LA.APP./80/2012 of SUBE SINGH & ANR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

$~4*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+LA.APP. 80/2012

SUBE SINGH & ANR.Through:Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate

Appellants

versus

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

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER29.03.2012

CM No. 5421/2012 (u/S

151 CPC)

Delay of 517 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 respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively, state that onlyopposition to this application is that for the period of delay, theappellants ought not be granted interest on the compensation amountin the event of their succeeding in the appeal.

Since the reasons disclosed in Paragraph No. 3 of the

application does not display gross negligence, therefore, thisapplication is allowed and the delay of 517 days' in re-filing theaccompanying appeal is condoned while making it clear that for thedelayed period, the appellant shall not be granted interest in 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 application stands disposed

LA.APP. 80/2012

The instant appeal relatesto Village- Pochanpur,where videNotificationof 13^^' December,2000, the land of the appellantstoodacquiredunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and theReference Court vide impugned order of 10^^ May, 2010 whileupholding thecompensation amount awarded bytheLandAcquisitionCollectorto the appellant,has denied any enhancementthereupon.

Mr. SanjayKumarPathak,learnedcounselfor the respondent-UOI, statesthatthe subjectmatterofthis appealstandscoveredbythedecision 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 parwithRanbirSharma(Supra).

In the lightof above,this appealis allowedin termsof decisionof this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra) with statutorybenefits andproportionatecosts, while declining the interest for the delayedperiod.

This appealstandsdisposedof in aforesaidterms.

(SUNIL GAUR)JUDGE

IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHI AT'NEWDELHI

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

(GRID-A)

LA.APP.1195/2008(mXAGE- BHARTHAL)

RAMBIRSHARJ\4A

SHARJ\4AAppellantThrough:Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit|Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita'Maan, Mi.R.S.Verma,Mr. Jitin Tewathia, AdvocatesMr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates.Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.;Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate

Mr.M.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela,AdvocateMr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Roiitray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari,Advocates.Mr.Pankaj Vivek, AdvocateMr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla., Mr.Samit Khoslaand Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, AdvocatesMr.H.S.Rautela,Advocate

Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate

Mr.Sandeep Thalchur, Advocate

Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate.Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesforrespondent in appeals filed by UOI)

versus

LJNION 01' INDIA& ANR.'Respondents

Through:Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay;Pathak,Mr.Mohitrao.Vadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaurnudiKiran, Advocatesfor LAC/UOIMr.AjayVerma, Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.MukeshKumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.KunalSharma, Advocate for DDA

(Cniss-Obiections);LA.APP 452/2008-•llpp'69™np'^ CM.No.5990/2010(Cross-Objections):CM.NO.5I0/.009rntfo (Cross-Objections);LM No.4.,3/2009 LA.APP.768/2008(Cross-Objections);LAAPP.70i/2 LA.APP.77/200ji;0()S&

i.A.A|)i3.No. HU5/2008'& conncctedAppealsofVillageBharlhal

I^.App. Mo. ?.9^;./?.010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

I '.App,No. l:l.l/?.030&conncKled AppealsofVlllaBc;Pochanpur

^CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Pbjections);LA.APP.772/2008-^CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.774/2008&r.(Cross-Objections); LA.APP:775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP!777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008& CM.Np.940/2009.(Cross-Objections)-L^-APP''784/2008;LA.APP.7S5/2008; LA.APP798/2008 &CM.No.^15/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APp!799/2008 &CM No 931/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008&C^4.NoJ;795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.API?.814/2008 &CM.No806/2009C:ross-0,bjections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP820/2008-TLA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP,832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008'LA.APP.^844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APlj.873/2008&CM No 779/2011JLA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections)-CM No 7^/2000^' LAAPP901/2008; LA.APH915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008&r Af(Cross-Objections); LA.ApP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008-^Cl\'I.No.519/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP975/2008-J;f^P^??^6/2008;LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APPi.986/2008& CM.No.572/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No.17340/2008; nOBLA.APP.1031/2008cfe CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections)-^rVaddCM.No.599/2009(CrossfObjections);LA.APP 1046/2008-LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008&CM,No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obiections)'r \r^APP ADD I'n^^nnno ^^ CM.No. CM.No.420/200917262/2008(Crossjofejections);(Cross-Objections);LA.APPLA.APP.1052/2008'1050/2008;CVmo.416/2009(Cross-Ob,eiions);Lk.APP.1054;2t08i'CM.No^,011No752'2nn (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.il08/208&LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP. CM No1057/20.08 1557/2011 &(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM No 17259/2008rCrn.JlbW V(Qoss-Objections);LA.IpP^OwS^CM No"CtI 'LA.APP.<Cross-dbjecaons);LA.APP.l 1109/9008-r APu innnnnc108/2008&-CMNOLA.APP.,i„;^"00^™'.US ^r^vl. nK•i V ^ (poss-Objections);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CMNo3826/2000iiiiiilSHisI..A,APP.lll37/200S&CM No 17283/2008fCrot^ Oh"LA.APPJ1156/2008;LA.APP.nsSgrfrpTP^ISZ'^;^-'^''''-'"(,Cross-Obj6ctions)-LA APP 1150/9008-'t a' Ann i*-M.No.7774/2009LA.APP,ll|67/2008& CM No 802/200°LA.APP.1li70/2008-LA APP n71S""=;0>'J®«'Ons);LA.APP.1168/2008;LA.APP.n75/2I:LA^P nS LA APP w'oi"'"'LA.APP,1173/2008;'LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP1183/700s/™'i1181/2008;LA.APP.1184/2008- LA APP 1185'9nn8 r'^^'2009 (Cross-Objections);"*• '^,'«'P-I1»5-2008:LA.APP.|1Is6/2008&CM.No.70]3/2009

^•r'-'• pp. c. JU/20a0&conjiBccedAppealsofVillagePochanpur!:Page 2 of 29,.

LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.l191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008194/2008; LA.APP.l195/2008;LA.APP.1197/2008IL.A.lAAPP1202/2008,02/2008'^L.AP.A*^APP1203/2008; LA.APP.1210/2008"LA.APPP.1211900/2008LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008&U\4.No.3M1/2009,(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008* LA APP 19S9/9noR-LA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.I277SLAAPP 279900^LA.APP.1280/2008;LA.APP.1281/2008 LA.APP. 283S' LA APP 284 200LA.APP.33/2009; LA.A^s"^'

LA.APP73/2009 &^ (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.59/2009TAA-nn 'Tn'CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections)' (Cross-Objections)'LA APP 74/2009 APP 74/2009 74/2009LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No,953/2011 (CrtSLA.APP.l08/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP.121/2009- LA APP 135/2009

^ (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.59/2009CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections)' (Cross-Objections)'LA APP 74/2009 APP 74/2009 74/2009

LA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA.APP.138/2009- l1aP^39S

LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP 144/2009- LA APP 145/2009140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP 144/2009- LA APP 145/2009 LA.APP.143/2009; LA.APP 144/2009- LA APP 145/2009143/2009; LA.APP 144/2009- LA APP 145/2009 LA.APP 144/2009- LA APP 145/2009 144/2009- LA APP 145/2009 LA APP 145/2009 APP 145/2009 145/2009.A.APP.1^62/2009; LA.APP.187/2009: LA.APP:iS9' lIaPW^S?

LA.APP.1,97/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP1,97/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP LA.APP.198/2009; LA.APP198/2009; LA.APP LA.APP199/2009- LA APP 201/2009 LA APP 201/2009 APP 201/2009 201/2009LA.APR202/2009;LA.APP.203/2009;'LA.APP.2oiS& ctT7oS9^

Cross-Obpctions);LA.APP.210/2009& CM.No970/2011 rCrossOhl.H^

LA.APP.2iI1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.AP]P.222/2009 LArp?22S

LA.APR2p4/2009;LA.APP.227/2009;LA.APP.i30/2009&. CM No 7206/2009

Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP245/2009- LA APP 94fi/?nn^

•LA.APP.2^9/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP29^

APP 94fi/?nn^ 94fi/?nn^LA APP'Sno'LA.IPP.4S'

La'aPP489 2009-' TA'applonnn^' LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.481/2009rA LA.A.PP491/2009- TAAPP4QV9nnQ TAAPP4QV9nnQ

LA.APP.490/2009; LA.A.PP491/2009- TAAPP4QV9nnQ

rA Aiiii m

LA.A.PP491/2009- TAAPP4QV9nnQ TAAPP4QV9nnQpii siii

(Relatingjo NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/LcfcB/lU/13417dated 13 12 9000

(GRID-B)

Resep^edon: December OR 7011Pron^nced on: January 06. 20/ ?

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

OEVENDERKUMAR'• IIhrough:Mr.R.S.Tomar^iMr.VirendraAppellantSinghT'^VillageBharthal•AP,.. ^0,&connecvedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 3 of 29

(Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&'BjfLA/i3417dated 13.12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No.28/2002-;2003,"VillageBijwasan,Delhi)

•AND

IA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

i-A App. No. 29,1/;'.OaO&iconncctedAppealsofVillageDIjwasan

IA.App. No.':nj./2Cno&ItonnectedAppealsofVillagePochanour

Page 4 of 29

(GRID-C)

Reserved on: December 18. 2011Prmpunced on: January 06. 2017.

LA.APP. 111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUr|

SEHAJ RAM AND ORS., •••••AppellantsThrough:Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.SolanldandMr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(inR-16,20, 23 to26,29, 30, 33,36 to 40, 44to 49, 59, 63 to^^l)Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantinLA.App.No.;61s 64, 65/2011)Mr.RajeshYadav,Advocatefor appellantinR-22)iversus.union QFINDIAANR; ;RespondentsThrough:Mr.SanjayPoWar,SeniorAdvocatewithA4r.SanjayKuiriarPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhav,and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates •forUOL/LAC|Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA.Ila.app.lH/2010la.app.154/2010La!aPP. 155/2010la.app;-la.app.22,8/2010160/2010la.app,la.app.248/2010165,'2010LA.APP,^209/2010la.app.la.app.215/2010156/2010LA.APPim9/2010LA.APP.254/2010la.app.260/2010LA.APP.'261/2010la.app.•250/2010la.app.292/2010la.app.293/2010LA.APP. 305/2010la.app.270/2010la.app.307/2010la.app.317/2010la.app. 392/2010la.app.306/2010la.app.395/2010la.app.396/2010LA.APP. 397/2010la.app.393/2010la.app.420/2010LA.APP.432/2010la,app..412/2010LA.APP. >433/2010la.app.466/2010LA.APP.489/2010. LA.APP.;;|77/2010la.app.434/2010la.app.la.app.660/2010637/2010LA.APP.LA.APP.662/2010639./2010LA.APP. 741/2010la.app. 1540/2010la.app.la.app,657/2010635/2010la.app.la.app.919/2010767/2010•la.app.LA^APP.768/20101052/2010LA.APP. 61/2011la.app. 784/2010LA.APP.la.app.918/2010758/2010la.app.65/2011la.app.64/2011LA.APP,116/2011la.app. 117/2011la.app.120/2011la.app.121/2011la.app. 129/2011la.app.119/2011la.app,476/2011la.app.485/2011LA.APP. 521/2011la.app,429/2011la.app.la.app.536/2011523/2011la.app.la.app.554/2011'525/2011la.app.la.app. 591/2011 526/2011la.app.la.app.535/2011522/2011

p. NO. ixi/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page S of zn

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

CORAM:

iiHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUIVILGAUR

ORDER'06.01.2012

1,Since-the on which enhancementoftheis grounds compensationsought by the appellants in these bunch Of appeals are identical,thereforewith the consentof learnedcounsel for the partiespresentatthe healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining toNotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/U/134l/d0ted 13.12.2000,relatingtogeographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan andPochanpuiare beingdisposedofby this commonorder! grounds compensationsought by the appellants in these bunch Of appeals are identical,thereforewith the consentof learnedcounsel for the partiespresentatthe healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining toNotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/U/134l/d0ted 13.12.2000,relatingtogeographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan andPochanpuiare beingdisposedofby this commonorder!

2.Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-11 in Delhi, commenced with the issuance^of Notific.ationof is"'December, 2000 under Section4of the Land. AcquisiiionAct, 1894,pertaining'to vast tract of agricultural laikd,-in one compact blockcomprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includ|ingvillages in question,i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.j3.Agriculturalland of the appellantsherein in the aforesaidthreevillagesstoodacquiredby the RespondentsVide three separateAwards.1.0., Awar^ No.26/2002-20D3; Award No.'28/2002-20()3;ajidAward^No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@i ?l3;82 lacs per acre for•• Block 'A' |(leverfieldwith top soil) and @T12.32 lacs per acre forBlock'B' (withouttop soil).'

™th the assessmentofmaitajvalueoftheiracquired

|.A.App.No. 119S/2U08&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal•• pp. No. ^94/?.oao&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan•' .App. No. Jn/20.1.0&connnctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur•• pp. No. ^94/?.oao&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan•' .App. No. Jn/20.1.0&connnctedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page Gof 29

agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugnedjudgment had enhanced compensation @ if!5.00 lacs per acre for theappellants' acquired land in Block 'A'and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre fortheir Block 'B'land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas,referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave.beendismissed.5.In these appeals, further enhancementof compensationsought bythe appellantsof VillagesBharthalandBijwasanis at the rate of RupeesFiftylacs per acre, whereasappellantsof VillagePochanpurhave soughtcompensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relyinguponthe precedents in the shape of decisions; in Executive Engineer,\Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag andOrs., (2011)2 see 246;AnjaniMoluDessaivs. State of Goa and Am.,(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and OrsState ofHaryana andAnr.,(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead), through LRs. Vs. SpecialTehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 See\RanvirSinghand Am, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon,2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227;Rama Nand (sincedeceased)throughLRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr.,2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. St(ite of Haryana & Ors.,2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9)SCALE 362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. State ofMaharashtra,(2009)11see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State ofHaryana&Anr, (2008)2SCC 568; W.p|.(e)No. 4143/2003titled asSmt. Indu Khorana V5. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010;SpecialLand'AcquisitionOfficer&Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheh, (2011)7se Thakarsibhaiand ors vs. Executivee, 714,DevjibhaiEngineer,

IA.ApD No. :Ug:;/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalIA.App. Mo. ;.9'1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App.No. m/20.l0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur• -pIA.App. Mo. ;.9'1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App.No. m/20.l0&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur• -p

Gujaratand Am\,AIR 2001 SC 2424; HaryanaState IndustrialDevelopment Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs.Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 ,(DB);Lai Chand vs. Unionof India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769;! General Manager, Oil and1]NaturalGas Corporation Ltd vs*. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel andAnr, (2008) 14 SCC;745; Valliyammaland Anr vs'. Special Tehsildar(Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 ;SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs.IAllahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; MaheshDattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238;Kapil Mehra (Major General) &Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr,176(2011)DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh ra.Delhi Development Authorit}' &Anr., deoided on 24.04.2008; OmPrakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC 627;Satpal &Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP.No.656/2008titled as Sushll Kumar vs. Union of India, decided oni'.26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled|as Bed Ram vs. Union ofIIndia, 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 Mi-.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appeJlantsthat the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to befirst^ understood in order to appreciate its'(1;potential which must beiadjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiodoftime anditliesame cannotbe limitedto thenearfuture alone.

7.It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel 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 the IGI Airport,Nev/ Delhi

u\.{\/'.pp. No. 1195/2008Si connectcdAppealsofVillage BharthaliA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpuriA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBljwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and road 100meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiy I\/lurtitowards Dwarka Sub-Cit3^ 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 developedFaniiJlouses are located on theland of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointedout by M-.S.K.Solanlcilearnedcounselfor the appellants that northernpart ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extensionof IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 forestablishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for BharatPetroleumand the landsofBharthalaiadwereVillage VillagePochanpuralso acquiredin the year 1984 for developm::?ntof DwarkaPhase-Iandthe lands on the westernside ofVillagesBWinoliand Dhool Siras werealso acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City.Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/mdcpto highlightthatthe boundaiyof Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arecontiguous.8.It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor theappellants that the Reference Court h^s failed to appreciate thepotentialityof the acquired land in the light of its location and hasillegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite ofNotificationof 16^'^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three was from' to residential/villages ,m question changed agriculturalcommercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofA'''illageBharthalhad ceasedto be mralin viewoftheNotificationof24"'October,1994.9.It was argued with much vehemencefby Mr.S.K.Rout, learnedcounselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtWo Notificationshave been discarded the Reference Court P. Ramawrongly by by relying upon

lA.App. No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal.A.App.294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanl-.App. No. j.il/?.oio&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur.A.App.294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanl-.App. No. j.il/?.oio&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

' •Page 9 of,29

Reddi& Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,\Eyderabad& Ors, (1995)I2 see 305, which has been consideredb}' the Apex Court in its laterdecisionin Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE41 holding that the potential of the acquiredJand must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area oyer period of time andthe same cannot be limited to near futurd alone and if after theJacquisition,if the authoritiesdo not putthe landto anyuse, it wouldnoti;meanthat there is no buildingpotentiality.

10.Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for theappellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlightthat the sale price reflected therein varied from'^52 lacs to ?62 lacs andmerely because of the said variation,thesejsale exemplars cannot beI'thrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, becausethere is no basis to concludethat these sale'exemplarsare overvaluedbecause of any special advantagesand as per settled legal propositionlaid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoliiDessai vs. State ofGoaandAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageoflsa'Ieexemplarsoughtto betaken as representingthe marketprice of the land which comes to ^57lacs acre and sincethe salerelied the per exemplarsupon by appellantsare the comparable sale instances, therefore,!i-eliance placed by the.ReferenceCourt the minimumrates/circlerates fortheupon detenniningmarketvalueofthelandiserroneous. acquired patently

11.Assessmentof marketvalue of theland was acquired sought byMi.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis ofthe L&DO rates lixed the Government and alsd on the basis of by predeterminedrates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternateplots mthe year 2000-2001.Keepingin viewthe location,situationandpotentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is

i-A.App.No. 1135/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthall-A.App.No. 7.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurl-A.App.No. 7.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

sought on the strength of sale, exemplars of Village Pochanpur andVillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the baks'ofthe L& DO rates ofthedeveloped lands in Dwarka Phase-I or |on the basis of the Pre-DeteraiinedRates(PDRs)as referred.toabove'!-12.In ithe writtensynopsis,appellant ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimitedof LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton thefollowinggrounds:-;

a) "i^ores the achiowledgementon the part of therespondent about the Award Nq.26/2002-2005dated23.10.2002 being flawed in\the course of therespondent about the Award Nq.26/2002-2005dated23.10.2002 being flawed in\the course of theproceedings Civil Writ petition\No.l9012 of 2006.'(Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated7.7.2007)II"''''(Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated7.7.2007)II"'''

b) Does not accountfor the fact that,the Public Noticedated 18.9.1987adverselyaffecte^the rates ofland inthe areafor more than 15 before the Notification yearsdated 18.9.1987adverselyaffecte^the rates ofland inthe areafor more than 15 before the Notification yearsunder Section5 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 wasissued.jissued.j

c) Valuing the land on the basis joj 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'ble\ Supreme Court inSangunthalaversusTahsildar,201Q(3)SCC661.SangunthalaversusTahsildar,201Q(3)SCC661.

the evidence and otherfactors which asd) Ignores perestablishedlaw-hasto he consideredbeforeascertainingthe valueofthe landunderacquisition.establishedlaw-hasto he consideredbeforeascertainingthe valueofthe landunderacquisition.

e) E)oes not deal with disparityin value:.,ofthe SaleDe^dsprodMc^db^rethe trial Courtwti^reasas per the lawestabhsnedby the Hon'bleSupreme(^ourtin the recentcase of^ Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special LandAcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The'onbleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that Salee) E)oes not deal with disparityin value:.,ofthe SaleDe^dsprodMc^db^rethe trial Courtwti^reasas per the lawestabhsnedby the Hon'bleSupreme(^ourtin the recentcase of^ Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special LandAcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The'onbleSupreme Court has specificallyheld that SaleDeedshowinghigherrate shouldr^ot be disregardedin

•'-^>.App.Ko.T' 111,2010&connectedAppealsAppealsofof VillageVillagePochanpurBiiwasan

Page 11 of 29

case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin AnjanaMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, theSupreme Court has also held that the highest of theexemplars and not by averaging-pfdifferent types ofsalestransactions shouldbe'- considered while, certanland.Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, theSupreme Court has also held that the highest of theexemplars and not by averaging-pfdifferent types ofsalestransactions shouldbe'- considered while, certanland.adjudicatingupon compensationupon

.0.Relied upon judgment datek 3.3.2008 inLACNo.97A/2006to decide the market^value ofthe subjectland while ignoringthe materialwmch indicate that themarket value of the land is muchhii^er than 15 lacperNo.97A/2006to decide the market^value ofthe subjectland while ignoringthe materialwmch indicate that themarket value of the land is muchhii^er than 15 lacperacre in Block and ^13,36,000in Block in violationof the law laid down by the h.,.,''on'ble Supreme Court,includingin Subh Ram V5. Staie ofHar)?ana 2010(1)SCC 444. As the consequence, impugnedjudgmentof the law laid down by the h.,.,''on'ble Supreme Court,includingin Subh Ram V5. Staie ofHar)?ana 2010(1)SCC 444. As the consequence, impugnedjudgmentrefused to return an actualfind}ng on the issue No.l\framed on 27.2.2007.\g). Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although videhotificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, thehotificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the. land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal waschanged and these areas ceasedto- be agriculturalandcame now under the urban boundaries^ofDelhi State.The and Notificationsof Governmentforchanged and these areas ceasedto- be agriculturalandcame now under the urban boundaries^ofDelhi State.The and Notificationsof Governmentfor; masterplanland use. change show that tri. future land can besubjected toresidential, comnjercial andotherpermissibleuses. It is alsopertinerii:to mentionthat theappellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'^amendmentof the Constitutionof w.e^f? 1.6.1993 IXland use. change show that tri. future land can besubjected toresidential, comnjercial andotherpermissibleuses. It is alsopertinerii:to mentionthat theappellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'^amendmentof the Constitutionof w.e^f? 1.6.1993 IX,India, A, byvirtue of which the Act was Municipal Corporationvirtue of which the Act was Municipal Corporationamendedand the area where the^ land is situated, wasdeemeda municipalarea and the\nimicipalCounsellorwas electedfrom there. Noelections were Panhhbyatdeemeda municipalarea and the\nimicipalCounsellorwas electedfrom there. Noelections were Panhhbyat.held in thearea.\: •.I: •.I

.h) \Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme[Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anrys. Union ofIndiaandrefusedto considerthefact that the developm.entinme area has directeffecton the price that willingpurchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.[Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anrys. Union ofIndiaandrefusedto considerthefact that the developm.entinme area has directeffecton the price that willingpurchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

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

W.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

IA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 12 of 29

!auctionedsimilarlysituatedlandas commercialblocksat the rate ofabout ^2.6 lakh and concludedthat thesaidLandis whollyunderdevelopedland.

1) The valuationofthe subjectlandis 'evenlowerthan thepre-deteminedauction rates set py,RespondentNo 2jor similarly situated land.ii''pre-deteminedauction rates set py,RespondentNo 2jor similarly situated land.ii''

i''k) Does nottakinto accountthepSssibilityofchangeof.je use ofthe landalthoughthe Icindwas acquiredfordevelopment purposes of Dwarka Phase II It isnl'ZTf™°Se DhoolSiras andBharthalchangedand these\areas ceased to beofDdMStatT''boundaries1.je use ofthe landalthoughthe Icindwas acquiredfordevelopment purposes of Dwarka Phase II It isnl'ZTf™°Se DhoolSiras andBharthalchangedand these\areas ceased to beofDdMStatT''boundaries1

1[[I) IgnoredNotificationsdated I6.I0.2060and24 10 1994although tl^ey clearly establish ' the commercialnhwhich land IS is retevanthefacto.r Whileforf j acquiredpupose''W.the factalthough tl^ey clearly establish ' the commercialnhwhich land IS is retevanthefacto.r Whileforf j acquiredpupose''W.the facttr ZiWn in immediathor in nearto be future Ledp buildingpurposesbuildingp^t&tiaUtyneeds to be consideredI^needs to be consideredI^m) The presence ofa number of buddings on the landstZ arc to be treatedas hoike-sites. The landsbuddingsSccupiTbTt^ereredfor cf rlidential acqu purposeputtmg uptZ arc to be treatedas hoike-sites. The landsbuddingsSccupiTbTt^ereredfor cf rlidential acqu purposeputtmg up•muse site, the adjoining lands have the potentialofbeingputin betteruseas housesitesin thenearfmurJ^^>3.In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pai and jothers of LA. Apn No347/2009.tlie factualdetailshave beenprovidpdwithaprayerthat theappellantsof this appeal be treatedat par wit^co-appellantsoftl,eothei appealsinthesebunchofappeals.iappellantsof this appeal be treatedat par wit^co-appellantsoftl,eothei appealsinthesebunchofappeals.i

H.St.pplen.entittgthe aforesaidargumentsak;ancedon behalfoftheappellants,..:wasttrgedby Mr.AnandYadav.A^catethatthe effectofIaS'Bhartha,•AaIp^o.m/2010&mSloIconnectedtAppealsofVillagePochanpurBijwasan

uibanizationofthe lands mthe Villagesin question,i.e., the change inland use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarvs. StateofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra(MajorGeneral) <&.Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia &'Anr, \16{2m) DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, ReservedAuctionRates 6f the area are relevanttodeterminethe market value of the acquired lands and infact the salemstancesrelied theai'eandto haveuponby appellants comparable ought•been relied the ReferenceCourt tothe correctmarket upon by |assessvalue of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensationreflecting;just, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands issoughtin these appeals.15.Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby theRespondents,Mr. SanjayPoddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-A ofLand AcquisitionAct, 1894, certified copy' of the Sale Deed is anadmissibleevidencebut the same cannotbe-takenas relevanfevidencefor determinationof the market vakie unless and until the same isproperly connectedwith the land in question'and element of specialfani,y ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsnamely,nature,situationoftheproperty,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be consideredand tlie sale instancesrehed thecorrectupon by Respondentsdisclosingmarket value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejected by theReferenceCourtandwhilereliance the decisionsin JaiLaiplacinguponvs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DR.I 227, SatpUl& Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chandv,. C/Wion ofIndia and An..,(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titledas SushUKirniarvs.UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urgedthat sharpincreasein price in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntilreasonsforsuch shaip increaseai-e explainedby producingin evidencethe seller

LALA.•pp.[N]o.[°'] 294/^010&connectedAppealsofofVillageVillageBiiwasanBharthalLA.•APP.[A][c^] No. i.u/2010&connectedAppeal.,ofVillagePrhanpt.rLA.•APP.[A][c^] No. i.u/2010&connectedAppeal.,ofVillagePrhanpt.r

and the purchaseras no prudentperson having loiowledgeof the usualprevalenttrend in the marketwouldpay such:ahigherpay as reflectedinthe sale instance of Radha Swaini relied the Satsarig,Beas, upon byappellants, but for special consideration. 'Thus, 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 acoordinateBench ofthis Court in SushilKumar (supra)andRajSingh(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 of the agriculturalland by the Governmentason 1^^ April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% perannum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneouslydetermined by the Reference Court, as in;, Sushil Kumar (supra)appreciation@ 10% per annum has been grafted.Thus, it is submittedthatthereis nofor furtherenhancement'from1theof 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 grantingappreciation @ 10% per annum and tliereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

17.After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both thesides and upon closepemsalofthe impugnedjudgment,the evidenceonrecordand the-decisionscited,whatemergesis thatthe true marketvalueof the comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto av/iHing

LA.App. No. ll'JS/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageSharthalU.Aop, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasanlAApp. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurU.Aop, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasanlAApp. No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

r o^c xo or

seller and the best evidence is the comparablesale instances. Whiledealmg;with the questionofpotentialvalue of the acquiredland, whathas to be considered in assessing the.iprket value thereof, standsreiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana&Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords:-

the situationofthelandvis-a-vistheor(i) acquired citythe town or villagewhich had keen growingin sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educational,religiousor any otherlandofimportanceor becauseofits explosivepopulation;the town or villagewhich had keen growingin sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educational,religiousor any otherlandofimportanceor becauseofits explosivepopulation;

% '(ii)the suitabilityofthe acqidrediaMforputtingup thebuildings, bethey residen'idl,commercialorindustrial,as the case may be;buildings, bethey residen'idl,commercialorindustrial,as the case may be;

ofwaterand electricfor(iii) possibilityobtaining,supplyoccupantsofbuildingsto bepidup on thatland;occupantsofbuildingsto bepidup on thatland;

(iv)absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor usingtheacquiredlandfor buildingp^irpose;theacquiredlandfor buildingp^irpose;

(v)existence, of highways, public roads, layouts ofbuildingplots or developedresfd^ialextensionsinthe vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;buildingplots or developedresfd^ialextensionsinthe vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi):benefits or advantages of educationalinstitutionshealth care centres, or the like in the surroundingareas of the acquired land which may becomeavailableto the occupiersofbuildmgs,ifbuilton theacquired land; andhealth care centres, or the like in the surroundingareas of the acquired land which may becomeavailableto the occupiersofbuildmgs,ifbuilton theacquired land; and

(vii) landsaroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland, Itself being in demandfor buildingpurposes tospecify afew. "' '', Itself being in demandfor buildingpurposes tospecify afew. "' ''

18.Thepotentialityoflandfor the purposdofdevelopmentas alsofor anumberoffactors.For the saidbuildingpurpo.sesdependsuponlargetlie Court not have to beiriinmind the forpurpose,may only purpose

lAApp. Mo. 1.1.95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharlhal."PP. Wo. P.fMA'Qlo&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanw.App No.in/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePoclianpur

which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequentevents to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court inAvinash (supra).While reiteratingthe relevantfactors for detemiinationof compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Courtin AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofknallpiecesofland relied' thecouldnot be ato discardthemupon by appellantsground especiallywhen exemplarsof largepiecesof landwere not available.

19.Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7SCC714. The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsrelieduponon behalf of the appellantsis that where there is no basic differenceeither in location, situation or potentiality;of the villages, which are situated similar available to them even assimilarly having advantageregards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing thecompensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlandsand the acquired land.. i..

20.It is well establishedpropositionof law that the burden ofprovingthe true market value of the acquired'land is on the State whohas acquiied the agriculturalland for particularpuipose. 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 beireferredto with advantage.21.Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletakingnote ofthe factthat the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residentialcolonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held ihat deductionof 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent.observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai (Supra)deserve attention, v/hichare as under:-

lA.App No. 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBhartlial

IA.App. IMG. :^94/20a0&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpurVlA.App No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpurV

"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.Wliere however there are several salesofsimilar lands whoseprices range in narrow bandwidth,the average thereof can he taken] as representingthemarketprice. But M'here the values disclosedin respectoftw'p sales are markedly different,can only lead to aninferencethat they are with reference to dissimilar lands orthat the lower value sale is on account of under-valuationreasons.or otherprice depressing Cpnsequentlyaveragingcannot be resorted to. "

22.It would be worthwhileto take note j^f'theclinchmgobservationspertainingto determinationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands madeby the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Fatil (Supra), which are asfollows:-'

"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 of thelandssituatedintheneighborhoodof the acquired lanks possessing similarvalue or utility^ takenplace between]a willing vendee andthe willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect thetrue value, as agreedbetween reasonableprudentpersonsacting in the normal market conditions are the real basis todeterminethe marketvalue."|23.to deteiminethe marketvalue of thelands asPrinciples acquired1eiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd.

(ONGC) (Supra), are as under:-

"Primarily, tlie-increasein land prices depends on fourfactors - situationof the land, nature of developmentinsurroundingarea, availabilit)'of landfor developmentinthe area, and the demandfor land \in the area. In ruralareas unless there is any prospectofkdevelopmentin thevicinit)/: increase in prices would \be slow, steady andgradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjimps.

i.A.A|jp.Mo. J195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan

i-A./ipp.Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu'-

On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where thedevelopment is faster, where the demand for land is highand where there is construction activity all around, theescalation in market price is at rnuch higher rate, ascomparedtorural areas. In somepopketsin big cities, dueto rapid development and high demand forland, theescalations in prices have touched\e-\i^n 30% to 50% ormore per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, inremote rural areas where there, was] no chance of anydevelopmentand hardly any buyers^, the prices stagnatedfor years or rose marginallyat nominalrate of 1% or 2%per .annum. There is thus significantdifference inincreases in market value of lands, in urban/semi-urbanareas and increases in market value of lands in the ruralareas.Therefore if theincreasein. marketvalueinurban/semi-urbanareas is about 10%Ho 15%per annum,the correspondingincreasesin rural[areaswouldat best beonlyaroundhalfof it, that is aboutto 7.5%per annum.This rule of thumb refers to the \general trend in thenineties, to be cidoptedin the absenc^eof clear and specificevidence 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'woulddependuponthesame.| v

Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthemarketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover theprovedmarketvalue ofnearby lands\ in.previousyears (asevidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where thereis no evidenceofany contemporaneouslsale transactionsoracquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.Thesaid method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-saletransactions/acquimonsprecedes the]subjectacquisitionby:onlyafew.years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit relates^ to neighbouringland. Whatmaybea reliablestandar^d'ifthegap is onlyafew become unsafe and tmreliahle standard years, maywhere the gap is larger.For example,for determiningthemarket-valueof land acquired in 1992, adopting theannual increase method with reference to saleor

!.A.App.No. 31.95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBhartlialIA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

acquisitionin .1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This isbecause, over the course of. years, the >ate' of annualincreasemay itselfundergodrasticchdnge apartfrom thelikelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationinpricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandardofincrease."j !

24.This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin HaiyanaStateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regardingcomputation of compensation for the acquired lands by adoptingcomparativesalesmethods..What was saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC(Supra) is,as under:-'.'i''

"Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or. lands'i'' with differentsituationalarefor the sameadvantages) acquiredpurpose, for of residential courts havesay forming 'fayout,sometimes felt that determination of their value withreferenceto previousstatusor sUuatiod;shouldbe avoidedanda uniformrate ofcompensationshokdbe awardedforalllandsacquiredunderthesamenotification."

25.Undisputedly,in these appeals saleexemplarsin and aroundacquired land of Village Bharthal, VillageBi^wasanI of the period inare not availableand thesaquestion solitaiye exemplar strongly reliedupon by the appellantsis of Village Pochjnpur,i.e., the seven SaleDeedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSvamiSatsang,Beashad purchased the agriculturalland in Village Fochanpurat pricewhichvariedfrom?52 lacsto ?62 lacsperacre."26.WhetheraforesaidSaleDeeds(Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-l/IO)whichare basicallybetweenloneset ofco-ownersaiid RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beas in respectoftliecompactblockoflandmeasuring18 Bighasand 6Biswassituatedin VillageFochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalueofthe land in the villagesin questionis themoot|questionwhichis requiredto be answered. Evidently,aforesaidsale exeraplars,i.e., Sale Deeds

W.APP No 1.195/2008&conhectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

-V.App. No. 29-1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasani.A.App.No. Jll/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpuri.A.App.No. Jll/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 20 of 29

(bx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacsto ?62 kcs per acre. Meaning thereby,the :entire land of the sale-exemplars Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4-toEx.R^V-l/lO)did not commandthe samemarketprice;It was dependentupon;the natureand situationofthe aforesaidlands. Evidence to establishithe advantages attached toeach parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land inisthesesalecannotbe treatedasquestion; lackmg.Therefore, e5^:emplarsdisclosmgrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. Thespecial need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in VillagePochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to' Hx.PW-1/10)has not beenbrought out as the purchaser/vendeeof the'saagriculturalland has notbeen got ;examinedby the appellants.Had th0 purchaser/vendeeof theaforesaid sale exemplarsbeen got examined,then it could have beenelicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price forthese lands. The special fancy of the puijchaser, i.e., Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an1..Iexorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvidethSale Deed executed,on 2520.00 was alsomatterin LA. No. 266/2008titledasMarch, subject Xp^.Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23:8.2011 and in LA. App.No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Uiiion of India, decided on19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the $ale exemplarof VillageMamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthat^h| same cannotbe treatedas lepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands.^ '27.In the instantmatters,tlioiiglithe land, use bf the acquiredlandswas changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,bufithas comein evidencethatthe acquiredlandswere beingusedfor agriculturalpurposetilltheiracquisition.Thus, it becomesevidemthat thl acquiredlands were notdevelopedlands. No prudent person havingjknowledge of prevailingW.App,I.A.AppNo,No. 294/2010 .195/2008&&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillagevillageBijwasanBharthal-'-A.App,(Mo. 1U/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur' ,•;Page 21 of 29

market price of the land in question would pay such high price unlessand until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in theconsidered opinion of this Court the sale jexemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds(Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightlydiscarded by theReferenceCourt.

28.So far as the sale exemplar of Village' Samalldia (Ex.PW-1/11)rreliedupon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosing exorbitantprice of?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27"' January,2000, itneeds to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) wassituated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed(Ex.PW-1/11)vendor had soldnot only the land but the structurethereonincludingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,jane,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.ii'

29.Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarlysituatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas toiwhetheradoptionof L& DO circularrates for the developedlands andPre-DeterminedRates for the alternateplots 'by the DDA ought to beadopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands inquestion.

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

'^12. However, in eitherof the said cases whetherit be thedeterminationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwithbuildingpotentialityM'ith referenceto the pricefetchedbysaleofplots in welldevelopedlayoutin tfie neighborhood

lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectGdAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

orwhetherit he.the determinationofthe marketvahieoftheacquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referencetothepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undevelopedlayout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomesinevitablefor the Court tofind out ^hat will be the pricefetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts,reliedupon by anyoftheparties,with,r^renceto thepricewhich theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoBon the dateofthepublicationofthe preliminarynotifipationunder Section4(1) ofthe Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetchedby the sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in theneighborhoodof the acquired lands becomes available,then what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue ofthe acquiredland with reference to Itfie relevantdate ofpublicationunderSection4(1) ofthe^'lA Act, accordingtothe actualuse to which it wasputandincreaseits value bya small percentage having regard to the degree of itsbuildingpotentialityascertainedon the basisofevidencetobe made available in that regard Asmall percentageincrease to be:given shall not exceed1/5th of the marketvaue of the landfound outits actual user according'tosince resort to the method ofgiving\increasedvalue forsuch buMingpotentiality,arises only when there is\oevidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodofthe acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediateifforme, in tHe31.In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate ofland chargedbytheDDA afterthelands!theandacquiring agriculturalclveloping same,hansferringperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apix Court in Lai Chand(Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotmentratcs/Pre-DetemiinedRates in determiningihli market value of theadioming undevelopedfreehold lands. Following:the dictum of LaiChand(Supra),acoordinateBeiichofthis Court inMSingh (Supra)a.id Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded Ihe DDA rates qua thedevelopedlandsas beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueofPP N0.11V2010&connected/^ppealsofVillagepochanpur

Page 23 of 29

the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourthasnotthe DDA ratesfor allftoentofland or rightly adopteddevelopedthe DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates foi' alternateIallotmentsfor fixing themarketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

32.Now what is requiredto be seen is iw^etherprogressiveincreasemethod 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 of 10%;perannum is taken from theyear 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for ithe period intervening theNotification for development of Dwarka ,• Phase-I and the instantNotificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed bythe LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethanthe aforesaidescalatedpriceand therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court isunjustified.|•'}

33.Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum ofthe Apex Court mLai Chand (Supra), cautipningthe Courts to adoptprogressiveincreasemethod in assessmentdf the market value of theacquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyondthat it maybe unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouringland. What may be aleliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafeand unreliablestandardwhere the is In the instant the gap larger.case,gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand DwarkaPhase-IIis ofsixteenyearsand therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthemode of determining the market value^by providing appropriate

LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

A.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

Page 24 of 29

escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previous5'^ears.

34.Mr.SanjayPoddar,learnedseniorcounselfortherespondent/cross-objector had urged that /the Reference Court hasgranted escalation @ 12% per annum, 'Avhich is unwan-anted as acoordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has grantedescalation@ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision inaushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10%) increase on account of higherpotentiality of the acquired land over and above the market valuedeterminedby the ReferenceCourthas been grantedand so, by relying SushilKumar escalation the ReferenceCourtupon (Supra)grantedby12% annum cannotbe reducedto 10%' annum. In this view of@ perperthe matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

35.Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government'smmnnumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourtIS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquiredland and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% annum the per grantedbyReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimumprice for theagriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f.April,2000 till the date ofNotificationin the instant deservesto be further increasedor appealsnot.

36.Adoption of Government'sminimum;iirates 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 villages in question to beuiban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe 1994the land yearuse ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthatby itselfis not sufficienttol-A.App.AApp. No.No. 294/2010 1195/2008&&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillageBijwasanBharthal:i•A.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 beingany developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlandsm question. Not only this, even the sale iemplars of Radha SwamiBeasrelied thedisclosethatthe saleSatsang, heavilyuponby appellantsofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.37.Rathei, it emerges from the evidenpe on record that till theissuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct,1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there beenincreasein price due to higherdemand,onJaccountofpotentialityofthechange of their use post the year 1994, thencouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the areaappellantsmquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe landin VillagePochanpurto arehgiousinstitutionand anothersale instanceof Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without',leading any evidence toestablishthat.thequalityand potentialityoftlife sale exemplarsofRadhaSwami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarofVillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlandsand so the contiguityof the acquired land jwith the sale instance ofVillage Samalldia (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot|be treated to be sufficientground to grant higher compensationwhile relyingupon the aforesaidsale instances. Therefore,in view of the afbre-referreddictum of theApex Court mHaryana State IndustrialsDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),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&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanIVV.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 26 of 29

would be expectedto be the market growthI and what the market hadactuallygrown,Govermnent'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheldto be reasonable basis for assessingthe|market value of the acquiredlands in JaiSingh(Supra)as well as in SushilKumar(Supra)andIfindno reasonto take adifferentviewthan the one whichhad been takenbycooidinateBench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh(Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).;

38.Ihis Court is ofthe consideredview lhat the ReferenceCourt inthe matters pertainingto Village Bharthkl^and Village Bijwasan has relied the Government'sminimum forlightly upon price agriculturallands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands in question.Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofvkageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situationof the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from theevidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityoftheacquiredlands beingin close vicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil andBharat PetroleumDepots a,nd of Railwaylirie passingthrough VillageBharthal and there being 100 meters vide road starting from Nli-8from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingtheacquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in thevicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowmissed the attentionof the "ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion|ofthis Court, on accountofaforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquirediWs 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 buildingpotentialityinl^e acquiredlands is the

UaL''I!"^VillageBharthal^W.App.LA.App. No.No. 111/2010 294/2010&&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillagePochanpurBijwasanW.App.LA.App. No.No. 111/2010 294/2010&&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillagePochanpurBijwasan

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

"When once conclusion is reacj\^edthat there was thepossihilit))ofthe acquiredland beir^g usedfor puttingupbuildingsin the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusionwould be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland hadiabuildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its marketvalue takinginto accountthe increaseim priceattributableto such building;potentiality.•"II'

;39.Consideringthe fact that it would tieI pery difficultto provideadefinitevalueand in view of the fact that exactnesscan' qua potential,never be achievedin the matters of assessingtfair compensation,it isbioadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuadesme to treatthemwith equivalenceby uniformly applying he.Government'sminimumprices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as there are no specialfeaturesto treat the acquiredlands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedatpar with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants^,of Village Bharthal andVillageBijwasan.However, while relyingufjon the decisionin SushilKumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10%iincreaseover and abovethemarketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedIby the ReferenceCourtinmatters on account of the aforesaP locational advantagesprovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

40.Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent ofawarding;10% increaseover and abovethe martceitvalueassessedby theReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto VillageBharthal and VillageBijwasan:Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVHlagePochanpurat parwiththe appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof

1iLA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal''jlA.App.LA.App.No.No. 111/2010 294/2010&&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofof VillageVillagePochanpurBijwasan•!;•''Page28 of 29

the appellants of'Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extentindicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of thesethreevillagesin questionis determined@,?16,50,000/-theCatcgoiy land and @^"14,69,600/-per'ibj^afor the Category 'B'lands in question.\n^\ |\

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 aregianted, exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelay in filingthe appeal,for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the eiihancedcompensationshallbe paid. Iheseappellantswouldbe entitled:toproportionatecosts.42.The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedofin the aforesaid terais with direction to :;he Registry to remit thecompensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneral ofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheetsbe accordinglyprepared.

January 06, 2012pkb

""(StJNILGAUR)JUDGEpo-2-o'-rr^-

l7\.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthallA.App. No. 294/2010&connGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan1A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 29 of 29

IN THE HIGH COURT' OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

LA. APP. 1195/2008

™RSHARMA

Appellant

Through:Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitlUaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S..Verma,Mr.JitinTewathia, Advocates ;

Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate.

Mr.Rohtas,Advocate,

Mr.RaghuvinderGodana;Advocate

Mr.N.S.NegiandjMr.H.S.Rautela,AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates.

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

•Mr.SudhanshuTomar,:AdvocateforMr.R.S.Tomar.

Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.SilC.Solankiand

Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates ''

versus

miONOFI^IA&ANR,

hrough.Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith

Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavandMs.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiranAdvocatesfor LAC/UOI •.

•.^.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh,^.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalShannaandMr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR

order

12.01.2012

CMvAebLNo^2/2012(For

,This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin

Orderof6"^ January,2012.

Counselappearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice

LA.App.No.1195/2008

Page 1

ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeengivento remainingcounselfor the appellants.

The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin thedecision of 6'^ 2012 is that in! 40 of the January, paragraph no;aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha',whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learnedcounselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationisallowedand it is orderedthatthereferenced'perbigha'in paragraph 40 of 1195/2008be read as acre'.no; LA.App.No. 'per Necessarycorrections be carried out forthwith.

In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof

' ~-°WmLGAUR)JUBGE

JANUARY 12,2012pkb

AApp.No.1195/2008