LA.APP./78/2012 of IQBAL SINGH & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

$~2*IN THE HIQH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+LA.APP. 78/2012

IQBALSINGH& ORS.Through:Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate

.....Appellants

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.RespondentsThrough:Mr. SanjayKumarPathak,Advocatefor R-l/UOIMr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER%29.03.2012

CM No. 5419/2012 ru/S 151 CPC)

Delay of 703 days' in re-filingthe accompanyingappeal issought to be condonedby this application,which is supportedbyaffidavit of learned counsel for the appellant.

Upon Notice, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal,Advocates for respondentsNo. 1 & 2 respectively,state that onlyoppositionto this applicationis that for the period of delay, theappellantsoughtnot be grantedintereston the compensationamountin the event of their succeeding in the appeal.

Since the reasons disclosed in Paragraph No. ^3 of theapplication does not display gross negligence, therefore, thisapplicationis allowed and the delay of 703 days' in re-filingtheaccompanyingappeal is condonedwhile making it clearthat for thedelayedperiod,the appellantshallnotbe grantedinterestin the eventofsucceedinginthe appeal.

Signature Not Verified

With aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed

LA.APP. 78/2012

The instant appeal relates to Village - Pochanpur, where videNotificationof 13^*^ December,2000, the land of the appellantstoodacquired under Section 4 of the I^and Acquisition Act, 1894 and theReference Court vide impugned order ofNovember, 2009 whileupholdingthecompensationamountawardedbytheLandAcquisition Cpllector to the appellant, has denied any enhancementthereupon.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent-VOI, states that the subject matter ofthis appeal stands covered by thedecision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008'Ranbir Sharma Vs.Union of India & Anr.' rendered on 6^^ January, 2012, whereincompensationamountin respectof landsacquiredin VillagePochampur has been enhanced to @ ^16,50,000/- per acre for theCategory 'A' land and@ ^14,69,600/- per acre in respect ofCategory 'B' lands.

Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that case of theappellant is at par with Ranbir Sharma (Supra).

In the light of above, this appeal is allowed in terms,of decisionof this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra) with statutory benefits andproportionate costs, while declining the interest for the delayedperiod.

This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

L GAUR)JUDGE

MARCH 29,2012/rs

IN TtiE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

jIIReserved on: November 18, 2011:^Pronounced on: Januaiy 06; 2012;(GRID-A)

LA.AEP.1195/2008(WLLAGE- BHARTHAL)

RANB^RSHA.RA4A,

SHA.RA4A,,!AppellantThrough:Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita:Maan, Mx.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, AdvocatesIMrAnand Yadav and Ms..r\nitaTomar, Advocates.;Mr.Rohtas,Advocate. !iMr.RaghuvinderGodara,AdvocateIMr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate:Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.MAzamAnsari,Advocates.']\4r.PankajVivek, AdvocateMr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla'andMr.DhananjayMehlav/at,AdvocatesjMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate!Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate;Mr.Sandeep Thaldaur, AdvocateMr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate.Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor:respondent in appeals filed by UOT)

versus!v-JNlO^iJ01' INDIA& ANR..Respondents

Through:Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.SanjayPathak, Mr.MohitraoJadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain,IMs.K.KaunuidiKiran,AdvocatesforLAC/UOIIMr.AJayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.Mukesh'Kumar,Mi.S.K.Sethi;Mr.FawanMathur, ^4r,KunalISharma. Advocate for DDA1•I

LA.APP|.412/20()8& CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.452/2008;La.AP1|.453/2008,LA.APP.688/2008& CM.N'o.5990/2010(Cross-Objections);LA.APPj.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008&CM.No.510/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008;LA.APP.770/2008:

iA.App.No. Iiys/2C08;& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalI(X.App. No. ?.9.:./2.010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App, No. l:l.l/?.010&connucladAppealsofVillage;PochanpurI(X.App. No. ?.9.:./2.010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App, No. l:l.l/?.010&connucladAppealsofVillage;Pochanpur

PafiiU o1 Z9

^CM.No.425/2009 (Crois-Objections)'LA.APP772/900J?CMNo^^n/S^&CM.No.S835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008&1A(Cross-Objections); LA.APP,775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.782/2008 &CM.^^^).940/2009 (Cross-Obiectionsv'CL.No^lM>fo5/2009LA.APP.799/2080 &LA.APP.798/2008CM No 931/2009&(^fs/X^VrLA.APP.7;85/2 (Cross-Objections);08;,^^'A™05/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APp:8I3/2008&LM.No^795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 &CM.No.806/2009(Closs-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP'819/2008- LA APP 890/9008LA.APP.b9/2008; LAAPP.830/2008 LA.APF832™LAAPP900.'LA.APP844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;'LA.API^.8^8& C^7no779^(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM'No799/2009 rOro.. Oh/ tVLA.APP:S!"L's;'sri:la.app|Ssflaapp"^?^;^:o8:LA.APR976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008;LA.APp:.986/2oSri CM No 572^9LA:APP:|o1S8VAA'pp:fo4^LAlmjoMCM No 75^2^0??""f ^:^-^^^-f«5:5/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 &rrv.^.Cross-Objections); mJ . \^^^^oss-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008 LA.APP.'1058/2008&& CM.No.l7259/9008rrrn^Vni CMNo 1557/2011 /''• CMN,??l82009 rrZ 0/20O8 &=CMNo38h^9LA.APP.Iin/2008;LA.APP.Il12/2008&nu^(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1113/2008& CMNo3826/2000LA.APP.lffpf?fo'So12b/2008; LA.APP.LA.APP.11129/2008115/2008; LA.APP.Il& CMNo16/2008;550/9009 La!aPP fCro<^s OhWi'119^^/ict'^n if °V•^^APP•1157/2008; LA.APP.iI5V008&La:aPPSi:p™~==I•i-•

I•i-•lA.Ar,p No. TITOS&colnnoctedAppealsofVillageBharthal!ofVillage' • '-A.Af,p,Mc,,11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur!

liHBili!»SK1|S5™TA APP-TT/onnn o^/'+0/2UII (Lross-Objections); LA.APP 59/200<^LA.APP.79/2o:9;Ia.A^S^^O^T'

ill Biii iPH l!i=

sis ii=

26-..00.,-2003dated23.10.2002,VillageBharthal,Delhi)

Reservedon: December 08. 2011Pronouncedon: Janunrv 06 ?n'l2

I-.LA.APP.294/2010(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN)^•

1^'I'DBVENDERKUMARa.. I.p,,.Appellant|-liirough:Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh

l^^.App NO. ms/200sS. connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal' ...•vpp. No. ?.g.t/2010&ccnn;ectGdAppealsofVillageBijwasanL-.App.No. J;.l/?.010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

Page 3 of 29

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& BXA/i3417issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 &28./2002i2003; Village Bijwasan, Delhi)!iANID

dated 13.12.2000Award No.

IA.App. No. 1195/20088i connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalL.'\,App. No. 29.1/;'.0ic & iconnucted Appeals of Village Dijwasan.1A.App. No. ;i] j./?.010 & 'connectcdAppeals of Village Pochanour

(GRID-C)

Reserved on: Dp.cp.mher18. 2011Pronounced on: January 06. 2017

LA.APP,111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPOR)

SEHAJRAM AND ORS.'AppellantsThrough:Mr.B.D.Sharroa,Mr.S.K.SoladdandMr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(inR-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40 44to 49, 59, 63 to 71)Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantinLA.App.No.6i;, 64, 65/2011)Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellantin R-22); i

versusUNIONQF INDIAANR'Through;Mr.SanjayPoddar,s,SeniorRespondentsAdvocatewithMr-SaryayKum^rPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhav,and Ms.NavIinSwain,Advocatesfor UOI/LACMr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,AdvocatesforDDA.I :

IaI'-IA. . « "P'N«-ai/2010&f AOiOa connectedconnectedAppealsAppealscfofVillageVillagepochanpurBIjwasan

Page S of

(RelatingI to Notification No. F.10(30)96^& B/LA/13417 dated13.12.20Q0issuedunder Section4ofthie Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 &AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,jVillagePochanpur,Delhi)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER!06.01.2012:

^ 1 •I.1.Since,the groundson which enhancementof the compensationis the in these bunch: of aresought by appellants appeals identical,thereforewith the consentof learnedcounsbl for the partiespresentatthe hearihg of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining toNotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/12417dated 13.12.2000,relatingto geographically contiguous Villages |0harthal, Bijwasan andPochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commcinorder.2.Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-11 in Delhi, commenced with the issuance^;of Notific.ation of 13^^'Decemberl^ 2000 under Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894,pertaining1to vast tract of agricultural lahd^' in one compact blockcomprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question,i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.I3.Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthreevillagesstcpodacquiredby the Respondentsvide three separateAwards,I.e., Award No.26/2002-2003: Award No.|28/2,002-2003;andAwardNo.j0/2002-2003granting compensation@'^13.82 lacs per acre for'• Block 'A' |(level field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre forBlock'B'(^withoutop soil).i4.Dissatisfiedwiththe assessmentofmarke|valueoftheiracquiredI!.A.App.IV\.App,AApp. NO.No.No. Ul/2010 294/7.010 1195/2008&&&connectedconnectedconnectedAppealsAppealsAppealsofofof VillageVillageVillagePochanpurBijwasanBharthali'5':•'.Page 6 of 29agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 ofI{ithe Land AcquisitionAct, iS'P^'and the ReferenceCourt vide impugnedjudgmenthad enlianced [REDACTED] lacs per acre for theappellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' and @ ^13.36 lacs per acre fortheir Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal,,and Bijwasan; whereas,referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhayeibeendismissed.5.In; these appeals,furtherenhancementof compensationsoughtbythe appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate of RupeesPiftylacp per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave soughtat the rate oflacs acrecompensation Rupees Thirty per by relyinguponthe precedents in the shape of decisions'in Executive Engineer,Karnataka Housing Board V5. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag andOrs., (2011)2 see 246; AnjaniMoluDessaiys. State of Goa andAm.,(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs; State ofHaryana and Anr.,(2010) 1 sec 444; Sangunthala (Bead), through LRs. Vs. Speciallehsilddr (LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)>3 SeC 661; RanvirSinghand Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SCI3467; Chindha Fakira Patil(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon,2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227;Rama Nmd (since deceased)through LRs i4 Union ofIndia & Anr.,2002 (65) DRT 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. Sti^te of Haryana &Ors.,2010(9) iSCALB 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab &Ors., 2011 (9)SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. Sial^ of Maharashtra, (2009)11 sec :171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State ofHaryana,Anr, (2008)2SCC 568; W.Pj.(C)No. 4143/2003-titled asSmt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010;Officer&Anr M.K.SpecialLand'Acquisition vs., RqftqSaheb,(2011)7 SC.C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer,

lA.Apn No. :L19!)/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 7.9'i/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App, No. lXl/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App. No. 7.9'i/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App, No. lXl/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Gujarat^ and Ani\, AIR 2001' SC 2424; Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11115-, RisalSingh & Ors. Vs.UnionofIndia&Aitr.,2006 (89) DRJ 52j7 (DB);LaiChandvs'. UnionofIndia and Am., (2009) 15 SCC 769;^ GeneralManager,'Oil andNatural Gas Corporation Ltd vs', Rameshhhai Jivanbhai Patel andAnr, (2008) 14 SCC,745; ValUyammalandAm vs. SpecialTehsildar(Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 jSC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs.Allahabad Development Authority, (20p4| 10 SCC 745; MaheshDattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238;I•j'vKapil Mehra (Major General) <&Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr,176(201:1)DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh vs.Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., ;decided on 24.04.2008; Om' Frakash,(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627;Satpal <&.Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP.No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar V5. Union of India, decided on26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled1asvs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010(170) DLT 371.i

6.Oh the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, itwas urged by Mi-.B,S.Maan,learnedarguing';''counselfor the appellantsthatthe locationand situationofthe acquirpdagriculturalland has to befirst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must beadjudgeci'keeping in view the developmentiiilv the area over periodoftime and!the same carmot be limited to the near future alone.

7.It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthat,Delhi-Rqwari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasanpasses tliroughthe land ofVillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts,I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is the IGI Airport,Nev/ Delhi

No. 1195/2008St connectedAppealsofVillageBharthallA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanl.A.App. Mo. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurlA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanl.A.App. Mo. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and road 100meters )vide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiv iWurtitowardsDwarkaSub-Cit)^ Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into twoportions; (i) North Easternside, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii)South Eastern side, where developedFarjii Houses are located on theland of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointedout by A^r.S.K.Solanl^ilearnedcounselfor the appellants that northernpart ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first) acquiredfor the extensionof IGI lAirport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 forestabhshmgIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for BharatPetroleumand the landsofBharthalandwereVillage VillagePochaiipuralso acquiredin the year 1984 for develo|:)mfe:ntofDwarkaPhase-Iandthe lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras werealso acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City.Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/ma^to highlightthatthe boundaryof Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arecontiguous.: '8.It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.^4aan,learnedcounselfor theappellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate thepotentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and hastreated the land to be in ofillegally; acquired agricultural spiteNotificationof 16^'^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the threevillages in question was changed from' al^ricultiiral to residential/commerc^ial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthalhad ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24"' October,1994.9.It was argued with much vehemence";by,Mi-.S.K.Rout,learnedcounselfpr the appellantsthatthe aforesaid^o Notificationshave been discarded the Reference Court P. Ramawronglyby by relying upon

lA.Apri. No. 1195/2008&cpnnRctcd'AppeaisofVillageBharthal

l.A.Apij.h;o. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasanLA.App. Wo. 111/2010a connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur. •

Reddi& Qrs. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,\Byderabad& Ors, (1995)2 see 305, which has been consideredb}^ theI Apex Court in its laterdecisionin Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana4 Ors., 2010(9) SCALE41 holding that the potential of the acquired,land must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area wer period oftime andthe same cannot be limited to near future alone and if after theacquisition,if the authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnotmean that there is no buildingpotentiality.' ,10.Reliance;•was• placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,i^learnedcounsel' for theappellants'upon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlightthat the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfi:om^52lacs to ?62 lacs andmerely because of the said variation,these sale exemplars cannot bethrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, becausetheire is no basis to concludethat these sale'exemplarsare overvaluedbecause ofand ask any special advantages per|ettledlegal propositionlaid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu''Dessaivs. State ofGoaandAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofjsaleexemplarsoughtto betaken as representingthe marketprice of the|I iLd; which comes to ?57lacs acre and sincethe salerelied the per exemplarsupon by appellantsare the comparable sale instances, therefore,relianceplaced by theReferenceCourt the minimumrates/circlerates fortheupon detenuiningmarketvalue'ofthe acquiredlandis patentlyeiToneous..I11.Assessmentof market value of theland was acquired sought byMr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis of the L&DO rates fixed the Government and on the basis of by ajsd pre-deteiminedlates fixed by the Government foF allotment of alternateplots mthe yeai- 2000-2001.Keepingin view thfe location,situationandpotentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value isLA.App.l-A.App. No,No. 294/2010 1195/2008&&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillageBijwasanBharthal•i'l-A.App.No. 111/2010&conncctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur'Page 10 of 29

sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur andVillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the baksiofthe L& DO rates ofthedeveloped lands in Dwarka Phase-I or |op the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto abdye.-12.In ithe writtensynopsis,appellant ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimitedof LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe iinpugnedjudgmenton thefollowing grounds:-

a) "ignores the acknowledgement on the partof therespondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003dated\23.10.2002 being flawed inthecourse of theproceedings Civil Writ petition N,o.l9012 of 2006(Referred to in cross-examinatioriof appellant dated7.7.2007) ,;respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003dated\23.10.2002 being flawed inthecourse of theproceedings Civil Writ petition N,o.l9012 of 2006(Referred to in cross-examinatioriof appellant dated7.7.2007) ,;

b) Does not accountfor the fact thfit the Public Noticedated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland inthe areafor more than 15 before the Notification yearsdated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland inthe areafor more than 15 before the Notification yearsunder Section5 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 wasissued.issued.

c) Valuing the land on the basis|the letter dated11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapitalTerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laiddown variousdecisionsin one ofthe more byincluding11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapitalTerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laiddown variousdecisionsin one ofthe more byincludingrecent decisions of the Hon'blJ Supreme Court inSangunthalaversusTahsildar,201q($) SCC 661.SangunthalaversusTahsildar,201q($) SCC 661.

\ the evidence and otherfactors which asd) Ignores perestablishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertainingthe valueofthe landunderacquisition.establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertainingthe valueofthe landunderacquisition.

e) E)oes not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deedspi^oducedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the lawestablishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recentcase of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special LandAcqumtionOfficer, Civil Apeal N6.5475 of2007. TheHon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that SaleDeedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedinpi^oducedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the lawestablishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recentcase of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special LandAcqumtionOfficer, Civil Apeal N6.5475 of2007. TheHon'bleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that SaleDeedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin

LA,App.No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageI3harthal

i./\.ADp.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan

i.A,App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Pags 11 of 29

case the averagesaleprice is lower.I, Furtherin AnjanaAdolu Dessai vs. State of Goa, Wl0(13) SCC 710, theSupreme Court has also held that the highest of theexemplars and not by. averagingofdifferent t)pes ofsalestransactions shouldbe•.considered whilea certanland.adjudicatingupon compensation'upon

,/); Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 inLAC'• No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject• landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat themarketvalue ofthe landis muchthan 15 lac higherper'• No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe subject• landwhile ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat themarketvalue ofthe landis muchthan 15 lac higherper• acre in BlockAand^l3,36,000\in.BlockB in violationof the law laid down by the tJon'ble Supreme Court acre in BlockAand^l3,36,000\in.BlockB in violationof the law laid down by the tJon'ble Supreme Court;' including in Subh Ram vs. State ofHaiyana 2010(1) SCC 444. As the consequence, impugnedjudgment- SCC 444. As the consequence, impugnedjudgment-refused to return an actualfindir^ on the issue No.l'framedon 27.2.2007.\ 'I

Ig). Eyaluatedthe land as agricultur.Ial land although videISotificqtionofthe MunicipalCoi^porationofDelhi, theland use of Village Dhool Siras:-and Bharthal waschangedand these areas ceasedto' be agriculturalandISotificqtionofthe MunicipalCoi^porationofDelhi, theland use of Village Dhool Siras:-and Bharthal waschangedand these areas ceasedto' be agriculturaland-came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State.The masterplan and Notifications'• of GovernmentforThe masterplan and Notifications'• of Governmentfor,land use change show that in\ future land can' besubjected toresidential, con^mercial andothersubjected toresidential, con^mercial andother•permissible uses. It is alsopertinent to mention that theappellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74''^amendmentappellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74''^amendment.of the Constitutionof India, w.e^f. 1.6.1993 IX A, by:virtue of which the Act was Municipal Corporation:virtue of which the Act was Municipal Corporationamendedand the area where the land is situated, M>asdeemeda municipalarea and the\municipalCounsellorwas electedfrom there. Noelections were Panbh'gyatdeemeda municipalarea and the\municipalCounsellorwas electedfrom there. Noelections were Panbh'gyatheldin the area.\ Kh) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme\Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr kv. Union ofIndia'.andrefusedto considerthefact tAat-the developm.entinthe area has direct effecton tlie price that willingpurchaserwouldpayfor thesubjecthnd.\Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr kv. Union ofIndia'.andrefusedto considerthefact tAat-the developm.entinthe area has direct effecton tlie price that willingpurchaserwouldpayfor thesubjecthnd.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also

LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthall.A.Ap|j.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App. No. a.ll/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Ii,-auctionedsimilarlysituatedland!«/commercialblocksat the rate ofabout X2.6 laldt aU concludedthat thesaidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland.

j) The valuationofthe subjectland is eA?en lowerthan thepre-determinedauction rates setRespondentNo 2jor similarly situated land.\']pre-determinedauction rates setRespondentNo 2jor similarly situated land.\']k) Does nottake into accountthepossibilityofchangeofthe use ofthe landalthoughthewas acquiredfordevelopment purposes of Dwarkal Phase II It isDhool Siras andthe use ofthe landalthoughthewas acquiredfordevelopment purposes of Dwarkal Phase II It isDhool Siras andBharthalwas changedand these\a)-easceased to be•"rban boundaries"rban boundariesOf Delhi State.\

I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24 101994••a//to«gA they clearly establishthecommercial^"f"S""thalav.Tahsildar^"f"S""thalav.Tahsildar((2010) 5see 661 It was heldthatthepurposefor; IC.and IS acquired is relevantfactor. While; IC.and IS acquired is relevantfactor. Whiledetermmng value of the propertj,^ acquired the fact^^ferthelandhasgotbuildingpctentialityto be usedZneds to he considered.edT\<''• in nearfuture^^ferthelandhasgotbuildingpctentialityto be usedZneds to he considered.edT\<''• in nearfuturem) The presence of number-of buitdtngs on the landsbuildingsb^r are to beu treatedas hoiis4sUes.occupied The by lands thewje acquiredfor purpose ofputting up residentialhouseZ site,, 7°'''^" the adjoininglands have the-considered potentialasofbeingputin betteruse as housesitesin thenea.rfuture.buildingsb^r are to beu treatedas hoiis4sUes.occupied The by lands thewje acquiredfor purpose ofputting up residentialhouseZ site,, 7°'''^" the adjoininglands have the-considered potentialasofbeingputin betteruse as housesitesin thenea.rfuture.13.In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pa! and iothers of LA. App. No347/2009,tlie factual detailshave been providedwith aprayerthat theappellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with the eo-appellantsof tl,eotherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.i14.Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsakv»acedon behalfoftheappellants,it>asurgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectofappellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with the eo-appellantsof tl,eotherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.i14.Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsakv»acedon behalfoftheappellants,it>asurgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectofIhI.A.,U\.• pp. ^o.m/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpuriI.A.,U\.• pp. ^o.m/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpuri

i, fPage 13 of 29

uibanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change inland use has been consideredin MaheshThirthkarvs. StaleofMahaKoshtm,AIR 2009 SC 2238;KapUMehm (MajorGeneml)&Ors. Vs.: Union ofIndia'Anr, 176(2o'll)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuctionRatel 9f the area are relevanttodeterminethe market value of the acqiiirJdlands and infact the saleinstancesTehed theai'eandto haveuponby appellantscomparable oughtbeen relied the ReferenceCourt io assess the correctmarket upon byvalue of the acquired lands. Tlius, enhjn&ment of compensationreflectmg;just, fair and adequatemarketva(ue for the acquiredlands issoughtin ^theseappeals.!15.Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby theRespondents,Mr. SanjayPoddar,learnedSeniorCounselm-gedthatthoughas perSection51-AofLand AcquisitionAct, 1894, certifiedcopy of the Sale Deed is anadmis.sibleevidencebut tlie same cannot be! lalcen as relevant'evidencetor determinationof the market value unlfesS and until the same isproperly connectedwith tlie land-in questiUand elementof specialfancy ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsnamelinature,situationoftheproperty,proximityto the villageetc. are alsi requiredto be consideredand the saleinstancesrelied thecorrectupon by Respondentsdisclosingmarket value of the acquiredlands have bera illegallyrejected by theReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceUf)onthe decisionsin JaiLaivs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRl 227, S<^tpal& Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Udion ofIndia andAnr.,(2009) 15 see 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SmhilKumar V4'.Unionoflitdia,decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat siiaipincreasein price in ashortperiodcannotbe takento bi realisticuntil reasonsforsuch «har|D iincreaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller

LA.App. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasanLA.App. No. lU/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiirLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasanLA.App. No. lU/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir

and the purchaseras no prudentpersonhaving loiowledgeof the usualprevalenttrendin themarketwouldpay such higherpay as reflectedinthe sale:instance ofSwami Satsang,.,Beas, relied upon by theI but for consideration. it was contended onappellants, special|Thus,behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision ofApex Court in Lai Chanel (supra) which has been followed bv a!coordinateBenchofthis Courtin SushilKufimr(supra)andRaj Singh(supra).

16.So far as potentialityof the land is|concerned,it was urged byMr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing theminimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the GovernmentasonApril,' 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% perannum, market value of the acquired lan^ds has been erroneously. determined by the Reference Court, as |in'' Sushil Kumar (supra)appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submittedthatthereis nofor furtherenhancement'from theof scope priceacquiredlands as fixed b}^ the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugnedjudgment deserves to be modified deleting;the enhancementby theReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% annum and the same deservesto be in line whileper brought grantingappreciation @ 10% per armum and tliefeby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

17.After considering the rival submissions advanced by both thesides and:upon closeperusalofthe impugnedJudgment,the evidenceonrecordand the'decisionscited,what emergesisthatthe true marketvalueof the comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto avs^illing

LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalU.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan!U.App.No. 111/20108, connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur.• • V'Page 15 of 29

seller and fiie best evidence is the comjiar,abIesale instances. Whiledealing,witlithe questionofpotentialvalyejofthe acquiredland, whathas to be considered in assessing the liiaxket value thereof, standsreiteratedby the Apex Couit in IJdhovs. Stale ofHaryam &Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords:-t

the situationofthelanclvis-a-vistheor'(i) acquired citythe town or villagewhich haA been growingin sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educational,religiousor any otherkindofImportanceor becauseofits explosivepopulation;;Ithe town or villagewhich haA been growingin sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educational,religiousor any otherkindofImportanceor becauseofits explosivepopulation;;I

(ii)the suitabilityofthe acquiredImdforputtingup thebuildings, bethey residential, commercial orindustrial,as the case may be;buildings, bethey residential, commercial orindustrial,as the case may be;

(iii) possibilityofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyforoccupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

I(iv)absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor usingthe acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v)existence, of highways, publics-roads, layouts ofbuildingplots,or developedresidentialextensionsinthe vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;buildingplots,or developedresidentialextensionsinthe vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

\(vi)bene-fits or advantages of educational institutions,•health care centres, or the like h'the surroundingareas of the acquired land '•which may becomeavailableto the occupiersqfbuiJSrigs,ifbuilton theacquiredland;and\ ;•health care centres, or the like h'the surroundingareas of the acquired land '•which may becomeavailableto the occupiersqfbuiJSrigs,ifbuilton theacquiredland;and\ ;

(vii), landsaroundthe acquiredlandon the acquiredland; Itself being in demandfor building purposes, to, specify afew. "' ''; Itself being in demandfor building purposes, to, specify afew. "' ''

oflandfor theofas also forlhe|potentiality purposedevelopment

aoffactors.For the saidbuildingpurposesdependsuponlargenumperpurpose,the Court may not only have to bear,inmind the purpose for

I^A.App. !Mo. 1195/2008&conriectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal

IA.App. No. ;.fM/;M10&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasani-A.App No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequentevents to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Comt inAvinash'{sM\-)m).Whilereiteratingthe rele\|arjtfactorsfor detemiinationof compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Courtin AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmall piecesofland reliedI\ thecouldnot be ato discardthemupon by appellantsground especial^when exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwer^not available.

19.Aforesaiddictumstands reiteratedbj the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. M.K. \RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7SCC714. The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrpmI the decisionsrelieduponon behalfof the appellants is that where there is no basic difference• either in'location, situation or potentiality^of the villages, which aresituated similar available to them even assimilarly' having advantageregards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing thecompensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands•andthe acquiredland.I

20.It is well establishedpropositionlof law that the burden ofIyprovingthe true marketvalue of the acquired^land is on the State whohas acquired the agriculturalland for particularpurpose. But, it isiequally true that the burden of proving inadequacy,of compensationawarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of theApex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be|re|^rredto with advantage.

21.Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),ivtiiletakingnote ofthe factthat the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residentialcolonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc;, had held that deductionof 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinentobservationsmade the Court inDessai, by Apex Anjani'Molu (Supra)deserve attention, which are as under:-!

lAApp No. 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalIA.App. IMo. :^94/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanI.A.App fJo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurIA.App. IMo. :^94/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanI.A.App fJo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 17 of 29

"The legal positionis that even where there are severalexemplars with reference to similar lands, usually thehighest of the exemplars,which is bonafide transaction,will be considered.Where however there are several salesofsimilarlandswhoseprices range in narrow bandwidth,the average thereof can be taken] as representing themarketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect oftwp sales are markedly different, it can only lead to aninferencethat they are with reference to dissimilar lands orthat the lower value sale is on account of under-valuationor' otherreasons.price depressing Cpnsequentlyaveragingcannot be resorted to. "I'

22.It jwouldbe worthwhileto take note pfthe clinchingobsei'vationspertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands madeby the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Pdfil (Supra), which are asfollows:-:;

I;;"It is well settled that genuine \and bona fide saletransactions in respect of the land under acquisition or inits absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto thepointof acquisition ofthe .landssituatedintheneighborhoodof the acquired lands .possessingsimilarvalue or utility/ takenplace between^,aiwillingvendee andthe willing vendor which could be Expectedto reflect thetrue value, as agreedbetween reasonableprudentpersonsacting in the normal market conditions are the real basis todetermine the market value. "'23.to detemiinethe marketvalue of thelands asPrinciples acquired

leiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and NaturalGas CorporationLtd.(ONGC) (Supra),are as under:-| .

"Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors - situation of the land, nature of developmentinsurroundingarea, availabilit)/of landfor developmentinthe area, and the demandfor land\in: the area. In ruralareas unless there is any prospect of;^evelopmentin thevicinit)/, increase in prices would jie slow, steady andgradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjiimps.

I.A.A|)p.Mo.:195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBhartbal

I.A.App. Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan

i..A./*pp.No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu'-

On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where thedevelopmentisfaster, where the demandfor land is highand where there is construction activity all around, theescalation in market price is at a'much higher rate, ascomparedto rural areas. In somepqckets in big cities, dueto rapid development and high (^emajnd for land, theescalationsin priceshave touchedeven30% to 50% ormore per year, during the nineties. Cn the other extreme, inremote rural areas where there, was no chance of anydevelopmentand hardly any buyers, ike prices stagnatedfor years or rose marginallyat nominalrate of1% or 2%)per annum. There is thus significant difference inincreases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urbanareas and increases in market value df lands in the ruralareas.Therefore if the increase \in market value inurban/semi-urbanareas is about 10%'to 15%per annum,the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best beonlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%)per annum.This rule of thumb refers to the \general trend in thenineties, to be adoptedin the absenceif clearand specificevidence relating to increase in prices. Where there arespecialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, orany specific evidence relating to the actual increase inprices, then the increaseto be appliedwoulddependuponthe same.;

Normally,recourseis taken to the mode, ofdeterminingthemarketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover theprovedmarketvalue ofnearby lands\ in previousyears (asevidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where thereis no evidenceofany contemporaneoussale transactionsoracquisitionsofcomparablelands in theneighbourhood.Thesaid method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-saletransactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisitionby'.onlyafew-years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit relates, to neighbouringland. What be reliablestandardhfthe is may gap onlyfew become unsafe and unreliable standard years, maywhere the gap is larger. For example,for determiningthemarket-valueof land acquired in 1992, adopting theannual increase method with reference to sale or

i.A,App. No. .nH5/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthallA.App. No, 294/2010S connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan;.A,App. l>Jo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypilfalls. This isbecause, over the course of.yearsyate'of annualincreasemay itselfundergodrastic chdnge apartfrom thelikelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationinpricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandardofincrease."I

24.This Courtis mind&lofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtinHaryanaStateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation\h^IDC)(Supra),regardingcomputation of compensation for the acquired lands by adoptingcomparativesalesmethods.What was saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC(Supra) is:as under:-

"Whendifferentcategoriesoflands fqr lands with differentsituationalarefor the sameadvantages) acquiredpurpose, for of residential courts havesay forming layout,sometimes felt that determinationtheir value withreferenceto previousstatusorsituation'shouldbe avoidedanda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedforalllandsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

25.Undisputedly,in these appeals sale e|emplars in and aroundacquired land of Village Bharthal, Village B|wasan of the period inquestionare not availableand the solitarysale exemplarstronglyreliedupon by the appellantsis of Village Pochenpur.i.e., the seven SaleDeeds vide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,PiadhaSyvamiSatsang,Beashad purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pochanpur at pricewhichvariedfrom?52 lacs,to ?62 lacsperacre.' •

• 26.WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW^Mto Ex.PW-1/10)whichare basicallybetween;one set of co-ownersmiA Radha SwamiSatsang,Beasmrespectofthecompactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6Biswassitualedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvaJue ofthe land in the villagesin questionis the mootIquestionv/hichis requiredto be answered. Evidently, aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds

W.App. No 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

W.App. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

I.A.APP. No. J11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

(lix.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetliat its price varies from ?=52 lacsto ^62 lacs acre. entire laad of the sale per Meaning thereby,jth^-exemplars Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.pW-1/10)did not commandthe same marketprice:It was dependentuponthe natureand situationofthe aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish!the advantages attached toeach parcel of land of these sale exemjjlls with acquired land inisthesesalecannotbe treatedasquestion, lacking.Therefore, exei^iplarsdisclosmgrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. Thespecial need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in VillagePochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-lMto! Ex.PW-1/10)has not beenbrought out as the purchaser/vendeeof thdse agriculturalland has notbeen got ;examinedby the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof theaforesaidsale been then it could have been, exemplars got examined,elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay suchahigh price forthese lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas^Nhohad purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at anexorbitant insileDeed executedon 25"^ price VillageMamurpurvide, was alsomatterin LA. No. 266/2008titledasMarch,20,00 subject App.Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA: App.No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on19.9.2011 and mthe aforesaiddecisions,thp gale exemplarof VillageMamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingliiatfhe same cannotbe treatedas representativeprice for the acquiredlands.I '27:In the instantmatters,thoughthe lan4of the acquiredlandswas changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidencethat the acquiredlandswere beingused for agriculturalpurposetill theiracquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat thb acquiredlands were notdeveloped lands. No pmdent person havingjknowledge of prevailing

•JlA.App. ./.pp. No. No. 294/2010 U95/2008&&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillageBijwasanBharthal••A.App. iMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur••A.App. iMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 21 of 29

marketprice of the land in questionwouldpay such high price unlessand until'suchpurchaseis meant for special!considerationand so, in theconsideredopinion of this Court the sale jexemplars,i.e., Sale Deeds(Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been! rightly discarded by theReference Court.• ,

28.So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-1/11)reliedupon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'^ January,2000, itneeds to be noted that because this salewas ^xepplar(Ex.PW-1/11)situated on the National Highway - 8 arid .because vide Sale Deed(lix.PW-l/ll) vendorhadsoldnot onlythelandbutthe structurethereonincluding;tube well, boring,fitting,fixture,la^e, by-lane,etc., therefore,it had fetched such high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplarcannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquired lands inquestion.

129.Left >vith no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice ofsimilarlysituatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas towhetheradoptionofL& DO circularrates for the developedlands andPre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to beadopted to determinethe true market valueiof the acquired lands inquestion.i.

30.Parametersgoverningfixationofmarketvalue ofacquiredlandshighlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Ram ReddyandOrs. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderaihd\I• IUrban DevelopmentAuthority,Hyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

"12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be thedeterminationofthe marketvalueoftheiacquiredlandwithbuildingpotentialitywith referenceto. thepricefetchedbysaleofplots in welldevelopedlayoutin tl^e neighborhood

lA.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage BharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasanLA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan

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

or whetherit be the determinationofMmarketvalueoftheacquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referencetothepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undevelopedlayout ofbuildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomesinevitablefor the Court tofind out what will be the pricefetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts,1ehedofthewithreferenceto theupon by anyparties,pricewhich theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthepreliminarynotificationunder Section() ofthe Act Further,where no evidenceofpricefetchedythe sales oftheplots in layouts of^buildingplots in the.neighborhoodof the acquired lands, becomes available,-len what couldbe done is tofind out ike marketvalueofthe acqmredland with reference to \the relevantdate ofpublicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingtothe actualuse to whichitwasputandincreaseits valuebya small percentage having regard to .'the degree of itsbuildingpotentialityascertainedon thk basisofevidenceto}e made available in that regard \£-smallpercentagevalue of the landfound out.to its actual user according.ince resort to the method ofgiving increasedvalue forsuch buildingpotentialityarises only 'when there is'noevidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodofdemand'"dicitingthat there was no immediateacqu-redZT'eye. ifformed in the31.In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionpfrate ofland chargedbythe DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands;developingthe same,andtransferringperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai (hand(Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotmentrates/Pre-DetenninedRates in determining th^ market value of theadjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Follqwingithe dictum of LaiChand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in JaiSingh (Supra)and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua thedevelopedlands as beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketJalueofI'|.A.App."pp. N.,No. 2s,/2010 1195/2008S& c.„„.c,cdconnectedAppealsofofVillageBharthal' ^• .App. No. 11V2010&connected/AppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 23 of 29

the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I fin& that the ReferenceCourthasnotthe DDA ratesfor allotmentIofland or lightly adopteddevelopedthe DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates fot alternateallotmentsfor fixing themarketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

32.Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherIprogressiveincreasemethod would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue oftheland in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionofthe year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentofDwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar,learnedseniorcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat even iftheescalationat the compoundedrate of10%]pfrarmum is taken from theyear 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., foritlj,e period intervening theNotification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instantNotificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhas,e-II,stillthe pricefixed bythe LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethant|e aforesaidescalatedpriceand therefore, the enhancement granted ^by the Reference Court isunjustified.

33.Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum ofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adoptprogressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of theacquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyondthat it maybe unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouring'land. What may be areliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafeand unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, thegap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand DwarkaIhase-II^s ofsixteeii'yearsand therefore,it woUldbe unsafeto adoptthemode of determining the market value| by providing appropriateLA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectGdAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan'hI.A',App.Mo, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochahpurPage 24 of29

escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe neafbyIlandofthe previousyears.i34.Mr.SanjayPoddar,learnedseniorcounselfortherespondent/cross-objectorhad urged that ''the Reference Court hasgianted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwaiTanted as acoordinatebench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has grantedescalation 10% annum. After the decision in @ per halirig perusedSushilKumar (Supra), I fmd that 10% i]icreaseon account of higherpotentiaHty of the acquired land over and above the market valuedetermined the ReferenceCourthas beenandby granted so, by'relying SushilKumar escalation the ReferenceCourtupon (Supra)grantedby@12%) per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%) per annum.In this viewofthe matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

35.Now what is to be seen is whetherI .^option of Government'smmniiumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourtIS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%;per annum grantedby theReferenceCourt from the date of fixationoflhe minimumprice for theagriculturallandby the Governmentw.e.f.|l®'April,2000 till the date ofNotificationin the instant deserves to be further increasedor appealsnot.'i:

36.Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturallandpertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by thelearnedcounsel for:appellantsbecausetheiacquiredland had ceasedtobe an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'^ October, 1994declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to beurban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe 1994the land yearuse ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto

liV.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthall-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan17\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurl-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan17\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 25 of 29

that the lands had forpresume acquired gained potentiality beingconsideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vitalaspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlandsmquestion. Not only this, even the sale| exemplarsof Radha SwamiBeasrelied thedisclosethatthe saleSatsang,heavilyupon by appellantsofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpo^;37.Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till theissuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct,1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there beenincreasein pricedue to higherdemand,on,accountofpotentialityoftheacquired lands upon change of their usb post the year 1994, thencouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the areaappellantsin question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe landin VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instanceof Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidence toestablishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadhaSwami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur'and the sale exemplarofVillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparalSlewiththe acquiredlandsand so the contiguityof the acquired lan|d with the sale instance ofVillage Samalldia (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot|be treated to be sufficientground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaidsale instances. Therefore,in view of the afqre-referreddictum of theApex Court in Haryana State Industrial,DevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)X^M^ra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awardedfor the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of theminimum'price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland inDelhi, which -generally factors in the rise 'of price due to higherpotentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is gap between what

lA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasanLA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur'Page26 f29LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasanLA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur'Page26 f29

would be expected to be the market growt^i and what the market hadactuallygrown,Govermnent'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheldto be reasonable basis for assessingthe;marketvalue of the; acquiredlandsin Jai(Supra)as well as in SuskilKumar(Supra)andIfmdno reasonto take adifferentviewthan the! one whichhad been taken bycoordinateBench'of this Court in the ifpresaid cases of Jai Singh(Supra)and(Supra).'

38.I'his Court is of the consideredvieAy1 that> the ReferenceCourt inthe matters pertainingto Village BharthM.and Village Bijwasan has relied the Government'sminiiiium forrightly upon price agricultural•lands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue oftheAcquiredlands in question.Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situationof the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from theevidenceon record..ButIfmd thatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityoftheacquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil andBharatPetroleumDepots and of Railwayline passingthrough VillageBharthal and there being 100 meters vi|de;road starting from NH-8from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingtheacquired lands in two portions, and there! being Farm Houses in thevicinityofthe acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof theReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion!ofthis Court, on accountofaforesaid,locationaladvantages,the acquiredlandsin question,certainlyassumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin; viciiiityofDwarkaPhase-LWhatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% incre^l^eover and abovemarketvalue of the acquired lands as assessed by;'the Reference Court onaccount of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the

'ILA.App.lAApp. No.No. 1195/2008 294/2010&&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillageBijwasanBharthal. .'>•l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur:Page 27 of 29

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

"When once conclusion is reached.^ that there was thepossibilityofthe acquiredland being'usedfor putting upbuildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusionwould be sufficientto hold that the^ acquiredland hadabuildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its marketvalue takinginto accountthe increaseHn priceattributableto such buildingpotentiality." '|

39.Consideringthe fact that it would be veiy difficultto provide adefinitevalue qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscannever be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it isbroadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthemwith equivalenceby uniformly applying tho Government'sminimumprices for the agriculturallands for computid?^the fair marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as there are no special featuresI!to treat the acquiredlands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedatpar with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants:',of Village Bharthal andVillageBijwasan.However,while relyingjupon the decisionin SushilKumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10%jincreaseover and abovethemarketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdeterminedby the ReferenceCourtinthese matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantagesprovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

140.Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent ofawarding:10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby theReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan:Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par withthe appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof

LA.App, No. 1195/2008&connccledAppealsofVillageBharthal[•'LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanl-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanl-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 28 of 29

the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extentindicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands of thesethreevillagesin questionis determined@j?l6,50,000/-per^JjJ&fortheCategory 'A' land and @^=14,69,600/-per bmha for the Category 'B'lands in question.

41.On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded,statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedinthe judgment reported in Sunder vs. 'UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 aregranted,exceptfor'theperiodwherethere is adelayin filingthe appeal,for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshallbe paid.Iheseappellantswouldbe entitled'toproportionatecosts.42.The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsIare disposedofin the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit thecompensationamount,ifany, depositedby!eitherside withthe RegistrarGeneral ofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheetsbe accordiiiglyprepared.

JUDGE

January 06, 2012pkb

U.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage BharthallA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanl.A.App.No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 29 of 29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT 'NEWDELHI

LA.APP. 1195/2008'1RANBIRSH^A: ^AppellantThrough:Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R!.S:Verma,Mr.JitiiiTewathia, Advocates!Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate.Mr.Rohtas,Advocate.| ,Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,AdvocateMr.N.S.Negiand Alr.H.S.Rautela,AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Rdutray,Advocates.Mr.N.S.Negiand Mi-.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesforrespondentin appealsfiled by UOI)Mr.SudhanshuTomar,jAdvocateforMr.R.S.Tomar.Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.SlK.SolankiandMr.S.K.Rout, Advocates

versus

UNIONThrough:TiOF INDIA^:Mr.Sanjay&ANR^Poddar,Senior1}•AdvocateRespondentstpwithMr.SanjayPathak,Mr.KiohitraoJadhavandMs.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran,Advocates for LAC/UC)I ..MrAjayVerma,Mr.S.K.fJ,etl,i,Ms. AmitaSingh,^.BankeyBihariSharAia,Mr.KunaISharmaandMr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR

order'12.01o2012

£AAbd1- No. 752/21)12

This is an applicationfor seekingtjipographicalcorrectionin

Orderof6''Vanuary,2012.' ;I

Counsel appearingfor the appellants^Ihave acceptedthe notice

LA.App.No.1195/2008

ofthe appHcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeengivento remainingcounselfor the appellants.I

IThe typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin thedecision of 6" January, 2012 is that in;' paragrapli^ no: 40 of• theaforesaidjudgmenttiie rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha',whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learnedcounsel appearingfor the appellants,Accorclingly,this applicationisallowed:and it is orderedthatthe referenceito,'perbigha' inparagraphno: 40 of LA.App^No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessarycorrectionsbe carriedout forthwith.'

In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof.

JUDGE

JANUARY 12, 2012.pkb

LA.App.No.1195/2008