LA.APP./79/2012 of SMT RAJ UPPAL Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+LA.APP. 79/2012

SMT. RAJ UPPALThrough:Mr. S-K. Rout, Advocate

Appellant

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.RespondentsThrough:Mr. Sanjay KumarPathak,Advocatefor R-1/UOIMr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER29.03.2012

CM No. 5420/2012 (u/S 151 CPC)

Delay of 614 days' in re-filing the accompanyingappeal issought to be condoned by 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, theappellantought not be grantedintereston the compensationamountin the event of her 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 614 days' in re-filingtheaccompanyingappeal is condonedwhile making it clear that for thedelayedperiod,the appellantshallnot be grantedinterestin the eventof succeeding in the appeal.

Signature Not Verified

Signing Date:03.10.2024 17:08:11Certify that the digital and physical file havebeen compared and the digital data is as perthe physical file and no page is missing.

With aforesaid observations,this applicationstands disposedof

LA.APP. 79/2012

-The instantappeal relatesto Village Pochanpur,where videNotification of 13^^ December,2000, the land of the appellant stoodacquiredunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and theReferenceCourt vide impugnedorder of 24^*^ February,2010 whileupholding thecompensation amount awarded bythe LandAcquisitionCollectorto the appellant,has denied any enhancementthereupon.

Mr. SanjayKumarPathak,learnedcounselfor the respondent-UOI, statesthat the subjectmatterofthis appealstandscoveredby thedecision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008'Ranbir Sharma Vs.Union of India & Anr.' rendered on 6^ January, 2012, whereincompensation amount in respect of lands acquired in VillagePochampur has been enhanced to ?16,50,000/- per acre for theCategory 'A' land andto ^14,69,600/- per acre in respect ofCategory 'B' lands.

Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that case of theappellantis at par withRanbirSharma (Supra).

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

This appealstandsdisposedof in aforesaidterms.

JIL GAUR)JUDGE

MARCH 29, 2012/rs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT^NEWDELHI

:Reserved on: November 18, 2011Pronounced on: Januarv 06, 2012

(GRID-A)

LA.Al^P.1195/2008O^LLAGE-BHA.RTHAL)

RANBflR.SHARA4A,|Appellantjlhrough:Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.Amit]Maan,Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.Smita;Maan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Tewathia, Advocates1Mr.AnandYadavand Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocates.IMr.Rohtas, Advocate.:;Mr.Raghiivinder Godara, ^v.dvocateIMr.M.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.I^autela,Advocate, IMr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari,jAdvocates.XI]\4r.PankajVivek,AdvocatejMr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla,.Mr.Samit KhoslaIand Mr.DhananjayMehlawat,AdvocatesMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocatej:;Mr.LS.Dahiya,Advocate :Mr.Sandeep Thaldiur, AdvocateMr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate.;Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(AdvocatesforIrespondent in appeals filed-by UOl)

versus

LTMION OF INDIA & ANR.

. Respondents

Through:Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay1Pathak,Mr.Mohitradjadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,IMs.K.K.aurnudiKiran,Advocatesfor LAC/UOIMr.AjayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.MukeshIKumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, ^4r.Kunal!Sharraa, Advocate for DDAi^1.LA.APB.412/2008& CM.No.4096/2008 rCrdss^^Obiections);i.A APP 452/2008•!l'•^oS•i^^?°°^LA.APP|.6J7/200>j& CM.No.433/2009^(Cross-Obiections);CM'.N:d.5990/2010LA.APP.701/2008(Cross-Objections);&CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008;iAAijp.No. l.ms/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharlfial!I'\.App.Mo. ?.9.|./2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan•;lA.App..No. i:i,i/?.ono&connoclad AppealsofVillagePochanpur

i•1LA.APPi.771/2008& CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections)-LA.APP772/9008CMNo^(in/S^&CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008&IA(Cross-Objections); LA.APP,775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.782/2008 &CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Obiections)'CM^foLA.APP.798/2008&CM.No^15/2009LA.APP'-A-APP-785/2008;799/2008 &CM.No931/2009 (Cross-Objections);MyS'CM.No^795./2009 (Cros,s-Objections)LA.APP^05/2008;LA.APP.814/2A.APP.8p2008 &;LA.APP,813/2008 CM.No806/2009&LA.APP.:829/2008;O-oss-Objections); LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP:832/2008 LA.APP.819/2008-' LA LA APP APP 8?? 820/20^ 90n«:•rCioss-jections);rot^ObW^^^^;LA.APP.84592/2008;&LA.APP.873/2008 CM.No.799/2009& rCross-OhippHnn.V CM.No.779/9011CMNo7oS9^' LA.APP.901/2008;LA.APp.-9i:5/2008;LA.APP.951/2008&ISp^74S i^^•^PP-F9/2008; LA.APP.973/2008;r AALA.APR976/2008;r>T. 'LA.APP.978/2008;Cl\'I.]\o.51.)./2009 LA(Cross-Objections)'APP;.986/20081 CMNoLA APP 975/9008•572ScrNo'lSv?(Cross-Objections);rrwCMNo7^^^??• rcrnf (^^oss-Objections);LA.APP.nvT"'?'1059/2008 ^^•^^^•1055/2008;LA.APP. LA.APP:& CM.No.l72S9/9008rrrn.;ni1058/2008& CM No1057/2008 1557/2011 &.& CM nJ) 944S/90ns(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.]086/2008 '(Trn.. ni •'"J- ^ T<^^^°ss-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM No 6]9/^00Os iiE-rr^:rvn^c hkI (Cross-Objectio.ns);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CM.No.3826/?00QKiiissiisiipsiiisLA.APP.11^,-2008:LA.APP.„85/2008;LA.Awf,?«

iA..AppconnectedAppeal.sofVil^^^^i-A.App.No. ;).y4/20i0&corinGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan•V>.App, Mc. ,11.1/20.10&connucredAppeaLsofVillagePochanpur

Page 2 of 29 ,

CMNoSMlflOM^rZfnl

LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008&

sSii=:SlsP=Siii IS= 'Slis\FE=

Siiii BiS ss§iilLA.APP. 145/2009

pS-;: S:Sii'S:t;sb.i,p|=:ii,sss5rfsri ,rfsri , ,Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA APP 2'45/900g- LA.APP.241/2009; LA APP 2'45/900g- LA APP 2'45/900g- APP 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g- LA APP 2'45/900g- APP 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g- APP 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g-

LA.APP. 145/2009LA.APP. 191/2009 S:Sii'S:t;sb.ila. APP.201/2009CM.No.7027/2009s-rrrii,sss5rfsri ,rfsri , ,=~: LA.APP.241/2009; LA APP 2'45/900g- LA APP 2'45/900g- APP 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g- LA APP 2'45/900g- APP 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g- APP 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g-CM.No.7206/2009LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP29sS LA.APP29sSLA.APP.305/2009LA.APP.458/2009 illliii sisi sisiLA.APP.506/2009LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.5fo/2OO9;LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.513/2009"LA.APP.5 10/2009LA.APP.567/2009LA.APP.15/2010;LA.APP.%/2010'LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.1138/2008;LA.APP.48/20 10LA.APP. 1176/2008

Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA APP 2'45/900g- LA.APP.241/2009; LA APP 2'45/900g- LA APP 2'45/900g- APP 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g- LA APP 2'45/900g- APP 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g- APP 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g- 2'45/900g-•LA.APP.2jt9/2009;- LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP29sS LA.APP29sS

LA.APP.305/2009LA.APP.458/2009Eli illliii sisi sisiLA..APP.507/2009;LA.APP.506/2009

LA..APP.507/2009;LA.APP.511/2009;LA.A.PP.572/2009;LA.APP.4Q4/2010;

LA.APP.I177/2008;LA.APP.'1201/2008;LA.APP.23^]J2009

Relatingtp NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13 122000

I(GRID-B)\

Reeved on: Decemhpr08. 20nPromuncedon: January 06. 20/2

DliVENDERKUMAR.

I^^.App No. .ULW2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal'^...vpp...g.j/2010a connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan-App.No. j:.i,20iQa connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 3 of 29

Advocatesi;Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Ro'utray,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-2-14, 38, 41-46, 49, 50-69, 73, 75, 76)versusIIOI & ANRRespondentsThrough:Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate withMr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.MohitraoJadhav, and|Ms.Navlin Swain, AdvocatesforUOI/LAC!j'Mr.S.K,Solanldand Mr.S.K.RoutandMr.B.K.Ro^utray,Advocatesin appealsfiled by UOI.Mr.Virendra Singh, Advocate in R-68, 71& 72 in appealfiledby UOIMr.BankeyBiliar Sharma.,Mr.KunalSharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocatesfor DDA.!LA.APP.11/2010LA.APP. 49/2010LA.APP.51/2010LA.APP.152/2010LA.APP. 53/2010LA.APP. 54/2010LA.APP.55/2010LA.APP.,56/2010LA.APP. 57/2010LA.APP. 59/2010LA.APP.70/2010LA.APP.:100/2010LA.APP. 221/2010LA.APP. 223/2010LA.APP.22672010LA.APP.1242/2010LA.APP. 246/2010LA.APP. 277/2010LA.APP.281/2010LA.APP.1282/2010LA.APP. 283/2010LA.APP. 284/2010LA.APP.285/2010LA.APP.i287/2010LA.APP. 288/2010LA.APP. 289/2010LA.APP.294/2010LA.APP.:295/2010LA.APP. 296/2010LA.APP. 313/2010LA.APP.345/2010LA.APP.346/2010LA.APP. 347/2010LA.APP. 348/2010LA.APP.349/2010LA.APP.350/2010LA.APP. 351/2010LA.APP. 352/2010LA.APP.353/2010LA.APP.1354/2010LA.APP. 356/2010LA.APP. 357/2010LA.APP.358/2010LA.APP.1365/2010LA.APP. 742/2010LA.APP. 760/2010LA.APP.359/2010LA.APP.'360/2010LA.APP. 361/2010LA.APP. 362/2010LA.APP.363/2010LA.APP.1405/2010LA.APP. 406/2010LA.APP. 407/2010LA.APP.408/2010LA.APP.409/2010LA.APP. 438/2010LA.APP. 588/2010LA.APP.722/2010LA.APP;723/2010LA.APP. 724/2010LA.APlf. 725/2010LA.APP.726/2010LA.APP.727/2010LA.APP. 729/2010LA.APP. 731/2010LA.APP.732/2010LA.APP.750/2010LA.APP. 759/2010LA.APP. 764/2010LA.APP.828/2010LA.APP.964/2010LA.APP. 286/2010LA.APP. 364/2010LA.APP.77/2010LA.APP. 80/2010LA.APP. 99/2010&LA.APP,75/2010&C.M.No.964/2011 (Cross-obje|;;tions)

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& H:/'LA/l3417 dated 13.12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No.28/2002-2003,•• Village Bijwasan,Delhi)

'i'AND•'

IA.App, No. 1195/2008S; connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

i.A.App. No. 29,1/?.010& iconnected Appeals of VillageOijwasan .

i.A.Api.1.No.'131/2010&jconnectcdAppealsofVillagePochsnour

Page 4 of 29

(GMD-C)

Reserved on: Dp.cp.mher18. 2011Pmmuncedon: January06, 2017

LA.APP.,111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHAWUR)?:

SEHAJRam and ors.

'AppellantsMr.B.D.Shamia,Mi-.S.K.SolaiildandMr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(inR-16, 20, 23 jto 26, 29,30, 33, 36 to 40 44to 49, 59, 63ito 71)Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantinLA.App.No.:6r,64, 65/2011)Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellantin R~22)I '

;.Through:

versus

union QF INDIA& ANR

Respondents

Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocatesfor QOI/LACii!Mr.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA.i

Through;

LA.APP.llil/2010LA.APP.154/2010LA.APP.1^0/2010LA.APP.165/2010LA.APP.22,8/2010LA.APP.248/2010LA.APP,2514/2010LA.APP.260/2010LA.APP.292/2010LA.APP.293/2010LA.APP.307/2010LA.APP.317/2010LA.APP.395/2010LA.APP.396/2010LA.APP.420/2010LA.APP.432/2010LA.APP.466/2010LA.APP.489/2010LA.APP.637/2010LA.APP.639/2010LA.APP.660/2010LA.APP.662/2010LA.APP.767/2010 •LA.APP.768/2010LA.APP.919/2010LA.APP.1052/2010LA.APP.65/2011LA.APP.116/2011LA.APP.120/2011LA.APP.121/2011LA.APP.476/2011LA.APP.485/2011LA.APP.65/2011LA.APP.116/2011LA.APP.120/2011LA.APP.121/2011LA.APP.476/2011LA.APP.485/2011LA.APP.523/2011LA.APP.525/2011LA.APP.536/201]LA.APP.554/2011

IAA n'M•IP. No. ii./2010&connectficlconncacledAppealsAppealscfofVillageVillagePochanpurBiiwasan

Page S of 2.b

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated13.12.2000issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct 1894 &AwardNo. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,|VillagePochanpur,Delhi)

CORAM:HON'BI^EMR. JUSTICESUNILGAURi

ORDER06.01.2012;

i1.Since the groundson which enhancementofthe compensationis the in these bunch of aresought by appellants appeals identical,thereforewith the consentof learned counsel for the partiespresentatthe hearii^g of these appeals, these bunch |)f appeals pertaining toNotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417oLed 13.12.2000,relatingtogeographically contiguous Villages Dharthal, Bywasan andPochanpu:iare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.2.forof 'DwarkaPhase-Accjuisitionprocess planneddevelopWnt^n mDelhi, commenced with the iBsuoncQof NotificationofDecember, 2000 under Section4of the Land Acquisi-.ionAct, 1894,pertammg'to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact blockcomprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question,i.e.,Bhartlial,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.' •

3.Agriculturalland of the'appellantsherein in the aforesaidthreevillagesstoodacquiredby the RespondentsVide three separateAwards,i.e., Awara No.26/2002-2003: Award No;2^/2002-2003;andAwardNo.30/2002-2003granting compensation@'?l3.82 lacs per acre for'• Block 'A' Klevel field - with top soil) and @?12.32 lacs per acre forBlock.'B'(withouttop soil).|-4.Dissatisfiedwiththe assessmentofmarkd valueoftheiracquired

agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 ofIthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the Refei;enceCourt vide impugnedjudgmenthad enlianced compensation@ ^15.00 lacs per acre for theappellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' an^ @ ^^13.36 lacs per acre fortheir Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal-; and Bijwasan; whereas,;1Sireferencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhavei'beendismissed.5.In; these appeals,furtherenhancementof compensationsoughtbythe appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijwasanis at the rate ofRupeeslacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave soughtat the rate oflacs acrecompensationRupeesThirty per by relyinguponthe precedents in the shape of decisions! in Executive Engineer,KarnatakaHousingBoard vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer, Gadag andOrs., (2011)2 see 246;AnjaniMoluDessaivs. StateofGoa andAmr.,(2010) 13 see 710; SubhRam andOrs vs'. StateofHaryanaandAm.,(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead), through LRs. Vs. SpecialTehsilday(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3See 661; RanvirSinghI'and Am, V5. Union ofLndia AIR 2005 Se:3l67; Chindha Fakira Patil(I)) through LRs ra. The SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon,2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227;Rama Nand(sincedeceased)throughLRs,Union ofIndia & Ann,2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. Stkte of Haryana & Ors.,2010(9) iSCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9)SCALE 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. State ofMaharashtra,(2009)11 see 1171; Atma Singh (Dead) through 'LRs and Ors vs. State ofHaryana&Anr, (2008)2SCC 568; W.p|.(e)No. 4143/2003tided as•.Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010;SpecialLand'AcquisitionOfficerA Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SC.C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer,IA.Ape No. :119.V2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalllA.AiJp.A.App. No. No. U ;.'3'i/20101/20.10&&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofof VillageVillagePochanpurBijwasan'\p ^7

Gujarat^ and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424;; Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCO 175; RisalSingh & Ors, Vs.I''Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chand w. Unionof India and Anr., p009) 15" SCC 769;; GeneralManager, Oil andIINatural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel andI •Anr, (2008) 14 SCC;745; ValUyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar(Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 |SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs.Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; MaheshIIDattatrdy Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238;Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs., Union of India & Anr,176(201il)DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs.Delhi DevelopmentAuthorit)'& Anr,, Jdecided on 24.04.2008; OmPrakask(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionpfIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627;Satpal &Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP.t;No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. 'Union of India, decided on26.09.2011; 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 strengthofthe.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, itwas urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellantsthat the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to betirst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must beadjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over periodoftime and:the same cannotbe limitedto the near future alone.

7.It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,oounsel for appellantsthatDelhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasanpasses throughthe land of VillageBharthal,dividingit into two parts.I.e., on the easternside ofthe railwayline is t^e IGI Airport,New Delhi['• •u\./',pp.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal•lA.App. No. 2M/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasaniA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur o Or 29 29

r3gG o Or 29 29

^ Depots of Indian.

and Oil^ Depots of Indian. Oil and BharatI Petroleum and road 100meters )vide startingfrom NH-8 from Shiy Murti towardsDwarkaSub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides tlie agricultural land into twoportions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii)South Eastern side, where developedFanii Houses are located on theland ofVillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointedout by Mr.S.K.Solanlcilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northernpart ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extensionof IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 forestabhshmgIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for BharatPetroleumand the landsofBharthalandwereVillage VillagePochanpuralso acquiredin the year 1984 for developme,ntof DwarkaPhase-Iandthe lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras werealso acquired for the development of phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City.Attentionwas drawnto the ahsizraslxn.di^to highlightthatthe boundaryot Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arecontiguous.'8.It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,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 in ofillegally; acquired be,,agricultural spiteNotificationof 16^^ October, 2000 vide ^Ihjbh land use of the threevillages ;in question was changed from' agricultural to residential/commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthalhad ceasedto be ruralin viewoftheNotificationof24^' October,1994.9.It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learnedcounselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been discarded the Reference Court P. Ramawronglyby by relying uponl-A.App.lA.App, No.[\Jo. -BqiQXQ 1195/2008a& connected(.onnectGdAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillageBijwasanBharthal|•.•>./\pp. fvlo. lll/MlOi4 connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur'•Page 9 of .29Redcli& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,\Byderabad& Ors, (1995)2 see 305, which has been consideredby the Apex Court in its laterdecisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE41 holding that the potential of the acquired'landmust be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over periodoftime andthe same .cannot be limited to near future alone and if after theacquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the Idnd to any use, it would notI!meanthatthereisno buildingpotentiality.I .10.Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for theappellants;Upon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillageIPochanpurto highlightthat the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfrom p2 lacs to ^62 lacs andmeiely because of the said variation,thesejsale exemplars cannot bethrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, becausethere is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvaluedbecause of any special advantagesand as per i^^ettledlegal propositionlaid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu-Dessai V5. Stateof GoaandAm., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof'saleexemplarsoughtto betaken as representingthe marketprice ofthe; land which comes to ?57lacs acre and sincethe salerelied the per exemplarsupon by appellantsare the comparable sale instances, therefore,.reliance placed by theReferenceCourtthe minimumrates/circlerates fortheupon determiningmarketvalueofthelandiserroneous. acquired patently11.Assessmentof marketvalue of theland was acquired sought byMr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L&DO rates tixed the Government and also on the basis of by predetermined:rates fixed by the Government for, allotmentof alternate>.1'plots mthe;year2000-2001.Keepingin viewthe location,situationandpotentiality;of the acquired land, determinationof its market value is

1-A.App.No. H95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

l.A.App. Mo. ?,94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanl-A.App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurl-A.App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 10 of 29

sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur andVillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO rates ofthedeveloped lands in Dwarka Phase-I or|on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.i-12.In ithe writtensynopsis,appellant ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimitedof LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton theIdllowing grounds:-!.1

a) ' 'ignores the acknowledgement\oii the part of therespondent about the Award Nq.26/2002-2003dated'23.10.2002 being flawed in \the course of theproceedings Civil Writ petition]No.l9012 of 2006.^f^WOl)c^oss-examinatioriof appellantdatedrespondent about the Award Nq.26/2002-2003dated'23.10.2002 being flawed in \the course of theproceedings Civil Writ petition]No.l9012 of 2006.^f^WOl)c^oss-examinatioriof appellantdated

b) Boes not accountfor the fact that 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) Ialuing the land on the basis |of the letter datedJ1.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapitalTerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laiddown variousdecisionsin one ofthe more byincludingJ1.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapitalTerritoryofDelhiis not in accordancewith the law laiddown variousdecisionsin one ofthe more byincludingrecent decisions of the Hon'ble^ S^reme Count inSangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(i)SCC 661.SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(i)SCC 661.

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

e) Does^ not deal with disparityin valu&ofthe Sale Deedsp^roducedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas ver the lawestablishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recentcase of^ Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special LandAcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007 TheHon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that SaleDeedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedinp^roducedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas ver the lawestablishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recentcase of^ Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special LandAcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007 TheHon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that SaleDeedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin

W.Acp,w'tnr No. f^ ^94/2010& connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofof VillageVillageBijwasanBharthal ''•/••App. i^Jo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin AnjanaMolu Dessai vs. State of Gda, '2010(13)SCC 710, theSupreme Court has also held 'th^ the highest of theexemplars and not by averaging''ofdifferent t].>pes ofsalestransactions shouldhe-- considered whilea certanland.Molu Dessai vs. State of Gda, '2010(13)SCC 710, theSupreme Court has also held 'th^ the highest of theexemplars and not by averaging''ofdifferent t].>pes ofsalestransactions shouldhe-- considered whilea certanland.adjudicatingupon compensationupon

f), Relied upon judginent dated 3.3.2008 inLAC: No.97A/2006to decide the marketvalue ofthe subjectlandwhile igiwringthe materiaUwhichindicatethat themarketvalueofthe land is m.uchthan 15 lachigherper: No.97A/2006to decide the marketvalue ofthe subjectlandwhile igiwringthe materiaUwhichindicatethat themarketvalueofthe land is m.uchthan 15 lachigherperacre in BlockAandXI3,36,000%BlockB in violationof the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtof the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court' including in Subh Ram vs. State ofHary>ana 2010(1)SCC 444. As the consequence, impugnedjudgmentSCC 444. As the consequence, impugnedjudgmentrefused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.lframed on 27.2.2007..\'

g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide•Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the•Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the. land use of Village Dhool Siras' and Bharthal waschangedand these areas ceased\to. be agriculturalandchangedand these areas ceased\to. be agriculturaland,came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State.The masterplan and Notificationsof GovernmentforThe masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor•land use change show that in', future land can besubjected toresidential, comrrhrcial andotherpermissibleuses. It is alsopertinent-to mention that theappellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"" amendmentof the ConstitutionofIndia, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, byland use change show that in', future land can besubjected toresidential, comrrhrcial andotherpermissibleuses. It is alsopertinent-to mention that theappellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"" amendmentof the ConstitutionofIndia, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by;virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act wasamendedand the area where the is was Iqnd situated,amendedand the area where the is was Iqnd situated,•deemeda municipalarea and the\municipalCounsellorwas electedfrom there. Noelections were Panchayatwas electedfrom there. Noelections were Panchayatheld in the area.\ ''

1h) \Refused to apply the laM> laid down in AIR Supreme[Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia.andrefusedto considerthefact that the developm.entinthe area has direct effect on the price that willin<?[Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia.andrefusedto considerthefact that the developm.entinthe area has direct effect on the price that willin<?purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjecfland

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

LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal'•'lA.App.Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan,l.A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 12 of 29

auctionedsimilarlysituatedland'v,s commercialblochat the rate ofabout X2.6 lakh and concludedthat thesaidLandis whollyunderdevelopedland.

J) The valuationofthe subjectlandis even lowerthan thepre-determinedauction rates set \>y RespondentNo 2jor Similarly situated land.pre-determinedauction rates set \>y RespondentNo 2jor Similarly situated land.

k) Does not ta^ into accountthepdssibilityofchangeofthe use ofthe landalthoughthe land^as acquiredfordevelopmmt purposes of Dwarlfa Phase II It is7hZTnfDhoolSiras and' uthese\areas ceased to bethe use ofthe landalthoughthe land^as acquiredfordevelopmmt purposes of Dwarlfa Phase II It is7hZTnfDhoolSiras and' uthese\areas ceased to beofmrnsttTboundaries#I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and24 101994although they clearly establish ' the commercial^""Sunthala v. Tahsildaralthough they clearly establish ' the commercial^""Sunthala v. Tahsildar^ichthth land ? i IS acquired is relevantfactorP"'-P0se Whileforl!hJ'"7,'he factl!hJ'"7,'he factJTiZmn!' in immediate br in nearto be future usedbuildigpurposesbuildingpotentialitybuildigpurposesbuildingpotentialityneeds to be consideredI^m) The presence ofa number of buiidings on the land. are to be treatedas hoUse^sites. Vie lands t are to be treatedas hoUse^sites. Vie lands tbuildingsoccupied byZusnousefn sie,tt Z r-adjoininglands have•theconsidered potentialasofwbeingputin betteruseas house,itesinfe nearfmre^beingputin betteruseas house,itesinfe nearfmre^13.In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and iotliers of LA. App. No.347/2009,the factual detailshave been providedwithaprayerthat th»appellantsof this appeal be treatedat par withSe co-appellantsof theothei appealsin thesebunchofappeals.Snpplenrenthrgthe aforesaidargumentsadv^eedon behalfoftheappellantsof this appeal be treatedat par withSe co-appellantsof theothei appealsin thesebunchofappeals.Snpplenrenthrgthe aforesaidargumentsadv^eedon behalfofthewellants,rt;wastu-gedby Mr.AnandYadav,Adv.ocatethatthe effectof'•A.A^p No 294/^AppealsofVillageBharthalpp. ^o. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurpp. ^o. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

urbanizationoftlie lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the changeinland use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. StateofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238;KapifMehra(MajorGeneral)&Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia &'Anr, 176(20:if')DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuction Rates of the area are relevanttodeteimme the market value of the acquired lands and infact the saleuistancesrehed theareandto haveuponby appellantscWparable oughtbeen rehed the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market upon byvalue of the acquired lands. Thus, enh™cem.ent of compensationreflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands issoughtin tiieseappeals.15.Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby theRespondents,Mr. SanjayPoddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas perSection51-AofLand AcquisitionAct. 1894, acertifiedcopy of the Sale Deed is anadmissibleevidencebut tlie same cannotbe! taken as relevam'evidencelor determinationof the market value unlUs and until tlie same isproperly comrectedwitli the land-in question and element of specialfancy ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsnamely,nature,situationoftheproperty,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be consideredand the sale instancesrelied thecorrectupon by Respondentsdisclosingmarket value of the acquiredlands have beein illegallyrejectedby theReferenceCourtand whilereliancethe decisionsin JaiLaiplacinguponvs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRl 227, S<tipal& Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndiu and Anr.,(2009) 15 see 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SushilKumar vs.UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthatshaipincreaseui in ashortcannotbe takento be realisticuntilreasonsfor pnceperiod-lUcharein evidencethe seller shaip ;mcrease explainedby producingLA.App.a'a""'No. 294/2010&^connectedAppealsofVillageVillageBIjwasanBharthal'LAApp. No. 1.1.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir,'•''Page 14 of 29

and the purchaseras no prudentperson hayikg loiowledgeof the usualprevalenttrendinthe marketwouldpay sudh higherpay as reflectedinthe sale instance of Radha Swami Satsarig,'Beas, relied upon by theappellants, but for special consideration.iThus, it was contended onbehalf 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 Chand (supra) which has been followed by acoordinateBenchofthis Court in SushilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh(supra).1

16.So far as potentialityof the land isiconcerned,it was urged byMr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factipredinto, while fixing theminimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentason 1^^ April, 2000 and by granting apprebiationthereon @ 12% perannum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneouslydeteimined by the Reference Court, as inSushil liuincir (supra)appreciation@ 10% per annum has been grahted.Thus, it is submittedthatthereis nofor furtherenhancement'fromtheof scope priceacquiredlands as fixed by 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 granting'appreciation @ 10% per annum and tljerebyallowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

17.After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both thesides and,uponcloseperusalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceonlecoidand the decisionscited,whatemergesisf'thatthe truemarketvalueof the comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto av/ilhng

LA.LA.App.Aop. No, No. 294/2010 119S/2008&&colnnectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillageBijwasanBharthal;'U.App. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur• :• •Pa e15 f24

seller aiid the best evidence is tlie comparablesale instances. Wliiledealingwith the questionofpotentialvalye ofthe acquiredland, whathas to be considered in assessing the ijiarket value thereof, standsreiteratedby the Apex Court in Vdhovs. State ofBaryana&Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 inthesewords:- '

the situationofthelandvis-a-vistheor(i) acquired city;the town or villagewhich had. been growingin sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educationalreligiousor any otherlandofimportanceor becauseofIts explosivepopulation;I ?the town or villagewhich had. been growingin sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educationalreligiousor any otherlandofimportanceor becauseofIts explosivepopulation;I ?

(ii)the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup thebuildings, bethey residential, commercial orindustrial, as the case mav be-buildings, bethey residential, commercial orindustrial, as the case mav be-

(ni) possibilit);ofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyforoccupantsofbuildingsto beputup on thatland;occupantsofbuildingsto beputup on thatland;

(iv)absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor usin<?the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

existence, of highways, public-broads, layouts ofbui.dingplots or developedresidentialextensionsinthevicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;existence, of highways, public-broads, layouts ofbui.dingplots or developedresidentialextensionsinthevicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi)benefits or advantages of educationalinstitutionshealth care centres, or the like in the surrounding-areas of the acquired land 'which may becomeavailableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton theacquired land; and\••health care centres, or the like in the surrounding-areas of the acquired land 'which may becomeavailableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton theacquired land; and\••

I(via landsaroundthe acquiredlandon the acquiredlanditsef eing in demandfor building purposes, toitsef eing in demandfor building purposes, to. specify few.",:,

18.Theoflandfortheofas alsofor.potentiality purposedevelopmentanumberoffactors.For the saidbuildingpurposesdependsuponlargethe Court not have to beL in mind theforpurpose, may only purpose

1.A..VPPlAApp..«PP. MO-1-W2010& No. No. ;.rM/2010 U9,y2008&&connectedconnGctedconnectedAppealsAppealsAppealsofofofVillageVillageVillagePochanpurBijwasanBharlh^ '1':

which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequentevents to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court inAvimsh'{su\im).AVliilereiteratingthe relevantfactors for detemiinationof compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Courtin AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmallpiecesof land relied thecouldnot be ato discardthemupon by appellantsgrourid especiallywheii exemplarsof largepiecesoflandwere not available.

19.Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Am vs. I\£K \RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC714. The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom,the decisionsrelieduponon behalfof the appellantsis that where there is no basic differenceeither in location, situation or potentiality:of the villages, which are situated similar availableto them even assimilarly having advantageregards foture prospects, there is no justification for reducing thecompensationon the groundofdistancebet^ev^nsimilarlysituatedlandsand the acquiredland.Ij

20.It is well establishedproposition|of' law thait the burden ofpioving the true market value of the acquiredland is on the State whohas acquired the agriculturalland for particularIpuipose. But, it isequally true that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensationawarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of theApex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage.21.Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe factthat the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residentialcolonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,^toj, had held that deductionof 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent.observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolii Desscii(Supra)•deserve attention, which are as under:-I»

lA.AppNO.U95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBtiarthalIA.AppNo. •;.94/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.ApprJo. .1.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur> ;Pael7ofZ9

"The legal position is that even where there are severalexemplars with reference to similarlands, usually thehighest of the exemplars,which is \bonafide transaction,will be considered.Where however there are several salesofsimilar lands whoseprices range in narrow bandwidth,the average thereof can be taken', as representing themarket price. But where the values disclosed in respect oftwp 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-valuationreasons.or otherprice depressing ConsequentlyaveragingcdnHot be resorted to. "I

22.It would be worthwhileto take note of the clinchingobser\^ationspertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands madeI'•by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (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 ofthelands, situatedintheneighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similarvalue or utility^ taken place between^a willing vendee andthe willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect thetrue value, as agreed between reasonableprudent personsacting in the normal market conditions hre the real basis todetermine the market value. "23.to determinethe marketvalue of thelands asPrinciples acquired

reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and NMural Gas CorporationLtd.(Supra), are as under:-, ?'?•:

"Primarily, the increase in land pricks depends on fourfactors - situ0ion of the land, nature of developmentinsurroundingarea, availabilit)^of landfor developmentinthe area, and the demandfor landiiri the area. In ruralareas unless there is any prospect of developmentin thevicinity, increase in prices would \be slow, steady andgradual,withoutany suddenspurtsorjumps.

i,A.A|jp.Wo. ]195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthai

I.A.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

l.7\./ipp.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu^

On the other hand, in urban or semi-ur han areas, where thedevelopment isfaster, where the demandfor land is highand where there is construction activity all around, theescalation in market price is at \much higher rate, ascomparedto rural areas. In somepqckets in big cities, dueto rapid development and high demand for land, theescalations in prices have touched'':even30% to 50% ormore per year, during the nineties. Qn the other extreme, inremote rural areas where there, wcis. no chance of anydevelopmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnatedfor years or rose marginallyat nominalrate of 1%or 2%per .annum.There is thus significantdifferenceinincreases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urbanareas and increases in market value df lands in the ruralareas.Therefore if the increase \in marketvalueinurban/semi-urbanareas is about 10%..to 15% per annum,the correspondingincreasesin rural'^areaswouldatbest beonly aroundhalfofit, that is about5%rto 7.5%jper annum.This rule of thumb refers to the \general trend in thenineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecificevidence relating to increase in prices. Where there arespecial reasonsfor applyinga higher rate of increase, orany specific evidence relating to the;actual increase inprices, then the increaseto be applied'Woulddependuponthe same.\•,

Normally, recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthemarketvalue by providingappropriate^escalationover theprovedmarketvalue ofnearby lands\ in previousyears (asevidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where thereis no evidenceoftransactionsorany contemporaneous]saleacquisitionsofcomparablelandsin the neighbourhood.Thesaid method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-saletransactions/acquisitionsprecedes the'subject acquisitionby.onlyafewyears, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it. may be unsafe, even ifit relates to neighbouringland. What be reliablestandardifthe is may gap onlyfew become unsafe and unreliable standard years, maywhere the gap is larger. For exampte,for determiningthemarket-value ofa land acquired in '1992, adopting theannual increase method with reference to sale or

!.A.App.No. .11S5/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthallA.App. No, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

acquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This isbecause, over the course ofyears,\the >ate' of annualincreasemay itselfundergo drastic change apartfrom thelikelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationinpricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandardofincrease."|

24.1his Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofIthfej ApexCourtinHaryanaStateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation\hSIDC)(Supra),regardingcomputation of compensation for the acquired lands by adoptingcomparativesalesmethods..Whatwas saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC(Supra)is:asunder:-i I

"Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or landswith differentsituationalarefor the sameadvantages) acquiredpurpose, for of residential courts havesay forming layout,sometimes felt that determinationtheir value withreferenceto previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoidedanda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedforall landsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

25.Undisputedly,in these appeals sale!exemplars in and aroundacquired land of Village Bharthal, Village iBijwasan of the period inquestionare not availableand the solitarysale'exemplarstronglyreliedupon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven SaleDeedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,SwamiSatsangBeashad purchased the agriculturalland in Villlage Pochanpur at apricewhichvariedfrom ^52 lacsto ?62 lacsacre.' •per

26.WhetheraforesaidSaleDeeds (Ex.PWJl/4to Ex.PW-1/10)whichare basicallybetween:one set of co-OM^nersm^MdhaSwamiSatsangBeas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand'6Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectt).ie correctmarketvalueofthe landmthe villagesin questionis the mootiqi^estionwhichis requiredto be ansM^ered. Evidently,aforesaid'saleej^emplars, i.e., Sale DeedslAApp. No 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal: 'AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwa.sanl-A.App.No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

IPage20 of29

(tx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetliat its price varies from ?52 lacsto ?62 lacs acre. thfe entire land of the per Meaning tiiereby, sajeexemplars^Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.p|v-1/10)did not commandthe same marketprice:It was dependentupon'thenatui-eand situationoftlie aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishithe advantagesattached toeach parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land inisthesesalecannotbe treatedasquestion, lacldng.Therefore,ej^emplarsdisclosingrepresentativeprice for the acqiiiredlands in question.Thespecial need of the purchaserof these a^ulturallands mVillagePochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to| Ex.PW-I/10)has not beenbiought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has notbeen got examinedby the appellants.Had ttie purchaser/vendeeof theaforesaid:saleexemplars been got examined,,,tlienit could have beenelicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto '^ay suchahigh priceforthese lands. The special fancy of the puijchaser, i.e., Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas viho had purchasedmore tli^ 33 Bighas of land at anexorbitant invideIs^eDeed executedon 25"'price VillageMamurpur2000 was alsomatterin LA. No. 266/2008titledasMarch, subject App.Jat 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 in the aforesaiddecisions,thp kle exemplarof VillageMammpurwas discardedwhileholdingthatithe same camiotbe treated'as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.!27.In the instantmatters, thoughthe land use of the acquiredlandswas changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but it has comein evidencethat the acquiredlandswere beingu.sedfor a^iculmralpuiposetilltheiracquisition:Thus, it becomesevidentthat thl acquiredlands were notdevelopedlands. No prudent person having!knowledge of prevailingI.A.APP. N„, ,.105/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal-A.App,'VZ' 1^'°' iMo. .111/^010n'fnf&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurBrjwasan

marketprice of the land in questionwould pay such high price unlessand until such purchase is meant for special^consideration and so, in theconsidered opinion of this Court the sale lexemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds(Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been; rightly discarded by theReferenceCourt.j

I28.So far as the sale exemplarof Village Samalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)reliedupon bythe appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantprice of^1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^'' January,2000, itneeds to be noted that because this sale was exemplar (Ex.PW-]/ll)situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed(Ex.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnot onlythe larii but the structurethereonincludingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,lane, by-lane,etc., therefore,it had fetched such high price. In viewIjthereof, this sale exemplarcannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquired lands inquestion.!

29.Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice ofsimilarly;situatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas towhetheradoptionofL& DO circularrates for the developedlands andPre-DetenninedRates for the alternateplots by the DDA ought to beadopted to determine the tme market value of the acquired lands inquestion.|

30.Parametersgoverningfixationofmark# value ofacquiredlandshighlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Ram ReddyandOrs. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad'-Urban DevelopmentAuthorit)^HyderabadandOrs., 1995 (2) SCC ,305 are as under:-

12. However, in either of the said cases whetherit be thedeterminationofthe marketvalueofthe.acquiredlandwithbuildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysale ofplots in welldevelopedlayoutin tHe n&ighborhood

lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectGdAppealsofVillageBharthal| ^LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasani•.IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

or whetherit be the determinationofthe nmrketvalueoftheacquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referencetothepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undevelopedlayout ofbuildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomesinevitablefor the Court tofind out \vhat will be the pricefetchedor to befetchedby the salesUUots in the layouts,le ledofthewithrifkrenceto theupon by anyparties,pricewhich theplotscouldhavefetchedifspidon the date ofthepublicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section() ofthe Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetchedby the sales opheplots in layoutsofBuildingplots in theneighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available,then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of•he acquiredland with reference to\the relevantdate ofpublicationunderSection4(1) ofthe %A Act, accordingtothe actualuse to which it wasput and\increaseits value bya small percentage having regard to the degree of itsbuildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidenceto^e made available in that regard Asmall percentagevalue of the landfound outto its actual user accordingsince resort to the method cfgiving', increasedvalue forsuch bmldingpotentialityarises only %hen there is\oevidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodofdL^'nTthat there was no immediateacXflLT-ifformed in the31.In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionbf|rateofland cliargedbytheDDAafterthelands^theandacquiring agriculturaldeveloping same,transfemngperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableio rely upon the allotmentratos/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of theadjoming undevelopedfreehold lands. Following^the dictum of LaiChand(Supra),acoordinateBench of this Court in JaiSingh (Supra)and Smhil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua thedevelopedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalue of

the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourthasnotthe DDA ratesfor allotmentofland or rightly adopteddevelopedthe DDA's Pre-DetenninedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing themarketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

32.Now what is requiredto be seen is Iwhetherprogressiveincreasemethodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue oftheland in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionofthe year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.othervillagesfor developmentofDwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argiik by Mr.Sai^ay Poddar,learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even iftheescalationat the compoundedrate of 10%per amium is taken from theyear 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for |the period intervening theNotification for development of Dwarlca;Thase-I and the instantNotificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed bythe LandAcquisitionCollectoris more thanthe aforesaidescalatedpriceand therefore, the enliancement granted .by the Reference Court isunjustified.'IiI.i

33.Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum ofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra),'cautioningthe Courts to adoptprogressiveincreasemethod in assessmentqf the market value of theacquiredland only when the gap is of4-5.yearsand beyondthat it maybe unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouring'land. What may be alehablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew,years,may becomeunsafeand unrehablestandardwhere the is In the instant the gap larger.case,gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., of DwarkaPhase-Iand DwarkaPhase-IIIS ofsixteeri'yearsand therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthemode of determining the market valuei% providing appropriate

LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&cohnectedAppealsof'VillagePochanpur

escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previousyears.

34.Mr.SanjayPoddar,learnedseniorcounselforthe•^respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that -the Reference Court hasI"•granted escalation @ 12% per annum, iwhich is unwaiTanted as acooidinatebench of this Court in Sushil\K\umar(Supra), has grantedescalation 10% annum. After the decision in @ per havirjg perusediSushilKumar (Supra), I fmd that 10%) iucrease on account of higherpotentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value1determinedby the ReferenceCourthas been*grantedand so, by relying SmhilKumar escalationI the ReferenceCourtupon (Supra)grantedby@12%) per annum cannotbe reducedto 10%lperannum.In this viewofthe matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

35.Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government'sminimumprice ofthe agriculturalland in Delhi,'bythe ReferenceCourtis reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%,per annum grantedby theReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof'theminimumprice for theagriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. 1''April, 2000 till the date ofNotificationin the instant deservesto be further increasedor appeals•not.••I I'36.Adoption of Goverrunent'sminimuhi,jates,"i-\of agriculturallandpertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by thelearnedcounsel for:appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased tobe an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24^'^ October, 1994declaring agriculturallands in these three ^dllages in question to beurban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe 1994the land yearuse ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthatby itselfis not sufficientto

ITX.App.No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

l-A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasanW.App, No. 111/2010&c6nnectedAppealsofVillagePpchanpurW.App, No. 111/2010&c6nnectedAppealsofVillagePpchanpur

that the lands had forpresume acquired gained potentiality beingconsideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vitalaspectofthere being any.developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlandsUi question. Not only this, even the sale! exemplars of Radha SwamiBeasrelied thedisclosethatthe saleSatsang,heavilyupon by appellantsofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.37.Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till theissuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct,1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there beenincreasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialit)^oftheacquired lands upon change of their use ^post the year 1994, thenappellantscouldhave laid theirhands on o-;hfksale instancesin the areain question.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe landin VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instanceof Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)withqut leading any evidence toestablishthat-thequalityand potentialityof:the sale exemplarsofRadhaSwami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur'andthe sale exemplarofVillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are compa|ailewiththe acquiredlandsand so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance ofVillage Samalldia (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot|be: treated to be sufficientground to grant higher compensationwhil^ relying upon the aforesaid^_Isale instances.Therefore,in view of the ^fore-referreddictum of theApex Court in Haryam State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensiiondeservesto be awardedfor the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of theminimum^price fixed by the Government^o^ the agriculturalland inDelhi, which -generally factors in the rige of price due to higherpotentiality.1aking note of the fact that there is gap between what

lA.App, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 26 of 29

would be expected to be the market growth and what the market hadactuallygrown,Govermnent'sminimumagriculturalpricehas been heldto be reasonable basis for assessingthe|marketvalue of the; acquiredlands in JaiSingh(Supra)as well as inSuskilKumar(Supra)andIfmdno reasonto take adifferentviewthan the! one whichhad been taken by•coordmate Benchof this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh(Supra)andSuskilKumar(Supra).

138.This Court is of the consideredview that the ReferenceCourt inthe matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has relied the Govermnent'sminimum forlightly upon price agriculturallands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue oftheAcquiredlands in question.Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterojVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethat the potentialand the situationof the acquiredlands is similarto sale exe'mplarsis borne out from theevidenceon record.ButIfind thatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityoftheacquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthb iGI'Airport,IndianOil andBharatPetroleumDepots and of Railwayline passingthrough VillageBharthal,and there,beinga 100 meters vi^de road starting from Mli-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 consideredopinionIofthis Court, on accountofaforesaid,locationaladvantages,the acquirediknds in question,certainlyassumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I.Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarketvalue of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court onaccountof the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the

AApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 27 of 29

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

"When once, conclusion is reached that there was thepossibility'ofthe acquiredland being,usedfor puttingupbuildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusionwould be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had abuildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its marketvalue takinginto accountthe increasem priceattributableto such buildingpotentiality. "i

39.Consideringthe fact that it would be veiy difficultto provide adefinitevalue qua potential,and in view ofthe fact that exactnesscannever be achieved in the matters of assessingfair compensation,it isbioadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthemwith equivalenceby uniformly applyingGovernment'sminimumprices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquiredlandsandofare treatedat differently so, appellants VillagpPochanpurpar with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants-.,of Village Bharthal andVillageBijwasan.However, while relyingjupon the decisionin SushilKumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10%iincreaseover and abovethemarketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdetermined/bythe ReferenceCourtinthese matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantagesprovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

40.Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent ofawarding:10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalueassessedby theReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwiththe appellantsof VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof

LA.App. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 'LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpurLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

Page 28 of 29

the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extentindicatedabove. Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthesethreevillagesin questionis determined@|?16,50,000/-per^^JSlfortheCategoiy ^A' land and @^14,69,600/-pp l^ka for the Category'B'lands in question.V-jJ\

41.On the aforesaid enhancement in'1 theIi' compensation awarded,statutor}^benefitsas per the Land AcquisiliiohAct, 1894 as explainedinthe judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 aregianted, exceptfor the periodwherethereis ''a delayin filingthe appeal,for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the e^ancedcompensationshallbe paid.Iheseappellantswouldbe entitled^tq proportionatecosts.42.The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedofin the aforesaid tenns with direction to the Registry to remit thecompensationamount,ifany, depositedby|eitherside with the Registrar(jeneralofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheetsbe accordinglyprepared.|

January 06, 2012pkb

(S'UNILGAUR)JUDGE

W.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthallA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 29 of 29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT;NEW DELHI

LA.APP. 1195/2008

RANBIRSH™:AppellantThrough:Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,MrJai Prakash,Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.JitinTewathia, AdvocatesMs.Anita Tomar, Advocke.

JN-lr-Rohtas,Advocate.'

Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate

Mr.N.S.Negiand A4r.H.S.RauteIa,Advocate

Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates.

Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesforrespondentin appealsfiledby UOI)

Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor

Mr.R.S.Tomar.

Mi-.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand

Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates

versus-.

IM[0NOF INDIA,&'^^ANR.^:prj..nrough::Mr.SanjayPoddar,Senior-AdvocatewithMr.SanjayPathaic,Mr.MohitraoJadhavandrj..nrough::Mr.SanjayPoddar,Senior-AdvocatewithMr.SanjayPathaic,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand

^:pj .Respondents

. Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.EaumudiKiran,Advocatesfor LAC/Uqi ;JA.AjayVerma,Mr.S.ICSethi,Ms. AmitaSingh^.BankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalShaimaandMr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA.

CORAM:

. HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESUNILGAUR

ORDER:12.01.2012

£M^Appl.No. 752/2019.fHf^.

Ihis IS an applicationfor seeldngtjjpbgraphicalcorrectioninOrderof6"^ January,2012.

Counselappearingfor the appellantsjIhave acceptedtlie notice

LA.App.No.1195/2008

ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeengivento remainingcounselfor the appellants.

The typogiaphicalerror pointed out by the respondentin thedecision of 6'^ 2012 is that in no:40 of the January, paragraph,aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha',whereas it should' be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learnedcounselappearingfor the appellants.Acccjrdingly,this applicationisallowed:and it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha'in paragraph 40 of 1195/2008be read as acre'.no; LA.App.No. 'per Necessarycorrectionsbe carriedout forthwith.|

In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicatioiistandsdisposedof

JANUARY 12,2012.pkb