LA.APP./1202/2008 of UOI Vs RISHAL SINGH AND ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI%%

Reserved on: November/. 2011Pronounced on: January 06, 2012

ILA.APP. 1202/2008

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER0 //006.01.2012For orders see LA.App.No. I 195/2008, titled as ['Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of]India & Anr.'.URJUDGEJANUARY 06, 2012Signature Not VerifiedpkbDigitally SignedBy:AMULYA

iN IHIE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELH[

Reserved on: iVovemher i , 2011Pronounced on: January 06, 2012

(GR11iA)

LA.i\PP. I 195/2008 (VILLAGE- BIAWIFHAL)

RANBI I STIA RJVIA. AppellantI hrouah:Mr U.S .Maan, Mr. Amit Maati, Mr.Ja.i Prakash, Ms. Sm itaMaan, Mr. R.SXerma, Mr itin Tewathia, AdvocatesMr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates.Mr.Rohas, Advocate.Mr.Raghtnunder (.iodara, AdvocateMrN .S.Negi and MrH.S.Rautela, AdvocateN/irS. K.Roth and I\4r.B.K Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari.Advocates.Mr,Pankaj Vivei:, Au\.'ocaleMr.Rajesh Yada. l\'tr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Klioslaand Vir])hananjav 1\'irh1a.vat, .'\dvocatesMcii .S. i/.sutel, p d', d.utcMr.l..S.Dahiya. Ad'c:a1al\'lr.Sardeep '1 iui. AdvocateI\4rAni! i'iir'ath Ad aOCaO/.N/it N Sa. t CIIIi I'I3 it(1d , 1Ldf10)1responden l in ap0ak..0led UOt)Maan, Mr. R.SXerma, Mr itin Tewathia, AdvocatesMr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates.Mr.Rohas, Advocate.Mr.Raghtnunder (.iodara, AdvocateMrN .S.Negi and MrH.S.Rautela, AdvocateN/irS. K.Roth and I\4r.B.K Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari.Advocates.Mr,Pankaj Vivei:, Au\.'ocaleMr.Rajesh Yada. l\'tr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Klioslaand Vir])hananjav 1\'irh1a.vat, .'\dvocatesMcii .S. i/.sutel, p d', d.utcMr.l..S.Dahiya. Ad'c:a1al\'lr.Sardeep '1 iui. AdvocateI\4rAni! i'iir'ath Ad aOCaO/.N/it N Sa. t CIIIi I'I3 it(1d , 1Ldf10)1responden l in ap0ak..0led UOt)

versus

LNION 0]' INDIA & ANR.

....i<esF•f)dcns

I hinuch :i\4r.Sanjsv Poddar, SL iinr d'ac.Pathals, Mr.l\'loiutrac .dcLhu wid/ aiMS K aumtidi I&d\ Ud (AJ )j1\'lr.2'\jav ' v erna,oecnashav Aol . 1\1r,l\/ ukcs.hJK.una.r 4r ¶..kc Liu \'1r. -'a'un l '/lathui. Ivl. K analSharm a. dvOCat; DD/\

004 1/2008 &. (I'M No.4090/2008 (Cross-Ohections,. LA/iPO. 32/7000:.1 A:A.F 1P.453.'2c)u8: LA.APP.688/2 008 .CCI No.5990/2010 (&ros* ObiecAuns);I ,A.A J.09 7/2008 & CM .No.433/200u (Coss-Objcr t o ois) LAA0'P 701/2008 &C I NSI 0'(19((i )()tP /0','i(nj 1 [I' ]/7( LI/J\;p. No. 19,/Ts)25 ( coono:l pd i"ope;IIC of /iI!ig 3hr!h;.iA.Ai:o. No. 294/21):' (25Appe-ils oV id: I)i:w.r,\.ipp. \2:1 I/Plo &' Cr1,5000 \/C(2C Ioc;Jrp!C 1.I ,A.A J.09 7/2008 & CM .No.433/200u (Coss-Objcr t o ois) LAA0'P 701/2008 &C I NSI 0'(19((i )()tP /0','i(nj 1 [I' ]/7( LI/J\;p. No. 19,/Ts)25 ( coono:l pd i"ope;IIC of /iI!ig 3hr!h;.iA.Ai:o. No. 294/21):' (25Appe-ils oV id: I)i:w.r,\.ipp. \2:1 I/Plo &' Cr1,5000 \/C(2C Ioc;Jrp!C 1.

LA.APP.77 I /2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.772/2008;LA.APP773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 [& 1•]CM.No.61 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LAAPP.776/2008;LA.A.PP.777/2008; LA.AFP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.783/2008: LA.APP.784/2008; LA,APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 &CM.No.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.799/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.805/2008: LA.APP.806/2008; LA.AP1[3][.8 13/2008 &]CM.No. 1 795/2009 (Cross-Objections): LAAPP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.81 [8/2008: ][LA.APP.8 1 9/2008; LA.APP.820!2008;]LA.APP829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.83.3/2008;LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008: LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/20J 1(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections);• LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/'2008; LA.APP.91 [5/2008; ][LA.APP.951/2008 &]CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections):. LAAPP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008;L.A.APP,974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008;LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LAAPP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009(CrossObjectioflS);LA.APP.993/2008[LA.A1P][ 1 029/2008& CM.No. 1 7340/2008](Cross-ObjCCtiOnS) 1 AAPP. 1031/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (CrossObjections);1 AAPP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (cross-Objections); LA.A1P. 1046/2008;I A.APP. I 047/2008;LA.APP. I 048/2008& M.No785 I /2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.4202009(CroSS-ObJectiofls); LA.APP. 1050/2008;I A.APP. 1051/2008 & CMNo. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LJ\APP. 1052/2008;LA.API. 1053/2008 & CM.No.41 6/2009 (Cross-Objections);LI-.APP. 1 054/2008 &CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. i055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 &CM.No.752/201 I (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1058/2008& CM.No.1557/201 I(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.Nn. 1 7259/2008(Cross-OieCt1oflS)LA.APP. I 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM..Nd.546/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA,APP. 1 073/2008 LA.APP. 1 074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections);1 .A.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1081 /2r08 & CM.No.462/2009(CVOSS-Ol)ec1101• LA.APP. I 084/2008& CM.No.1 7302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP108:2008& CM..No.244 8/2008 (Cross-Objections); [I ][A;APP. I 087/2008& CM.NO61 9/2009](Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APP: 1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008;, LA.APP.1 103/2008 & CM.No441i'2009 (Cross-Objec.tioflS)i.AAP[P.I][ 108/2008 &]CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I 109/2008: LA.APP.1 110/2008 &CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP. 1111 i2008; I.AAPP. 11 12/208 &CM.No3 831/2009 (Cross-ObjectionS): LA..APP. 1112/2008 & CM.No.3826'2009(( oss-Ohjlions) I APP Ill '008 [1]AP P Ill 6/2008A APP I 1 '2008'[\APP 11 26i2008 L APP 11 2°/?00 & CM o 50/2009 Cro-Oj]onA APP 1130/2008 1 APP 11 [i2008][H ][INO ][O6P0O9 (os Obii' ][t)(ih5)]•A.APP.I I 33/200; LA.APP.1 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objeclions);•I A.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/20,08 Cross-Ol7jections); LA.APP.I 140/2008;• LA.APP. 1156/2008; LAAPP.1 1 57/2008; L.A.APP.1 158/2008 & CM.No.7774!2009(Cross-Oblecti011S); LA.APP. 1159/2008; LA.APP. 1161.72008; LAAPP 1 1.66/2008;: LA.APP. 1168/2008;LA.APP.I 167/2008 & CM.No802/2009 (Cross-Objections)LA.APP.1 170/2008; LA.APP.I 171/2008; LA.APP.1 172.72008; LA.APP.I 17.3/2008;LA.APP. 11 75/2008; LA,APP. 1178/2008; L.A.APP. 11 9/2008; LA.APP. 1181 /2.008;I APP I 182i2008 I APP 11$ /20088 CM No 6933'2009 ( iuss-Objction1• .I A.APP 1 184/2008; LA.APP.1 i85'200$; LA.APP. ii 86/2008& CM.No.701 3/7009

A.App. No.95/20U8 [ii connecled Appeals of Village Bharthal]•LA Ape. No. 294/2010 [& connected Appeals of \Jillage ][B][t][ v.iaSafl].•..LA.App. No ,i /2O10 & connected Appea!s of Village Pochanoui•

(Cross-Objections): LA.APP. 1190/2008: LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 11 92/2008:LA.APP.1 193/2008; LA.APP.1 194/2008; LA.APP.1 195/2008; LA.APP.1 197/2008;LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.No.6935/2009( ross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008;LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 121 1/2008;LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008&CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 124112008&CM.No.384 1/2009 (Cross-Objections'); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. I 252/2908;1 .A.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008;I.A.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP. 1 283/2008; LA.AIP. 1284/2008;LA.APP.3 1/2009;LA.APP.33/2009;LA.APP.37/2009;LA.APP.39/2009;LA.APP.42/2009 &CM.No.746/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP59/2009;LA.APP.73/2009 & CM,No.71 03/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009;LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & . CM.No.953/201 1 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009: LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP.1 5/2009;LA.APP. 136/2009; .LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP.1 38/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009;1.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009; LA.APP. 144/2009; LA.APP. 145/2009;LA. APP. I 62/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009: 1.A.APP. 1 90/2009.,[: I.A.APP. 191/2009;]LA.APP. 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; L.APP. I 99/2009; LA.APP.201/2009;LA.APP.202/2009: LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No. 7027/2009

(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.2 10/2009 & CM.No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections);

LA.APP.2 1/2009; LA.APP220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; [LA.APP.223/2009;]

LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227./2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009

(Cross-Objections): LA.APP.24 1/2009; LA.APP.245,12009; LAAPP.24612009;

LA.APP.249/2009; L.AAPP.257/2009; LAAPP295/2009; LA.APP.305i'2009;

iA.APJ..367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.J-\PP.447/2009; LA.APP458/2009;

LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP481/2009;

LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; i.A.APP.493/2009;

LA.APP.494i'2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009: LAAPP.506/2009;

LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009: LA..APP.51 0/2009:

LA.APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP.5 12/2009: LA.APP.3 I 3/2009; LA.AFP.567/2009;I PP 572/2009 IA APP 15i2010 LAPP 45/2010 [1 ][AAPP4S/2010].A.APP.404/201 0; LA.APP. 13/2011: LA:APP. 1138/2008; LA.APP.1 1 76/2008;LA.APP.1 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/200$: LA.APP23 1/2009

(Relating to Notification No. F.l0(30)/96/I& B/LA/13417 dated 1112.2000issued under Section 4 of the 1.aj.d [Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No.]26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Vi1iag [Bharthal,Delhi)]

(GRID-B)

Reserved on: December 08, 201.1!iii06,2C/2

LA.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BIJWASAN).

i)i/.VLNDLR 1K.UM.ARAppellant

'ihro ugh1\4r.R. S,i'onlar. 1\'lIir.Vireridra Singh

f.App, No U95/?008 & connected Appetils of Vflage BhrtItaIit App No. 294/2010 & connected Appeds of ViPge Bijwastit

A.App No 11/2010 & connected Appetds of Village Pnchnpu

(1 'ocatesMr.S.J<. Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout andM.r.B K. Routrry. Advocates for appellant(in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76)versus

UOl & ANR

(Relating to Notification No. F. 1 0(30)96-L& B/LA/i 3417 dated 13.12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Land Ac9uisit,ion Act, 1 894 & Award No.28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi)

P,App. No 1195/2008 & corirocted Appoads of VUsgn Bhr1hsiLA,App. No. 2942OiO & connoctod 4ppes!s of Viliage Bijw5sani\ App. No. I 11/7011) & connectcd Appools of Village Pocbanpuii\ App. No. I 11/7011) & connectcd Appools of Village Pocbanpui

'age 4 of 29

(GRiD-C)

Reserved on: Dmj2O1iPronounced on: JanuaiQ2OJ2

LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCllANPU]l)

SEHAJ RAM AND ORS.AppellantsThroughMr.J3.JJ, Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki andMr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (inR-16, 20,23 to 26,29,30.33,36 to 40,44to 49,59,63 to 71)Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant inLA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011)Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellantin R-22)versusUNiON OF' INDIA & ANRRespondentsThroughi\4r.Sanjay Podclar, Senior Advocate withMr Sanay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohii:raoJadhav, and Ms.Navljri Swain. Advocatesfor VOI/I.AC.Mr.Bankev Bi han Sharrna, Mr.KunalSharma and Mr. Somer K. Seth, AdvocatesDDA.LA.APP. 111/2010LA.AP1. 154/2010LA.APP. 155/2010LA.APP. 156/2010LA.APP. 160/2010LA.APP. 165/2010LA.APP. 209/2010LA.APP. 21 5/2010LA.APP. 228/2010LA.APP. 248/2010LA.APP. 249/2010LA APP. 25 0/2010LA.APP. 254/2010LA.APP. 260/2010LA.APP. 261/2010LA.APP. 270/201 0LA.APP. 292/201 0LA.APP. 293/2010LA.I-\PP. 305/2010LA.AP]. 306/2010LA.APP. 307/2010LA.APP. 317/2010LA.APP. 392/2010LA.AP1. 39320i0LA.APP. 395/2010LA.APP. 396/2010L.A.APP. 397/2010LA.APP. 412/2010LA APP. 420/2010LA.APP. 432i201 0LAAPP. 433/2010LA.APP. 434/2010LA.APP. 466/2010LA.APP. 489/2010LA.APP. 577/2010LA.APP. 635/2010LA.APP. 637/2010LA.APP. 639/2010LA.APP. 640/2010LA APP. 657/201 0LA.APP. 660/2010LA.APP. 662/2010LA ..APi:) . 741/2010LA.APP. 75:/2Ql0LA.APP. 767/201 0LA.APP. 768/2010Lk.APP. 784/2010'.A A1P 9l:/20i0J.A,AiP. 919/2010LA.API'. 1 052'20 1 0LAAPP. 61/2011LA.APP; 64/201 1LA.APP. 65/2011LA APP. 116/2011LA.A.PP. 117/2011LA.APP. 119/20111AAPP. 120/2011LA.APP. 121/2011LA.APP. 129/201LA.APP. 420/2011L'\.APP. 476/2011LA.APP 485./2011L.A APP. 521/2011LA.APP. 522'201 ILA.APP .523/201 11A.APP. 525/2011LA. APP .526/201 1LA.APP. 535'201 ILA.APP. 536/2011LA.APP. 554/20J 1LA.APP. 591/201 1

.f.App. No. 3.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Oharthal

i.A.Apo. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan

.r .pp No 311/7010 11 connected Appeals of Village PochSnpLrr

Pa ge 5 of 29

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated3.l2.200O issued under Section 4 of tiie Land Acquisition Act, 1894 &:Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pocli.anpur, Delhi)

CORAM:HONB1LE MR. JUSTICE SUN1L GAUR

ORDER06ML2012

Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation issought. by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identicaltherefore with the cOnsent of learned 'counsel •for the parties present atthe hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining toA'oti/lcation No.F. 10(30,)96-L& 13/1.4/1.34] 7 dated 13.12.2000, relatingto geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Biiwasan 'andPochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

2.Acquisition process for planned development of Dwarka Phase-17' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of IVoti/ication of 13d17' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of IVoti/ication of 13dDecember, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, I 894.pertaining to vast tract of agricuilural land. in OflC compact blockcomprising of thirteen Revenue 1/states inciudng villages in question,i.e., l3hartha], i3ijwasan and Pochanpur.pertaining to vast tract of agricuilural land. in OflC compact blockcomprising of thirteen Revenue 1/states inciudng villages in question,i.e., l3hartha], i3ijwasan and Pochanpur.

3.Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the ah.'resaid threevillages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards,i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Avard No.28/2002-2003 ;and AwardNo.30/2002-2003 granting compensation13.82 lacs per acre forBlock A' (level fieldwith top soil) andi2.32 ]acs per acre1.3 lock 'B' (without top soil)

4.Dissatisfied with the assessment ol market value of their acquired.

.1.. App. No. i19/2OO8 & donnected Appeals of Village BharthalApp. No. ?.9 i/2OiO & connected Appeals of Village BijwasanApp. No. ?.9 i/2OiO & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan

App. No.. 1 1/2oiO & connected Appeals of Village Pochnptir

Page 6 of 29

agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 1 8 of•the Land Acquisition Act 1894 [and the .Reirence Coui vide impugned]judgment had enhanced compensation15.00 lacs pei acre for theappellants' acquircd land in Block 'A' and 13.36 lacs per acre fortheir Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas,references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.5. In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought bythe appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of RupeesFifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have soughtcompensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying uponthe precedents in the shape of decisions in [JExecuth'e Engineer]ICarnataku Housing Board vs. Land AcquLition [Officer][ 9][Gadag and]Ors, (2011) 2 SCC 246; AnjaniikMu Dessai vs. State of Gao wadAnr,Subh Rain and [Ors vs. Si/ate ofilaryami andAnr,](2010) 13 SCC 710; (2,0 1 0) 1 SCC 444; [Sangunth ala (Dead) ][through LRs Vs Special]Tehsildar (LandAcquisitio& & Ors (2010)[.][ 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Siagh]and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; [chindha ][Fakira Patil]LRs vs. The [Special Land Acquisition ][Officer, Jo(gwa,](D, through . 2011(2) SCALE 321; [Jai La! ][vs. Union ][of ][India, 2002 (62) ][DRJ 227;]Raina A/and (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union [of ][India ][& Ainr,]2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); [Udho Doss ][vs. ][State of' Harl'ano & 'Ors,][201] ][(9)]2010(9) SCALE [.41; Chaka vs. Ste of Punjab & O?S,][ 9]SCALE 362; Avinash [Dhavaji ][Aai1 vsi tote of Ma! roshi/ro, (2009)]11 SCC 1 7 1; [Atma Singh (Deod) through ][LRs and Ors vs. ][Stare of]Haryana & Anr, [(2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P. No, ][4143/2003 ][htled as]Smt. indu Khorana vs. Gram Sahhti & Ors, [decided on ][26.03.2010;]Special Land Acquisjtion Officer [& Anr vs. MJ(. Rafiq ][Saheb, (20].]).]7 SCC 71 [4; Thakarsihhai De\l'jibhai and. ors vs. Executive Ençineer,]

J\ . /\pp. No. .1 IV!)I2008 & [connected AppeiIs of V!Ilage 3hartha].A.App. No. 294/20.10 &• connected Appeals of Village BjwasanPage 7 of 29AApp. No 1.] 1/2010connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur.A.App. No. 294/20.10 &• connected Appeals of Village BjwasanPage 7 of 29AApp. No 1.] 1/2010connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Gu/arat and Anr., AiR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State IndustrialDevelopment coiporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risa! Singh & Ors Vs.Union a/india & Anr, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Chand VS. Unionof India and Anr, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil ndiVatural Gas Gorporation Ltd vc, Rarneshhhai Jivanbhai Pate! andAnr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyainmal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildarof India and Anr, (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil ndiVatural Gas Gorporation Ltd vc, Rarneshhhai Jivanbhai Pate! andAnr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyainmal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar(Land Acquisition) and Anr,, AIR 2011 SC 2937; K/ran landau vs.Allaluihad Development Authorifli, (2004) 10 SCC 745; MaheshDattatra; 'Thirthka vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 2238;•[Iapil Mehra (Ma/or General) & Ors, Vs. ][Union of ][India & ][Anr,]176(2011) DLT 361 W.P.( No. 1284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs.Delhi Development Authority & Anr, decided on 24.04.2008; OmPrahash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 5CC 627;Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) Ii SCC 423; LA. APP.Dattatra; 'Thirthka vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 2238;•[Iapil Mehra (Ma/or General) & Ors, Vs. ][Union of ][India & ][Anr,]176(2011) DLT 361 W.P.( No. 1284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs.Delhi Development Authority & Anr, decided on 24.04.2008; OmPrahash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 5CC 627;Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) Ii SCC 423; LA. APP.No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs Union of26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs Union ofIndia, decided on 07.06.2011; and. Rhule Ram vs. Union of india, 201(1(170)ILT 371.(170)ILT 371.

6. On the strength, of the aibresaid decisions, at the very outset, itwas urged by Mr.B.S.Maan. learned arguing counsel fdr the appellantsthat the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to befirst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must beadjudged keeping in viw the development in the area o'er period oftime and the same cannot be limited to tho near future alone.

7 [t was pointed out by M.r.R.STcmar, counsel ibr appellants thatDelhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage rai vay lIne of Village Biijwäsanpasses through the land of Village B.harthal, dividing ii into two parts,i.c, oft the eastern side of the railway line is the 1(11 Airport, New Delhi

LA App. No. 11 tV2OOg & connected Appeals of Village Bhar1haltA.App. No.298/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village [tijwasan

App. No iii/201c & connected Appeals of Village Pochnpu r�Page 8 of 29

and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and road 100meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards I)warka Sub-City Part-I and Part-Il again divides the agricultural land into twoportions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii)South Eastern side, where developed Farm liouses are located on theland of Villages Bharthal, I3ijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointedout by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northernpart of the land of Village Bharthal wa first acquired for the extensionof Jul Airport in the year 1971 and again in the 'year 1980 forestablishing Indian Oil Depots and thereacr 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 werealso acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City.Attention was drawn to the aks szras/map [to highlight that the boundary]ot Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village i)hool Siras arecontiguoUs.8.It was strenuously' urged by Mr.B.S.IVlaan, learned counsel for theappellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate thepotentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and hasillegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite ofNotification of [1601 ][October, 2000 'id.e which land use of the three]village in question was changed from agricultura! to residenti aucommercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthaihad ased to he i ui a] in ie of the Nol ition ol 24' Oci oei, I Q94

9.It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learnedcounsel for the appellants that the aftresaid two Notifications have beenwrongly discarded by [•]the Reference Court by relying upon [P. Rama]

/.App, No. lA y[s/looN & connected Appeals of Village Bharthäl]A App.. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeslc of Village BijwasanA App.. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeslc of Village Bijwasan

."App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 9 of Z9

Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderahad & Ors, (l99)2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its laterdecision in Udho Dass vs. State of Hwyana & Ors., 20 10(9) SCALE41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must he adjudgedkeeping in view the development in the area over period of time andthe same cannot he limited to near future alone and if after theacquisition, if the authorities do not pul Lhe land to any use, it would notmean that there is no building potentiality.41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must he adjudgedkeeping in view the development in the area over period of time andthe same cannot he limited to near future alone and if after theacquisition, if the authorities do not pul Lhe land to any use, it would notmean that there is no building potentiality.

1 0.Reliance was placed y Mr.13.DSharma learned counsel br the. appellants upon the seven Sale 1)eeds of Village Pochanpur to highjight. appellants upon the seven Sale 1)eeds of Village Pochanpur to highjightthat the sale price reflected therein varied rfron/ 52 lacs to 62 lacs andmerely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot hethrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, becausethere is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvaluedbecause oF any special advantages and as per settled legal propositionmerely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot hethrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, becausethere is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvaluedbecause oF any special advantages and as per settled legal propositionlaid down by the Apex Court in .Anjiwi IWo/u Dessai vs. State GoaudAnr., (2010) 13 5CC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to hetaken as representing the market price oF the land which COmeS to 57lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellantsarc the comparable sale instances, thereibre, reliance placed by theRefrcnec Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates fOr deterrriining themarket value of th acquired land is patently erroneous.udAnr., (2010) 13 5CC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to hetaken as representing the market price oF the land which COmeS to 57lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellantsarc the comparable sale instances, thereibre, reliance placed by theRefrcnec Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates fOr deterrriining themarket value of th acquired land is patently erroneous.

1 1. Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by•Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the ap)lJa.its on the basis of the L&IX) rates Lxed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-det.crni med rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternateplots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in 'iew the location, situation andpotentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is

LI.,pp. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeak of Village BharthalNo. 294/201.0 & conhlN:ted AppeaR ol Village BijwsanNo. 294/201.0 & conhlN:ted AppeaR ol Village Bijwsan

No. rll/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Pepe 10 ol 29

sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur andVillage Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& Do rates of thedeveloped lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre--Determined Rates (PI)R.$) as referred to above.

1 2. In the written synopsis, appellant Impulse India Private Limitedof LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on thefollowing grounds:-

ct) 7çnores the ac!novvleclgemeni on [he part of therespondent about the Award No. 26/2002-2003 datedpioeeedngs Civil Writ petit ion No. 19012 of 2006.(Reftrred to in cross-examination of appellant dated7.7.200J)respondent about the Award No. 26/2002-2003 datedpioeeedngs Civil Writ petit ion No. 19012 of 2006.(Reftrred to in cross-examination of appellant dated7.7.200J)

. 23. 102002 being flawed in the course of the

• /i) Does not account /br the thci that the Public Notice

dated 18.9. 1987 adversely ajfcied the rates. of land inthe circa for more than 15 years before the Notflcationwider Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 wasLssuecl.the circa for more than 15 years before the Notflcationwider Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 wasLssuecl.

c) Valuing' the land on the basis of the letter dated11.9.2001 issued lxv the Government of Natzonal CapitalTerritory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laiddown by viirious decisions including one of the marerecent decisions of the lion 'h/c Supreme Court inSangunt ha/a versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) 8CC 661.11.9.2001 issued lxv the Government of Natzonal CapitalTerritory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laiddown by viirious decisions including one of the marerecent decisions of the lion 'h/c Supreme Court inSangunt ha/a versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) 8CC 661.

d) Ignores the evidence and other fdctors which as perestablished law has to he con. ictereci hej'Ore ascertciininthe value of the land i.nder acquAllion.established law has to he con. ictereci hej'Ore ascertciininthe value of the land i.nder acquAllion.

e) Does not deal with d/spciriiv 'ifl value of the Sale Deedsi7loduced befOre the trial Court whereas as per the lal1'established by the Hon 'h/c Supreme Court in the recentcase of Chinda Fakirct Pat/i versus Special LandAcqutsition Officer, Civil Apeal No.54/S of 2007. Thei7loduced befOre the trial Court whereas as per the lal1'established by the Hon 'h/c Supreme Court in the recentcase of Chinda Fakirct Pat/i versus Special LandAcqutsition Officer, Civil Apeal No.54/S of 2007. The•lion 'h/c Supreiie Court has spec i/ically held that Sale•Deed showing higher rate shoznd not he disregarded in•Deed showing higher rate shoznd not he disregarded in

LA.AD. No .1195/2008 & connected Appools of Vifla8e Bhrth0LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connccted Appeis of Vi&4c 0ijwasmLA.Aop. No, 1.11/2010 & connected AppeIs ol ViIIge Pochan p ur

case the average sale price is lower. Further in 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 ofsales transactions should be considered whileadjudicating upon compensation upon certan land.

f)[I?eiied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LIIC]No.9 7A/2 006 to decide the market value of the subjectland while ignoring the maler fat which indicate that themarket value of the land is much higher than 15 lac peracre in Block and ]3,36,000 inBlock in violationthe law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme CourtNo.9 7A/2 006 to decide the market value of the subjectland while ignoring the maler fat which indicate that themarket value of the land is much higher than 15 lac peracre in Block and ]3,36,000 inBlock in violationthe law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtincluding in Suhh Rain vs. State of ilarvana 2010(1)8CC 444 As consequence, th impugned judgmentrefused to return an actual jinding on the issue No.]amed on 27.2.2007.8CC 444 As consequence, th impugned judgmentrefused to return an actual jinding on the issue No.]amed on 27.2.2007.

g)[Evaluated the land as agricultural land although v/dc].IVotijlcation of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, theland use of Village Dhooi Siras and Bharthaf waschanged and these areas ceased to he agricultural andcame now under the urban boundaries Delhi .Siate.The masterpian and ot/icatons of Government •forland use change show that in future land can besubjected to residential, commercial and otherpermissible uses. it is also pertInent to mentlon that theap/.7eiiant lead evidence in respect of the 74I amendmentat[ the Constitutic'n of India. u.e./ 1.6. 1993 IX ci, by]virtue of which the Municipa1 Coiporation Act wasamended and the area where the land is situated, wasdeemed municipal area and the municipal Counsellorwas elected om there.. No Pancho yat elections wereheld in the area..IVotijlcation of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, theland use of Village Dhooi Siras and Bharthaf waschanged and these areas ceased to he agricultural andcame now under the urban boundaries Delhi .Siate.The masterpian and ot/icatons of Government •forland use change show that in future land can besubjected to residential, commercial and otherpermissible uses. it is also pertInent to mentlon that theap/.7eiiant lead evidence in respect of the 74I amendmentat[ the Constitutic'n of India. u.e./ 1.6. 1993 IX ci, by]virtue of which the Municipa1 Coiporation Act wasamended and the area where the land is situated, wasdeemed municipal area and the municipal Counsellorwas elected om there.. No Pancho yat elections wereheld in the area.

h) Refused to apply theta [Ti' ][laid down in All? Supreme]Court 347, Ranvir Sii'igh. and ,lur vs. Union of Indiaand refused to consider the fict iliat [the development in]the area has direct e/Jèci.c n the j7i'/ce that willingpurchaser would pay far the. suI7p/ct thud.Court 347, Ranvir Sii'igh. and ,lur vs. Union of Indiaand refused to consider the fict iliat [the development in]the area has direct e/Jèci.c n the j7i'/ce that willingpurchaser would pay far the. suI7p/ct thud.

i) .lçnored the fuct that I? spoudent No. 2 had also

;.A.ispp. No. 1.195/2008 & connecled Appeals of V2lage l3harthalLA.App. No 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village E3iiwasan:.Ap p . No. .111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocksat the rate of about 2. 6 lakh and concluded that thesaid land is wholly underdeveloped land.

.1) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the1ire-determned auction rates set by Respondent No. 2for similarly situated land.1ire-determned auction 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 fordevelopment purposes o/ Dwarka Phase II. it isreiterated that the land use of Village Dhooi Siras andBharthal was changed and these areas ceased to heagricultural and came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State.the use of the land although the land was acquired fordevelopment purposes o/ Dwarka Phase II. it isreiterated that the land use of Village Dhooi Siras andBharthal was changed and these areas ceased to heagricultural and came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State.

1) ignored Notifications dated 16. 10.2000 and 24.10.1994although they clearly establish the commercialpotentiality of the said land. in San gunihala v. Tahsi/dar(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 ii was held that the purpose forwhicli land is acquired! is relevant factor. 'Whiledetermining value of the property acquired the /hctwhether the land has got building otentiaht). to he usedfor building purposes in immediate or in near futureneeds to be considered.although they clearly establish the commercialpotentiality of the said land. in San gunihala v. Tahsi/dar(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 ii was held that the purpose forwhicli land is acquired! is relevant factor. 'Whiledetermining value of the property acquired the /hctwhether the land has got building otentiaht). to he usedfor building purposes in immediate or in near futureneeds to be considered.

iii) The presence of number of buildings on the landsacquired and the said land being occupied by thebuildings are to be treated as house sites. The ianc/acquired and the said land being occupied by thebuildings are to be treated as house sites. The ianc/• were acquired for purpose of putting up residentialquarters As portion oft/ic land is being considered ashouse site, the adjoining lands have the potential ofbeing put in better use as house sites in the near future.quarters As portion oft/ic land is being considered ashouse site, the adjoining lands have the potential ofbeing put in better use as house sites in the near future.

13.In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No.347/2009, the factual details have been provided With prayer tha.t theappellants of this appeal he treated at par with the. co-appel1ant of theother appeals in these bunch of appeals.347/2009, the factual details have been provided With prayer tha.t theappellants of this appeal he treated at par with the. co-appel1ant of theother appeals in these bunch of appeals.

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

App. No. 195'2003 & connected Appeals of Village BharthalA PP. No. 294/2010 & conilected Appeals of Vi!laige Bijsvasnin.A.Ao. No, 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change inland use has been considered in Mahesh Dab/ray Thirthkar vs. Sita/eof Ma/thrash/ra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major Genera!) &Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 1.76(2011) DLI 361 and that Pre-l.)ctermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area arc relevant todetermine the market value of the acquired lands and. infact the saleinstances relied upon by the appl1ants are comparable and ought to havebean 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 issoughi in these appeals.

15. /\rguing the crossobjections filed by the Respondents, Mr. SanjayPoddar, learned Senior Counsel urged thatthough as per Section 51-A ofLand Acquisition Aci 1894, certified cop y of the Sale Deed is anadmissible evidence but the same caniot be taken as relevant evidencefor determination of the market value unless and until the same isproperly 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 cic. are also required to he consideredand the sale instances relied, upon by t1c Respondents disclosing correctmarket value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by theReference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in i/elLa!v. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 2.27, Sapai & Ors vs. f/ekni [of']India, (1997) ii SCC 423; La! Ghand vs. Union of India and [.A1nr9](2009)15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 hUed as Sushi! Kumur i's;Union of india, decided on 26.092011, it was urged that sharp increasein price in short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons forsuch sharp increase are explained y producing in evidence the sellerLA.APP No. 1195/2008 & connected 4ppeIs of Village BharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Vifla p,e Bijw,san

.A.App, No. rIl1/2,0].0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usualprevalent trend in the market would pay such higher pay as reflected inthe sale instance of Radha Swain! Salsang, I3eas, relied upon by theappellants, hut for special consideratjoi. Thus, it was contended onbehalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& 1)0 rates/Pre-I)etermjned Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision ofApex Court in Lal Chand (supra) which has been followed by acoordinate Bench of this Court in Sush/! Kuthar (supra) and Raj Singh(supra).

6.So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by• Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Responderits/crossobjectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing theminimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government asJSf April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% perannum, market value of the ac quired lands has been erroneouslydetermined by the Reference Court. as in Swthil Kunwr (supra)appreciation @ lO% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submittedthat there is no scope for ftirther enhancement from the price of acquiredlands as fixed the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugnedjudgment deserves to be modified deleting ti-ic enhancement by theReference Court while taking into consideration the appreciation (/ 1 2%per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while grantingappreciation1 0% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-..objections to the aforesaid extent.

1 7. ifler considering the rival submissions advanced by both thesides and upon close perusal of the irnpugnedjud gmeni the evidence onrecord and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market valueof the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to willingLA.App. No. 119I2Q08 & connected Appeals of Village [3harth:sl/\pp. No. 294/2010 & connoctc'd Appeals of ViUage fijwasdnLf\.App. No. 11/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 15 o129

seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. Whiledealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, whathas to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, standsreiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Doss vs. Stale of Haryano &Ors, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

'(1 the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city orthe town or village which had been growing in sizebecause of its comm.ercal. industrial, educational,religioz.is or any other kind of importance or becauseof its expios l ye population;the town or village which had been growing in sizebecause of its comm.ercal. industrial, educational,religioz.is or any other kind of importance or becauseof its expios l ye population;

(ii)the suitability of the acquired land/or putting lip thebuildings, be they i"esicientiai, commercial orindustiial, as the case may be;buildings, be they i"esicientiai, commercial orindustiial, as the case may be;

(iii)possibility of obtaining water and electric supply/hroccupants of buildings to be put up on that land;occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;

(iv)absence of stat utory impediments or the like fbr usingthe acquired land/hr building purpose;the acquired land/hr building purpose;

(v)existence of highways, public roads, layouts ofbuilding plots or developed res dential extensions inthe vicinity or close prox1mty oft/ic acquired land;building plots or developed res dential extensions inthe vicinity or close prox1mty oft/ic acquired land;

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

(vii,) lands around the acquired land or the acquired landitself being in demand ,/hr building purposes, tospecify few.itself being in demand ,/hr building purposes, tospecify few.

18. 'Ihe potentiality of land for the pumoosc of development as also forbuilding purposes [depends upo1. large iumbcr of fctors. For the said]purpoSe, the Court may not only have to hear in n.ind [he purpose fhr

pp .No .1.195/7008 [& connected Appeals of vilage Bharthal]LA.pp. No. 794/2010 & connected Appeals [0 ][Villsge Eiijwassn]t .Aop. No. 511/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpurLA.pp. No. 794/2010 & connected Appeals [0 ][Villsge Eiijwassn]t .Aop. No. 511/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

which the lands were sought to he acquired but also the subsequentevents to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court inAvtnash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determinationof compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Courtin Atma Singh (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land reliedupoti by the appellants could not be ground to discard them especiallywhen exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

1 9. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in SpecialLand Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MK. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC71 4. The 1gal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied uponon behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic differenceeither in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which aresimilarl y 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 propositioi of law that the burden ofproving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State whohas acquired th agricultural land for particular purpose. But, it isequally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensationawarded is on the claimant. For this pronosition, the decisiOn of theApex Coun in K/ran Tandon (Supra) car he referred to with advantage.21 . Apex Court in Valliyanunal (Supral. while taking note of the factthat the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of reidentialColOfliCS, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deductionof 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinentobservations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo/u Dessal (Supra)deserve attention, which are as under:

A/pp. No. 11.05/2008 & coririeced Appeals of Village OharthsA/ p p. No. 294/2010 & /onneced Appeals of Vil!age BijwasanL..AJO. No. 1.. 11/2010 & connected Appeils of Village PochanpurA/ p p. No. 294/2010 & /onneced Appeals of Vil!age BijwasanL..AJO. No. 1.. 11/2010 & connected Appeils of Village Pochanpur

Page 17 of 29

"The legal position is that: even where ihere are severalexemplars with reference to sim i/ar lands, usually thehighest of' the exemplars, which. is hona ftc/c transaction,wi/i he considered. Where however thee are several salesof similar lands whose prices range in narrow bandwidth,the average thereof can be taken, as representing themarket price. 13w where the values disclosed in respect oftwo sales are markedly difflrent, it can only lead to aninference that they are with refrrence to dissimilar lands orthat the lower value sale is on account of under-valuationor other price depressing reasons. Consequently averagingcannot he resorted to.

22.lIt would he worthwhile to take note of the clinching observationspertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands madeby the Apex Court in. Chindha Fakira Paul (Supra), which are asfolio ws -

"It is well settled that genuine and hona fide saletransactions in respect of the /aid under acquisition o1 .inits absence the honafide sale tretsactions proximate to the'point of acquisition of the lands situated in theneighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similarvalue or utility taken place between willing vendee andthe willing vendor which could be expected to reflect thetrue value, as agreed between iesonah/e prudent personsacting in the normal market conditions are the real basis todetermine the market value.23.Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as

reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil [and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.](ONGC (Supra), are as under:-

"PrImarIly, the increase in [land ][prices depends on four]frictors - sithation of the land, nature of development insurrounding circa, avatlabiiiti.' [land Jar development in]the area, and the demand for land in the area. in ruralareas unless there is ally prospect of development in thevicinit, increase in prices would he slow, steady andgradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps.

A.Ap9 No. 294/2010 & connected ppesls of Village Bijwassri

LA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Villege Pocharpur

On the other hanc in urban or semi-urban areas, where thedevelopment is faster, where the demand fbr land is highand where there is construction activity all around, theescalation in market price is tit much higher rate, ascompared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, dueto rapid development and high demand for land, theescalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% ormore per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, inremote rural areas where there was no chance of. anydeveiof7meflt and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnatedfOr years or rose marginally cit nominal rate of 1 % or 2%per annum. There is thus sign ificant cifferenc inincreases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban. cireas and increases in market value of lands in the ruralareas. Therefore lf the increase in market value inurban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum,• the corresponding increases in rural aieas would at best beonly around half of ii, thai is about 5% to 7.5% per annum.This rule of thumb reffrs to the general trend in thenineties, to he adopted in the absence of clear and specfIcevidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are• special reasons for applying higher rate of increase, orany spec/Ic evidence relating to the actual increase inprices, then the increase to he applied would depend uponthe same.Normally, recourse is taken to the. mode of determining themarket value by proviaing approciriate escalation over theproved.market value 0! [necirby lands in prevlous years (as]evidenced by sale iransaclions or accjuisiiion[2] , where thereis no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions oracquisitions of comparable lands in the 'eighbqurhood. Thesaid method is reasonably safe where the[.] ra'icJ-on-saietransactions/acquisitions precedes the sub fec! acquisitionby only few yeais, that is tiplo tour tü five years. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it re/airs to neighbouringlam-id What may he ci i-c!icibles tcinclard if the gap is Onl)' afew years, may become nI2Safe and un.rehahie standardwhere the gap is lccrger. ,bor example. fOr determining themarket value of land accjuii'rc-t. in 1992, ac/opting theannual increase method u/u-i reference to ci sale or

'.App. NO. I 195;20C)P & connected Appeals of Village Bhartha'Ape. NO. 29 fl/O1Q & cor.nected Appeals of Village BliwasanNo, 11.5/2010 & c000eced AppeaR of Village PochanOor'Ape. NO. 29 fl/O1Q & cor.nected Appeals of Village BliwasanNo, 11.5/2010 & c000eced AppeaR of Village PochanOor

acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This isbecause, over the course of years, the 'raie of annualincrease may itself undergo drastic change apart from thelikelihood of occurrence ojvarymgperzods u/stagnation inprices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standardu/increase.

24.. This Court is mindful of the dictum. of the Apex Court in HaryanaState Industrial Development corporailbn (HSIDGj (Supra), regardingcomputation of compensation for the acquired lands by adoptingcomparative sales mcthods What was said by the Apex Court in J-ISTDC(Supi-a) is as under:-.

'14/hen different categories of lands (or lands with dlfferentsi/national advantages) are cicquiredfàr the same purpose,sai. for /dsming of residential layout, courts havesometImes felt that determination of their value withrefCrence to previous status or situation should he avoidedand uniform rate of compensation should he awarded forall lands acquired under the same notifIcation.

25.Tjndisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and aroundacquired and of Village Bharthal., Village Bijwasan of the period inquestion are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly reliedupon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Saleacquired and of Village Bharthal., Village Bijwasan of the period inquestion are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly reliedupon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven SaleDeeds vide which religious iflStJtutio.n, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, fleashad purchased the agricultural land in Village Po.chanpur at pricewhich varied from 52 lacs to 62 lacs per acre.which varied from 52 lacs to 62 lacs per acre.

26.Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex....W- 1/4 to hx.PW- 1/] 0) whichare basically between one set of co-owners and 1?adha Swami Satsang,fleas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 1 8 Bighas and 6Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value cfthe land in the villages in question is the moot question which is requiredto he answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deedsare basically between one set of co-owners and 1?adha Swami Satsang,fleas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 1 8 Bighas and 6Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value cfthe land in the villages in question is the moot question which is requiredto he answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds

Aipp. No. 1195/2008 & Connected Appeals of Village ltharthalA App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals o Village BijwasanA.Aeo, No. 1:1 1/200 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpurPage 20 ol 29

(Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-l/l0) indicate that its price varies from 52 lacsto 62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the saleexemplars - Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex,PW-l/l0) did not commandthe same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation ofthe aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached toeach parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land inquestion, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot he treated asdisclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. Thespecial need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in VillagePocharipur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW--l./4 to Ex.PW-1/i0) has not beenbrought out as the purchaser/vendce of these agricultural land has riotbeen got examined by the appellants. Fiad the purciiaser/vendee oltheaforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have beenelicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such high price forthese lands. The special •fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at anexorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale I)eed executed on 2:StulMarch, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled asJai Sing/i s. Union of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App.No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Sthg/i rs. Union [ India, decided On19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village.M.amurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treatedas representative price for the acquired lands.

27. In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquied landswas changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidencetha.t the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till theiracquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were notdeveloped lands. No prudent pci-son having knowledge of prevailing

LA,App. No. 1.195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village IlharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village BijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpurLA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village BijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page.21 of 29

market price of the land in question would pay such high price unlessand until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in theconsidered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds(iix.PW-1 /4 to Ex.PW-l/l0) have been rightly discarded by theReference Court.

28.So •far as the sale exemplar of Vi]lageSamalkha (Ex.PW-1/i 1)relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of1,76,55,l724l per acre relating to Sale Deed of [27hh1 ][January, 2000, it]needs to he noted that because this hale exemplar (l:ix.PW-]/1 i) wa.ssituated on the National 1-Iighway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed(Ex.PW-l/l 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereonincluding tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefiDre,it had fetched such high price. in view thereof, this sale exemplarcannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands inquestion.

29.1.eit with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarlysituated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as towhether adoption of L& 1)0 circular rates for the developed lands andPre LDctermined Rates for the alternate plots by the DI).A ought to beadopted to determine the true matket value of' the acquired lands inquestion.

30.Parameters governing fxaiion of market value of acquired landshighlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy andOrs, v. Lund Acquisition Officer H'derahod Urban DevelopmentAutlwri4 .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 accjuired land withhit//ding potenticility wtth ref bvence to the price Jbtched bysale of plots in well developed layout in the neighborhood

/.App. No. no;/2ooNi;onnocted Appoals of Vi}Ipe Bhrth,lApp. No. 29 4/1.010 & connectod Appeals of Village lfijwasanAApp No. 11.11.010 & OflflCCCtCCd Appeals of ViIJ.lgo p ochdnptirApp. No. 29 4/1.010 & connectod Appeals of Village lfijwasanAApp No. 11.11.010 & OflflCCCtCCd Appeals of ViIJ.lgo p ochdnptir

or wheti er ii he the determination of the market value of theacquired land with building potentiality with reference tothe p1-ice fetched by sale of building plots in an undevelopedlayout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomesinevitable far the Court to find out what will be the pricefetched or to hefètched by the sales ofplots in the layouts,relied upon by any of the pal-lies, with reference to the pricewhzch the plots could have fetched if sold on the date of thepublication of the preliminary notification under Section4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence of price fetchedby the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in theneighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available,then what could be done is to find out the market value ofthe acquired land with reference to the relevant dale ofpublication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according tothe actual use to which it was put cind inc-ease its value bya small percentage having regard to the degree of itsbuilding potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence tohe made available in that regard. small percentageincrease to be given shall not exceed 1/5th of the marketvalue of the land found oul according to its actual usersince resort to the method of gi1;i1g increased value forsuch buidng potentIality arises only when there is noevidence of sales of building plots i the neighborhood ofthe acquired land indicating that there was no immediatedemand, as such, /dr building plots even if farmed in theacquired land.

In \'ieW of the difficulties ij. adoption of rate of land charged byffie DDA after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, andtransferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! ('hand(Supra, held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotmentratcs/PreDetcrj.ninecI Rates in determining the market value of theadjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Foflowing the dictum of La!('band (Supra), coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra)and Sushil Kurnar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua thedeveloped lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value cf

.\,i.p. No. 190/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BhartiCal:.p, No. 291/2010 & connec;ed Appeals of Village Bijwasan• •t.t. NC). 11.1/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Courthas rightly not adopted the I)DA rates for allotment of developed land orthe DDA's Prc-I)etermined Rates for alternate a]lotments •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 aid other villages for development ofDwarka Phase-i. It was sought to he argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar,learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector thai; even if theescalation at the compounded rate of 1 0% per annum is taken from theyear 1 984 till the year. 2000, i.e., for the period intervening theNotification for development of Dwarka Phase-i and the instantNotification for development of Dwarka Phase-Il, still the price fixed bythe Land Acquisition Collector is mote than the aforesaid escalated priceand therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court isunjustified.

33. Aforcsiid argument does not ho].d gooc in view of the dictum ofthe Apex Court in .Lal Cliand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adoptprogressive increase method in assessment ofthe market value of theacquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it mayhe 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 Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwirl<aPhase-Il is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt themode of determining the market Value by providin.g appropriate

A.App. No. 11 9/2OO8 & connected i\ppeals of Village l3harthal

-Lf\.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village BijwasanL/\.App. No. 1.11/29w & connected Appeals of Village PoclianpurL/\.App. No. 1.11/29w & connected Appeals of Village Poclianpur

Page 24 of 29

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

34. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for therespondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference court hasgranted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as acoordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kurnar (Supra), has grantedescalation @ I O% per annum. After having perused the decision nSushi! Kunuir (Supra), I find that 1 0% increase on account of higherpotentaIity of the acqiiired land over and above the market valuedetermined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relyingpon Sushi! Junwr (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Courtc2 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 1 0°/o per annum. In this view ofthe matter, the cross-object lons of the respondent al-c dismissed.

35.Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government'sminimum price o .f the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Courtis reasonable criteria for determining Lhe market value of the acquiredland and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted theReference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for theagricultural land by the Government w.e.f. [1S1 ]April. 2000 till the date ofNotification in the instant appeals deserves to he further increased ornot.minimum price o .f the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Courtis reasonable criteria for determining Lhe market value of the acquiredland and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted theReference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for theagricultural land by the Government w.e.f. [1S1 ]April. 2000 till the date ofNotification in the instant appeals deserves to he further increased ornot.36.Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural landpertaining to the Notification in quc.stio.n has been assailed by thelearned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had cdased tobe an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of [24h1t ]October, 1.994declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to beurha. It is true that vide aforesaid NotiJicaton of the year 1994 the landuse of the acquired land had changed but that by itse.l [is not sufficient to

A.App. No. 1195/2002, & connected /\ppeok ol VWage 3IirUiai

A.App. No. 21)4/2010 & connected Appeels of Village BijwasanLA.I\pp. No. 1 1.1/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpurLA.I\pp. No. 1 1.1/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for beingconsidered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vitalaspect of there being any development and around the acquired landsin question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha SwamiSalsang, J3eas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the saleof the said lands was for agricultural purpose.37.Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till theissuance of Notification under Section 4 of the J.and Acquisition Act,1 894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. i-lad there beenincrease in price due to higher demand, on account of potential ty of theacquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, thenappellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the areain question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the landin Village Pochanpur to religious institution and another sale instanceof Village Samalltha (J.ix.PW-i/l 1) without leading any evidence toestablish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of RadhaSwami Scilsang, l3eas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar ofVillage Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/i 1) are comparable with the acquired landsand so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance ofVillage Samalkha (lix. PW- 1/1 1) cannot be treated to he sufficientground to grant higher compensation while rclvwg upon the aforesaidsale instances. Therefore, in \ucw of th.e af ore-referred dictum of theApex Court in Haryctna State industrial Development torporwEwn(IISJDC (S upra), uniform rate of Corn pensatiOn deserves to be awardedfor the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of theminimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land inDelhi. which generally factors in the rise of price due to higherpotentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is gap between what

2Io.-1195/2Qg & connected AppeIs of ViUge BhrthJL.'5 .A p r. No. 294/2010 & connected AppenIe of Village BijwasanApp No. 111/20.10 & connected AtJPOaIS of Village PochanpunApp No. 111/20.10 & connected AtJPOaIS of Village Pochanpun

Pae 26 of 29

would he expected to be the market growth and what the market hadactually grown, Government's mhtimurn agricultural price has been held.to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquiredlands in Jai Sing/i (Supra) as "veil as in Sushi! Kurnar (Supra) and I findno reason to take different view than the one which had been taken bycoordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jul Sing/i(Supra) and Sushi! Kurnar (Supra).

38. This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court inthe matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has•rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agriculturallands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question.Finding of the Reference Court in matterof Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situationof the acquired lands is similar tc sale exemplars is borne outfron theevidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of theacquired lands being in close vicinity ot the 161 Airport., Indian. Oil andBharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through VillageBharthal and there being 1 00 meters vide oad starting from NH-8from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part 1 and Part Ii, dividing theacquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in thevicinity ol the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of theReference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account ofaloresai locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainlyassume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-i.What persuades this Court to grant iO4 increase over and above marketvalue of the acquired lands as assessed y the. Reference Court onaccount of the higher building potentiality in the acquiied lands is the

App. No; 1 1.95/2[X)8 & coilnected Appedis of Village Bharthjl

.App. No. 294/2010 & connected AppeiJs of V2lage ttijwasCn

f;.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochar.pur

settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in MirzaNaush erH'an K/urn vs. Collector, (1975)1 SC 238, ii these words:-.

"When once conclusion is reached that there was thepossibility of the acquired land being used for puttingbuildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusionwould be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had abuilding potentiality and proceed to determine its marketvalue taking into account the increase in price attributableto such building potentiality.

39.Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide adefinite value qua potential, and in view of th.e fact that exactness cannever he achieved in the matters of assessing Ibir compensation, it isbroad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat themwith equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimumprices !o.r the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value ofthe acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquiredlands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated atpar with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal andVillage Bijwasan. TIowever, while rel ying upon the decision in SushilKuinar (Supra), 1 am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above themarket value of the acquired lands cletejmin.ed by the Reference Court inthese matters on account of the afresaid locational advantagesproicling higher building potenuali .y in the acquired lands in question.40. Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent ofawarding 1 O% increase over and above the market value assessed by theReference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village.J3ijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Fochanpur at par withthe appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bi.jwasan, the appeals of

lt/pp No. .11 95/2003 & connected Appesds of Village t3hrthullJ\epp. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village BijwasanA/ p p. No. 1.1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PoclianpurNo. .11 95/2003 & connected Appesds of Village t3hrthullJ\epp. No. 291/2010 & connected Appeals of Village BijwasanA/ p p. No. 1.1.1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Poclianpur

Page 23 of 29

the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extentindicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of thesethree villages in question is determinedl6,50,000/- per bi.gh fbr theCCategoryland andi4,69,600/- per higha for the Category 'B'lands in question.i'\

4 1. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded,sLatutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained inthe judurneni reported in. Sunder vs. (101 2001 (93) DLT 569 aregranted. except for the period where there is delay in filing the appeal,for \vhich Period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall.he paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.42. The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed ofin the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit thecompensation amount, if any, deposited by either hide with the RegistrarGenera] of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheetshe accordingly prepared.

Jamiary 06, 2012P 1<

- (SUNIL GAUR)JUDGE!J.-••

.A.A p p. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofViliEige BharthdLA./\pp No. 294/7.010 & connected Appeak of V8Ige BijwsnLA./\pp No. 294/7.010 & connected Appeak of V8Ige Bijwsn

1. App. No. 111/20.10 & connected Appeais of Vifiage Pochnpur

Pige 29 o129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

LA.APP. 1195/2008

AppellantRANBIR SHARMAThrough: Mr.B . S .Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verrna, Mr.JitinTewathia, AdvocatesMs.Anita Tornar, Advocate.Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, AdvocateMr.N.S.egi and Mr.H:S.Rautela, AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.RoutraY, Advocates.Mr.N.S.Negi and MrH.S.Rautela, (Advocates forrespondent in appeals filed by UOI)Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate forMr.R.S.Tornar.Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S .K.Solanki andMr.S.K.Rout, Advocates

versus

RespondentsUNION OF INDIA & ANR.Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate withMr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav andMs.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran,Advocates for LAC/UOIMr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi Ms. Arnita Singh,Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunai Sharma andMr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates for DDA.CORAM:HON'BLE MR [JUSTiCE SUNIL ][GAUR]

ORDER12M1.2012

C0M ApjN [752L2O1 (For ][corrçO1I1).]

This is an application for seeking typographical correction inOrder of [6th ][January, 2012.]

Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the nìotice

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

The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in thedecision of [6fh ]January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of theyaforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha',whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is iot disputed by learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application isallowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraphno: 40 of LA.AppNo. 1195/2008. be read as 'per acre'. Necessarycorrections be carried ut forthwith.

In view of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of.

-.1cUN!L GAUR)JUDGE

JANUARY 12, 2012pkh

LAApp.No. 1195/2 008