LA.APP./82/2012 of SUDHA MEHTA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

$~6*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+LA.APP. 82/2012

SUDHA MEHTAThrough:Mr. S.K.Rout, Advocate

Appellant

versus

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

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER29.03.2012

CM No. 5423/2012 (tt/S151 CPC)

Delay of 594 days' m 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 594 days' in re-filing theaccompanyingappeal is condonedwhile makingit clearthat for thedelayedperiod,the appellantshallnot begrantedinterestinthe 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. 82/2012

The instant appeal relates to Village - Pochanpur, where videNotificationpf 13*^ December,2000, the land of the appellantstoodacquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and theReference Court vide impugned order of 8^ March, 2010 whileupholdingthecompensationamountawardedbytheLand.Acquisition Collector to the appellant, has denied any enhancementthereupon.

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

Counselfor the appellant fairly concedesthat case of theappellant is at par with Ranbir Sharma (Supra).In the light of above, this appeal is allowed in terms of decisionof this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra) with statutory benefits andproportionatecosts, while declining the interestfor the delayedperiod.

This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

L GAUR)JUDGE

MARCH 29,2012/rs

IN THE HIGH'COURT

OF DELHI AT'NEWDELHI

\Reserved on: November18. 2011Pronounced on: January 06. 2012

(GRID-A)

LA.AEP.l195/2008(VILLAGE- BHARTHAL)

Ry\NBlR SHARJ\4AAppellantjrhrough;Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita1Maan, Mx.R.S.Verma,j^r.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates1Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates.Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.;Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate'Mr.IS.S.Negi and Mr.H. S.P^autela,Advocate;Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari,Advocates.!A4r.Pankaj Vivek, AdvocateMr.Rajesh 'Yadav,Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit KhosiaIand A'lr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, AdvocatesIMr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate,!Mr.I.S.Daliiya, AdvocateIMr.SandeepThakhiir,A'dvocateIMr.AtuI Tripathi, Advocate.iMr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(AdvocatesforIrespondentin appealsfiled by UOI)versusIjrhrough;Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita1Maan, Mx.R.S.Verma,j^r.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates1Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates.Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.;Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate'Mr.IS.S.Negi and Mr.H. S.P^autela,Advocate;Mr.S.K.Routand Mr.B.K.Routray,Mr.M.AzamAnsari,Advocates.!A4r.Pankaj Vivek, AdvocateMr.Rajesh 'Yadav,Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit KhosiaIand A'lr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, AdvocatesIMr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate,!Mr.I.S.Daliiya, AdvocateIMr.SandeepThakhiir,A'dvocateIMr.AtuI Tripathi, Advocate.iMr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(AdvocatesforIrespondentin appealsfiled by UOI)versusI

LiNIOT^ OF INDIA&ANR.Respondents

Througii:Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.Sanjay•Pathak,Mr.Mohitrao.Vadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,;Ms.K.KaurnudiKiran,Advocatesfor LAC/UOIIMr.AJayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.MukeshIKumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.KunalISharma,Advocatefor DDA•Pathak,Mr.Mohitrao.Vadhavand Ms.NavlinSwain,;Ms.K.KaurnudiKiran,Advocatesfor LAC/UOIIMr.AJayVerma,Ms.BeenashawSoni,Mr.MukeshIKumar,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.KunalISharma,Advocatefor DDA

LA.APR.41^/2006&.CM.No.4096/2008 rCni-ss-Obiections);J.A AP'P 452/2008•LA.AP^.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008& CM.N..5990/2010(Cross(Crossl-Objections);LA.APP,70i/20()8&CM.Ko.S10/.009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.7'70./2008:

|AApp.No. l.l<).S/2008&conncctedAppealsofVillngeBharthalIA.App. No. ?.9.;/?.010&connactedAppealsofVillageBljwasanlA.App. No. ]:l.l/?.010&Konnwtad AppealsofVillagoPochanpur

•Pagt; 1 0) 23

LA.APP|.771/2008&CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Qbjections)'LAAPP lllPViOR-CMNo^^n/20n^^&CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008&7A(Cross-Objections); LA.APP;775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.782/2008&CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Obiectionsv'LA.APP.785/2008;LA.AP;798^200r&CM.No^l5/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP'.799/2008 &CM No 931/2009LA-APP;805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APp:813/2008&C^M.No^795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.81.4/2008 &CM.No806/2009Cross-0|bjections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APPvS19/2008- LA APP 820/2008-TLA.APRg44/2008;nn'"'' LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.873/2008 LA.APP:832/2008;& LA CM.No.779/2011 APP 833/200^(Closs-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross ObiectinnqVT(Cross-Objections); LA.AI^P.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008-LA.APR976/2008;r^A ATiTi^^ LA.APP.978/2008;CM.No.519/2009LA.APP|.986/2008 (Cross-Objections)-& CMNoIA APP 975/2008-572^CM.N0.I73S08^vCioss(Cross-Ofaect.ons);LA.APP.993/2008;LA,APP.1029/2008& Olpjections),LA.APP.1031/2008& CM No 17335/2008fCrn<;q DhipprLA.APP,,032/2008&CM.No.599/2009(CrosSobStonriLA,APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/200S&CMNo 78^1fi?09 frmrnhitt ^LA.APP.1049/2008&CM.No,420/2009(CrossiObjections)-LArpp°So08CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-oUctionsVLAA^P 0^2CuZS^- rr ^^^0.4,6/2009(Crcss-Gbjeii„„s);/ilp1ffo54;2to8ICMN°7^Morrrw. nW .• (Cross-Objections);r^f LA.APP.1058/2008&"•'^''^'•J055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 CMNo 1557/2011&r'Prr^c(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008cS: CMNo6l9/^0n0sssE rirlJ^rvrc OK-' V ^ (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.ll13/2008 & CMNo3826/90PQLA.APP.1137/2008&CMNo 17283/200SrPrntf^^i^' .?LA.APR1So8-1ASpTm/2ooTLA.APP.'i!mnZ\LA.APPJii7.So8:LA.APP78?!:LA.APP,n73/2008:.LA.APP.1182/2008- LA APP 1183/9008^LA.APP,1181/2008;-.APP.„p4,2008rLA.AP^-//S^St™(C~^

lA.i.A,[APP][ NO.][ U9VP.008][&][co;nn<,cted][Appeal.,][of][Village][Bharthal]'•pp.App' Mc. Nr' .11.1/2010 fnSon&t ^°ri"oconnetcledAppealsofVillagePochanpurBijwasan

(Cross-qbjections);LA.APP.1190/2008;LA.APP.l191/2008- TAapp noonnno

LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.124I/2008& LA.APP.124I/2008&sis5=,ispiLA.APP.73/2009 & CMNovSoQ Snltnt r™','LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.f5/2009TLA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APP12^009 (Cl'°=^9bject.ons)LA.APP.1^6/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA APP 138/2009-1^6/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA APP 138/2009- LA.APP.137/2009; LA APP 138/2009-137/2009; LA APP 138/2009-LA.APP. 135/2009

LA.APP. 135/2009LA.APP. 139/2009LA.APP. 145/2009LA.APP. 191/2009LA.APP.201/2009;ssrr?CM.No.7027/2009CM.No.7206/2009LA.APP.246/2009LA.APP.305/2009LA.APP.458/2009LA.APP.481/2009.LA.APP.493/2009LA.APP.506/2009LA.APP.5 10/2009LA.APP.567//2009LA.APP,48/2010LA.APP, 1176/2008

LA.APP.1^6/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA APP 138/2009-1^6/2009; LA.APP.137/2009; LA APP 138/2009- LA.APP.137/2009; LA APP 138/2009-137/2009; LA APP 138/2009-LA.APP.^40/2009; LA.APP.143/2009; LA APP u'i^OO^-LA.APP.162/2009; LA.APP.187/2009; LA APP f90/2009-LA.APP.1:97/2009; LA.APP.198/2009; LA APP i'99/^009-<;roS2tiisss;(Cross-Olyections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA APP A5/2009-LA.APP.2il9/2009; LA.APP.257/2009;LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP447/2009-Ta"™LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP480/2009-LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009-LA.APP.494/2009;LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.5p3/2009-LA.APP.507/2009;LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.5(:)9/2009-LA.APP.511/2009;LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.513/2009'LA.APP.572/2009;LA.APP.15/2010;LA.AP,P.45/2010'LA.APP.4Q4/2010;LA.APP.13/2011; LA.APP.ill38/2008;'13/2011; LA.APP.ill38/2008;' LA.APP.ill38/2008;'ill38/2008;'38/2008;'LA.APP.11|77/2008;LA.APP.'1201/20()8;LA.APp'.23rJ2009^LA.APP.11|77/2008;LA.APP.'1201/20()8;LA.APp'.23rJ2009^

(Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417dated 13 12 2000

(GRID-B)

Re^M on: Decemhpv08. 2011Pronojkicedon: January06. 201?

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

'DEVENDERKUMARa.!•Ihrough;Mr.R.S.Tomar[N|r.VirendSingh

,11ItV' T'\PK No.m"' J.'.VSOIO&^ ccnn|ectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillageVillagePochanpuiBIjwasanBharthal

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&: Bi/LA/i3417 dated 13.12.2000issued uhder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No.28/2002-^2003,"VillageBijwasan,Delhi)|

VillageBijwasan,Delhi)Bijwasan,Delhi)Delhi)|;'ANDi ^

IA./ipp.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

LA.App. Ni5. 29/I/?.CI10&jconnectedAppealsofVillageDijwasan

1A-App. iMo.'111/2010&jtonnectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

(GRID-C)%IReserved on: December 18. 2011Prmmnced on: January 06. 2012

LA.APP.:111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUrI

I.A.A,pp. No' NO. Jxi/2010 m/2mo&aconnected' •AppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 5 of 2.n

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

CORAM:HON'BI^EMR. JUSTICESDNILGAUR

ORDER06.01.2012

1.Since,the grounds on which enhanceiiientof the compensationis the in these bunch aresought by appellants (ff appeals identical,•thereforewith the consentof learnedcouns|elfor the partiespresentatthe hearing of these appeals, these buncli of appeals pertaining toNotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dfted 13.12.2000,relatingtogeographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan andPochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.2.Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-IP in Delhi, commenced with the issuance,of Notific.ation of if'December, 2000 under Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894,pertammgito vast tract of agricultural laiid in one compact blockcomprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question,i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.3.Agncultui-alland of the appellantshelrein in the aforesaidtlireevillagesstpodacquiredby the Respondents\^idethreeseparateAwards,i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No;2g'2002-2003;andAward^No.30/2002-2003lacs acre for,granting compensation per'-Block 'A' i(level field with top soil) and @^2.32 lacs per acre forBlock'B' (iwithouttop soil).' :4-Dissijiusfiedwitlithe assessmentofmarket'valueoftheiracquired the in these bunch aresought by appellants (ff appeals identical,•thereforewith the consentof learnedcouns|elfor the partiespresentatthe hearing of these appeals, these buncli of appeals pertaining toNotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dfted 13.12.2000,relatingtogeographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan andPochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.2.Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-IP in Delhi, commenced with the issuance,of Notific.ation of if'December, 2000 under Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894,pertammgito vast tract of agricultural laiid in one compact blockcomprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includingvillages in question,i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.3.Agncultui-alland of the appellantshelrein in the aforesaidtlireevillagesstpodacquiredby the Respondents\^idethreeseparateAwards,i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No;2g'2002-2003;andAward^No.30/2002-2003lacs acre for,granting compensation per'-Block 'A' i(level field with top soil) and @^2.32 lacs per acre forBlock'B' (iwithouttop soil).' :4-Dissijiusfiedwitlithe assessmentofmarket'valueoftheiracquired

AApp.,^0.1195/2U08&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalAApp. NO. 294/?,oao&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan.^^.App.No. J.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurAApp. NO. 294/?,oao&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan.^^.App.No. J.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page Gof 29

Iagricultijrallands, appellantshad soughtreferenceunder Section 18 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and the RefeipnceCourtvide impugnedjudgmenthad enhanced compensation@|?|5.00 lacs per acre for theappellants'acquiredland in Block 'A' ank @^13.36 lacs per acre fortheir Block 'B' land in Villages Bhartliai and Bijwasan; whereas,referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhayeJbeendismissed.5.In these appeals,further enhancemeritof compensationsoughtbyIjthe appellantsof VillagesBharthaland Bij^yasanis at the rate ofRupees1Fifty lacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave sought' _iat the rate oflacs acrecompensation Rupees Thirty per by relyinguponI;the precedents in the shape of decisions-in Executive Engineer,Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag andOrs., (2011)2 see 246; AnjaniMolu'Dessaiys.State of Goa andAm.,I<(2010) li3 see 710;SubhRam and Ors vsi S'tateofHaryanaandAnr.,(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead), through LRs. Vs. SpecialTehsilddr(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3 See 661; RanvirSinghandAnr, vs. UnionofIndiaAIR 2005 Se!3'|67;ChindhaFakiraPatU(D) through LRs ra. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon,2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227;Rama N^ndI(sincedeceased)throughLR^',I;Union ofIndia& Anr.,2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,!2010(9) iSCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9)SCALE !362; AvinashDhavajiNaik vs. Siaie ofMaharashtra,(2009)II sec ;171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State ofHaryand & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003-tided asSmt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010;SpecialLand'AcquisitionIOfficer& Anr vs.i M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SC-C 7:14; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer,

lA.Apn No. :l19;VZ008!i connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalIA.App. No. 29'1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurIA.App. No. 29'1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 7 of 29

Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCO 115\ RisalSingh & Ors, Vs.Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 52;7 (DB);Lai Chandvs. Union''•Iof India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769;! GeneralManager, Oil andI'''NaturalGas Corpoi'ation Ltd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel andAnr, (2008) 14 SCCj745; ValliyammalandAnr vs. SpecialTehsildar(Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SQ 2937; Kiran Tandon vs.Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; MaheshI'I•Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238;Kapil Mehra (Major General) S.Ors. ys,i Union of India & Anr,176(201,1)DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/20017titled as SuratSinghDelhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., jdejcided on 24.04.2008; OmPrakasH(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004) 10 SCC 627;Satpal &I Ors. vs. Union of India, (1997|Ii 11 SCC 423; LA. APP.No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. pnionI; of India, decided on26.O9.20ll;LA. APP. No.59/2007 titledjas Bed Ram vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam V5. Union ofIndia,2010(170)DLT371.I

6.On the strengthofthe.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, it'\yas urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguingI counsel for the appellantsthatthe locationand situationofthe acquirMagriculturalland has to betirst understood in order to appreciate its ^potential which must beadjudgedkeepingin view the developmentin the area over aperiodoftime and,the same cannotbe limitedto thenear futurealone.

7.It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,|ounselfor 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. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal•A.App. No. 2M/20iO&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur•A.App. No. 2M/20iO&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 8 of 29

1and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat.'Petroleum and road 100meters )vide startingfrom NI-I-8 from Shiy jkurtitowardsDwarkaSub-Cit)^ Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into twoportions;(i) North Easternside, ^vhere IGl|Airportis located; and (ii)South Eastern side, where developedFanii^Housesare located on theland of;VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointedout by Mr.S.K.Solanl^ilearnedcounselfor the appellants that northernpart ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extensionof IGI lAirport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 forestablishing;IndianOil Depotsand thereafterr,in the year 1982 for BharatPetroleumand the landsofBharthalandwereVillage VillagePochanpuralso acquiredin the year 1984 for developjmqntof DwarkaPhase-Iandthe lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras werealso acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City.Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/msi^to highlightthatthe boundaryof Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arecontiguo|us.i

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 hasillegallyItreated the acquired land to be; agricultural in spite ofNotificationof 16"' October, 2000 vide v^hfch land use of the threeivillages :in question was changed fromagriculturalto residential/commei-Qial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland ofVillageBharthalhad ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24"' October19949.It ms' argued with much vehemenceI by Mr.S.K.Rout,3'learned•counselfpr the appellantstliatthe aforesaidItWo Notificationshave beenwrongly discardedby ,tlie ReferenceCourt by relying upon P. Rama

.JA.ApD,A.App. No. No. 294/20.10 1195/2008&&connectedcpnnp.clGd-AppeaisofVillageAppealsofVillageBijwasanBharthal1Il--.App.No. J.U/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur^ :iI:Page9of,29

Reddi& Qrs. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,\Hyderabad& Ors, (1995)2 see 305, which has been consideredb}^ the Apex Court in its laterdecisionin Udho Bass vs. State ofHaryanaOrs., 2010(9) SCALE41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the are^ over periodof time andthe same cannot be limited to near future alone; and if after theacquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it wouldnotmeanthatthereisno buildingpotentiality.!, I•'110.Reliancewas placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for theappellants,upon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillage1Pochanpurto highlightthat the sale pricereflectedthereinvariedfroin ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs andmeiely because of the said variation,these Sczie exemplars cannot bethrown out as has been illegallydone by th& ReferenceCourt, becausethere is no basis to concludethat these salejexemplarsare overvaluedbecause of any special advantagesand as per .^settledlegal propositionlaid down by the Apex'Court in AnjaniMolu•Dessai vs. State of GoaandAm., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsde exemplarsoughtto betaken as representingthe marketprice of the| Istnd which comes to ^57lacs acre and sincethe salerelied the per exemplarsupon by appellantsare the comparable sale instances,-therefore, reliance placed by theReferenceCourtthe minimumrates/circleratesfortheupon detenniningmarketvalueofthelandiserroneous. acquired patently11.Assessmentof market value of theland was acquipd sought byMr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellants'onthe basis ofthe L&DO rates fixed the Government and aso on the basis.of by predetermined:rates fixed by the Governmentfor allotmentof alternateplots mthe'year2000-2001.Keepingin viewlthl;location,situation,andpotentiality^of the acquired land, determinationof its market value is

l-A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthall.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurl.A.App.No. 294/2010&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 oron thebasisof thePre-DetemiinedRates (PDRs)as referredto aboW.-12.In :the writtensynopsis,appellant Imp.ulseIndiaPrivateLimitedof LA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton thefollowing grounds

a) :"ignores the admowledgement on the part of therespondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003datedin-7.0/1->yv7.respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003datedin-7.0/1->yv7.'23.10.2002 being flawedinthecourseoftheproceedings Civil Writ petitionNo.19012 of 2006.(Referred to in cross-examination\of appellant dated•7.7.2007)'Iproceedings Civil Writ petitionNo.19012 of 2006.(Referred to in cross-examination\of appellant dated•7.7.2007)'I

h) Does not accountfor the fact tlaatt the Public Noticedated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectekthe rates ofland inthe areafor more than 15the Notification years Ijeforedated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectekthe rates ofland inthe areafor more than 15the Notification years Ijeforeunder Section5 ofthe LandAcqilisitionAct, 1894 wasissued.;iIIissued.;iII

Ic) Valuing the land on the basis jIo/ 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)SCC 661.SangunthalaversusTahsildar,201Q{3)SCC 661.

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

e) Does not deal with disparityin valudofthe Sale De^dsprod.ucedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the lawestabhsnedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recentcase of^ Chinda Fakira Patil vkrsus Special LandAcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The™ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Saleprod.ucedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the lawestabhsnedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the recentcase of^ Chinda Fakira Patil vkrsus Special LandAcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The™ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that SaleDeedshowinghigherrate shouldnU be disregardedin

lAApp.No. 1195/2008&con'necledAppealsof VillageBharthal;aApp.no. 294/2010&connoctcdAppealsofVillageBiSsarf.-/•-•App. No. .11,2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page Hof 29

case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin AnjanaMolu Dessai vj. State of Goa, '2010(13)SCC 710, theSupreme Court has also held \hat the highest of theexemplars and not by averagiAg^.ofdifferent ty^pes ofsalestransactions shouldbeconsidered while certanland.adjudicatingupon compensationupon

Relied datek 3.3.2008 inLAC.f) upon judgmentN0.-97A/2006to decide the market value of the subjectland while ignoringthe materialwhich indicate that themarket value of the'land is muchhigher than 15 lacperN0.-97A/2006to decide the market value of the subjectland while ignoringthe materialwhich indicate that themarket value of the'land is muchhigher than 15 lacper: acre in Block and 113,36,000in Block in violationof the law laid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Courtincludingin Subh Ram v^. Staie of Haryaiia 2010(1)of the law laid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Courtincludingin Subh Ram v^. Staie of Haryaiia 2010(1), SCC 444. As consequence, the.impugnedjudgmentrefused to return an actualfindirig on the issue No 1refused to return an actualfindirig on the issue No 1\framedon27.2.2007.\ (

''•h-g): Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide• . .•Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, theIland use.of Village Dhool Svr'as\;,andBharthal waschangedand these areas ceasedkd-be agriculturalandIland use.of Village Dhool Svr'as\;,andBharthal waschangedand these areas ceasedkd-be agriculturaland:came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State.The masterplan and Notifications'of Governmentforland use. change show that in\ future land can beThe masterplan and Notifications'of Governmentforland use. change show that in\ future land can be•subjected toresidential, conmercial andother•permissible uses. It is alsopertinentto mentionthat theappellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'^amendmentof the ConstitutionofIndia, w.i.f:1.6.1993 IX A, byvirtue of which the Act was Municipal Corporation•permissible uses. It is alsopertinentto mentionthat theappellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74'^amendmentof the ConstitutionofIndia, w.i.f:1.6.1993 IX A, byvirtue of which the Act was Municipal Corporationamendedand the area where thd, land is situated, wasdeemeda municipalarea and the\municipalCounsellorwas electedfrom, there. No Panchayatelections wereheld in the area.deemeda municipalarea and the\municipalCounsellorwas electedfrom, there. No Panchayatelections wereheld in the area.h) Infused to apply the law laid down in AIR SupremePomt 3467, RanvirSingh and A^r vs. Union ofIndia\andrefusedto considerthefact tHat;jhedevelopm.entinthe area has directeffecton the price that willingPomt 3467, RanvirSingh and A^r vs. Union ofIndia\andrefusedto considerthefact tHat;jhedevelopm.entinthe area has directeffecton the price that willingpurchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

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

LA.APP. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

. .App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App. IMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 12 of 29

auctioKdsimilarlysituatedlandas commercialblochat the rate ofabout K2.6 lakh and concludedthat the•said landis whollyunderdevelopedland.

j) The valuationqfthesubjectland is m^en lower than thepre-determmedauction rates setRespondentNo 2jor similarly situated land.I ;ipre-determmedauction rates setRespondentNo 2jor similarly situated land.I ;ik) Does not take into accountthe Does not take into accountthe not take into accountthe take into accountthe into accountthe accountthethepossibilityofchangeiofthejeofthe landthe land landalthoughthe ikn^,.,as acquiredfolthe ikn^,.,as acquiredfol ikn^,.,as acquiredfol.,as acquiredfol acquiredfolfolde^elopmmt purposes of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is purposes of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is DwarlfdjPhase 11 It isPhase 11 It is 11 It is It is isBhaithal wm changed and these areas ceased to bethal wm changed and these areas ceased to be wm changed and these areas ceased to be changed and these areas ceased to be and these areas ceased to be these areas ceased to be areas ceased to be ceased to be to be be"§-DelU^a^r^^""^dariesthejeofthe landthe land landalthoughthe ikn^,.,as acquiredfolthe ikn^,.,as acquiredfol ikn^,.,as acquiredfol.,as acquiredfol acquiredfolfolde^elopmmt purposes of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is purposes of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is DwarlfdjPhase 11 It isPhase 11 It is 11 It is It is isBhaithal wm changed and these areas ceased to bethal wm changed and these areas ceased to be wm changed and these areas ceased to be changed and these areas ceased to be and these areas ceased to be these areas ceased to be areas ceased to be ceased to be to be be"§-DelU^a^r^^""^daries

k) Does not take into accountthe Does not take into accountthe not take into accountthe take into accountthe into accountthe accountthethepossibilityofchangeiofchangechangeofthejeofthe landthe land landalthoughthe ikn^,.,as acquiredfolthe ikn^,.,as acquiredfol ikn^,.,as acquiredfol.,as acquiredfol acquiredfolfolde^elopmmt purposes of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is purposes of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is DwarlfdjPhase 11 It isPhase 11 It is 11 It is It is isthejeofthe landthe land landalthoughthe ikn^,.,as acquiredfolthe ikn^,.,as acquiredfol ikn^,.,as acquiredfol.,as acquiredfol acquiredfolfolde^elopmmt purposes of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is purposes of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is of DwarlfdjPhase 11 It is DwarlfdjPhase 11 It isPhase 11 It is 11 It is It is is•Bhaithal wm changed and these areas ceased to bethal wm changed and these areas ceased to be wm changed and these areas ceased to be changed and these areas ceased to be and these areas ceased to be these areas ceased to be areas ceased to be ceased to be to be be"§-DelU^a^r^^""^dariesBhaithal wm changed and these areas ceased to bethal wm changed and these areas ceased to be wm changed and these areas ceased to be changed and these areas ceased to be and these areas ceased to be these areas ceased to be areas ceased to be ceased to be to be be"§-DelU^a^r^^""^dariesII) IgmredNotificationsdated16.10.2000if-and 24 101994although they clearly establish 'the commercial(.^f (2010)3see 661 It was heldjhatthepurposeforf^ch land is acquired is ret<^antfaLrwiZ'he factalthough they clearly establish 'the commercial(.^f (2010)3see 661 It was heldjhatthepurposeforf^ch land is acquired is ret<^antfaLrwiZ'he factMforbuildinguimnlpurposes in immediatkpotentialityor in nearto befuture 'usedneeds to be consideredI^acquued and the satd land being ipccupied by thewe eLlldfThe landsquartZZ^, K """ZT,"P residentialZZenoiise titi site, the irT- adjoininglands have theconsidered potentialasof 'beingputin betteruseas housesitesinVienearfuture.needs to be consideredI^acquued and the satd land being ipccupied by thewe eLlldfThe landsquartZZ^, K """ZT,"P residentialZZenoiise titi site, the irT- adjoininglands have theconsidered potentialasof 'beingputin betteruseas housesitesinVienearfuture.13.In the briefsynopsis by Ved P.I and olers of LA. App No. 347/2009,the factualdetailshave been provided'withaprayerthat theappellantso| this appeal be treatedat par witljthe 6o-appe.latrtsof tlteotherappeal?in thesebunchofappeals.li;appellantso| this appeal be treatedat par witljthe 6o-appe.latrtsof tlteotherappeal?in thesebunchofappeals.li;- '4,Supplememingtheaforesaidargu,.entsadvancedon behalfoftheMr.Anandthateffectof '4,Supplememingtheaforesaidargu,.entsadvancedon behalfoftheMr.Anandthateffectofappellants,>t;wasurgedbyYadav,Ajivoeatethe,1W2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur1W2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 13 of 29•if

urbanizationofthe lands in the VillagesinQaestion,i.e., the change inland use'hasbeen consideredin MaheshDaStatrayThirthkarvs. StateofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapUMehra (MajorGeneral)&Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia ^ 'Anr, 176(20n»)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeteraiinedRates, Resei-vedAuctionRatel of tlie area are relevanttodeterminethe market value of the acquiredlands and infact the salemstancesrelied tileareandto haveupon byappellantscomparable oughtbeen relied the ReferenceCourt to assess the correct market upon byvalue of the acquired lands. Thus, enhUement of compensationreflecting:just, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands issoughtin theseappeals.I15.Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby theJRespondents,Mr.SatyayPoddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas perSection51-AofLand AcquisitionAct. 1894, acertifiedco^y of the Sale Deed is anadmissibleevidencebut the same camiotbe!t^ken as relevantevidenceior determmationof the market value unltsji and.until the same isproperly connectedwith the land-in question!'and elementof specialfancy oftl,epurchaserand otherfactorsnamely,nature,situationoftheproperty,proximityto the villageetc. are als.^ requiredto be consideredatrd the saleinstancesrehed thecorrectupon by Respondentsdisclosingmarket value of the acquiredlands have bedn.illegallyrejected by theReferenceCourtandwhilereliancethe decisionsmJaiLaiplacinguponv.. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRI 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. ijHion ofIndia andAnr.,(2009) 15 SCO 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008Utiedas SmhilKumarvs.UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it wa^ urgedthatshaipincreasemprice in ashortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntilreasonsforS"ch sharp ^increaseare explainedby producingin evidencethe seller

LA.APP. No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan

• pp. No. 1.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpwr

Page 14 of 29

and the purchaseras no prudentpersonhaying Icnowledgeof the usualprevalenttrendin the marketwouldpay sucjhahigherpay as reflectedinthe sale.instance of Radha SM'ami Satsarig, Beas, relied upon by the but for it was contended onappellants, special consideration,jxhus,behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision ofApex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which -has been followed by acoordinateBenchofthis Courtin SushilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh(supra).i

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 factoredinto, while fixing the'Iminimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturailland by the Governmentason 1'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon12% perannum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneouslydetermined by the Reference Court, as |inSushil Kumar (supra)appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submittedthatthereis nofor furtherenhancementfrom theof scope priceacquiredlands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned•judgment deserves to be modified deletiiigthe enhancementby theReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considera);idnthe appreciation@12% annum and the same deservesto bein line whileper brbiight grantingappreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the, cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.;

17.After consideringthe rival submissions advanced by both thesides and,'upon,closeperusalofthe impugned'judgment,'!the evidenceonrecordand the-decisionscited,whatemergesIis thatthe truemarketvalueofthe comparablelandis the pricepaidby willingpurchaserto av/illing

LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalU.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlV\.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurU.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlV\.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 15 of 29.

seller and the best evidence is the conifjarablesale instances. Whiledealing|with the questionofpotentialvalijie.pfthe acquiredland, whathas to be considered in assessing the market value thereof; standsreiterateaby the Apex Court in Udho Bass vs. State ofHaryana2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords:- |

the situationofthelandvis-a-vistheor(i) acquired city,the town or vdlage which had l^een growingin size•because of its commercial, industrial, educational,,the town or vdlage which had l^een growingin size•because of its commercial, industrial, educational,:religiousor any otherkindofimportanceor becauseofits explosivepopulation;\ofits explosivepopulation;\

. (ii)tlKsuitabilityofthe acquiredlandIforputtingup thebuildings, bethey residential, commercial orindustrial,as the case may be;buildings, bethey residential, commercial orindustrial,as the case may be;

(ui) possibilit);ofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyforoccupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

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

j6^existence, of highways, public broads, layouts ofbuildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsinthe vicinityor closeproximityo^tfieacquiredland;buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsinthe vicinityor closeproximityo^tfieacquiredland;

\(vi)benefits or advantages of educational institutionshealth care centres,-or the like in the surroundingareas of the acquired land \which may becomeavailableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton thehealth care centres,-or the like in the surroundingareas of the acquired land \which may becomeavailableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the• acquiredland; andj ^ acquiredland; andj ^

I(viiA landsaroundthe acquiredland,orthe acquiredland,\ Itself being in demandfor building purposes to• specify afew. "i\ Itself being in demandfor building purposes to• specify afew. "i

1J8.Theipotentiahtyoflandipotentiahtyoflandoflandlandfor the purpose!o?developmentas also for the purpose!o?developmentas also for purpose!o?developmentas also foro?developmentas also fordevelopmentas also foras also for also for for anumberof factors.For the saidbuildingpurposesdependsuponlarge Court nothave toin mind theforpurpose,tlje may only be|ir purposeIa'^h.A.„pp, TNo. lU,n ?mU010 I&connectedApealsAppealsofofVillageVillageBijwasanBharthali-A.App NO.U1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagepochanpur

1Theipotentiahtyoflandipotentiahtyoflandoflandlandfor the purpose!o?developmentas also for the purpose!o?developmentas also for purpose!o?developmentas also foro?developmentas also fordevelopmentas also foras also for also for for

which tl^e lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequentevents t6 some extent. If has been so observedby the Apex Court inAvinash\{su-pvdi).Whilereiteratingthe relev;ant factors for detemiinationof compensationfor acquiredlands,it has been held by the Apex Courtin AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarscifsmallpiecesof land relied thecouldnot be ato discardthemupon by appellantsground especiallywhen exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandweren^t available.. 19.Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficerd Anr vs. 3£K RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC714. The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsrelieduponon behalf of the appellantsis that where;h^.re0 is no basic differenceeither in^ situationorol the which arelocation, potentiality villages, similar availableto them even assimilarly:situatedhaving advantageregards future prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing thecompensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlandsand the acquired land.

20.It is well establishedpropositionof law that the burden ofprovingthe true marketvalue of the acquiredland is on the State whohas acquired the agriculturalland for particularpurpose. But, it isequally ti^e that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensationawarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of theApex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can bereferredto with advantage,21.Apex Courtin;Fa/Z/jamma/(Supra),vvhile taking note of the factthat the Required land was situated in close vicinity of residentialcolonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,itc.,had heldthat deductionof 40% towards development charges wasi iimproper. The pertinent.observationsmadeCourt in A^miMolu Dessai by the'Apex(Supra);deserveattention,whichareas under:-

lA.AppIMo, 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalIA.AppNo. :.'.94/20,10&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.AppHo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 17 of 29

I"The legal positionis that even whene there are severalexemplars with reference to similar Iqrids, usually thehighest of the exemplars, which is bdna fide transaction,will be considered.Where however there are several salesofsimilar lands whoseprices range in narrow bandwidth,the average thereof can be taken, as representing themarketprice. But where the values )disvlosedin respectofti'Vp sales are markedly different, it dan only lead to aninference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands orthat the lower value sale is on account of under-valuationor: otherreasons.price depressing Cpri^equentlyaveragingcannot be resorted to. "

Tl.It would be worthwhileto take note iafitheclinchingobsen'^ationspertainingto deteiminationof fair marketrate of acquiredlands madeby the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira ^Patil (Supra), which are asfollows

"B: is well settled that genuine iand 'bona fide saletransactions in respect of the land under acquisition or inits absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto thepointof acquisition of thelands^ situated intheneighborhoodof the acquired lands'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 me the real basis todeterminethe marketvalue."| V23.to determinethe marketv^lue of thelands asPrinciples acquired

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

"Primarily, the increase in land pricesI depends on fourfactors - situation of the land, nature of developmentinsufroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentinthe area, and the demandfor land\J.n the area. In ruralareas unless there is any prospectof developmentin thevicinity?, increase in prices would b.e slow, steady and.gradual,withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps.

l.A.A|)p.No. J195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

1!i•Irage Xo Or zy

On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where thedevelopment-isfaster, where the demiindfor land is highand where there is construction activity all around, theescalation in market price is at much higher rate, ascomparedto rural areas. In somepocketsin big cities, dueto., rapid development and high kema^id for land, theescalationsin priceshave touchedeven30% to 50% ornwre per year, during the nineties. Cn the,other exti^eme, inremote rural areas where there, was' no chance of anydevelopmentand hardly any buyers the prices stagnatedfor years or rose marginallyat norninalrate of !%> or 2%,per annum. •There is thus significant difference inincreases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urbanareas and increases in market value 6f lands in the ruralareas.Therefore if the increasein marketvalueinurban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15% per annum,the correspondingincreasesin rural^^reaswouldat best beonly^around,halfofit, that is about5%.^to 7.5%per annum.This rule of thumb refers to the gejneral trend in thenineties, to be adoptedin the absence&fplearandspecificevidence 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 appliedwoulddependuponthe same..|.Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthemarketvalue by providingappropriateescalationover theprovedmarketvalue ofnearbylands in previousyears (asevidencedby sale transactionsoracquisition),where thereIS no evidenceofany contemporaneous'saletransactionsoracquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhood.Thesaid method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-saletransactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisitionbylonlyafew.years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit relatesto neighbouringland. What may be reliablestandcii;difthe gap is onlyafew become unsafe and unreliable standard years, maywhere the gap is larger.For example,for determiningthemarket-valueof land acquired in 1992, adopting theannual increase method with refe:re;ace to sale or

i.A.App. No. .nS5/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthallA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageEljwasan

>.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Iacquisitionin 1970or 1980may have manypitfalls. This isbecause, over the course ofyears, the ^ate' of annualincreasemay itselfundergodrasticchange apartfrom thelikelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationinpricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandardofincrease. "'!

24.Ihis Courtis mindfulofthe dictumof!theApexCourtin HaryanaStateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation\liSIDQ(Supra),regardingcomputation of compensation for the aqquired lands by adoptingcomparativesalesmethods.Whatwas saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC(Supra) is:as under:-;•;StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation\liSIDQ(Supra),regardingcomputation of compensation for the aqquired lands by adoptingcomparativesalesmethods.Whatwas saidby the Apex Courtin HSIDC(Supra) is:as under:-;•;

"Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with differentsituationalarefor the sameadvantages) acquiredpurpose, for of residential courts havesay. forming layout,^ sometimes felt that determination,of their value withreferenceto previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoidedanda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedforall landsacquiredunderthesamenotification."

25.Undisputedly,in these appeals sale iexemplars in and aroundacquired land of Village Bharthal, Villagep^wasan of the period in. questionare not availableand the solitarysaie'Wemplarstronglyreliedupon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven SaleDeedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsangBeashad purchased the agriculturalland in Village Pocheinpur at pricewhichvariedfrom?52 lacsto ?62 lacsacre.' ^per26.WhetlieraforesaidSaleDeeds (EX.PW41/4Ito Ex.PW-1/10)whichare basicallybetween;one set ofco-ownersaidRkdhaSwamiSatsang,Beasin res|)ectoftlie.compactbiocicoflandmeasuring18 BighasandSBiswassiti(atedin VillagePochanpurreflecttlie correctmarketvalue ofthe land in the villagesin questionis tiremootIqrestionwliichis requiredto be answ'ered. Evidently,aforesaidsale e>(emplare. i.e., Sale DeedsU.App.lAApp. No.No 1.195/2008 294/2010&&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillageBljwasanBharthal';•A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpuri(fcx.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-l/IO)indicatetliatits'pricevaries from ?52 lacsto ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby,tlie entire land of the sale-exemplar Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ej.piw-l/lO)did not commandthe same mai'ketpricesIt was dependentupon'thenatureandsituationofthe aforesaidlands. Evidence to establish|flue advantagesattached toeach parcel of land of these sale exemjilm-s with acquired land inisthesesalecannotbe treatedasquestion, lacking.Therefore,e>:emplarsdisclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. Thespecial need of the purchaser of these agriculturallands in VillagePochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to j^x.PW-l/lO)has not beenbrought out as the purchaseiVvendeeof these'agriculturaland has notbeen got ^examinedby tlie appellants.Had the pm-chaser/vendeeof theaforesaid.saleexemplars been got examined, then it could have beenelicitedftbm him as to why he had agreedto^aysuchahiglipriceforthese lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha SwamiSatsang, Beafwhohad purchasedmore thm'33 Bighas of land at anexorbitant invideDeed executedon 25'"price VillageMamurpurjSi|le2000was alsomatterin LA. No. 266/2008tifledasMarch, subject .^pp.Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on :?3.8.2011 and in LA. App.No. 999/2010 titledas vs. Urifoh of decided on, Raj Singh India,19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,thj; sale exemplarof VillageMamurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthat^h? samecamiotbe treatedas for thelands.! '. representativeprice acquired27-.In tlie instantmatters,thoughthe land use Of the acquiredlands 'was changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,iu|ithas come in evidencethatthe acquiredlandswere beingused fora^iiulturalpurposetill theiracquisition.Thus, it becomesevidentthat the acquired lands were notdevelopedlands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing

|.A.App.No. •..195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal../ ./.pp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan../ ./.pp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

Page 21 of 29

marketprice of the land in questionwould Day such high price unlessand until;suchpurchaseis meantfor special!considerationand so, in theconsideredopinion of this Court the saleexemplars,i.e., Sale Deeds(Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)have beenrightlydiscardedby theReferenceCourt.

28.So far as the sale exemplarof Village Samallcha(Ex.PW-1/11)reliedupon by the appellantsis concerned,disclosingexorbitantpriceof?1,76,55,172.41per acre rdatingto Sale Dee| of 27"" January,2000, itneeds to ,be noted that because this sale exdmplar (Ex.PW-1/11)wassituated on the National Highway - 8 ar(d because vide Sale Deed(Ex.PW-1/11)vendorhad soldnot onlythe landbutthe structurethereonincluding:tube well, boring,fitting,fixture,ane, by-lane, etc., therefore,it had fetched such high price. In viewthereof, this sale exemplarcannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquired lands inquestion.

29.Left \vith no sale exemplarsdisclosingi;ealisticprice ofsimilariysituatedlands in the vicinity,now it is reqtiiredto be consideredas towhetheradoptionofL& DO circularrates for the developedlands andfi^"DeteiminedRates for the alternateplots -l^y the DDA ought to beadopted to determinethe true market value ';of the acquired lands in•question.|30.Parametersgoverningfixationof marketvalue of acquiredlandsi,!highlightedby ApexCourtin its decisionrepoijledas P. RamReddyandOrs. V. Lan^ Acquisition Officer Hyderabad'-Urban Development•AuthontyHyderabadandOrs., 1995 (2) SCb 305 are as under:-

"12. However; in eitherofthe said cask whetherit be thedeterminationofthe marketvalueofthe acquiredlandwithbuildingpotentialitywith referenceto thepricefetchedbysaleofplots in awelldevelopedlayoutin tKe neighborhood

lA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthallA.App.l.A.App. No.No. 111/2010 294/2010&&connectedconnectedAppealsofAppealsof VillageVillagePochanpurBijwasan^lA.App.l.A.App. No.No. 111/2010 294/2010&&connectedconnectedAppealsofAppealsof VillageVillagePochanpurBijwasan^

Page 22 of 29

or whetherit he the determinationofthe,,marketvahieoftheacquiredland with huUdingpotentihWywith referencetothepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingphisin an undevelopedlayout of buildingplots in the neighlJbrhood,it becomesinevitablefor the Court tofind out \vhat will be the pricefetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts,rehedupon by anyoftheparties,with,referenceto thepricewhich theplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the dateofthepublicationof the preliminarynotifipqtionunder Sectionof the Act Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetchedy he sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in theneighborhoodof the acquired lands^ becomes available,hen what couldbe done is tofind out the marketvalue of•he acquiredland with reference to\tfie relevantdate ofpublicationunderSection4(1) oftheU Act, accordingtothe actualuse to which it wasputandincreaseits value bya small percentage having regard to the degree of itsbuildingpotentmtyascertainedon thk hpsisofevidencetooe made available in that regard U'small percentageincrease to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the m.arketvalue of the landfound outto its actual user accordingsince resort to the method ofgiving\increasedvalue forsuch buildingpotentiality,arises only when there is\oevidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in 'thS neighborhoodofhe acquiredland indicatingthat there was no immediate

31.In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionof^rateof land chargedbytheDDA afterthelandsltheandacquiring agrioulturaldeveloping sa,ne.ti-ansfernngperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotmentratos/Pre-DeterminedRates in deterntiningthe market value of theadjoining undevelopedfreehold lands. Following^the dietum of LaiChand(Supra),acoordinateBench ofthis Courtip JaiSingh (Supra)and Sushil Kuma. (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates nna titelands asrelevantforthe marketvalueofdeveloped beihg„o, assebslng!PP NO. 111/2010&connected/appealsofVillagePochanpurItheDDA afterthelandsltheandacquiring agrioulturaldeveloping sa,ne.ti-ansfernngperpetualleaseholdrights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon the allotmentratos/Pre-DeterminedRates in deterntiningthe market value of theadjoining undevelopedfreehold lands. Following^the dietum of LaiChand(Supra),acoordinateBench ofthis Courtip JaiSingh (Supra)and Sushil Kuma. (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates nna titelands asrelevantforthe marketvalueofdeveloped beihg„o, assebslng!PP NO. 111/2010&connected/appealsofVillagePochanpurI

!IjPage 23 of 29

the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the Reference-Courthasnotthe DDA ratesfor allotmentofland or rightly adopteddevelopedthe DDA's Pre-DetemiinedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing themarketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallaiidsin question.

32.Now what is requiredto be seen is iwhetherprogressiveincreasemethod would be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalue oftheland in questionwhiletakinginto considerationthe earlieracquisitionofthe year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.other1villagesfor developmentofDwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argifad by Mr.Sanjay Poddar,learnedseniorcounselfor the respondent/dro'ss-objectorthat even iftheescalation at the compoundedrate of 10%per annum is taken from theyear 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., forthe period intervening theNotification for development of Dwarlca\Phase-I and the instantNotificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhasfe-II,istillthe pricefixed bythe LandAcquisitionCollectoris morethaiithe aforesaidescalatedpriceand therefore, the enliancementgranted by the Reference Court isunjustified.!f

33.Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum ofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adoptprogressiveincreasemethod in assessmentc'f the market value of theacquiredland only when the gap is of4-5.3^e9,rsand beyondthat it maybe unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouring'land. What may be alehablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew;years,may becomeunsafeand unreliablestandardwhere the isIn the instant the gap lal-g|r.case,gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDv/arkaPhase-Iand DwarkaPhase-IILs ofsixteeriyearsandtherefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthemode of determining the market valuej% providing appropriate

LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan

1-A.App.No. 1-11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 24 of 29

escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previqusyears.I34.Mr.SanjayPoddar,learnedseijiorcounselfortherespondent/cross-objectorhad urged th£-t |theReferenceCourthasgranted escalation @ 12% per annum,•whichis unwarrantedas acoordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has grantedescalation @ 10% per annum. After ha^drig perused the decision inciushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on accountof higherpotentiality of the acquired land over and above the market valuedetermined the ReferenceCourthas beenandby granted so, by relying SushilKumar escalation the ReferenceCourtupon (Supra)granted'by12% annum cannotbe reducedto annum.In this viewof@ per 10%) perthe matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respo'ndentare dismissed.'35.Now what is to be seen is whether .^doption of Government'smmimumprice ofthe agriculturalland inII>eiiai,by the ReferenceCourtIS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% annum the per grantedby. ReferenceCourt fi-om the date of fixationofJhe minimumprice for theagriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f.1'April, 2000 till the date ofNotificationmthe instant deservesto be further increasedorappealsnot.•;.

36.Adoption of Government'sminimuii rates of agriculturallandpertaining to the Notificationin question has been assailed by thelearnedpounsel for:appellantsbecausethejacqukedland had ceasedtobe an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994declaring agriculturallands in these three Villages in question to beurban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe 1994the land yearuse ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthatby itselfis not sufficientto

AApp, No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthall.A.App.AApp. No.No. 111/2010 294/2010&&connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillagePochanpurBIjwasanIIi.Page 25 of 29•5.-i:

that the lands had forpresume acquired gained potentiality beingconsideredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vitalaspectofthere being any developmentin and aroundthe acquiredlandsm question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha SwamiBeasrelied thedisclosethafthe saleSatsang,heavilyuponby ai^ptellantsofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.37.Rathei, it emerges from the evidence on record that till theissuanceof Notificationunder Section4of^^he Land AcquisitionAct,1894, the acquired'lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there beenincreasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityoftheacquired lands upon change of their us2;;post the year 1994, thencouldhave laidtheirhands onsale instancesin the areaappellants o-;h|rmquestion.But, indeedappellantscannotrel^ upon the sale ofthe landin VillagePochanpurto areligiousinstitutionand anothersale instance. of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)withouli leading any evidence toestablishthat.thequalityand potentialityofthesale exemplarsofRadhaSwami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpir^and the sale exemplarofVillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewiththe acquiredlandsand so the contiguityof the acquired lan|d with the sale instance ofVillage Samalldia (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot|bi treated to be sufficientground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaidsale instances.Therefore, in view of the £,fore-refen-eddictum of theApex Court in Haryana State IndustrialievdopmentCorporationri?57Z)C;XSupra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeservesto be awardedfor the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light,of theminimum'price fixed by the Governmentfo| the agriculturalland in which factors in the ri^e due toDelhi, -generallylof;price higherpotentiality.Taking note of the fact that tlierfe is agap betweenwhat

AApp. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

LA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

would be expectedto be the marketgro^h and what the market hadactuallygrown,Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheldto be1 reasonable^ basis. for assessingthemarket'v value of the acquiredlandsin JaiSmgk'(Sj^pra)as well as in SiishilKumar(Supra)andIfmdno reasonto take adifferentviewthanth^o|e whichhad beentakenbycoordinateBench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh(Supva.)andSiishilKumar(Supra).| • 'j

38.This Court is ofthe consideredview that tlie ReferenceCourt inthe matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan lias relied the Government's fornglitly uponmipiinum price agriculturallands in Delhito fix tlie marketvalueoftl^e acquiredlandsin question.Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand tlie situationofthe acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from theevidenceon record.ButIfmd thatthe aspectofhiglierpotentialityoftheacquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthk forAirport,Indian:Oil andBharatPetroleumDepots smd of Railwayilitie passing through'VillageBharthaland there.beinga 100 meters vi'de road starting from NH-8from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,Pai-iIandPartII, dividingtlieacquired lands in two portions, and there! being Farm Houses mthevicinityoftlie acquiredlands has somehovymissed the attentionoftlieReferenceCourt.In'theconsideredopinionofthis Court, on accountofaforesaid:locationaladvantages,the acqmre|likds in question,certainlyassumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingiitvlciiiityofDwarkaPhase-I.Whatpersuadesthis:Courtto grant 10% increlseover and above^marketvalue of tlie acquired lands as assessed liy the Reference Couit onaccountof the higherbuildingpotentiality|n the acquiredlands is the

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

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

"When once conclusion is reached that there was thepossibilityof the acquiredland beii^g'usedfor puttingupbuildingsin the immediateor nearj^uture, such conclusionwould be sufficientto hold that the acquiredland had.a• buildingpotentialityandproceedto determine its marketvalue takinginto accountthe increasein priceattributableto such buildingpotentiality."'i

'•!39.Consideringthe fact that it would lop veiy difficultto provideadefinitevalue qua potential,and in view of|he fact that exactnesscannever be achievedin the matters of asses^^g fair compensation,it isbioadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whicihpersuadesme to treatthemwith equivalenceby uniformly applying ihqs Government'sminimumprices for the agriculturallands for compudngthe fair marketvalue ofthe acquiredlands as there are no special•:-eatures to treat the acquiredlands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treatedatpar with' their counter-parts,i.e., appellaiitsiof Village Bharthal andVillageBijwasan.However,while relyingjupon the decisionin SushilKumar(Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10%iin'creaseover and abovethemarketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedbythe ReferenceCourtinthese matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantagespiovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

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

A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal'LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

.:Page 28 of 29

the appellants of'Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extentindicatedabove. Thus, the market value ofthe acquiredlands ofthesethreevillagesin questionis determined@1?16,50,000/-per^tSS^SrtheCatcgoiy 'A' land; and @4,69,600/-perfor the Categorylands in question.1^-1^

41.On the aforesaid enhancement in t^ie compensation'awarded,statutor}^benefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedinthe judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 aregranted,exceptfor the periodwherethere ^s adelay in filingthe appeal,for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the;enhancedcompensationshallbe paid.Theseappellantswouldbe entitled!to proportionatecosts.42.The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedofin the aforesaid tenns with direction to the Registry to remit thecompensationamount,if any, depositedbyeitherside with the RegistrarGeneral ofthis Court,to the concernedReferenceCourt. DecreesheetsIbe accordinglyprepared.!

January 06, 2012pkb

C(SUNIL GAUR).TiHi

nV.iW fit"'I.^•'I.^•

l7\.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage BliarthallA.App. No. 294/2010&connGctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan •LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 29 of 29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT,NEW DELHI1•.+LA. APP. 1195/2008RANBIRS™a,AppellantThrough:Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.SmitaMaaii,Mr.R.S..Verma,Mr.Jitin• 'Tewathia,Advocates ! 'Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate.]\^.Rohtas, Advocate.Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate•Mr.N.S.NegiandJvIr.lj.S.Rautela,AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.koutray,Advocates.Mr.N.S.NegiaiidMr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor^respondentin appealsfiledby UOI)^•Mr.SudhanshuTomar,|^;dvocatefbr••;Mr.R.S.Tomar.;•IMr.B.D.Sharma,Mr^sjlCSolankiandMr.S.K.Rout, AdvocatesversusUNIONOF INDIA&ANR..1'RespondentsThrough:Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewith•Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.ilohitraoJadhavandMs.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran,Advocatesfor LAC/Uqi ',^-AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.3ethi,Ms. AmitaSingh.Sharma,Mr.KunalSharmaandK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA.

CORAM:iHON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUJ^

order'i '%12.01.2012I

^;AbbLNo^2/2012or

This is an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectionin

Orderof6"^ January,2012.

CoBBsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice

LA.App.No.1195/2008

Pagel

ofthe application.,Advancecopy ofthis a^plicationhas alreadybeengivento remainingcounselfor the appellants.The typogiaphicalerror pointed out by the respondentin thedecision of 6^^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of theaforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensatiorias^sessedis 'perbigha',whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not;disputedby learnedcounselappealingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationisallowedand it isorderedthatthe referencetog'perbigha'in par^raphno: 40 of LA.App^No. 1195/2008be read sis 'per acre'. Nec^sarycorrectionsbe carriedoutforthwith.|

In viewofthb; aforesaid,•this. applicationIstands,disposedqf

JANUARY 12,2012.pkb

^ LA.App.No.1195/2008