LA.APP./137/2009 of UOI Vs PRATAP SINGH

=1=IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

Digitally SignedBy:AMULYA

1.11EH1GHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: NovemberIS, 2011Pronounced on: Janiiarv06, 2012 •

(GRID-A)

LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE- BHARTHAL)

RANBIR SHA[^MA

•Appellant

Through:Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.SA'erffla,MrJitm Tewathia, AdvocatesMr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Toraar, Advocates.Mr.Rohtas,' Ad'vocate.iMr.Raghuvinder Godara, AdvocateMr.N.S.Megi and Mr.H.S.Rautela,AdvocateN4r.S.K.Roiit and Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.Azam Ansari,Advocates.Mr.PankaJ Vivek, AdvocateMr.Rajesh Yadav. Mr.Deepalc Khoski, Mr.Samit Khoslaand Nlr.Dhananjay N4ehlawat,"AdvocatesMr.H.S.Rautela,AdvocateMr.l.S.Dahiya,AdvocateMr.Sandeep Thakhur. AdvocateMr.AtuI Tripathi, Advocate.Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for••respondent in appeals filed by UOI)

versus••.~

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.Respondents'

Through;Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior A.d\'ocate with Mr.SaajayPathak, Mr.Mohifrao.Jadha'v'andM's.NavlinSwain.Ms.K.KaumudiKiran. Advocatesfo.r L/\C/UOIMr.AJay Verma, Ms.Becnashaw Soni, Mr.MukeshKumar, Mr S.K.Seihi,Mr.Pav^an Mathur, Mr.KunalShanria, Advocaie for DDA

!,a.AFP.4 12/2008 &CM.No,4096/200S('Cross-Objections), f.A.APP.;452/2008;'•].A.APP.4fi3/2008;LA.API\688/2008.-feC?.4.Mo.5990/20]0 (Cross-Objeclions);i.A.APJ\697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections).;LA.APP.70i/20C8-&'• CM.No.5] 0/2009(Cross-Objections):L\.APP//68/200R;LA.APP.77()/200B;

lA.Ali-p.hio. Iiy.'3/r;0nji & connccted Appoals of Villngi:Bharihyl!A.Aop.No,&coiiimc'.edAppoalsoivill.ni^cGijwiiijn!A.Aop.No,&coiiimc'.edAppoalsoivill.ni^cGijwiiijn

1A.App.& connc-acd Appeaii o' Viilaiji:rochanpiir

Page! I of 29

LA.APP.771/2008&CM.No.425/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008;LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835./2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 &CM.No.611/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.775/2008;LA.APP.776/2008;LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 &CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.783/2008;LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP,798/2008 &CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP,799/2008 &CM.No.931/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 &CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 &CM.No.806/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008;LA.APP.829/2008;LA.APP.830/2008;LA.APP.832/2008;LA.APP.833/2008;LA.APP.844/2008;LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.873/2008&CM.No.779/2011(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 &CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.899/2008;LA.APP.901/2008;LA.APP.915/2008;LA.APP.951/2008&CM.No.709/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.959/2008;LA.APP.973/2008;LA.APP.974/2008 &CM'.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008;LA.APP.976/2008;LA.APP.978/2008;LA.APP.986/2008&CM.No.572/2009(Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections)LA.APP. 1032/2008 &CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1046/2008l.,A.APP.l047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008&CM'.No.7851/2009(Cross-Objections)LA.APP. 1049/2008 &CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1050/2008LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-:Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 &CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008&CM.No.752/201l' (Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.,1557/2011(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1059/2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0bjections);,LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.1062/2008 &CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1073/2008; LA.APP.1074/2008 &CM.No.-623/2009(Cross-Objections);:1...A.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1084/2008&CM.No.17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008& CM.No.2448/2008(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No.619/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1093/2008;'A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008;LA.APP.1103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA;APP.l108/2008 &,CM.No;3839/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1109/2008;LA.APP.l110/2008 &CM.No.3828/2009(Cross-Objections);.LA.APP.l111/2008;LA.APP.l112/2008 &•CM.No.3831/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l113/2008 &CM.No.3826/2009((.-.ross-Objections);LA.APP.l115/20()8; LA;APP.l116/2008; LA.APP.1121/2008;lA.APP.n26/2008;LA.APP.l 129/2008 &CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections);•LA.APP.l 130/2008; LA.APP.l131/2008 &CM.No..566/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l 133/2008; LA.APP.,1135./200S& CFvl'.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l137/2008& CM.No.l7283/2008\:Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l140/2008;LA.APP.1156/2008;LA.APP.1157/2008;LA.APP.l158/2008& CM.No;7774./2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.l16172008; LA.APP.l166/2008;LA.APP.l 167/2008 &CM.No.802/20Q9(Cross-Objections): LA.APP.l 168/2008;LA.APP.1170/2008;LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.11"72/2008;LA.APP.-l173/2008;LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.l 178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; LA.APP.1181/2008;LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933,/2009(Cross-Objections);l.A.APP.l184/2008; LA.APP.l1S5./2008; LA.APP.il86/2008&CM..No.7013/2009

I.A.App. No. .'i 19.'j/?008a connocled Appealsof VillaReBharthal,KA App. No; Zf)i/20.10 £( connected Appeals of VillageBijwasanKA App. No; Zf)i/20.10 £( connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan

l7\.App.No. ;L.U/;i010& connnclnclAppealsofVlllagGPochanDur'

Page 2 of 29

(Ci-oss-Objcctions); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008LA.APP.1193/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008; LA.APP.1195/2008; LA.APP.1197/2008LA.APP. 1198/2008&CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1200/2008LA.APP. 1202/2008;^ LA.APP. 1203/2008;LA.APP.1210/2008;LA.APP. 1211/2008LA.APP.1212/2008;LA.APP.1213/2008;LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008&CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008&CM.No.3841/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1243/2008;LA.APP. 1252/2008LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP. 1276/2008;LA.APP. 1277/2008;LA.APP. 1279/2008LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008LA.APP.31/2009;LA.APP.33/2009;'LA.APP.37/2009;LA.APP.39/2009LA.APP.42/2009&' CM.No.746/2011(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.59/2009LA.APP.73/2009&CM.No.7103/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.74/2009LA.APP.79/2009;LA.APP.95/2009&.No.953/2011(Cross-Objections)LA.APP. 108/2009;LAAEBOimOA. APP. 121/2009LA.APP. 13 5/2009.A.APP.136/2009;(^.APP.137/2009LA.APP. 13 8/2009LA.APP. 139/2009LA.APP.140/2009;rA.APP. 143/2009;LA.APP. 144/2009LA.APP. 145/2009[A. APP. 162/2009;LA.APP. 187/2009;LA.APP. 190/2009LA.APP. 191/2009LA.APP; 197/2009;LA.APP. 198/2009;LA.APP. 199/2009LA.APP.201/2009LA.APP.202/2009;LA.APP.203/2009;LA;APP.208/2009&CiM.No.7027/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.210/2009&CM.No.970/2011(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.211/2009;LA.APP.220/2009;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.241/2009;LA.APP.245/2009;LA.APP.246/2009LA.APP.249/2009;LA.APP.257/2009;LA.APP.295/2009;LA.APP.3 05/2009].A.APP.367,/2009;LA.APP.437/2009;LA.AP?.447.''2009;LA.APP.458/2009LA.APP.459/2009;LA. APP.466/2009:LA.APP.480/2009;L A.APP.481/2009LA.APP.489/2009;LA.APP.490/2009;LA.APP.491/2009;LA.APP.493/2009LA.APP.494/2009;LA.APP.495/2009;LA.APP.503/2009;LA.APP.506,/2009[.A.APP.507/2009;LA.APP.508/2009;LA.APP.509/2009:.LA.APP.510/2009LA.APP.5n/2009;LA.APP.512/2009;LA.APP.513/2009;LA.APP.567/20091.A.APP. 572/2009;LA.APP. 15/2010;LA.APP.45/2010;LA.APP.48/2010l.A.APP.404/2010;LA.APP.13/2011:LA.APP. 1138/2008;LA. APP. 1176/2008l,A.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP.1201/2008; LA.APP.231/2009

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 &Award No.26/2002-2003dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal,-Delhi)

(GRID-B)

Reserved on: December 08, 2011Pronouncedon: January 06. 2012

l.A.APP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE- BIJWASAN).•

DEVENDER KUMARAppellantThrough:.Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh

lA.App. i\io ia9:;/;'.008& connectoci Appeals of Village BharlhallA.App.No.294/2010 & connccUid Appnaisof Village BijwasanlA.App No. 1.1.1/2010& connccfcid Appeals of Village Pochanpu.'Page 3 ofZ9

(Relatingto NotificationNo. F. L0(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13:12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Laud AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No.28/2002-2003,•Village Bijwasan,Delhi)

LA.App. No ll'J.'j/'2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthalL^.App. No. 29'!//01()& connocleriAppealsofVillageBijwasaniA.App, iMo. l.lj/'-OlO & connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

.Page 4 of 29

(GRID-C)

Reserved on: December 18. 2011

Pronounced on: January 06. 2012

JA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR)

I.A,App. No, 1195/2008& conncclQdAppealsofVillageBharthal

l7\,App.No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

l-A.App No 111/2010& conneclfidAppealsofVillagePochanpur.

Pa,5e 5 of 29 .

(Relating to Notification No.F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated13.12.2000issued under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 &AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

,06.01.2012.

1.Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationissought by, the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical,thereforewith the consentoflearned counsel for the partiespresentatthe hearing ot these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining toNoUficationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/IA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating• - togeographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan andPochanpurare beingdisposedof by this commonorder.

2.Acquisitionprocess for planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"'December, 2000 under Section 4 of tlie Land AcquisitionAct, 1894,pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact blockcomprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question,i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

•3.Agriculturalland of the appellajitsherein in the aforesaidthreevillagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards,• i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;andAward, No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@ ?13.82 lacs per acre forl^lock (level field -- with top soil) and^12.32 lacs per acre forBlock'B'(without top soil).

4.Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalue oftheir acquired

l-A.App. No. 119!)/2008& connectedAppeals.ofVillageBharthal.LA.App. Mo.& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanI.A.App. No. n.1/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpurLA.App. Mo.& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanI.A.App. No. n.1/7.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of •the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugnedjudgment had enhanced compensation @ ^15.00 lacs per acre for theappellants' acquired land in Block 'A'and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre fortheirBlock'B'land in VillagesBharthaland Bijwasan;whereas,references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.5.In these appeals, further enhancement of compensationsought 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 upontheprecedentsin theshapeof decisionsin Executive'Engineer,KarnatakaHoming Board vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer, Gadag andOrs., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Ann,(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs\ State ofHaryana and Ann,(2010)1 see 444; Sangunthala(Dead)throughLRs.Vs. SpecialTehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singhand Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon,2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002'(62) DRJ 227;Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr.,2002 (65) DIU 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of 'Haryana& • Ors.,2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of PunjabOrs., 2011 '(9)SCALl'i 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,(2009)11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) throughLRs and Ors vs. State ofHaryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled asSmt. Indu Khoranavs. Gram Sabha &Ors, decided on 26.03.2010;Special Land Acquisition Officer Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011)7 SCC' 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibkai and ors vs. Executive Engineer,'l.A.App.No, .l.l9.')/?008 & connoctnd Appeals of Village!Sharthai.lA.App, IMo. 7.9'(/?.010&-connected Appeals of Village Bijwasani'A.App. No 1.31/20.10& connected Appealsof VillagePochanpur' •'•Page7 of29

'Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC US', RisalSingh & Ors. Vs.UnionofIndia& Anr., 2006 (89) DPJ 527 (DB);LaiChandvs. UnionofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 169\ Genera!Manager, Oil andNatural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel andAnr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyanimalandAnrSpecialTehsildar(Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC'^2937;Kiran Tandon vs.Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; MaheshDattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238;Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr,176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs.Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; OmPrakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627;Satpal & Ors ra. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423'; LA. APP.No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union of India, decided oh26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 07.06.2011;and. BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010(170) DLT 371.6.On the strengthof the aforesaid decisions,at the very outset, itwas urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for die appellantsthat the locationand situationol the acquiredagriculturalland has to befirst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must beadjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over period oftime and the same cannotbe limitedto the near future alone.

7.It was pointed out by Mr.R.S/romar,counsel for appellantsthatDelhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line, of'Village Biijwasanpasses through the land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts,i.e., on the easternside ofthe railway Une is the IGI Airport,New Delhi

i7\.App.No. 11;JS/20G3& coiinfictcd.AppealsofVillageISharihal

IA.App. No. 2<M/2.010&conncctodAppealsofVillageBijwasanI.A.App. No. 11.1/20.1.0Si connectodAppealsofVillagePochanpurI.A.App. No. 11.1/20.1.0Si connectodAppealsofVillagePochanpur

and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleumand road 100meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into twoportions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Aiiport is located; and (ii)South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on theland of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointedout by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned counsel tbr the appellants that northernpart of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquired for the extensionoi IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 forestablishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for BharatPetroleumand the lands ofBharthalandwereVillage VillagePochanpuralso acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-! andthe lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras werealso acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka. Sub-City.Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizrashivi.^to highlightthatthe boundaryof Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur.and Village Dhool Siras arecontiguous.

8.It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for theappellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate thepotentiality of the acquired land-in the light of.its location and hasillegally treated the acquired'land to be agricultural in spite ofNotificationof 16"' October, 2000 vide which land use of the threevillages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entireland of VillageBharthalhad ceasedto berural in view ofthe Notificationof 24'" October,1994.9.It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learnedcounsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been- discarded the Reference Court P. Ramawrongly by by relying uponlA.App, No.& connocted'AppealsofVillageBharthal . •,LA App.,No.294/P.OlO& connGclficAppnalsofVillafjG Bijwasan ••LA.App. No. 1.1.1/;!010&connectedAppealsof VjllagePochanpur• •Pagc9of23Reddi&Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad&Ors, (1995)2see 305, which has been.consideredby the Apex Court in its laterdecisionin Udho Bass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiodoftime andthe same cannot be limited to near future alone and if after theacquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnotmeanthatthere is no buildingpotentiality.10.Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for theappollanlsupon the sevenSale DeedsofVillagePochanpurto highlightthat the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs andmerely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot bethrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, becausethere IS no basis to concludethai these sale exemplarsare overvaluedbecause of any special advantagesand as per settledlegal propositionlaid down by the Apex CourtmAnjaniMolu Dessaivs. StateofGot,«ndAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710,the averageofsale exemplarsoughtto betaken as representingthe marketprice ofthe land which comes to ?57lacs acre and sincethe salerelied the per exemplarsupon by appellantsarc the comparable sale instances, therefore,'relianceplaced by theReferenceCourt the minimumrates/circleratesforthe,upon detenriiningmaiketvalueoftheland iserroneous. acquired patently

1!.Assessmentofmarketvalue of theland was acquired sought by•Mr.R.Godara, learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L&DO rates hxed the Government and also on the basis of by pre-deteimmed rates hxed by the Governmentfor'allotmentof alternateplots in the year2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,sitiiationandpotentialityof tite acquired land, determinationof its market value isLA.App.lAApp. No. No n9V2008& 2J4/70.1.0&connct;tcd cnnnoctedAppealsAppealsofOf VillageVillageBijwasanBharlhal''l-A.App No. 1.1J/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

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

12.In the writtensynopsis,appellant- Impulse'IndiaPrivateLimitedof,LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailed'the impugnedjudgmenton thefollowing grounds

a) ''Ignores the aokn.owledgem.enton the part of therespondentaboutthe AM'ard No.26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002 being flawed inthe course of theproceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006..(Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated7.7.2007)respondentaboutthe AM'ard No.26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002 being flawed inthe course of theproceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006..(Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated7.7.2007)

b) Does not account for the fact that the Public Noticedated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates, of land inthe area for more than 15 before the Notification yearsdated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates, of land inthe area for more than 15 before the Notification yearsunder Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 wasissued.issued.

c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNational CapitalTerritory ofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laiddown of the more by various decisionsincludingin one11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNational CapitalTerritory ofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laiddown of the more by various decisionsincludingin onerecent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in,Sangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3) SCC 661.Sangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3) SCC 661.

d) Ignores the evidence and other.factors which as perestablished law has to be considered beforeascertainingthe value ofthe land under.acquisition.established law has to be considered beforeascertainingthe value ofthe land under.acquisition.

e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the .Sale Deeds •produced before the trial Court whereas as per the lawestablished by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in the recentcase of Chinda Fakirci Patil versus Special LandAcquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. TheHon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that SaleDeed showinghigher rate shoidd not he disregarded in 'produced before the trial Court whereas as per the lawestablished by the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court in the recentcase of Chinda Fakirci Patil versus Special LandAcquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of 2007. TheHon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that SaleDeed showinghigher rate shoidd not he disregarded in '

case the average sale price is lower. Further in AnjanaMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13)SCC 710, theSupremeCourt has also 'held that the highest of theexemplars and not by averaging of different types ofsales.transactionsshouldbeconsideredwhileadjudicatingupon compensation upon certan land.Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13)SCC 710, theSupremeCourt has also 'held that the highest of theexemplars and not by averaging of different types ofsales.transactionsshouldbeconsideredwhileadjudicatingupon compensation upon certan land.

f)Relieduponjudgmentdated3.3.2008inLACNo.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subjectland while ignoring the material which indicate that the.market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac peracre in Block and13,36,000in Block in violationNo.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subjectland while ignoring the material which indicate that the.market value of the land, is much higher than 15 lac peracre in Block and13,36,000in Block in violation•of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtincluding in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1)of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtincluding in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1)'SCC 444. As consequence, the impugned judgment•re.jused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1framed on 27.2.2007.•re.jused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1framed on 27.2.2007.g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although videNotification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, thelanduse of Village Dhool Sirasand Bharthalwaschanged and these areas ceased to be agricultural andcame now under the urban boundaries of.Delhi State., .The masterplanand NotifLcations of Government forlanduse changeshow thatin futurelandcanbesubjectedtoresidentialcommercial, and.other'permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that theappellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"^ amendmentof the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, byNotification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, thelanduse of Village Dhool Sirasand Bharthalwaschanged and these areas ceased to be agricultural andcame now under the urban boundaries of.Delhi State., .The masterplanand NotifLcations of Government forlanduse changeshow thatin futurelandcanbesubjectedtoresidentialcommercial, and.other'permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that theappellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"^ amendmentof the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by•virtue of which the MunicipalCorporationAct was. amended and the area Vv'here the land is situated,was. amended and the area Vv'here the land is situated,was' •deem.ed municipal area and the municipal Counsellorwas elected from, there.. No Panchay.at elections wereheld in the area.was elected from, there.. No Panchay.at elections wereheld in the area.

h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR SupremeCourt 3467, Ranvir .Singh and Anr' vi-. Union of Indiaand refused to consider thefact that the development inthe area has direct effect on the price that willingCourt 3467, Ranvir .Singh and Anr' vi-. Union of Indiaand refused to consider thefact that the development inthe area has direct effect on the price that willingpurchaser would pay for. the.subject land.

i) Ignoredthe factthat RespondentNo. ..2'• had also

LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connccted Appeals of Village BharthalLA.App. No, 291/?.C)10& connected Appeals of VillageBijWd.sanL/^.App. No,111/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur

' •Pagel2ofZ9

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

j)The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the-pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2-for similarly situated land.-pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2-for similarly situated land.

k) Does not take into account the possibilityofchange ofthe use of the land althoughthe land was acquiredfordevelopment purposes of l^warka. Phase11. Itisreiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras andBharthal was changed and these areas ceased to beagricultural and came now under the urban boundariesofDelhi State.the use of the land althoughthe land was acquiredfordevelopment purposes of l^warka. Phase11. Itisreiterated that the land use of VillageDhool Siras andBharthal was changed and these areas ceased to beagricultural and came now under the urban boundariesofDelhi State.

I) Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10.1994although.theyclearlyestablishthecommercialpotentiality ofthesaid land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was held,thatthepurposeforwhich land is acquired is relevantfactor. Whiledetermining value of the property acquired the fact'whetherthe land hasgot buildingpotentialityto be usedalthough.theyclearlyestablishthecommercialpotentiality ofthesaid land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar(LA), (2010) 3see 661 it was held,thatthepurposeforwhich land is acquired is relevantfactor. Whiledetermining value of the property acquired the fact'whetherthe land hasgot buildingpotentialityto be usedfor in immediate or in nearfuture buildingpurposes buildingpurposesneeds to be considered.

m.) 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 landswere acquired for purpose of putting up. residentialquarters. As portion oj the land is beingconsideredashouse site, the adjoining lands have the potential ofbeingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."acquired and the said land being, occupied by thebuildings are to be treated as house sites. The landswere acquired for purpose of putting up. residentialquarters. As portion oj the land is beingconsideredashouse site, the adjoining lands have the potential ofbeingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture."

13.In the brief synopsis by Vcd Pal and others of LA. App. No.347/2009,the factual details have been providedwith prayerthat theappellantspf this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellantsof theotherappealsin thesebunchof appeals.

14.Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvanced on behalf of theappellants, it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatethat the effect of

l7\.App. Mo. ,1195/2008& connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

I.A.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appealsof VillagG Bijwasan

urbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change inland use has been consideredin MakeshDattatray Thirihkarvs. State•of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (Major General)&Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-Dcterniined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant todetermine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the saleinstancesrelied theareandto haveupon by appellants comparable oughtbeen relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct marketvalue of the acquired lands. Ihus, enhancement of compensationreflectingjust, fair and adequatemarket value for the acquiredlands issought in these appeals.

15.Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. SanjayPoddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas perSection51'-AofLand AcquisitionAct, 1894, eertified copy of the Sale Deed is anadmissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidencefor determinationof the market value unless and until the same isproperly connected with the land in question and element of specialfency of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of theproperty, proximity to the village etc. are also required to"be consideredand the sale instancesrelied upon by the Respondentsdisclosing correctmarket value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by theReferenceCourt and whileplacingrelianceuponthe decisionsin Jai Laivs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpa'i & Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand ms-. Union of India and Anr.,(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titled, as Sushil Kumar w.Union, ofIndia, decided on 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increasein price in short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons forsuch sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the sellerLA.App No. 11915/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBhart.hal•-''l-A.App. No.7.94/2010& connected Appeals of VillafjeBiiwasanl7\.App.No. .1I1/2010& connectedAppealsofVlllaBO Pochanpur'Page14 of29-and the purchaseras. no prudentperson having Icnowledgeofthe usualprevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay suchahigherpay as reflectedinthe sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the but for consideration.^ it was contended onappellants, specialThus,behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-DetermmedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision ofApex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by acooidinateBenchofthis Courtin SmhilKumar(supra)andRajSingh(supra)..

16.So fai as potentialityof the land is concerned,if was urged byMr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing the •minimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentason I April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per market value of the lands has. beenannum, acquired erroneouslydctermmcd by the Reference Court, as inSushi! Kumar (supra)appreciation@10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submittedthatthereis nofor ftirtherenhancementfrom theof scope priceacquired•lands as fixed the LandCollectorand the by Acquisition so, impugnedjudgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement,by theRcfercnccCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% annum and the same deserves to bein line whileper brought grantingappreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-•••objections to the aforesaid extent.

17.After considering the rival submissions advanced by both theSides and closeofthethe evidenceon uponperusal impugnedjudgment,record and the decisionscited,what emergesis thatthe truemarketvalueof the comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling

I.A.App. No. ivy^nom &connocteclAppealsofVillageBharthal

l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageIJijwasan

lA.App. iMo. ll:l/2Cao&connectedAppealsof VillagePoctianpur

Page 15 of 23

seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. Whiledealing with the questionof potentialvalue of the acquiredland, whathas to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, standsreiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana &Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words;-

the situationofthevis-a-visthe or"(i) acquiredland citythe town or village which had been growing in sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educational,religious or any other kindof importanceor becauseof its explosivepopulation;the town or village which had been growing in sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educational,religious or any other kindof importanceor becauseof its explosivepopulation;

(ii)the suitabilityof the acquiredlandfor puttingup thebuildings,betheyresidential,commercialorindustrial, as the case may be;buildings,betheyresidential,commercialorindustrial, as the case may be;

(Hi) •possibility^ofobtainingwater and electricsupplyforoccupants ofbuildings to beput up on that land; ,occupants ofbuildings to beput up on that land; ,

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

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

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

(vii)lands around the acquired,land or the acquired landitself being in dem.and for building purposes, tospecify few. "itself being in dem.and for building purposes, tospecify few. "

18.The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also forbuilding purposes depends upon large number of factors. For the saidpurpose, the Court may not only have to. bear in mind the purpose for1A.App. No. 11.9.'3/?.008& connecledAppealsofVillageBharthal^LA.App. No ?..')4/2010& connocied Appeals of Village BijwasanLA.App. No. 11.1/2010 & connected Appeals of VillagePochanpurPage 16 of 29

which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequentevents to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court inAv'mash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for deteiminationof compensationfor acquiredlands,it has been held by the Apex Courtin Atma Singh (supra) that the-exemplars of small pieces-of land reliedupon by the appellants could not be ground to discard them especiallywhen exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.19.Aforesaid dictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in SpecialLand Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC714. The legal propositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsrelieduponon behall of the appellants is that where there is no basic differenceeither in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which aresimilarly situated having similar advantage available to them even asregards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing thecompensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated landsand the acquired land.

20.It is well established proposition of law that the burden ofproving the true market value.of the acquired land is on the State whohas acquired the agricultural land for particular purpose. But, it isequally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensationawarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of theApex Court in Kiran Tandon (Stipra) can be referred to with advantage. '21;;Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note of the factthat the acquiredland was situatedin closevicinityof residentialcolonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deductionof 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinentobservations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mohi Dessai (Supra)deserve attention,which are as under:-

lA.App. No. 11G5/200S & connocted Appeals of VillageBharthalIA.App. No. 21M/?010a con.ncctHdAppeals of VillageBijwasanLA.App. (Mo. 1.1.1/MlO& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur"IA.App. No. 21M/?010a con.ncctHdAppeals of VillageBijwasanLA.App. (Mo. 1.1.1/MlO& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur"

Page 17of29

"The legal positionis that even where there are severalexemplarswith referenceto similarlands,usuallythehighest of the exemplars, which is bona fide transaction,Mnll be considered.Where however there are several salesofsimilar lands whose prices range in narrow bandwidth,the averagethereof canbe taken,as representingthemarket price. But where the values disclosed in respect oftwo sales are markedly different, it can only lead to aninference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands orthat the lower value sale is on account of under-valuationor other price depressing reasons. Consequently averagingcannot be resorted,to.. "

22.It \yoLild be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations^pertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands madeby the •Apex, Court in ChindhaFaklm Pati! (Supra), which are as.foliows:-

"//iswellsettledthat' genuine.andbona fidesaletransactions in respect of the land under acquisition or inits absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to thepointofacquisitionofthelandssituatedin.theneighborhoodof the acquiredlands possessingsimilarvalue or utility taken place between willing vendee andthe willing vendor which could, be expected to reflect thetrue value, as agreed between reasonable prudent personsacting in the normal market conditions are the real basis todeterminethe market value. "•23.Principles to determinethe market value of the acquired lands as

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

"Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors - situation of the land, nature of developmentinsurroundingarea, availability of land for development inthe a.rea, a.nd the demand for land in the area. In ruralareas unless there is any prospect oj development in thevicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady andgrad.ual, without any sudden spurts or jumps.

LA.App. No. a.]1/2'O.iaa connectedAppealsofVillagePochar,pur

On the other hand, in urban or semi-urbanareas, where thedevelopment is faster,where the demand for land is highand where there is constructionactivity all around,theescalationin market priceis at much higher rate, ascompared to-rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, dueto rapiddevelopmentand high demand forland,theescalations- in priceshave touched even 30% to 50% ormore per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, inremoteruralareaswhere there was no chanceof. anydevelopment and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnatedfor years or rose marginally at nominal rate of 1% or 2%perannum.Thereis thus asignificantdifferenceinincreasesin market value of landsin urban/semi-urbanareas and increases in market value of lands in the ruralareas.Thereforeif theincreasein marketvalueinurban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 1-5%per annum,the correspondingincreases in rural areas would at best beonly around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5%oper annum.This rule of thumb refersto the generaltrendin thenineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific'evidencerelatingto increasein prices.Where there arespecial reasons for applying higher rate of increase, orany specific evidence relatingto the actualincreaseinprices, then the increase to he applied would depend uponthe same.Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining themarket value byproviding appropriate escalation over theproved market value of nearby lands in previous years (asevidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), Vy'here thereis no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions oracquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. Thesaid method is reasonablysafe where the_ rdied-on-saletransactions/acquisitionsprecedesthe subject acquisitionby only few years, that is uptofour to-five years. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates- to a.,, neighbouringland.What may be reliable siandard if the gap is only afew years,may become unsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. For example, for determining themarketvalue of land acquired' in 1992,. adoptingtheannualincreasemethodM'ith referencetoasaleor

l.A.App. Mo. 11.95/200!?& connnclGdAppoalsofVillageBh'artha! •• lA.Apo. IMo. 7.91/2010 & connncted Appeals of Village Eljwa.sanIVv.Apo No, .m/2010 & conneciodAppealsofVillagePochanp'jr

','Page 19of29

acquisition in 1970 or 1980may have manypitfalls. This isbecause, over the course of years, the ^rate' of annualincreasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom the. likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationinprices or suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandardofincrease. "

24.This Court-is mind&lofthe dictumofthe Apex CourtinHaryanaStateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regardingcomputation of compensation for the acquired lands by adoptingcomparativesales methods;What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC(Supra) is as under:-

•"When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with differentsitiiationalarefor the sameadvantages) acquiredpurpose,sav for forming of residential layout courts havesometimes felt that determination of their value withreference to previous status or situation should be avoidedand imiform.rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedforall landsacquiredunderthe same notification."

25.Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and aroundacquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period inquestionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyreliedupon by the appellants is.of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven SaleDeeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beashad purchased the agricultural land in Village Fochanpar at pricewhich varied from ^52 lacs to?62 lacs per acre.

26.WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (l^x.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)whichare basicallybetween one set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsangBeas in respectofthe compactblock ofland measuring18 Bighasand 6Biswas situatedin VillagePochanpurrel^ectthe correctmarketvalue ofthe land in the villagesin questionis,the moot questionwhichis requiredto be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds-

LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthall-A.App. No. 2.9'V20.10& conncctnd Appealsof VillageBijwasan....LA.App. No. 1:1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurl-A.App. No. 2.9'V20.10& conncctnd Appealsof VillageBijwasan....LA.App. No. 1:1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page20of29

(Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1/10)indicate,thatits price varies from ^52 lacsto ^62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale--exemplars Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-l/iO)did not commandthe same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationofthe aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to. each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land inquestion,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedasdisclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. Thespecial need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in VillagePochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not beenbrought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has notbeen got examined by the appellants,tiad the purchiaser/vendeeof theaforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have beenelicitedfrom him^as to why he had agreed to pay such high price forthese lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.^e., Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at anexorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^''March, 2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as•Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on'23.8.2011and in LA. App.No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions,the sale exemplarof VillageMamurpur 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' acquired landswas changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidencethat the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their.^acquisition,Thus, it becomes evidentthat the acquired lands were notdeveloped lands. No prudent,person having knowledge of prevailingI.A.App. No.1.195/2008& connpctGdAppeals of Village BharthalIJ\.App.No. 2y'',/2010& connected Appealsof VillageBijwasanl.A.App. No. 11.1/2010& connerledAppealsofVillagePochanpurPage 21 of29

market price of the land in question would pay such high price unlessand until such purchase is meant for special considerationand so, in theconsidered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds(]ix.PW-l/4tolix.PW-1/10)havebeenrightlydiscardedbythe•ReferenceCourt.

28.So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale.Deed of27"' January,2000, itneeds to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11)wassituatedon the NationalHighway- 8 and becausevide Sale Deed(J^x.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereonincluding tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore,it had fetched such ,a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplarcannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands inquestion.

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

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

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

IA..'\pp. Mo. :ilf):>/2008 & Mnner.lKd. Appeals of Village BharthalI.A.App. No. 29';/;i01,0 & connected Appeals of Village:BiiwasanI.A.App. No..U1/2010& connectfid Appeals of Village PochanpiirI.A.App. No. 29';/;i01,0 & connected Appeals of Village:BiiwasanI.A.App. No..U1/2010& connectfid Appeals of Village Pochanpiir

or M'hetherit he the determinationofthe marketvalueoftheacquired land with buildingpotentiality with reference tpthepricefetchedby saleofbuildingplots in an undevelopedlayout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomesinevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price•fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts,' relied ofthewith referenceto theupon by anyparties,pricewhich theplots couldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthepublication of the preliminary notificationunder Section4(1) oj the Act. Further,yvhere no evidenceofpricefetchedby the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in theneighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available,then what could be 'done is tofind out the marketvalue ofthe acquiredland with reference to the relevant date ofpublicationunder Section 4(1) of the LA Act, accordingtothe actualuse to which it was put and increaseits value bya small percentage having regard to the degree of itsbuildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidence'tobe made available in that regard. small percentageincrease to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the marketvalue of the landfound out according to its actual usersince resort to the method of giving increased value forsuch building potentiality arises only when there is noevidenceof sales oj buildingplots in the neighborhoodofthe acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediatedemand, as such, for buildingplots even ifformed in theacquired land. "

31.In view of the difficultiesin adoptionof rate of land charged bythe DDA alteracquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, andtransferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotmentratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of theadjoining undeveloped freehold lands: Following the dictum of LaiChand(Supra), coordinateBench ofthis Court in Jai Singh (Supra)and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua thedevelopedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of

IA.App. No.,n.<j:i/2008& connected Appealsof Village BhartiialLA,App. No. 291/^010& conncctcdAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur'LA,App. No. 291/^010& conncctcdAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur'

Page23of29

the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the RefertoceCourthas rightly not adoptedthe DDArates for allotmentof developedland orthe DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing themarketvalue of the acquiredagriculturallands 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 questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionofthe year 1984 in VillageBharthaland other villagesfor developmentofDwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar,learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if theescalation at the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from theyear 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period .intervening theNotification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instantNotificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe price fixed bythe Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedpriceand therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court isunjustified.

33.Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum ofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adoptprogressiveincrease method in assessmentof the market value of the 'acquired land'only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it maybe unsafe, even if it relates to 'neighbouring land. What may be areliable standard, if the gap is of only of few years, may become unsafeand unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, thegap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and DwarkaPhase-IIis of sixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafeto adoptthemode of determining the market value by providing appropriate'l7\,App. Mo. .n9:j/2008 & connoctod Appeals of VillageBharthalLA.App. No. 7.91/2010& connected Appealsof Village BljwasanLA.App. No. Ul/2010 & connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurPage 24of29

escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbyland ofthe previousyears.

34.Mr.SanjayPoddar,learnedseniorcounselfortherespondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court hasgranted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwan-anted as acoordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has grantedescalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision inSmhU Kumar (Supra), 1 fmd that 10% increase on account of higherpotentiality of the acquired land over and above the market valuedeterminedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying Sushi! Kumar escalation ReferenceCourtupon (Supra)grantedby the@ 12% pQT annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view ofthe matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

35.Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government'sminimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourtis reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value ofthe acquiredland and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%o annum the per grantedbyReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for theagriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'' April, 2000 till the date ofNotificationin the instant deserves toincreasedor appeals be_furthernot.

36.Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agriculturallandpertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by thelearned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquiredland had ceased tobe an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be.urban. It is true thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year-1994the landuse ol the acquiredland.hadchangcdbut that by itselfis not sufficientto

IA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connectfidAppenisof Village.Bharthniiy\.App.No. i(.M/2010&, connGctndAppealsolVillage BijwasanI.A.APP. No. ]llp.QlO&conneclRdAppealsof VillagePochanpur•'pagg 25 of 29

that the lands had forpresume acquired gained potentiality beingconsideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vitalaspectof there being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlandsin question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha SwamiBeasrelied thedisclosethatthe saleSatsang, heavilyupon by appellantsofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.j7.Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till theissuance of Notificationunder Section 4of the Land AcquisitionAct,1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse; Had there beenincreasein price due to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityoftheacquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, thencould have laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the area'appellantsmquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe landin Village Pochanpurto religiousinstitutionand anothersale instanceol Viilage Samallcha (iix.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence toestablishthat the qualityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadhaSwami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarofVillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)arc comparablewith the acquiredlandsand so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance ofVillage Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot'be treated to be sufficientground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaidsale instances. Therefore, in viev/ oJ: the afore-referreddictum of'theApex Couit in Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation(HSJDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awardedfor the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of theminimum piice fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturallandinDelhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higherpotentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is gap between what

l-A.App. No. 119S/2008&connc;cl[!dAppealsnf Village^BharthalLA.App. l\Jo. 2'M/?mo&connGcrcciAppealsofVillage BijwasanlA.App.No. 111/20,10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpiii'LA.App. l\Jo. 2'M/?mo&connGcrcciAppealsofVillage BijwasanlA.App.No. 111/20,10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpiii'

Pa'^e26 of 2.9

would be expected to be the market growth and what the market hadactually grown, Government'sminimum agricultural price has been heldto be reasonablebasis for assessing the market value of the acquiredlands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and I findjno reason to take different.viewthan the one which had been taken bycoordinateBench of this.Courtin the aforesaidcases of Jai Singh(Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra).

38.This Court is of the consideredview that the ReferenceCourt inthe matterspertainingto Village Bharthaland VillageBijwasanhasrightly relied upon the Government'sminimumprice for agriculturallands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question.I'inding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situationof the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from theevidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of theacquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil andBhai-at Peu'oleum Depots and of Railway line passing through VillageBharthal and there being 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8Irom Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing theacquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in thevicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of theReference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account ofaforesaid lopational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainlyassume higher building potentiality being in vicinity 'of Dwarka Phase-I.What persuades this Court to grant 10% increasis over arid above marketvalue of the acquired lands'asassessed by the Reference •Court onaccount of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the

l/i.App. Nti. U9L/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BharthallA.App. No. 2!M/2010 & connected Appeals of Viilagp.BijwasanlA.App. No; 1.1,1/2010 & connected Appeals of VlllaRe PochanpurlA.App. No. 2!M/2010 & connected Appeals of Viilagp.BijwasanlA.App. No; 1.1,1/2010 & connected Appeals of VlllaRe Pochanpur

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

"When once conclusion is reached that there was thepossibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingupbuildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusionwould be sufficientto hold that the acqidredland had abidldingpotentialityand proceedto determine its marketvalue takinginto account the increaseinprice attributableto such bidldingpotentiality."

39.Consideringthe fact that it would be very difficultto provideadefinitevalueand in view of the fact that exactness'can qua potential,never be achieved in the, matters of assessing'fair compensation,it isbroadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthemwith equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimumpi ices (or the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquiredlandsandofare.treatedat', differently so, appellants Village Pochanpurpar with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal andVillage Bijwasan.Jiowever, while relying upon the decisionin SushilKumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and abovethemarketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtinthese matters on account of the aforesaid locational.advantagesprovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.40.Accordingly,these appeals arc partly allowed to the extent ofawarding10% increaseover and above the marketvalue assessedby the 'Reference Court mmatters pertainingto Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellants'ofVillagePochanpurat par withthe appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof

lA.App No, .l.lM/2008&connoctGdAppealsofVillageBharthalIA.App, !\lo.,?.91/l>010&connectGdAppealsof VillageBijwasan •l7\,App.No. 1U/20.1C&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

Page 23 of 29

the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extentindicatedabove. Thus, the market value of the acquiredlands ofthesethreevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^ij^^rtheCategory 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per bmha for the Category'B'lands in question.V

41.On the aloresaid enhancement in the .compensation awarded,statutoiybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedinthe judgment reported in. Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are•granted,exceptfor the periodwherethere is adelay in filingthe appeal,ior winch periodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshallbe paid. 1hese appellantswouldbe entitledto proportionatecosts.,42.llie above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedofin the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit thecompensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe RegistrarGeneral of this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets•be accordinglyprepared.

January 06, 2012pkb

JUDGE

nroi-Cory

LA.App. No. 119i;/2008& connficlcdAppealsofVillajjeBharthalI.A.App. No. 29'1/2010& connnctedAppoalsofVillageBIjwasan

IA.App. No. 1.11/7.010&-connc!clbdAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Pago 29 of 29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+LA. APP. 1195/2008•RANBIR SHARMAAppellantThrough:Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AinitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.JitinTewathia, AdvocatesMs.Anita Tomar, Advocate.Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, AdvocateMr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela, AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates.Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesforrespondentin appealsfiledby UOI)Mr.SudhanshuTomar,Advocate for .Mr.R.S.Tomar.Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki andMr.S.K.Rout,Advocates'

versusUNIONOFINDIA& ANR.RespondentsThrough:Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay Pathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavandMs.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran,Advocates for LAC/UOIMr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh,• Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaandMr.Somer'K.Seth, Advocates for DDA.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER

12.01.2012

C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 fFor correctioM).

Hiis is an applicationfor seddngtypographicalcorrectioninOrderof 6"' Januaiy,2012.

Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice

LA.App.No.1195/2008

oftlie application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeengivento remainingcounselfor the appellants.

The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin thedecision of e" January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of theaforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha',whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is riot disputed by learnedcounsel appearingfor the appellants.-Accordingly/thisapplicationisallowedand it is orderedthattliereferenceto 'perbigha'in paragraphno: 40 of LA.App.No: 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessarycorrections be.cai-riedout forthwith.

In vie-wof the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof '

"TSUNILGAUR)JUDGE

JANUARY 12, 2012pkb

LA.App.No.1195/2008