LA.APP./523/2011 of RISHAL SINGH & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

~ ")--,

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: December 18, 2011

Pronounced on: January 06,2012

+ LA.APP. 52312011

RISHAL SINGH & ORS ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.KSolanki and Mr.S.KRout, Advocates 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 DOl/LAC Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer KSeth, 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

I, I I: f: I:) I: I,:

~ '" I,,' i I' ii

I: l' ",

l' ", " ll I" ,', ,',

I" ,', ,', 1< i

.. -1ft.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DlEtRU /\,11' ~HCVV DELHI

(J,/ . (("

lie; $.fl'J!.gf. Ql1,:, l'!QYJ/j11 bn:..L8 L. ~j)1.1 .. Pronounced -- .... --_._. __ ._-- -- -.- .. 017: -.,- -. - ---, Januarv .... -_.- ..... _ .• 06 _.'-1. _._._ 20 ... _. J __ 2

(GRID-A) .

LA.APP.1195/2008 (VILLAGF.:- BHAlRTHAL)

RANBJR SHARJ\1A ..... Appellant rhrough: Mr.B.S.Maan, .Mr.Amil Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, MS.SlTiita MaaD, lVIr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates lVlr.Anand YaJav and MS.Anita Tomar, Advocates. 1\1r.Rohras, AdYocate. Mr.Raghllvil1'.ler Godara, Advocate MLN.S.Negi ~tnd Nfr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Roul ;:mdMLB.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. l\1r.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate lVrr.R[~jcsh Yneav. l'v1.r.Deepak Khosla, lVlr.Samit Khosla and JVlr.J)hannl~iay l'Achlmvat, Advocates M1. [·I·I· ].L. [S ][I"" ]• .. aulf., 'I" (,' n(" ,,1,., uea .. ,,. t" t .. M 1. [-I ]. ...,. [(1 ][I)"] ]a11y(1,;-[.' ][", ]A\.d,·,'-" c,,,a 1'" .. ..., Mr.Sandecp ThakhuL Advocate Mi.Atul Triparbi, /\dvocalc, Mr.N .S.Negi and )\tj[LH.S.Raulda, (Advocates il II' respondenl :in app\~als filed by LlOl)

versus

Ui'JlON OF INDIA & ANR.

, ..... p \ .. ''''''1'' ~ .... J,,; I'1"i " , L~('l-.1[.,1 ",'

ThruUE.h: l._ Mr.SanJ·civ . ' , PoddaL . Sl;~ninr Adyoca~e. VViUi Mr.Sil~'du.\ , •• , Pathak Mr.l\/iohitrac .,M]JW\· and I'/!:,.1'.J2:I.,lin ~";\'\ai!·1. Ms.K.Kaumudi Kjnm";\LdvClcate~) f(ir 1./\C:.'LJC)1 Mr.Ajay Vern:a,~/ls.Hecnashaw SOlii. Mr.l\1ukc~;h Kumar, Mr S.K.'~ethi, lV[r.Pav/un IVlathuL \\/kKunal ShanrJ(l, Advocatc ii::r DDA l./\,/\ PPA J 2:'2008 & CM.No.::W0r,;:2UOS (Cross--\JbjectiollS). L:\.:\PP. ':lj=~/:Wm~; LA,.APP.4-53l2()()8; LA.APP.SS8/2(J08.\'.: C>.·1.l'hf,5990/20 J (l (Cross· Obj'CCilOllS); L;\.APP.697i2008 & CM.No.,+33/2UWi (C.L\)SS--Ot::jCctiOl1S); T.A./\l'P 70 I/~~()CH .& Crv1.N')S10/.2009 (Cross-Ob.!i.;cti')i1~;):' 1. \ /\PP 76~'~/)OOg:, L'\.AFf' .T!OI2U()H:,

I/,./\:"p. ~:(). ll%roo.~ & coPl1ccted /lpP':clls (lfVill<lg,! Bh~lCLlEII : ·\ .. '\0:'0. No, i9[f],/?o}l' ~~ connert.:cG l\ppe:]ls of Vill~f,(; IJi,iwa'"," I !\J\pp, ;\'.:>. }.1 :i[l ];)()10 & cor;nc'Cl':·.d ,\pp~a'5 of Viilag[: i'ochanfllll"

Ft.lr.!,~\ ? 01 .~9

LA.APP.77112008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.772/2008; LAAPP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections):,· LAAPP.775/2008; LAAPP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LAAPP.78212008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LAAPP.78412008; LAAPP.78512008; LAAPP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAA.PP.799/2008 & CM.No.93112009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LAAPP.829/2008; LAAPP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LAAPP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LAAPP.845/2008; LA.APP.S73/200S & CM.No.77S1!2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); 'LA.APP.899/2008; LAAPP.90l/2008; LA .. ./\PP.9J 5/2008; LA.APP.95112008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.959/2008; LAAPP.973/2008; LAAPP.974/2008 & CM.No.519!2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.97:S/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2.008;LA.APP.l 029/2008& CM.No. 1 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I031!2008 & Clvl.No.1733S12008 (Cross-Objections); Li\./\PP.l032/2008 & CM.No.S99/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.104612008; LA.APP.l047/2008;LA.APP.1048/20U8& CM.No.785112009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I050!2008; LA.APP.l 051/2008 & CM.No.17262/2008 (Cross-Obje:ctions);LA.APP.1 052/2008; LA.APP.l053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.1054/2008 & CM.No.l766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA,APP.I055/2008;LA.APP.I057/2008 & CM.No.752!2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.l 059/2()O~ & C~'LNo.17259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.!\PP.I060/2008;LA.APP.I062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); U\..APP.I073/2008; LA.APP.I074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.l08112003 & ·CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); . . . LA.APP.I084/2008& CM.No.17302.t200R (CnJ5s-0bjections); LA.APP.l0g6[1]200R & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.I087/2008& CM.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A.App. j 094/2008; LA.APP.I09512008; LAAPP.I103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 {C.ross-Objcctiol1s):LAAPP.lI08/2008 & CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.II09!2008; LA.APP.III0/2008& Cv1.No.3828/2009 (Cross-O~bjections);. LA .. APP.l11li2008; LAAPP.l 1 12!2008 & \.:V. .n~·lN 0 .. "'S"'J/7009' -' .J ~_ (C' .. 10S5-Ob',,' JcctlOl1::;). ,< U." (,II ... -\ fpIt. [o]l1'1,'/,,)'l')(lll '.' .,IL ,0 &' ~ ,-"I., I"M1\jT 000) "'v';'(L.()' [tI]2()()o ... ;1 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.l11S!2008; LA...APP, 1 1 16/2008: LA.APP.1121l2008; LA.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.1129/2008 &: C~v'U"Jo.550/2009 (Cross-Ob.icclion~); : ,A.APP.l J 30/2008; LA.APP.1131.i2()rH; &: Clvl.1\;o . .566/2009 (C[()ss-Objectiol"ls), LA.APP.1133/2008; LA.APP.IlJS/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objecl1o11s); LA.APP.II3 7/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1l40/2008; LA.APP.1156/2008; LA.APP.1157!2008; LA.APP.1158/2.008 & CM.No.7774l2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.] 159/2008; LA .. APP.~ 161/2008; LAAPP.1166!2008; LAAPP.l16712008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LAAPP.1168i2008; L.A.APP.1170/2008; LAAPP.]] 7112008; LAAPP.1172/2008:, LAAPP.1173/2008; LA.APP.II75/2008; LA.APP.1178/20('l8; L,A .. APP.1179/2008; LA.APP.ll gl 12008; LA/\PP.1182/2008; LA.APP.l J 83/'2008& CM.No.6933 [/]2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1184/2008; LAAPP.1185[/]200g;LA.APP,1186/2008& CM.No.7013/2()09I /\J\pp. ~Jo, ~ll9~;/2()08 8. conr!ew!d I\ppeals of Vill,lgP Bharthal l./\ /\pP. No. 1.<J[d]/2010 & COllr1ectf!d I\ppeals of Village i3ijwas,)n l'/I./\pp. r·Jo. :L.ll/WiG & connectdf /\ppe~ls of Villag," PochallPur' l./\ /\pP. No. 1.<J[d]/2010 & COllr1ectf!d I\ppeals of Village i3ijwas,)n l'/I./\pp. r·Jo. :L.ll/WiG & connectdf /\ppe~ls of Villag," PochallPur'

Page L 01' 2~1

(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APPJ 192/2008: LA.APP.] 193/2008; LAAPP.1194/2008; LAAPP.1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008; LAAPP.1198120Q8& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1200/2008; LAAPP.1202/2008; LAAPP.1203/2008; LAAPP.1210/2008:; LAAPP .. 121112008; LAAPP.1212!2008; LAAPP.1213/2008;L-A.APP.122312008; LAAPP.122S/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections): LA.APP.1246/2008; LAAPP.1241l2008& CM.No.384112009 (Cross-Objections); LA:APP.'1243/2008; LA.APP.l252/2008; L/\.APP.1275/2008; LAAPP.1276/2008; LAAPP.1277/2008; LAAPP.1279/2008; LA.i\PP.1280/2008; LA.APP.1281/2CJ08; Li\.APP.1283/2008; LAAPP.1284/2008; LAAPP.31/2009; LA.APP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LAAPP.39!2009; LA.APP.42/2009 & CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.59!2009; LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.71 03/2009 (Cross:'Objections); LAAPP.74!2009; LA.APP.7912009; LAAPP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.] 08/2009; LAAPP.I09/2009; LA.APP.12112009; LAAPP.135/2009; LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.138/2009; LAAPP.139/2009; L/\..i\PP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2CJ09; LA.APP.144/2009; LAAPP.145/2009; j,!\.i\PP .162/2009;, LA.APP.18712009: 1,A.APP.19012009; LAAPP.191/2009; ·LA.APP.197/2009; LAAPP.198/2009; L~\.APP. i 99/2009; LA.APP.20 1/2009; LAAPP.202/2009; LAAPP.203/2009; LA.APP.20812009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/20] 1 (Cross-Objections); U\.APP.21112009; LAAPP.220/2009; LA.APP.2.22/2009; LAAPP.223!2009; LAAPP.224.12009; LAAPP.227/2009; LA.APP.:230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245!2009; LAAPP.246/2009; . LA.APP.249/2009; LAAPP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LAAPP.305/2009:, LA.APP.367/2009; LAAPP.437/20.fi9; LAAP?.4(:J.7/2009; LA.APP.458/2009; L\.APP.459/2009; LAAPP.466/2009: LA.APP.480/2009; LAAPP.481/2009; LA.APP.48912009; LAAPP.490/2009; LA.A.PP.49112009; LA.APP.493/2009; LA.APP.494/2009; LAAPP.495/2Q09; LA.APP.503!2009; LAAPP.506!2009; LA.APP.50712009; LAAPP.508!2009; U\..APP.509/2009: LA.App.51 0/2004; l_AAPP.511/2009; LAAPP.512/2009: LA.APP.513/l0CH: LA.APP.567/2009; LA.APP.572l2009; . . LAAPP.15/2010:, . LAAF:?.45/2010; I LA.APP.48/2010; . LA.APPA04!2010; LAAPP.13/20] 1:. Ll\'.A.PP.1138!2008: LA.APP.1176!2008; [,i\..APP.1177/2008; LAAPP.1201!2008; LAAPP.231i2009

(Relating to Notification No. F.I0(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal,. Delhi)

(GRID-B)

1110.§grvec{...QU: Dec~!JJbeL_Q~~ 20 LL /. p[Qfl~unced QJ1:J.W1U!JlJ!' ()6~~J212

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

DEVENDER KUMAR ...... Appellant Through: l'vI:-.R.S.Tomar, l\;Ir.Virendra Singh

IA./I.pp. 1\10 :l19~;j)008 & connected /\ppeals of Village Bharthal I.rU\pp. !~o. 794i2010 & connected i\ppeals of Vil!agf' Bi.iwas<ln IAl\pp No. 1.11.li.OlO & connected ,'\ppeals of Village Pocbanpu'

Page 3 of Z9

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

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

- -_ .. __ . ----

.'< ./_ >".1,

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

versus

(Relating to Notification No. F.IO(30)96-L&B/LAIl3417 dated 13.12..2000 issued ~1der Section 4 of theUl.l~d Acquisitiol1 Act, 1894 & Award No. 28/:2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi)

AND

1..'\ IIpp.'No 1.1')5/2008 & conncCH~d l\ppeals of Village Bharth<ll 1 .• ~.l\pP. Nc,. 2'J~.i;;010 & conn(;ct(,rl I\ppca!s'lJf Village Bijwas,111 'JI.llpp. No. l1.Jj:WIO &. conn('ct(~d flprea1s of Village Pochanpur 1 .• ~.l\pP. Nc,. 2'J~.i;;010 & conn(;ct(,rl I\ppca!s'lJf Village Bijwas,111 'JI.llpp. No. l1.Jj:WIO &. conn('ct(~d flprea1s of Village Pochanpur

I'age 4 of Z9

,..; i.....; / ..

(GRID-C)

Reserved on: December 18. 20U pronounced on: January 06L 20J2_

.J1A.APP. 11112010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR)

. I.A./\pp. No. 11.95/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lA/\pp. No. 294/2.010 & connected Appeais of Viliage Bijwasan lA/\pp. No. 294/2.010 & connected Appeais of Viliage Bijwasan

I./\.I\pp No 1l1!2010 & connected I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

Pilge 5 of 29

r----;-c;

(Relating to Notification No. F.I0(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 40f the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12 .. 2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi)

CORAM: HON'BI..;E MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

...;;...O...;;;...R;.;..;.;.l? __ R 06.01.2(H2

1. Since the grounds on which enhancement 6f the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Noti/ication No.F.lO(30)96-L& Bll,A/134i7 dated I3.i2.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages :Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

! Acquisition process for planned deVelopment of 'Dvvarka Phase-[1' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Not{fication of 1311i December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 189Ll, pertaining to vast tract of agricultllral land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in questi(Hl, i.e., Bharthal; Bijwasan and Pochanpnr. [1' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Not{fication of 1311i December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 189Ll, pertaining to vast tract of agricultllral land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in questi(Hl, i.e., Bharthal; Bijwasan and Pochanpnr.

3. Agricultural land of the appellants hercln in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards, Le., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award . No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation f@ ;z'13.S2 lacs per acre for Block 'A' (level field --- with top soil) and @<'12.32 lacs per acre for 13 lock 'B' (\vithout top so il).

4. Dissatisfied with the assessrncnt of mar/(et value of their acqlJil'ed

1.fI.l\pp. No. 119~,/2008 & connected I\ppealsof Village BharthaL

:.ru\pP. No. 7.9[J]!7.010 & connected Appeal, of Village Bijwasan

I,YI.l\pp. No. 112/20108, conner:tred I\ppeals of Village Poch'lnpur

agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of . the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Comi vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation @ <'15.00 lacs per acre tDr the appellants' acquired land in Block' A' and @ <13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been disrrtissed. 5. In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bh31ihal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants or Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, J(arnatakaHousing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag mul Ors., (2011) 2 sec 246; AI1:jani 111oht.Dessai VS. State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Rant and Ors vs. State oflfm:vafw and Anr., (20 1 0) 1 sec 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vei". Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Drs" (2010) 3 sec 661; Ranvir Singh and AnI', VS. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Faldra Patil (D) through LRs 1'S. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lal ~JS, Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) thtough LRs vs. Union afIndia ,& J-<j1l111"'9 2002 (65) DIU 1 (DB); Udho Das8 VS, State ofJ-luryana & 0'r5., ~, 2010(9) SCALE, 41; Clulkas 1'8. State of Punjab & Ors' j 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash DhavlOi N{,lili. ~.'s. ,S'tate of ftllillu,~:rat)'htra, (2009) 11 sec 171; Alma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors liS. State q~l Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 sec 568; vV.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Sl'nt. Indu IOzorana vs. Grano Sabha & Ors, decided on, 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Oflicer & Anr ~JS, M./(, Rafiq Saheb 9 (201])

7 sec 714; Thakarsibhai De~:iibhai and Of'S VS. Executive Engineer,

!A·I\PR No. :ll(}~)/I0081'" clJnrH!cted Appf~als of VillagE' Slwth,l;

:.Al\pp. ~J[). ~1){1/2010 &. connech~d I\ppeals of Village Bijwasan ,,'I.l\pp. No 1 J 1/20.10- & connected /\ppeals of Village Pochal'pur Page 70129 ,,'I.l\pp. No 1 J 1/20.10- & connected /\ppeals of Village Pochal'pur Page 70129

.;::;c.

Gt~iarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryarw State Industria! Development Corporation, (2010) 11 sec 175; Risal Singh & Drs. Vs. ;'" -.. ~ f'nion of India & Anr., 2006 (89) IJRJ 527 (DB); Lal Chand vs. Union ~f India and Anr., (2009) IS sec 769; General l~lanager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Iivanbhai Patel and AnI', (2008) 14 see 745; Valliyamma! and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr .. AIR 2011 SC 2937; j'(iran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authori(v, (2004) 10 sec 745; J~ahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of JJlaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (M{~ior General) & Ors. Vs. Union of india & AnI', 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 428~';2007 titled as Sural Singh JJS. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008.; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Drs JJS. Union o.lIndia, (2004) 10 sec 627; . Satpal & Ors vs. Union of india, (-1997) J 1 sec 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar }IS. Union of India, decided on 26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59!2007 titled as Bed Rwn vs. Uni.on (,~f .liulia, decided on 07.06.2011; and BJuale Ram vs. Union of Indhu, 2010 (170)DLT371.

6. On the strength of the aforesaid decisi.ons, at the very outset, it was urged by l\1r.B.S.Maan: learmxl arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciatc its potential which must be adjudged kecping in view the development in the area over period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

7. [t was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, counsel J\)r appellants t.hat Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad ·gage rail\vay line of . Village 13iijwasan passes through the land of Village Bbmthal, dividing it into two parts:1 i.e., on the eastern side of the raiJvva·y line is the tGI Airport, Ne\v Delhi

IJ\.I\Pp. No. lJ.')S/20Coil & connected llppeals of Village Bhanhai I II./Ipp. No. 2,1~/2010 & connected Ilppeals of Village Bijwasan ,.j\J\pp. No 111/2010 & connected I\ppeals of Village Poch'lnpu' P"ge 8 of;>'9 I II./Ipp. No. 2,1~/2010 & connected Ilppeals of Village Bijwasan ,.j\J\pp. No 111/2010 & connected I\ppeals of Village Poch'lnpu' P"ge 8 of;>'9

. ,. and Oil Depots of Indian Oil arid BharatPetroleum and road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiy"Murti towards Dwarka Sub·-'.: "'<:rl City Part-I and Part-II again dl~7ides the ,agricultural land into two , portions; (i) North Eastern side; where IOI ,Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Fann' Houses are located on the. land of Villages Bhaiihal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed, out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel fai' the appellants that northelTl 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 Bhara1l: Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for develop~nent of Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhoo1 Siras were' also acquirqd for the deve]opmentof Phase-It, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizras/map to highlight that the boundary .. of Village Bharthal, Village Poc:hanpllf and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.8. It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court· has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land' in the light of its location and ha~; illegally treated the a.cquired land 10 be agricultural in spite of Notifica.tion of 16[th ]October, 2000 vide which land use' of the three.: . . villages in question was changed from agricultural' to residential!' commercial/indust.rial, etc. and irifact theenlireland of \!iJlage Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 24li1 October, 1994. potentiality of the acquired land' in the light of its location and ha~; illegally treated the a.cquired land 10 be agricultural in spite of Notifica.tion of 16[th ]October, 2000 vide which land use' of the three.: . . villages in question was changed from agricultural' to residential!' commercial/indust.rial, etc. and irifact theenlireland of \!iJlage Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 24li1 October, 1994.

9. It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Not.ifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rmna. counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Not.ifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rmna.

I II.App. No. i~, ~5/1.008 & connected APJpeals of Village Bharthal !.A I\pp .. No. 291\!1.0~LO & connected I\~peals of Village Bijwasan L.~.App. r~o. 11 J /201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Poch<lnpur !.A I\pp .. No. 291\!1.0~LO & connected I\~peals of Village Bijwasan L.~.App. r~o. 11 J /201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Poch<lnpur

Page 9 of Zg

Reddi & Drs. vs. Land Acquisition, Officer, Hyderabad & Orsy (1995) 2 sec 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later . . , I decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Hm;;ana & Ors .. , 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over period of time and the same dml10t be, limited to near future alone and if after the acquisition, if 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 ref1~cted therein~ ,'aried from <"52 lacs to ~62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrO\vn out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude thai these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Anjani j~olu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr., (2:010) 13 SCC 710, the average of 3ale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to '(57 lacs per acre and since the sale cxeJnpJars relied upon by the appclIants arc the comparable· sale instances, therefc)re, reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum raLes/circle rates for determining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous. 1 I" A.ssessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by l\1r.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& . DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre·-determined rates Jixed by the Govcrn .. mcnt for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in vicvv the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land,· dctc:rrnination of its market valL~C: is

IA/\pp. No, 1195/2008 & connected I\ppea!s of Village Bharthal L/\.I\pp, No. 7.94/1.010 & connected I\ppeal~, of Village! Bij'N2san

.LA,l\pp No, J'11/2GIO II~ conn(?cted I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 10012<:)

----.. ---~----."---.--.--.-

I ! . 1--i,;')

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~( or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above. 12. In the written synopsis, appellant --' Impulse India Private Limited of L,A. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned juctgment on the following grounds:-

a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award ./'10.26/2002-2003 dated 23.JO.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil' Writ petirion j\10.190 12 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-exomination of appellant dated 7.7.2007) respondent about the Award ./'10.26/2002-2003 dated 23.JO.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil' Writ petirion j\10.190 12 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-exomination of appellant dated 7.7.2007)

b) Does not account for the fel.cl that the Public ]Votice dated 18. 9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years befo~"e the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisii~on Act, 1894 lllas issued. dated 18. 9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land in the area for more than 15 years befo~"e the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisii~on Act, 1894 lllas issued.

c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated 11.9.2001 issued by the Governrl1.ent of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one qf the. more recent decisions of the Hon'ble S'upreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tah~'ildar, 2010(3) sec 661. 11.9.2001 issued by the Governrl1.ent of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one qf the. more recent decisions of the Hon'ble S'upreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tah~'ildar, 2010(3) sec 661.

d) ignores the evidence and othq' factors which as per established law has to be considered belore ascertainin.z :) !.J the value of the larid undel' Llcquisition. established law has to be considered belore ascertainin.z :) !.J the value of the larid undel' Llcquisition.

e) Does not deal with disparity in l/olue of the Sale Deeds produced before the triet! Cour/whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case ~f Chinda Fakira PatH versus Special l~and Acquisition' Officer, Civil /1peu! No.5475 of 2007. The. Hon'ble Supreme Court has speclfically held thelt Sale Deed showing higher ratE~ should no! be disregarded in produced before the triet! Cour/whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case ~f Chinda Fakira PatH versus Special l~and Acquisition' Officer, Civil /1peu! No.5475 of 2007. The. Hon'ble Supreme Court has speclfically held thelt Sale Deed showing higher ratE~ should no! be disregarded in

1/\'/iPP, No . .119';/2008 & connect:l~d flppeals of Village llharthal l/\./\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected !',ppeals of Village Ilijwasan ll\t,pp. No. 111/2010 & c'Jn~(,cted flppeals of Village Pochanpur l/\./\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected !',ppeals of Village Ilijwasan ll\t,pp. No. 111/2010 & c'Jn~(,cted flppeals of Village Pochanpur

Pag" 11 of 29

_ .. _-. -_ .. _-,_ .. - .. -------~----~---~--------.. ------.-.----------- --- -- ---- . - - -

I . [',I ]"

--...,;

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 thqt 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.

f) Relied upon judgment dated 3:3.2008 in LAC No.97A12006 to decide the !1iarket value of the su~ject land while ignoring the maleriall1,'hich 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 lczvv laid down by the lIon 'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ranz VS'. Slate of I{aryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As consequence, th~ hnpugned judgment . re/ilsed to return an actual .finding on the issue No.1 j,"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 Sir-as and Bharthal vvas changed and these areas ceased to l'Je agricultural and carne now under the urban hOltndaries of Delhi State. 771e masterplan and Not[l/catiorzs qf Government for land use change shOll) that in future land can be su~jected to residential, cOlnmercial and other permissible uses. It is also per tirZCI1.tto mentiOl'l that the . '~" appellant lead evidence in reSjH:xt 0/ the 74 cilnendment of the Constitution qf india. lV. e.j.' ' 1.6. 1993 -IX A, by virtue of which the Afunicl)xrl, COlporation Act WGj8 amended and the area where the land is situated" was deemed municipal area and the municipal C'ounsellor was elected .Fom there. No Panchr'.(yat elections were held in the area.

h) Refused to apply the lmv lo:id d01vn in AIR 5'upreme Court 34~7, RanvirSingh and' Anr vs. Union 0./ India and refused to consider tite fact that the development in the area has direct efji::ct ;')1'7 the price, that Hdlling purchaser would paylor the subject land.

i) ignored the fact thot ReS/7o.1idenl No. .2 had also

tAllpp, No. 1195/7.'J08 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal LII.App. No. 294/1.010 &. connected Appeals of Village Bijwd,an L/\.lIpp.No. 11l/20W & wnncctf~d Appeals of Village Pochanr-ur

Page 12. (If 29

auctioned siTnilarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ~2. 6 lakh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land.

j) The valuation of the subject land is even lovver than the pre-detennined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. pre-detennined 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 for development purposes of' L}rvarka Phase 11. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed .~nd these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. the use of the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of' L}rvarka Phase 11. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed .~nd these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State.

l) Ignored Notifications dated .1 6.1 O. 2000 and 24.10.1994 although they . clearZv establish the cornmercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar (LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was ,held that the purpose for which land is acquired is d-relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has gO! building potentialitJ/ to be used although they . clearZv establish the cornmercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar (LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was ,held that the purpose for which land is acquired is d-relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has gO! building potentialitJ/ to be used jar building purposes in imn'lediate orin near future needs to be considered. needs to be considered.

I m) The presence of number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The land~ were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As portion afthe land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the nearfit/ure. " acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The land~ were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As portion afthe land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the nearfit/ure. "

i 3. In the brief synopsis by V cd Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have been pro'vided with prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of ti1e other appeals in these bunch of appeals. 347/2009, the factual details have been pro'vided with prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of ti1e other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

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

Lt,.lIpp. ~,Io, 1195/2.008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 1'.II.lIpp No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViilClge Bijwas"n L/\/Ipp. No. J 11/201.0 & connected I'.ppeals of Villagr. Pochanpur

Page 13 of 29

-----~------.... ---.-.. -- ,

'-"' __ .l

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 of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 se 2238; I(apililfehra (M{~io~' General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DL'1' 361 <;Lnd that Pre-Determined Ratcs,Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market 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 compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

15. Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51··.J\ of I,and Acquisition Act, 1894, certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence i~)J" determination of the market value' unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and clement of speciaJ fancy of the purchaser and other factors narnely, nature, situation .of the property, proximity to the village eTC. ate also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands ha\le been illegally rejectc~d by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai Lru! l'S. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Union (~f India, (1997) 11 see 423; La! Chand vs. Union of India and .LJinr., (2009) .15 sec 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar V,§', Union (~llndia, decided on 26.09.201!? it was urged that: sharp increase I i l1 price in short period cannot be taken' to be realistic until reasons ror sLich sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller

LA.!\pp No. 1195/200R & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA!\pp, No. 29[/]1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L.!\.App. No. :L 1l/7.0JO 8, connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page: 14 01 29 IA!\pp, No. 29[/]1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan L.!\.App. No. :L 1l/7.0JO 8, connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page: 14 01 29

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

16. So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it vvas 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 agricultural land by the Government as on 1st /\.prj) , 2000 and by granting appn~ciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Comi" as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhan,cement ftom the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhanGement by the: Reference COU11: while taking into consideration the appreciation' @J. 12(% per annum and the same deserves Lo be. brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per allnum and thereby allowing the cross··· objections to the aforesaid extent.17. . Aft~i~ considering the rival submissi.oris advanced by both the sides and Up0l1 close perusal of tlv~ impugned judgment, the evidence on record and the decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price i)aicl by vyiUing purchaser to willing

l./U\pp. No. 11£1S/?008 &. connected IIppeals of Village Bharth·,1 i.il.llpp, No. 29~!2010 & connected !\ppeals of Village Bijwasan IAllpp. No. U:1/2DlO &. connectedllppeals of Viliage Pochar,pur i.il.llpp, No. 29~!2010 & connected !\ppeals of Village Bijwasan IAllpp. No. U:1/2DlO &. connectedllppeals of Viliage Pochar,pur

~ I r~ ,

, I ~-I •

seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. 'Vhile .. 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 COUli in Udlw Dass vs. State of Haryana ,& Drs., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

"(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village 1vhich had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population,' the town or village 1vhich had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population,'

(ii) the suitability of the acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, cOlnmercial or industrial, as the case mav < be; . buildings, be they residential, cOlnmercial or industrial, as the case mav < be; .

(iii) possibility of obtaining water 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 buihling pwpose; the acqUired landfor buihling pwpose;

(v/ existence of highvvays, puhlic roads, layouts of . huilding plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land; . huilding plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of edtic'ational institutions) health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acqUired land lvhich may become available to the occupiers oj' buihUngs, if built on the acqcuired land: and health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acqUired land lvhich may become available to the occupiers oj' buihUngs, if built on the acqcuired land: and

(vii) lands around the arquired land or the acquired land Use?l being in de;1"land .FJl~ building purposes, to specify few. " Use?l being in de;1"land .FJl~ building purposes, to specify few. "

18. l'hc potentiality of land for the purpose. of development as also for. building purp.oses depends upon large number of Cactors. For the said purpose, the COUli may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for

l/l./\Pr:;· No. 1195/7.008 & connected /\ppeals of V;lIage Bharthal UI.)\pp. No 7.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwas;m lAl\pp. No. 111i2010 & connected I\pp(~als of Village Pochanpur

Pap,p. 16 of 2~

! ',-.:j I iT ~ ," (-'

I~i ~" I, I

which the lands were sought to be acquireu 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 thelTcl especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

19. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anrvs. M.J(. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 sec 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 potentialily 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.

20. 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 fi.;f a, particular purpose. But, iit is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Coun in [(iran Tandon (Supra~ can be referred 10 \vith advantage.

21. Apex COUli in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note of1he fact that the acquired land was situated in close v icinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40~/o towards development chargeE; was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court i:l Anjani lVlolu Dessai (Supra) dG3er\lC altentioil, which are as under:-

l./\)\pp. No: J 1S5!2008 & conncc::ed I\pp(~als of Village Bhartha: L~,l\pp, Nq, ],94/(U JO & conn!!cted I\pp,~als of Vil!age [lijwasan I '~./\Pp. No. In/LOW & wnneclcd fI.ppeals of Village Pochanpur Pa8e 17 of 2,9 L~,l\pp, Nq, ],94/(U JO & conn!!cted I\pp,~als of Vil!age [lijwasan I '~./\Pp. No. In/LOW & wnneclcd fI.ppeals of Village Pochanpur Pa8e 17 of 2,9

"The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to sil1'lilar land'), usually the highest of the exemplars, which is bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however thel~e are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of tvllO sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are l'vith reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

'/'/ .::. .. .::-. It would be worthwhile to take not<.; of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Co.urt in Chindlw Fak,ira Pati! (Supra), which are as follows:-

"It 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 value or utility taken place bet11!een willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to rejlect the true value, as agreed betvveen reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal lnarket conditions are the real basis to detennine the J11.arket value. "

23. Principles to deterl11ine the market valu¢ of the acquired land:, as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and lVatural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGe) (Supra), are as under:-

"Prilnarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability c{ land for development in the area, and the demand for lavzd in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospeN of developmen:l in the vicini~v, increase in prices' would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps.

1(I.tlpp. No. j E.15/2.008 & connr~cted I\pp"als of Viilage Bharlilal

I.A.l\pp No. 294/2010 & connected t,ppeal, of Village Bijwasan l.l\.rlpp. l~o. J.JJ./1CJ1.1). 8, connected I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur l.l\.rlpp. l~o. J.JJ./1CJ1.1). 8, connected I\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 18 of 29

, i ! I ;~j[[lc,]" '" '"

, " '" '"

rr;-:-;

I, IC;·:'~

I ------

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 l1'larket price is 'clt 'a f(luch higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In sorne 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 marginall.-v at nominal rate of 1 % or 2% per annum. T7'lere is thus significant difference in increases in market value of' lands in urban/semi-urban ,/ areas and increases in market 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 and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. ~Vhere there are special reasons for appZving u higher rate c<f increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied lvould depend upon the same.Normally, recourse is taken to the mode c<f determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearb.-v lands in previolls years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of an}' conten1f?oraneoLls sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably sc!/e where the rehec{·dn-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only few years, that is upto ,/hLIT to five years. Beyond that it rnay be unsafe, even (f it relates to heighhouring land. What Inay be reliahle stclndard {f the g,-ap Ls onfJ! ,leH! years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard w'here the gap is larger. F'or eXGl7'zple', .f(Jr determining the market value of land acquil'(:icI in 1992, adopting the annual increase met/wei l'l'ith re/i::rence to sale or market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearb.-v lands in previolls years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of an}' conten1f?oraneoLls sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably sc!/e where the rehec{·dn-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only few years, that is upto ,/hLIT to five years. Beyond that it rnay be unsafe, even (f it relates to heighhouring land. What Inay be reliahle stclndard {f the g,-ap Ls onfJ! ,leH! years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard w'here the gap is larger. F'or eXGl7'zple', .f(Jr determining the market value of land acquil'(:icI in 1992, adopting the annual increase met/wei l'l'ith re/i::rence to sale or

l.'~ .. /\PP, \Jo, l,l'J!);'2008 e, connected App(~als of Village Bhartha! ~A/\po. No, 29;1/2010 & connr.cted Appeals of Village l3ijw<lsan ~A/\po. No, 29;1/2010 & connr.cted Appeals of Village l3ijw<lsan !/\.I\PO r,o, 111/7.010 & connected Appeais Of Village FoChanp'.li'

Pilge :\9 01 Z9

I I I~i"

:' " i, I '

1-' ,',

acquisition~ in 1970 or 1980 ma.v have many pitfalls. This is because, over the coz,lrse of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood %ccurrence o/varying periods o/stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the ve,,:y standard of increase . . ,

24. This COUliis mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in I-Iaryanll State industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation. for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods: What was said by the Apex COUli in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:-

"When df/Jerent categories of lands (or:lands with different situational advantages) are acquired/or the same purpose. SOT /C)r forming of residential layout~courts have sometimes felt· that determination of their value 'vvith reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and Ct uniform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notification. "

25. Undisputedly, in these appeals saJe 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 Village Pochanpur) i..e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha S"I'ami Sa tsang, Beas. had purchased the agricultural land ill Village Pochanpur at price which varied 11-0111 ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs per acre.

26. Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.P\V-1I4 . to Ex.P\V-1I1 0) . ,,,,hich arc basically between one set of cO--CJ\vners and Radha .Slvami Satsang; Beas in respect of the compact blockaf land m.~asuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pachanpur renect the canect rnarket valU(~ of . . the land in the villages in question is the moot question \vhich is required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e" Sale Deeds

IAllpp. No. 1195/2008 & conlJQcted "<ppeals of Village Bharthal Li\:i\pp: No. 294/2010 &. C()nn(~ctr.d Appeals of Village Bijwasan I i\.lIiJp. No.1 J 1/2010 & connected IlppeJI; of Villoge Pochanpur Li\:i\pp: No. 294/2010 &. C()nn(~ctr.d Appeals of Village Bijwasan I i\.lIiJp. No.1 J 1/2010 & connected IlppeJI; of Villoge Pochanpur

Poge 20 of 29

(Ex.PW-1I4 to Ex.PW-1I10) 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-lIl0) did not command the same market price. It was dependent upGn 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 111 question, 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.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-lIlO) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaser/vendee of tl1e aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such high price for these lands. The special fancy of the 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. l1nion of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. 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 evid0nce that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their. acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent. person having knowledge of prevailing

l/I.t\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected /~ppeals·of Village 8harthal LA·Mp· f\jo. 294/20.10 & r.onnected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.tIPP. No. i lli2010 & connected Appeals of Viliage Pochanpur LA·Mp· f\jo. 294/20.10 & r.onnected Appeals of Village Bijwasan l.A.tIPP. No. i lli2010 & connected Appeals of Viliage Pochanpur

Page ;!1 of 29

k:..<..

~. /r I ................ :. '"

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 thes'alc exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.P\V-1/4 to Ex.PW-1I10) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

28. So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-lIll) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ~1,76,SS,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of2ih January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW -1/11) was I . situated on the National Highway -18 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-l/ll) vendor had sold not only the land but t4e structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, tlxture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such high price. In view 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 as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and l)re~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. Pa}:ameters governing fixation of market value of acqliired lands highlighted by Apex Court in irs decision reported as Po Ram Redd.J' lind Drs. P. Land Acquisition Officer llyderabad Urban Developm.ent Authori()J Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) sec 305 arc as undcr:-

··12.1:lowever, in either (~llhe said cases whether it be the detennination of the nwrket value of thr!:; acquired land with building potentiality vvith re/erenee to the price fetched by sale (~lplots in well de'),Jeloped lo..,vout in the neighborhood

I /\Jlpp. No. :Ll')~;!2008 & conner.ted.l\ppeals of Village Bharthal l./\./\pp. Nc. 2.94/:->'01.0 & .C0nnccted Appeals ofVillafle Bijwasan l./\./\pp. Nc. 2.94/:->'01.0 & .C0nnccted Appeals ofVillafle Bijwasan

I /\J\Pp. NG.lll/I.OlO (I, connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

P;]ge ZZ of 2~)

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 tn the 'neighborhood, it becOlnes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales of plots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched {('said on the date of the publication of the preliminary noN/rcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. li'urther, where no evidence of price fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of th,e 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 dateol publication under Section 4(1) q/ 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 of evidence to be made available in that regard. . small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed ]/5th of the market value (~l the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only vvhen there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there> was no imnzediate demand, as such, for building plots even {('formed in the acquired land. "

31 . In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiring the agricultural lands,~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 determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lanas. Following the dictum of La I Chand (Supra), coordinate. Bench of this Court in lui Singh (Supra) and Sushi/Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for· assessing the mark.et value of

t ,~.App. No. 11.%/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal i./Ulpp. No. 294/20 JO & c~nnected Appeals of Village Gijwas<ln IJI.flpp No. 111/2010 6, connectcd Appeals of Village Pochanpur i./Ulpp. No. 294/20 JO & c~nnected Appeals of Village Gijwas<ln IJI.flpp No. 111/2010 6, connectcd Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Par,e 23 of 29

, , I"~

the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court 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 assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by l'v1r.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respon:dcnt/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 in'tervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-l and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-II, still the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Comi 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 assessrnent of 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, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-II is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the 1113rkct value by providing appropriate .1:. If,./Ipp. NG. 119~/2008 & connected /\ppeals of Village Bharthal L/I.App. NO. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan LA.App. Ntl. 1l1!2Dl0 & conr:p.cted Appeals of Village Pochanplir Page 24 of 29

!:' , ..

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

34. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned semor counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Comi· has grante¢l escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwananted as coordinate bench of this COUli in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation ~~. 10% per annum. After having perused the decision iIi Sushi! Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% in0rease on account of higher potentiality of the acqlJired Jand over and above the market value dcterm.ined by the Reference COUli has been granted and so, by relying upon 8ushil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court (fy 12% pe~ annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections oftlle respondent are dismissed.

35. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference COUli is reasonable criteria for determining the rnarket 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 Government \v,e.f. 1 st April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be, further increased or not.

36. Adoption of Government's mlnlmUlT: rates of agricultural land ;'i pertaining to the Notitl:cation in q ueslion . has been assailed by the . learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by viline of :!\)otification of 241h October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land lise of the acquired land had changed bllt that by itself is not sufficil2nt to ;'i pertaining to the Notitl:cation in q ueslion . has been assailed by the . learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by viline of :!\)otification of 241h October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land lise of the acquired land had changed bllt that by itself is not sufficil2nt to

I/U\pp. No.l:i 95/2008 & connc,cted flppeals of Village I3harthill IA/\pp. No. i!)4/2010 &. connectC!d /,ppeals of Village Bijwasan IA/\pp. No. J lJi;!01.0 & connc~ct(~d /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur IA/\pp. No. i!)4/2010 &. connectC!d /,ppeals of Village Bijwasan IA/\pp. No. J lJi;!01.0 & connc~ct(~d /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

I'ap,e 25 of 29'

i L·--'.

L:..-..

, ,,--I \--

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 developrncnt:in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami ,Sa ts ang, 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 unger 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 dem:ancL on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellant~ 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 Samalkha (Ex.PW-Illl) 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-1I11) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1I11) cannot' be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensation v"bile relying upon the aforesaid sale jnstances. Therefore, in viev'! of the: aJem:-referred dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State industrial Development Corporation (lJS7D'CJ (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the sarnc Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Goven1menL for the agricultural land in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there, is gap between what: !\,/\pp, No, J 195/2008 & c()nnect(~d I\ppeals nf Village Bharthal Li\,l\pp, No, 2~4/1.()10 & connQcred Appeal~: of Village Bijwasiln lJ'" I\pp, No, 111/2010 &' conneclJ:d I\ppeals 'of Village Pochanpur Li\,l\pp, No, 2~4/1.()10 & connQcred Appeal~: of Village Bijwasiln lJ'" I\pp, No, 111/2010 &' conneclJ:d I\ppeals 'of Village Pochanpur

Page 26 af 29

I i I:' ..

--.-----~""".'-~'-'-""'-.~---.' ,,--""- ",,,,,,,,,-,,~,,-,,,,

------ --------.-----~""".'-~'-'-""'-.~---.' ,,--""- ",,,,,,,,,-,,~,,-,,,, . ".~~""' '.'"'""P,','f· ,,,,,1,,,"/ ",j!in,/ifii",/,""" ________ ~:_---,,~~~'"""'~~~~~==~=======":':======:::======~~:si::'~~~~=~==~~~~='=~==========~-~-'-r==2:c;::

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 I find no reason to take different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this COUli in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra).

38. . This Comi is of the considered view that the Reference COUli in the matters pertaining to Village 13harthal :and Y;illage Bijwasan has rightly relied 'upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the a9quired lands in question . . Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bhatihal 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 IGI Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village 13harthal and there being 100 mekrs vide road star6ng from NH-8 from Shiv M.urti 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 aforesaid l,ocational advanta·ges, the acquired lands in question, cCliainly assume higher building potentiality being in \licinity of D"ii'farka Phase-I. What per~uades this Court to grant 10[% ]increase over and above market value of the acquired lands· as assessed by the'Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the

it, I\PP, No, 119S/2.008 8, connected /l.preJls of Village Bh"rthal IJl.l\pp, No, 294/2010 & connl~cted I\ppeals of Village Bijwasan

!/\.Ilpp, No: 111/2.010 & connectl~d flpp(~"IS of Village Pocl1anpur

'I: " !

settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext COUli , I in .Mir,r,{l iVlIusherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 see 238, in these words:-

"/iVhen 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 [0 determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. "

39. Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactl1ess can never be achieved in the matters . of a~)sessing fair compensation, it is . broad probabilities of the instam cases, which persuades me to treat them \vith 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 with their counter-pmis, i.e., appellants, of Village Bhar1:hal and Village BUwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil I( umar (S upra) , I am inclined to grant 10% in'crease over and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference COUli in tbese matters on account of the aforesaid Jocational advantages providing higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

4(). Accordingly, these appeals are pmtly allowed to the\ extent of awarding] 0% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters peliaining to Village Bhmihal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpm at par with the appellants of Village Bhm1hal-and Village Bijwasan,. the appeals of

L.II,App No. 11.%/7.001> & ccnnc~cted I\ppeals of Village Bharthal

I.,',,(lpp, No, ?9'I/1010 &. conncct(:d Appeals of Village Bijwasilfl

1.1I.,\pp No. 11.1/7.010 & connected /\ppcals of Village Pochanpur

c..'. I !::.

the appellants of Village 'Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these (~LfL. ... -· three villages in question is determined @ ~16,50,OOO/- per )2ighfL-~.~~~:f, . c.LC"~>'.:3 .. ' .. Category' A' Jand and @ ~14,69,600/- per ~ha for the Category 'B.' ~',:,-~., 1 anos l' In q\lestlOn. , . U \"1..-\ 1 \ l' ....... ,

41. On the aforesaid' enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitioriAct, 1894 as explained in the judgment 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 onthe enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. 42. The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of .in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar (Jeneral or this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUnGlE:

January 06,2012 pkb

r r" ." '1,", I,J CJ "'f ~;~ ').-/ .\., . ,1: ~.' ':'_ f, ' \ v (". I 'n ~~, i/ (1'( ." t '.

1.1i./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal l/\.App. No. 294i2010 & connected !Ippeals of Village Bijw<lsan l/\.App. No. 294i2010 & connected !Ippeals of Village Bijw<lsan I.A.App. No. ll1/20.1O & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

<:'",:1

i Y"'::.'

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW Dl8:LHI

LA.APP. 1195/2008

RANBIR SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Ma{.m, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr .Rohtas, Advocate. Mr~Raghuvinder Godana, -Advocate MLN.S.:Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr,H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) l\1r.Sudhanshu Tomar,_ Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. M(.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 Sharma,Mr.Kunal Shanna and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

PRDE~

12.01.2012

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

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

Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice

.... ~'ffih.!W!.C!!e!tMNl!!lji'Sft~-'~ma zzn=wsr:mm cm:n7"IT2i'EPR""lmneBi"lF~iI:ilI!:rilIliI~rlSi!l , LAApp.No.1195/2008 Page 1

zzn=wsr:mm cm:n7"IT2i'EPR""lmneBi"lF~iI:ilI!:rilIliI~rlSi!l

-J /\ )

of the applicatiol1~. 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', _ vvhereas 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. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be o.artied out fotthwith.

In vic\·1\1 of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of.

~~.~;--------~---..... -... ;~ .. -. -~~tSUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

JANUARY 12,2012 pkb

r:~'!i!"'np!!imtiS!I!!!-P"!riP"FiiN" ,L.A.App.No.1195/2008

_1!t!!riM"""'~~1I£4iN5!ii!9i'i~iiEWliiiiilEiili!iiEE!l1!:!

Page 2.