected Appeals of Village Bijvvilsan '/\.App. No 1 J 1/7.010 & conn(~ct,!d Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 7 of 29 U\.I\pp. No. ~~H/7.010.& connected Appeals of Village Bijvvilsan '/\.App. No 1 J 1/7.010 & conn(~ct,!d Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 7 of 29

. ----_._-.,._---_ .. --------.---_ .. _---------_ ... _--.-_._----_ .. __ . -------

ri' I::

Gt~iarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryafw State Industria! Development Corporation, (2010) 1 nscc 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs . Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) IS sec 169; General 1~lanager9 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 sec 745; Valliyamma! and Anr vs, Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and AnI',. AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon \V5. Allahabad Development Authority. (2004) 10 sec 745; lUahe~J'D Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of )Jlaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; [(apilMehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of india & Anr9 176(20 J 1) DLT 361; \V.P .(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat .. S'ingh vs. .. Delhi Development Authority & AnY., decided on 24.04.200R; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors ~JS. Union o/India, (2004) 10 sec 627; Satpa/ & Ors vs. Dllion of india, (1997) 11 sec 42.3; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! i(unullr vs. Union of India, decided on 26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.5912007 titled as Bed Rain' vs. Uniirm of india, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhule Ram vs. Union ,oIIndia, 2010 (170)DL'1'371.

6. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset., ii.1 was urged by l\1r.B.S.Maan: learned'drguing counsel for the appellants tbat 1he location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential "vhieh must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over period of time and the same cannot be limited to the ncar future alone.

7, [t was pointed out by Ivlr.R.S.Tomar, counsel for appellants that Dclhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage rail\vay line of Village 13iijv./asan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing il into two parts:1 i.e., on the eastern side of the raihvay line is the tGI Airport, New Delhi

U\)\pp. I~o. IB5j2003 & connected /\ppeals of Village Ilharlhai

1.I\.f\pp. No. 2~1~/?OJ.O & connected /\ppf!als of Village llijwason

: /\.i\pp, I~o, 1l1/20J.O & connected /\ppeals of Vill,W' Pochanpur Page 8 or 29

and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bhar.at Petroleum and road 100 meters wide staIiing from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub·-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Fann Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It vilas also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northenl part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village BharihaI and Village Pochanpur were al.so acquired in the year 1984 t~)r dev[i]2:10pment of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages ~-Bamnoli and Dhoo1 Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-It Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks s/zrashnap to highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.8. It WaS strenuously urged by Mr.B.S .. Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference COUIi has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land 10 be agricultural in spjt(~ of Notification of 16[th ]October, 2000 vide 'which land use of the three v{llages in question was changc.cl from agriculturaT to residential!' commercial/industrial, etc. and infac:t the entire land of Village BharthaI had ceased to be rural in vievl" of the Notification of 24li1 October, ] 994. 9. It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid lWO Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Ra.ma. appellants that the Reference COUIi has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land 10 be agricultural in spjt(~ of Notification of 16[th ]October, 2000 vide 'which land use of the three v{llages in question was changc.cl from agriculturaT to residential!' commercial/industrial, etc. and infac:t the entire land of Village BharthaI had ceased to be rural in vievl" of the Notification of 24li1 October, ] 994. 9. It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid lWO Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Ra.ma.

lAl\pp. ~Jo. 1:' ~J5/:!O08 & connected I\p>peals of Village Bharthal !.A App .. No. 7.9tl/7.0:lO & conn(~ct(~ci A~·p(~als of Village Bijwas<Jn !,,~.I\pp. fJ().111/201O & connected I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur Page 9 of Zg !.A App .. No. 7.9tl/7.0:lO & conn(~ct(~ci A~·p(~als of Village Bijwas<Jn !,,~.I\pp. fJ().111/201O & connected I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur Page 9 of Zg

~_:~~_~='I"7crPf"F""j9pl!jITc%}Ifr""r,,,'i'''i''' "11'2u'"'~Z'l~~,;z~r~1l~1l~~L101rd);~11ol2'~;~"F~¥gr;.,r\j"f,r.r;;,,~rr,;:o·IQv-d:Q!',~.r'~Il~!k,-?!"a::.p·m'l..o-n;:il-,.,..,.;:o~",;o:;;.,r;:;~o;;r;rrir"--'O

Reddi & Drs. lVS. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Orsy (1995) 2 sec 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors .. , 20] 0(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquire~ land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over period of time and the same dmnot be limited to near future alone and if after the acquisitioq, jf the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

10. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrO\vn out as has been iUegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars arc overvalued b\.~cause of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in A/~j{Jni j~{)lu Dessai lVS. State of Goa and Anr. y (2010) 13 sec 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as. representing the market price of the land which comes to ~5 7 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appeHants arc the comparable sale instances, l..hcref{YJT, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimurn rates/circle rates lor determining the market value of the acquiredland is p3tently erroneous.1 J. Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by 1\1r.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government a11d also on the basis of pre-determined rates i1xed by the Govcrnm·¢nt for all~)tmen1. of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in vic\v Lhe location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land,dcte:rrnination of its market value: is 1 /u\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connect;2d J\ppea!s of Village Bharlhal L/u\pp, No. ~94i1010 & connected J\ppeal~, of Village Bijwasan ' .. ,U\pp No. flJ/2ClO &. conn,~cted Appeals of ViI/age Pochanpur Paf,(~ 10 0 r 29

sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase-lor on the basis of the Pre-· Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to. above.

J 2. In the written synopsis, appellant -' Impulse India Private Lirnited aLLA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the

following grounds:-

a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated 23. J O. 2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil FVriL petition No. 190 12 of 2006. (Referred to in cross~examination of appellanz dated 7. 7.2007) respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003 dated 23. J O. 2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil FVriL petition No. 190 12 of 2006. (Referred to in cross~examination of appellanz dated 7. 7.2007)

b) Does not account for the fC1C[ that the Public Notice dated 18. 9.1987 adversely {?fleeted the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. dated 18. 9.1987 adversely {?fleeted the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued.

c) Valuing the land on the basis· (~f the letter dated 11.9.2001 issued by the Governrnent ':1 National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordclnce with the law laid dovv'l1 by various decisions including in one qf the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme COllrt in Sangunthala versus Tah:\'ildar, 2010(3) sec 661. 11.9.2001 issued by the Governrnent ':1 National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordclnce with the law laid dovv'l1 by various decisions including in one qf the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme COllrt in Sangunthala versus Tah:\'ildar, 2010(3) sec 661.

d) Ignores the evidence and ot,her factors which as per established law has to be cOl1siclered before ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition. established law has to be cOl1siclered before ascertaining the value of the land under acquisition.

e) Does nm deal with disparilY i;~7 . "I/olue of the Sale Deeds produced before the trier! Courlwhereas as per the law established by the Han'ble .Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda F'okiro Patil versus Special lJand Acquisition Officer, Civil /lpeu:! No. 54 75 of 2007. nze Hon'ble Supreme Court has,ypec~fically held that .Sale Deed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in produced before the trier! Courlwhereas as per the law established by the Han'ble .Supreme Court in the recent case of Chinda F'okiro Patil versus Special lJand Acquisition Officer, Civil /lpeu:! No. 54 75 of 2007. nze Hon'ble Supreme Court has,ypec~fically held that .Sale Deed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in

[A'/\pp. No. 119'i/2008 & CD~nec1:l~d /lppeals of Village I3harthol

[ .. "I.App. No. 294/2010 & connected !',ppeals of Village llijwasan I /\.f,pp. No. :1.11/2.010 & conn(~cted /lppeals of Village Pochanpur

l'af.Q. 11 of 29

case the average sale price is lower. Fu;~ther in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon certan land.

./) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A12006 to decide the market value of the su~ject land while ignoring the malerial which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block and ~ 13,36,000 in Block in violation of the law laid down by the lIon'ble Supreme Court including in S"ubh RanI vs. State of I-fwTana 2010(1) sec 444. As consequence, thE; irnpugned judgment No.97A12006 to decide the market value of the su~ject land while ignoring the malerial which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block and ~ 13,36,000 in Block in violation of the law laid down by the lIon'ble Supreme Court including in S"ubh RanI vs. State of I-fwTana 2010(1) sec 444. As consequence, thE; irnpugned judgment . refirsed to return an actual .finding'· on the issue No.1 .f'-amed on 27.2.2007. .f'-amed on 27.2.2007.

g) E'valuated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to .be agricultural and canle now under the urban boundaries of DeLhi .State. 771e l11Clsterplan and Not{lications of Government for land use change shmv that in ftfture land can be su~jected . to residential, c'olnmercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertihent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in rei;;i)~'ct q/ the 74th wnendment of the Constitution of Ina'ta. lv.ej.· 1.6.J993 IX A, b~v virtue of which the Afunic.'l)xd COlporation /lct WC7S amendr;:.d and the area wheye the l~tnd is situated, was deemed municipal area and the municipal ('ounsellor was elected fi-om there. No Panchdyat elections were held in the area. Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to .be agricultural and canle now under the urban boundaries of DeLhi .State. 771e l11Clsterplan and Not{lications of Government for land use change shmv that in ftfture land can be su~jected . to residential, c'olnmercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertihent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in rei;;i)~'ct q/ the 74th wnendment of the Constitution of Ina'ta. lv.ej.· 1.6.J993 IX A, b~v virtue of which the Afunic.'l)xd COlporation /lct WC7S amendr;:.d and the area wheye the l~tnd is situated, was deemed municipal area and the municipal ('ounsellor was elected fi-om there. No Panchdyat elections were held in the area.

h) Refilsed to apply the !m\.' laid (lcJ1vn in AIR S'upreme Court 34~7, Ranvir Si[J]'lgh and Anr vs. Union of india and refiised to consider the fact that jhe c:/evelopment in the area has direct effect :HI the ]7rice thal willing purchaser H'ould pay/oy thi:.:·. sU!'7ject haul Court 34~7, Ranvir Si[J]'lgh and Anr vs. Union of india and refiised to consider the fact that jhe c:/evelopment in the area has direct effect :HI the ]7rice thal willing purchaser H'ould pay/oy thi:.:·. sU!'7ject haul

2 had also

i) Ignored the fact that Res-pm/dent' No.

1.1.\./\pp. No. 1195/).I)Oil & connected Appeals of Village 5harthal l./\./\pp. No. 294/Z010 & wnnt!c\ed Appeals of Village Bi!was,ln Lil.flpp. No. 111/2010 & connectf!d Appeals of Village Pochanr-ur l./\./\pp. No. 294/Z010 & wnnt!c\ed Appeals of Village Bi!was,ln Lil.flpp. No. 111/2010 & connectf!d Appeals of Village Pochanr-ur

Page 12. (If 29

auctioned sim,ilarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ~2.6 lakh and concluded thdt the said land is wholly underdeveloped land.

j) The valuation of the subject land is even lo-wer than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land.

k) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use of the land although the land was acquired .fi)r development purposes of. Jp.varka 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 calne novv under the urban boundaries oIDelhi State. the use of the land although the land was acquired .fi)r development purposes of. Jp.varka 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 calne novv under the urban boundaries oIDelhi State.

I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the. cornmercial although they clearly establish the. cornmercial -potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar (LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it washefd that the purposefor vvhich land is acquired is relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiali(v t~ be used for building purposes in immediate' or in near fitture needs to be considered. (LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it washefd that the purposefor vvhich land is acquired is relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiali(v t~ be used for building purposes in immediate' or in near fitture needs to be considered.

171) The presence of nwnber of buildings on the lands acquired and the said fand being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as hou,~e sites. The land') were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As portion a/the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near fitlure. " acquired and the said fand being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as hou,~e sites. The land') were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As portion a/the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near fitlure. "

13. In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. , , 347/2009, the factual details have been provided with prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appeIJants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appeIJants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

14. Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the ctppcllants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of

LtL/\pP. ND. 11.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharth<ll I./\./\pp_ No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwaso;n IAJIPP· No. J 11/2010 & connected Il.ppeals of Village Pochanpur I./\./\pp_ No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwaso;n IAJIPP· No. J 11/2010 & connected Il.ppeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 13 of 29

urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; J(apil.Mehra (M{~ior General) & Drs. Vs. Union of India & AnI', 176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-Determined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant to determine the Inarket value of the acquired lands and intact the sale instances relied upon by the appellant.s are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference COUl1. to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of conlpensation , reilccting just, fair and adequate mark.et value for the: acquired lands is sought in t.hese appeals.

tIS. Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51 ,··A of IJ1f7d Acquisition Act, 1894, celiified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence DJr determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and clement of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village elC. atc also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by tile Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the de"cisions in Jai La! j).IJ'. Union of India, 2002 (62) DHJ 227, Satpal & Ors :vs. Union I~l India, (1997) 11 sec 423; La! Chand liS. Union of India (find .Anr., (2009)15 sec 769; LA. APP. No'.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of In dia, decided on 26.09.201}1 it was urged that sharp increase in price in short period cannot be taken to l)e realistic until reasons Cor ;]llch sharp increase are explained by producing in c~vidcrtcc the seller

LA,!\pp No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal L.A./\pp, No. 7.9/lnOlO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.!\./Ipp. No, I1J./~,0J.0 & connected !\ppeals of Village Pochanpur l.!\./Ipp. No, I1J./~,0J.0 & connected !\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

Pagl' 14 of 29

and the purchaser as no prudent person having Imowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such higher pay as reiIected in the sale instance of Radha SWalni Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was coptended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decis:ion of Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra) which has been followed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi/Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

16. So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agric.ultural land by the Government as on r'( /\pril, 2QOO and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired " lands has been erroneousI,,! J determined by the Reference Co Uli:J as iu . Sushi! [(umar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for ftu1her enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the; I{cfcrcncc Com1: while taking into consideration the appreciation ~i) 12% . per annum and the same deserves to be brOl:ght in Jine 'vvhile gnlntirlg appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby aUo\ving the cross··· objections to the aforesaid extent.

17. . Aftei- considering the rival submissi.onsadvanced by both the sides and UP0l1 close perusal of the impugncdjudgmcnl, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, ""hat emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price i)aid by \villing purchaser to \villing

IA.J\pp. No. 1190./:>'008 I:'x conncctedllppeals of Village Bharth31 Lil.llpp. No. 29~/LOlO & connected t\ppea/s of ViI/age !lijwasan iAllpp. No. 1.11/2010 &. r.onnectc>dllpp~a/s of Village Pochar,pu' Pag(~ 15 r.t 2.9 Lil.llpp. No. 29~/LOlO & connected t\ppea/s of ViI/age !lijwasan iAllpp. No. 1.11/2010 &. r.onnectc>dllpp~a/s of Village Pochar,pu' Pag(~ 15 r.t 2.9

seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. VI/hile dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has .to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Comi in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & I Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

'C(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village l1/hich had been growing in size because of its cOlnmercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because a/its explosive population,-the town or village l1/hich had been growing in size because of its cOlnmercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because a/its explosive population,-

(i i) [he suitability of the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case 171{7Y be: buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case 171{7Y be:

(iii) possibility of obtaininglvater and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land, occupants of buildings to be put up on that land,

(iv) absence of statutory impt>diments or the like for us ing the acquired landfor building pUlpose; the acquired landfor building pUlpose;

(v) existence of highvvays, l)uhlic roads, la~vouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proxirnity qfthe acquired land,· building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proxirnity qfthe acquired land,·

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land ',vhich ,nay become available to the occupiers of buildings, ~l built on the acquired land; and health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land ',vhich ,nay become available to the occupiers of buildings, ~l built on the acquired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land ilse(l being in de;nand .Jhr building pwposes, 1'0 specify afew. " ilse(l being in de;nand .Jhr building pwposes, 1'0 specify afew. "

.18. The potentiality of land for the purpose. of development as also for building purposes depends upon large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have 1.0 bear in mind the purpose for

111.l\pp. No. 1195/7008 & connected I\ppeals of V:llage Bharthal

l.1\.i\pp. No 2~j4/1010 & connectl~d Appeals of Village lJijwa5;Jn IAl\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur IAl\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

Pilp,e 16 of 29

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 reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Alma Singh (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not availablle.

, 19. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & AnI' vs.1U.K. Riljiq Salleb, (2011) 7 SCC 714. The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

L "10 , It is well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the' agricultural land for particular purpose. But, lit is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this jJroposition. . , the decision of the !\ pex Coun in lOran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to 'vvith ~1,clvantage, 21. Apex COUli in Valliyammal (Su1')ra)_ while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals) etc., had held that deduction of 40%) towards development chargeE) was improper.. The pertinent observations made by the Apcx Court in Anjani 1w'olu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:-

1,)\.Ilpp, No, J 1SS/2008 & connec~:ed Appeills of Village Bharth'l: I/\,/\pp, I~o, 2,94nU J 0 & r.()nn~cted J\ppE~ais of Vil!<lge Bijwasan I/\,/\pp, I~o, 2,94nU J 0 & r.()nn~cted J\ppE~ais of Vil!<lge Bijwasan I./\,/\pp, No, 111/J.01() & connecled Il.ppeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 17 or 2.9

"T'he legal position is that even 1t\l·here there are several exemplars with reference to si111.ilai~ ?and'i, usually the. highest of the exemplars, which is bona fide transaction, Hlill be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimi.lar lands 'whose prices range in narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values di~closed in respect of {vvo 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. Consequentfyaveraging cannot be resorted to'. "

')') .;; ... ... L- • • It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindlw Fakira Pati! (Supra), which are as

.;; ... ... L- • •

[o11O\\ls:-

"ft is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale'transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands :possessing similar val-ue or utility taken place betvl!een willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to rejlect the true value, as agreed betvvecf1 rC'Qsorzable prudent persons acting in the 110rmallnarket conditions are the real basis to determine- the I1wrket value. " 7"'1 ~.J . Principles to determine the market value of the acquired land:] as

reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

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

"Prilnarily, the incr:ease in lcind prices depends on four ./actor,\' - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of lard for development in the area, and· the demand for lavzd in the area. In rural areas :unless there is any prOSj)cct of development in the vicini(v, increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual, without anysudden spurts orjumps.

i}\.tIPP· No. J 195/2.008 & connf~cted I\pp"ais of Viii age Bharlilal IAl\pp r,o. 294/2.010 & connected flppeals of Village Bijwas;m

1,1I.fIPP, No. j,J 1/201.0 g, connected I\ppeals of Vill;Jge Pochanpur

POlge 18 of 29

---", /

On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and 'where there is construction. activity all around, the escalation in market price is at much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big citIes, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose l1'zarginalZv at nominal flate of 1 % or 2% per annum. T71ere is thus significant difference in increases in market value of' ,/ lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in marker value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum . . This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear lind specific evidence relating to increase in prices. rVhere there are special reasons for applying u higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.

Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value o.f nearby lands in previcJUs years (as evideNced by sale transactions or acq2,tisition), where there is no evidence of an}' contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. 171e said, method is reasonably sofe where the relied--on-sale transactions/acquisitions precede,') the subject (}cquisition by only few years, that is upto ./(nlJ' to five years. Beyond that it rnay be unsafe, even !l it relates to rieigl.'i::>ouring land. 'fVhat Inay be rcliahfesfandard (f the gap L,> on(y ./eH! years, may become 1.!J1sa/e and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. F'or exmnple . .lor determining the market value of land m.'quired.in 1992, adopting the annual increase l11_ethod 11'ith n::ference to sale or

L.'..I\pp. \10. 11'.lS;2001' 8, connected App2als of Village Bh'c1rtha! 1.I1./\po. No. ~[ji1/2.010 & connected Appeals of Village 8ijwasan IAf\pp No. 11l!2010 & connt'cled Appe~i5 of Village Fochanp'.:r 1.I1./\po. No. ~[ji1/2.010 & connected Appeals of Village 8ijwasan IAf\pp No. 11l!2010 & connt'cled Appe~i5 of Village Fochanp'.:r

P;lge !l9 01 Z9

acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'raie I of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart fi~om the likelihood of occuh~ence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the velT standard of increase."

24. This COUl1is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (lIS/DC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods: What was said by the Apex COUl1 in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:-

"When different categories of lands (or lands with different situational advantages) are Cfcquiredfor the same purpose, SOl' for forming of residential layout, COUyts have sometimes jelt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and uniform rate of compensation should be awarded fiJr all land'! acquired under the same notification. "

25.· Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal., 'Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of 'il1lage Pochanpuf; i.e" the seven SaJe Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Sll'omi Sa tsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at pric(~' which varied limn ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs p~r acre.

26. Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.P\V-1I4 to Ex.P\V- 1/10) ,,,,hich arc basically between one set of CCHJWners and Radha ~Swami Satsang, Beas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bi.ghas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reneet the correct mar.ket value of the Jand in the villages in question is the moot question \vhich is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds

i,\.l'lpp~ No~ 1195/2008 & connected lIppeals of Village Bharthal IAl\pp~ No~ 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan :.I\~l\pp~ No~ lJ 1/20JO & connQctc'd IIPP(!;]Is of Village Pochanpur Page 20 of 29 IAl\pp~ No~ 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan :.I\~l\pp~ No~ lJ 1/20JO & connQctc'd IIPP(!;]Is of Village Pochanpur Page 20 of 29

(Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-lIlO) indicate that its price varies from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1I4 to Ex.PW-lIlO) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in ql)estion, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the' acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.P·W·-1I4 to Ex.PW-lIlO) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of th~se agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaserlvendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars beell got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such high pr:lce for these lands. The special fancy of thl~ purchaser, i.e., Radha Svvami Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale Deed executed on 25[th ]l\1arch, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. A]JP' No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh JJS. Union of India:. decided on 19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands.

27. In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, .but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural pUl1)ose tin their. acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands wer(~ not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of preVailing L/U\pp. No. U95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village 8harthal Lfl.App. No. 294/2,010 & r.onnected Appeals of Village Bijwasan

Page n of 29

-lAl\pp. No. i.lli2010 & connected I\ppeals of Viliage Pochanpur

market price of the land in question would pay such high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1110) have been rightly discarded by the· Reference Court.

28. So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1111) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ~1,76,SS,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 2ih January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW -1 /] 1) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide· Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/ll) 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 high price. In vieV\.' thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands in question.

29. Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, nmv it is required to be considered 3.S to \vhether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre~Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value· of the acquired lands in question. \vhether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre~Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value· of the acquired lands in question.

30. Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in irs decision reported as P. Ram Red{zv and Or."'. p. Land Acquisition Officer llyderabad Urban DevelopJ11ent Authori()J Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) sec 305 arc as under:-

"/2. However, in either (~f the said cases whether it be the determination of the Inarket value of the acquired land with huilding potentiality 'vvith relerence to the price fetched by sale (.:/plots in 'vvelL developed la)'out in the neighborhood

I f,J\pp. Nc.:I )D~;/2008 & COllnected./\ppeals ofVi!lap,e Bharthal I.A./\pp. Nc. 294/:.'.010 & connected Appeals ofVillagl' Biiwasan lll.tlpp. ~Ic. lll/.!DID 1/, connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur I.A./\pp. Nc. 294/:.'.010 & connected Appeals ofVillagl' Biiwasan lll.tlpp. ~Ic. lll/.!DID 1/, connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

P"!le 22 of 2~J

or whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the 'price fetched or to be fetched by the sales 0..( plots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the pric.e which the plots could have fetched ({'sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary nottfication under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence of price fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then vvhat could be done is to .find out the market value of the acquired land 'with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act; according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its vahle by small percentage having regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis 0..( evidence to be made available in that regard. snzall percentage increase to be given shall not exceed ]/5th of the market value o..f the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for ~)uch building potentiality arises only vvhen there is no evidence 0..( sales 0..( building plots' in the neighborhood of the' acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for building plots even ifforrned in the acquired land. "3 1 . In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiring the agricultural Jarlds, developing the same, and . transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lal Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-Determined Rates in determini.ng the market value of the adjoinii1g undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of La! Chand (Supra), coord~nate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! J(umar (Supra) has. eXCluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of

r h.hpp. ~lo.l1'l!i/l.008 & connected IIppeals of Village Bharthal L/\.lIpp. No. 294/20J.O & connected IIppeals of Village Bijwasan L/\.lIpp. No. 294/20J.O & connected IIppeals of Village Bijwasan

1'/~,.r\PP. No. 111/1010 cit connected IIppeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 23 of 29

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

.J '''', "-. Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for~ssessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition IOf the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka 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 the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period interv(:ning the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-II, still the price fixed by the I Jand Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

33. Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lal Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessme11lDf the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouring land. What may be reliable standard, if the gap is of only of few years, 111:3.)' beconie unsafe and unreJ iable standard where the gap is larger. In the inst.ant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e.: of Dwarka Yhase-J and Dwarka Phase-II is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to .adopt the mode of determining the 111arket value by providing appropriate

IA/\pp. Nc; . .119~/2008 & conni~cted /\ppeals of Vil!~ge Bharlhal , lA/\pp. No. 2.94/1.010 & conr.(~cted /\ppea!s of Village Bijwasan IA/\pp, No. 111/?,()lO & conr.~cted /\ppeals of Village Poch<JnpLir Page 2'1 of 29 , lA/\pp. No. 2.94/1.010 & conr.(~cted /\ppea!s of Village Bijwasan IA/\pp, No. 111/?,()lO & conr.~cted /\ppeals of Village Poch<JnpLir Page 2'1 of 29

escalation over the market value of1he nearby land of the previous years.

34. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned semor counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged" that the Reference COUlli has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation (fy 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acqvired land over and above the market vaIue determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by rclying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court ~y 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed.

35. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Governm~nt's minimum price of the agricultural Jand in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Governm(~nt iV.C.f. 1 st April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deservc5: to be f'urther increased or not.

36. Adoption of Governmcnt's J11lnlmUll1 rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notifi·cation in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 241h October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. 1t is true that vide aforc~aid N01iii.cation ofth~ year 1994 the land use of the acquired land had changcdbt.it that by itself is not sufficil.::nt 1:0 1 /\,I\[,p. No, ] 195/2008 & connHt0.d !\ppe.;lls of Village. Bhilrtilal i/\/\pp, No, ~',ltl/2.010 &, connected f\ppeals of Village Bijwasan I./\,I\PP, No, J ll/:!O],Q & cohnect(~d Appe.'lls of Village I'ochanpur I'age 25 of 29

presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swmni Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

37. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification un4er Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand: on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, thcn appcllants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samalld1a (Ex.PW-1I11) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang. Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-lIll) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Sarnalkha (Ex. PW-llll) ca.nno( be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher eompclisuti0J1 while relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in vicv! of the afore-referred dioturn of the Apex Court in Haryana State .industrial Dilvelopment Corporation (H,,~7D'cJ (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves io be mvarclcd for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Govenjment for·the agricultural land in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of priee due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is gap between what:IU\pp, ~lo.,1195!20D8 & connect[!d I\ppeals of Village Bharthal l/\.I\pp. No. 2~4/1.01O & connec1'ed ,~ppeals of Village Bijwasan L/\.I\pp. No. 111/2010 & connect"o I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur l/\.I\pp. No. 2~4/1.01O & connec1'ed ,~ppeals of Village Bijwasan L/\.I\pp. No. 111/2010 & connect"o I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and X find no reason to take different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra).

38. This COUli is of the considered view that the Reference COUli in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government' sminimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in. matter of Village Bhmihal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out fi'om the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the£GI Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being 100 meters vide road starti.ng from NH-8 from Sbiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Pmi I and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the~ attention of tbe Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of aforesaidl,ocational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being In vicinity oJ Dv·,rarka Phase-I. What per~uades this Court to grant 10(;((1 increase ovei~ and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquiJ~ed lands is the

!/. I\pp~ Nll~ 11'JCi/2008 8, collnected /\ppeJls of Village [lh"rlh<J1 LI\~l\pp. N()~ 2.94/2010 & connected I\ppeals of Village Bijwosan IAl\pp~ No: 111/1.010 & c()~llectl~d I\pp(~ols of Vill,lge Pochanpur LI\~l\pp. N()~ 2.94/2010 & connected I\ppeals of Village Bijwosan IAl\pp~ No: 111/1.010 & c()~llectl~d I\pp(~ols of Vill,lge Pochanpur

Page ~7 of 29

settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext COllli in .MirZll Nausherwan l(han vs. Collector, (1975)1 sec 238, in these words:-

"W71en once conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings. in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be s~~fficient to hold that the acquired land had building potentiality and proceed [Q determine its l11.arket value taking into account the increase in price attributahle to such building potentiality. "

39. Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide definite value qua potential, and in view of ·::-he fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them \vitb equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par vvith their counter-paIis, i.e., appellants of Village 13hartha1 and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil I(umar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Coun in these matters on account of the al~jresaid location2;'! advantages providing higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

40. Accordingly, these appeals are paTtly allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village BhmihaJ and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bharthal and VIllage Bijwasal1:, the appeals of

I ~ •. !\pp No. 11.'1!.i/:<008 & connected !\ppe<Jls of Village Bh<Jrth<J1

I /' . .I\pp. No. 7.9'1/2010 & conncctc?d Appeals of Village Bijwasan

I /\.;\pp. No. 11.1;2.010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

Page! lS of 29

-------,"-------'---.. _--_ .. _-

~J .,. \

","",,",'cc,_"';"{';""'" ",,,~_,,;o"";'"%''"''N;''''ii!i/!6~'''W''''m!KiJ!!ffi,C""''i.~;,""r;,",''''iI,"'C§'&"''~WI'i/!i"I!C'iUi'''~''~'';':''''';,'

';, ;';;':;'

the appellants of VillagePochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these • ' I, -,;;l.£-L~, .. _-three villages in question is detcrmineq @ ~l S,50,OOO/- per,.bigbe fOir the , ,",...<: •• ....... I .r)' ,_,,_ , o· .",:;", .. "._", y"J, 1 Category '}\' Jand and @ ~14,69,600/- per Q~~ha for the Category 'B' f--~'" lands in question. 'L.. \"1..,{1 1\"1.,,'"

41. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgrnent reported in, Sunder vs. VOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are • granted, except for the period where there is delay in filing the: appeaL, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shaH be paid, These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. 42. The above captioned appeals anq cross-objections are disposed of .in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either sid,e with the Registrar (J el1(;ral 0 r this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

January 06,2012 pkb

r'" " :: " I" I ::J -"f ~;; \" Ci~ <' ~ (' \ .', " I / I:

IA/\pp. No, 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village 8harthal

I./\,I\pp, No, 2.<J4i7.010 & connected /Ippeals of Village Bijw<lsan

! 1\.IIPP, No, 111/1.010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 29 of Z9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW D18LHI

* IN THE HIGH + LA.APP. 1195/2008

RANBIR SHARMA

..... Appellant

Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, MrJai 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.l'Jegi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates.

1\1r.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOl) l\1r.Sudhanshu Tomar, 'Advocate for l\1r.R. S. Tomar. -C" Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .. ... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak., Mr.Mohitrao ladhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi I(iran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Shahna, Mr.Kunal Shanna and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDE~ 12.01.2012

C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For correc1tfton).

'l'his is an applicqtion for seeldng typdgraphical correction in Order of 6th January, 2012.

Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice

QGjCI&'EGMJ&O'iFiPRi!""msva-"RVrrn=m M'"f'/FliiJ"fiD!'iF'tii4~l:Drl:SiilPage 1

~'i!\h,;;~I!l!S!!jp!ljlllllljGI!rJTT' =~;,gtI!;a LAApp.No.1195/2008

of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants ..

The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6[th ]January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha' , whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered"that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 119512008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be oartied out forth,vith.

In vie\,v of the afotesaid, this application stands disposed of.

... ~~~:~~,C----. "-''-''-__ .. --=='-,{SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

JANUARY 12,2012 pkb

m- '=m~ n=3~"==Y==Y-=-n:pp;jII!8tDaIr!DlS~