LA.APP./84/2012 of SUNIL SARDANA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

$-2*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+LA.APP. 84/2012

SUNIL SARDANAAppellant

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

versus

UNION OF ESDDIA& ANR ANR

& ANR ANRRespondentsThrough:Mr.Paramhans,Advocate forMr.Amn Birbal, Advocate for DDA

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER30.03.2012CM No.5425/2012(u/S151 CPC)

Delay of 688 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal is

sought to be condoned by this application, which is supported byaffidavit of learned counsel for the appellant.

Upon Notice, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr.Paramhans

Advocate for Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocatesfor respondentsNo. 1 & 2respectively, state that only opposition to this application is that forthe period of delay, the appellantought not be granted the interestonthe compensationamountin the eventof his succeedingin 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 688 days' in re-filing theaccompanying appeal is condoned while making it clear that for thedelayedperiod, the appellantshall not be granted interest in the eventof succeeding in the appeal.

With aforesaid observations,this.applicationstands disposed

Signature Not Verified

LA.APP. 84/2012

The instant appeal relates to Village - Pochanpur, where videNotificationof 13^^ December,2000, the land of the appellantstoodacquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and theReferenceCourt vide impugnedorder of 15^ February,2010 whileupholdingthecompensationamountawardedbytheLandAcquisition 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 thedecisionof this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008'Ranbir SharmaVs. Union ofIndia&Am.' renderedon 6^*^ January,2012, whereincompensationamountin respectof landsacquiredin VillagePochanpur 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 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 30, 2012plcb

IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

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

(GRID-A)

LA.APP.1195/2008 (VILLAGE- BI-IARTHAL)

RANBIR SHARA4AThrough:

i..Appellant

Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maaii, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mr.R.S.Verma,Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates

Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.An:ta Tomar, Advocates.Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.•Mr.RaghiivinderGodara, .AdvocateMr.l<I.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rai|tela,AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiitiay, Mr.M.Azam Ansari,Advocates.Mr.Pankaj Vivek, AdvocateMr.Rajesh Yadav, iVlr.DeepalKhosla., Mr.Samit Khoslaand Mr.DhananjayMeliiawatAdvocatesMr.H.S.P.autela,AdvocateMr.I.S.Dahiya, AdvocateMr.Sandeep Thaldiur, AdvocateMr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate.Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocsites forrespondentin appealsfiled b^j UOI)

versus

LMION OF INDIA & ANR.

Respondents

Through:Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAd/ocatewithMr.SanjayPathak, Mr.Mohitrao .Vadhavand Ms.Navlin Swain,Ms.K.Kaurnudi Kiran, Advoc;ites for LAC/TJOIMr.AjayVerma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.MukeshKumar, Mr. S.K.Sethi, Mr.P av^'an Mathur, Mr.Kuiial

Sharma, Advocate for DDA

LA.APP.412/2.008 &' CM.No.4096/2008(Cn>ss-01j)iections);LA.APP.452/2008;La.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008 &CM.No.5590/2010 (Cross-Objeclions);LA.APP.697/2008& 'CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.70i/2008&CM.No.51.0/2009 (Cross-Objectionsj; LA.APP.7eB/2008;LA.APP.770/2008;La.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008 &CM.No.5590/2010 (Cross-Objeclions);LA.APP.697/2008& 'CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.70i/2008&CM.No.51.0/2009 (Cross-Objectionsj; LA.APP.7eB/2008;LA.APP.770/2008;

lA.A|5p.No. liys/2008a connectedAppealsofVillageBharttial

I^.App. No. ?.9.:/2.010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

IA.App. .No. l:l.l/?,010&connecladAppealsof Village!Pochanpur

LA.APP.771/2008 &CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-ObjCM.No.611/2009CN4.Nn.n11/9nOQ (Cross-Objections);CM.No.3835/2009 LA.AiPP.77f(CrosT-Objeciion^^^taa r»p»^..i/2008;LA.APP.776/2008;LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008&CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsVLA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 &CM.No^15/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 &CM.No931/2009LA.APP805/2008; LA.APP.8b6/|008;LA.APP.813/2008&C^M.NoJ795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/i008 & CM.No.806/2009I^A-APP.818/2008; LA.APP':81?/2008; LA.APP.820/2008-LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP833/2008"LA.APR844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008;LA.APP.873/i008 &CM.No779/2011Cross-Objections);-LA.APP.892/2008& CM.N6,799/2009 (Cross-ObiectionsV• TA^CmZ^oZIT(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008;LA.APP.9j5/2008;L^S^R^SSrl LA.APP.973/2008-]ALA.APR976/2008;APP^ LA.APP.978/2008;CM.No.519./2009 LA.APR.986/2008 (Cross-Objections); &LA.APP.975/2008'CM.No572/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/20i8&CM.No.17340/2008'vCioss-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.;!7335/2008(Cross-Objections)-LA.APP.1032/2008& CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Oojections)-LA APP 1046/2008.LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008&CM,No.7L51/2009 (Crts Obie^^^^^^^^^'AAPp'!o51/2008&(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008!1AAPP'10539008i(Cross-Obje|ctions);LA.APP.1052/2008;CM No ]7fiS9nnQ rn6/^009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1054/2008&CL.MNo752/20112'2m? (Cross-Objections); LA.APLA.APP.1058208cfei055/3008;LA.APP. CM.No1057/2008 1557/2011 &^LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(Cross-ObiectiosV'La.APP.1O6O/20O8;LA.APP.1062/2008 & CM Nd 546/2009 fCross Obiertvi.-'^VLA.APP.1073/2008;LA.APP.,074/2008&CM.No623S SSSS "vLA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.4k2/2009('Cross-Ohiprf--v'Ife^CK^No^lSLA.APP.1086S8CM'^^o^38^'>9/2oS^c(Cross-Obifections);LA.APP.1108/2008CM N< 382^200?;^^'°^^-ObjecUons);LA.APP.1109/2008;LA.APP.1110/2008&CM.KoJ831/^009CM No 3831-009(Goss-Objectio.ns);LA.APP.lLA.APP.H113/2008ll/2i08; &LA.APP. CM.No.3826/2nOQ1112/2008&s^ioss-Objections);LA.APP.l115/2008; LA.APP.l116/2008- L'\ APP 119 l/9nn5''LA.APP.1126/2008;LA.APP.U29/2008&. CM.NoisSoVI'tl-A.APlAPP n"?/700s'.11j3/2008;LA.APP.l135/2008•&^ CM.No CM.Nov566/2009 7449/onoq rPmco nkL.r^(Cross..ObjectiolVLAfw APP ni u'56/2008-LA^APpTi'™o'osr°fCM.MO 7774n009

;A...r.r. NO. 11^7.008&connectedAppoakoflAApp,No. ;.y4/2(,no&connectedAppealsofvniageBijwasan../v.App,Mc.1u/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP;!19i/:^U08- IAAPP 11 oo/onncT194/2008;LA.APP.1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-oi^ec!tionsVLA.APP'jll95/2008-LALA APP APP loo/^OOH 1197/200SLA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA.APP:i2lSo8-LA A^P !2??/900CMNoU\I.Mo.3841/2009SWWZ(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.12 LA.APP 143/208•26/2008; LA.APP.I241/2008& TA APP lo'^onnnoLA.APP.1275/2008;LA.APP.1276/2008;LA.APP.lSS'LA APP 279 2008LAAPPsSp"^'LA-APP.,1283/2008.'LA.APP.1284/2008LA.APP:79/2009; LA.ApSoTT'CMTst/tuLA.APP.108/2009; LA.APP.109/2009; LA.APPJ2,/fo09! lSSLA.APP.136/2009; LA.APP.137/2009;LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009;LA.APP.13^2009;LA.APP. 139/2009LA.APP.162/'2009; LA.APP.187/2009'LA.APP.14^2009;LA.APP. 145/2009LA.APP.197/2009; LA.APP.198/2009,'LA.APP.190/2009;LA.APP. 191/2009 191/2009LA.APP.199/2009;LA.APP.201/2009.".rossKfsi-'rssl,.rsT":CM.No.7027/2009CM.No.7027/2009(Cross^-Objections); LA:APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245I20O9;'•LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009-LA.APP.246/2009

LA.APP. 139/2009LA.APP. 145/2009LA.APP. 191/2009 191/2009LA.APP.201/2009.rsT":CM.No.7027/2009CM.No.7027/2009'LA.APP.246/2009LA.APP.305/2009LA.APP.45 8/2009LA.APP.481/2009LA.APP.493/2009LA.APP.506/2009LA.APP.5 10/2009LA.APP.567/2009LA..APP.48/2010LA.APP. 1176/2008

LA.APP.2952009;LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009-LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APPLA.APP.447/480;e009-2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APPLA.APP.447/480;e009-2009; LA.APPLA.APP.447/480;e009-2009;LA.APP.447/480;e009-2009;480;e009-2009;2009;LA,APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP491/2009- LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP491/2009- LA.APP491/2009-491/2009-LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009: LA.APp'^O^fLA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LAAPP509/2009;LA..APP.511/2009; LA,APP.512/2009 LAAPP5I32009;LA.A.PP.572/2009;LA.APP.15/2010;LA.APp'45/Z009;LA.APP.404/2010; LA:APP.13/2011;'LA.^Pl11/^8^^010;LA.APP.1177/2008;LA.APP:1201/2008;LA.APP.23f/2009'LA.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009-LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APPLA.APP.447/480;e009-2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APPLA.APP.447/480;e009-2009; LA.APPLA.APP.447/480;e009-2009;LA.APP.447/480;e009-2009;480;e009-2009;2009;LA,APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP491/2009- LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP491/2009- LA.APP491/2009-491/2009-LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009: LA.APp'^O^fLA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LAAPP509/2009;LA..APP.511/2009; LA,APP.512/2009 LAAPP5I32009;LA.A.PP.572/2009;LA.APP.15/2010;LA.APp'45/Z009;LA.APP.404/2010; LA:APP.13/2011;'LA.^Pl11/^8^^010;LA.APP.1177/2008;LA.APP:1201/2008;LA.APP.23f/2009'

LA.APP.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APPLA.APP.447/480;e009-2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APPLA.APP.447/480;e009-2009; LA.APPLA.APP.447/480;e009-2009;LA.APP.447/480;e009-2009;480;e009-2009;2009;

LA,APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP491/2009- LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP491/2009- LA.APP491/2009-491/2009-

(Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30V96/L&B/LA/

13417 dated 13.12.200026,..002-2003dated23.10.2002,^LandVillage Acquisition.Bharthal,DeAc't, 1894 &AwardNo.ill)

(GRID-B)

Re^rved on:Decp.mhpv08, 2011Pronouncon: January 06. 7.017

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

DEVENDERKUMAR

••• AppellantThrough;Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr."*-^irendraSingh

lAApp NO. :i.i..V20C,8&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal'..App. No. ?.9.(/2010&ccnnectGdAppealsofVillageBijwasanL-/\pp.(sio.J.-.I/Mio&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 3 of 29

a^elating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/i3417 dated 13.12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No.28/2002-2003,"VillageBijwasan,Delhi)

AND

IA.App, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthali.A.App. No. 29/1/201C& connectedAppealsofVillageDijwasanI'VApp.ivJo.:i-3;./2010& connectedAppealsof VillagePochanour '

Page4of29

(GRID-C)

Reser 'ed on: December18. 2011Pronounced on: January 06. 2017

LA.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANP0R)

SEHAJ RAM AND ORS.Appellants

Mr.B.D.Shar^a,Mr.S.K.SolankiandMr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(inR-16, 20, 23 to iL 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44to 49, 59, 63 to 71)

Tlirough:

Mr.S.B.Kumar,Advocatefor appellantinLA.App.No. 61, t' ' '"^4,65/2011)Mr.Rajesh YadavAdvocate for appellantin R-22)

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Respondents

Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMi-.SanjayKumarPathak,Mr.MohitraoJadhav,and Mg.NplinSwain,AdvocatesforUOI/LAC

Through:

IAAPP. NO.139V2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal 'L/VApp.AO, 2.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan• .App, No. Ul/2010&connectedAppealscfVillagePochanpur

Page 5 of 2.D

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the LandRequisition Act, 1894 &Award No. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,Villa•ge Pochanpur, Delhi)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER

06„01.2012

1.Since-the grounds on which enhancementof the compensation issought by the appellants in these bunch ofappeals are identical,thereforewith the consentof learned counsel fcr the partiespresentatthe hearmg of these appeals, these hunch|of appeals pertaining toNotificationNo.R10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417Uated 13.12.2000,relatingtogeographically contiguous Villages BhEithal, Bijwasan andPochanpurare beingdisposedofby this commonorder.i2.Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopmentof 'DwarkaPhase-ir in Delhi, commenced with the issuance c-f Notification of 13'"December,,2000 under Section4 of the Land iVcquisi'ionAct, 1894,pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land i1 onecompactblockcomprisingof thirteenP.evenueEstates includinvillages in question.i.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

-3.Agriculturalland of the appellantshereinin the aforesaidthreevillagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide •;hree separateAwards,i.e., Award No.26/20'02-2003; Award No.28/2:002-2003;andAwardNo.30/2002.2003granting compensation@?13|.82 lacs per acre forBlock 'A' (level field - with top soil) aod?12.32 lacs per acre forBlock'B' (withouttop soil).j j

4.Dissatisfiedwiththe assessmentofmarket[alueoftheiracquired

l-A.App.No. 119S/2G08S. connectedAppealsofVillageBharthallAApp. No. 294/7,010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanI.A,App,No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur.I.Page.6of29lAApp. No. 294/7,010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanI.A,App,No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur.I.Page.6of29

agriculturallands, appellantshad sought refbreice under Section18 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugnedJudgmenthad enliancedcompensation@ ?i5.00 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,references relating to Village Pochanpurhave been dismissed.5.In these appeals, further enhancement ofcompensation sought bythe appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of RupeesFifty lacs per acre, whereas appellantsof Village Pochanpur have soughtcompensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacsDer acre by relying uponthe precedents in the shape of decisions i:i Executive Engineer,Karnataka Housing Board V5. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag andOrs., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu 'Dessal. State of Goa and Anr,,(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. Sta'e ofHaryana and Anr.,(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. SpecialTehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010j)3 See 661; RanvirSinghand Anr, vs'. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 346'''; Chindha Fakira Patil(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLand AcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon,2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of Ind,'ia, 2002 (62) DRJ 227;Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs i>S.Jnion ofIndia & Anr.,2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. Stateof Haryana&Ors.,2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Pui jabOrs., 2011 (9)SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik v.v. Stdte of Maharashtra, (2009)11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State ofHaryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003titled asSmt. Indu Khorana V5. Gram Sabha & Ors,decided on 26.03.2010;Special Land'Acquisition Officer <& Anr vs„ MK. Rafi.q Saheh, (2011)/ SC-C 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors ^s. ExecutiveEngineer,

lA.Apn No. :L19.'i/2008a connectedAppealsofVillage BharthailA.App. No. 29'i/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanL'\.App.No. in/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurlA.App. No. 29'i/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanL'\.App.No. in/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Gujaratand Anr.,AIR 2001' SCHaryanaStateIndustrialDevelopment Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175: Risal Singh & Ors, Vs.Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (D3); Lai Chand vs. Unionof India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769;; Ger.eral Manager,Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel andAnr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Anr vs. Special Tehsildar(Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011' SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs.Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; MaheshDattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238;Kapil Mehra (Major General) &Ors. Vs. Union of India <&Anr,•176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007litled as Surat Singh vs.Delhi Development Authority) &Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; OmPrakash(dead)by LRs andOrs vs. Unionopndia,(2004) 10 SCC 621\Satpal &Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423;LA. APP.No.656/2008titledas Sushil Kumarvs.' Union of India,decidedon26.09.2011;LA. APP. No.59/2007titled as .^ed Ram vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010(170) DLT 371..6.On the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, itwas urged by Mi'.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing cciunsel for the appellantsthatthe locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to befirst understood in order to its appreciate p(»tentialwhichmustbe in view thein tadjudgedkeeping developmentle area over period oftime andthe same cannotbe limitedto the ne^irfiiturealone.7.It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Tomar,coi^nsel for appellantsthat\IDelhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biijwasanpasses through the land of Village Bharthal, di'^/iding it into two parts,i.e., ori the easternside of the railwayline is theIGI Airport, Nev/ Delhi

u\,/'.pp.No, 1,195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage BharltialiA,App, No, :?M/20i0& connectGciAppealsofVillageBljwasanlA.App, No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage PochanpuriA,App, No, :?M/20i0& connectGciAppealsofVillageBljwasanlA.App, No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur

Page of 29

and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Pe roleuraand road100meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part-I and Part-II again divides the .agricultural land into twoportions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGLAirport is located; and (ii)South Eastern side, where developedFami Houses are located on theland of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samakha. It was also pointedout by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for theappellantsthat northernpart ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first a(;quiredfor the extensionof IGI Airport in the year 1971 and againin the year1980 forestablishingIndianOil Depotsand thereaflerMnthe year 1982 for BharatPetroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthalandVillage Pochanpur werealso acquiredin the year 1984 for developmqnof Dwarka Phase-I andthe lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras werealso acquired for the development of Phasc-II,-Dwarka Sub-City.Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizras/m^ipto highlightthatthe boundaryof Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arecontiguous.

P8.It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maanlearned counsel for theappellants that the Reference Court has faledto appreciate theof the land in the .potentiality acquired light3f its locationand hasillegally treated the acquired land to be^; agricultural in spite ofNotificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide whkhland use of the threevillages in question was changed from, agriculturaltoresidential/commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireIkndI ofVillageBharthalhad ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24"' October,1994.9.It was argued with much vehemence b}j Mr.S.K.Rout, learnedcounselfor the appellantsthatthe aforesaidtv/o f^Jotificationshave been• wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by•elying upon P. Rama

lA.Apo, No, 1195/2008&connRcted'AppealsofVillageBharthallA,App.No. 'mHOlQ&connactedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA,App.No. 'mHOlQ&connactedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

l.'\.App.No. yiinmo&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 9 of 29

Redcli& Ors. V5. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995)2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its laterOrs,, 2010(9) SCALE41 holding that the potential of the acquired land miist be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over period of time andthe same cannotbe limited to near futurealoneand if after theacquisition,if the authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it would not-meanthat there is no buildingpotentiality.

10.Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for theappellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of VillagePochanpurto highlightthat the sale price reflected therein varied from)?5:2 lacs to ?62 lacs andmerely because of the said variation, these saleexemplarscannot bethrown out as has been illegallydone by the ReferenceCourt, becausethere is no basis to concludethat these sale exemplarsare overvaluedbecause of any special advantagesand as per'.isettled legal propositionlaid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMoluD^.'•ssaiState of Goaand Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof saleexemplars ought to betaken as representingthe marketprice of the fend which comes to ?57lacs acre and since the salerelied the per exemplarsupon by appellantsare the comparable sale instances,-therefore,:reliance placed by theReferenceCourt upon the minimumrates/circlerat2S for deteiiTiiningthemarketvalueoftheland iserrone acquired patentlyous.

11.Assessmentofmarket value oftheland was acquired sought byMr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantson the basis of the L&DO rates fixed the Government and also cm the basis of by predetermined rates fixed by the Government for Allotment of alternateplots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the bcation,situationandpotentialityof the acquired land, determinationof its market value isl-A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 7.94/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan

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

Page 10 of 29

sought on the strength of sale exemplars ofVillage Pochanpur andVillageSamalkhaor alternativelyonthe basis o;the L& DO rates of the L& DO rates of the DO rates of the rates of the of the thedeveloped lands in Dwarka Phase-I or onthebasisof the thePre-DetemiinedRates (PDIis)as referredto above.-12.In the writtensynopsis,appellant Impuli5e India Private Limitedof LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on thefollowing grounds

Village Pochanpur andthe L& DO rates of the L& DO rates of the DO rates of the rates of the of the thethebasisof the thePre-

theona) "ignores acJaaowledgementthe partof therespondent about the Award No.26/W02-2003dated23.10.2002being flawedinthecourseoftherespondent about the Award No.26/W02-2003dated23.10.2002being flawedinthecourseoftheproceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006(Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated7.7.2007)(Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated7.7.2007)

Does not accountfor the fact that ..h)the PublicNoticedated 18.9.1987adverselyajfectedtherates of land inthe areafor more than 15 before yearsthe Notificationdated 18.9.1987adverselyajfectedtherates of land inthe areafor more than 15 before yearsthe Notificationunder Section5 ofthe LandAcquisiticn Act, 1894 wasissued.issued.

c)J-aluing the land on the basis' of'heletterdated11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNational Capital11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNational CapitalTerritory ofDelhi is not in accordance'Vith the law laiddown by variousdecisionsincludinginone of the morerecent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inSangunthalaversusTahsildar.2010(3)SCC661.down by variousdecisionsincludinginone of the morerecent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inSangunthalaversusTahsildar.2010(3)SCC661.

d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactoros which as wru^n perperestablishedlaw has to be consideredjDeforeascertainingthe valueofthe landunderacquisition.k ofestablishedlaw has to be consideredjDeforeascertainingthe valueofthe landunderacquisition.k of

e). Does not deal with disparityin valuQk ofthe Sale Deedsproducedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the lawestablishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCo\rtin the recentcase of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special LandAcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No/5475 of2007. TheHon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that SaleDeedshowinghigherrate shouldnotdisregardedin;Iproducedbefore the trial Courtwhereasas per the lawestablishedby the Hon'bleSupremeCo\rtin the recentcase of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special LandAcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No/5475 of2007. TheHon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that SaleDeedshowinghigherrate shouldnotdisregardedin;I

.\.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthalLA.Adp. No, /94/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan.-A.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 11 of 29

case the average sale price is lower.Further in AnjanaMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa, '20,10IS) see 710, theSupreme Court has also held tlaat'/ze highest of theexemplars and not by. averaging,of different t)^pes ofsalestransactionsshouldbeconsideredwhileadjudicatingupon compensation,upona certan land.

,f) Reliedupon judgrnent dated.3.2008inLACNo.97A/20,06to decide the market value ofthe subjectlandwhile igiwringthe materialwhich indicatethat themarketvalueofthe landis muchthan 15 lac higlierperNo.97A/20,06to decide the market value ofthe subjectlandwhile igiwringthe materialwhich indicatethat themarketvalueofthe landis muchthan 15 lac higlierperacre in BlockA and ^13,36,000in BlockB in violationof the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtof the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtincluding in Subh Ram vs. State ofHaryana 2010(1)Haryana 2010(1)see 444. As the consequence, irr.pugnedjudgment consequence, irr.pugnedjudgmentrefused to return an actualfinding on the issue No.lframed on 27.2.2007.g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturall^nd although videNotificationofthe MunicipalCorpordtionofDelhi, theland use of Village Dhool Siras: aiid Bharthalwaschanged and these areas ceased to beagriculturalandcame now under the urban bouridaricsof Delhi State.The masterplan and NotificationsojGovernmentfoiNotificationofthe MunicipalCorpordtionofDelhi, theland use of Village Dhool Siras: aiid Bharthalwaschanged and these areas ceased to beagriculturalandcame now under the urban bouridaricsof Delhi State.The masterplan and NotificationsojGovernmentfoiland use change show that in futhrelandcanbesubjectedtoresidential,commerc'ialandotherpermissibleuses. It is alsopertinenttomentionthat theappellantleadevidencein respectofth2 7/'' amendmentof the ConstitutionofIndia, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, bysubjectedtoresidential,commerc'ialandotherpermissibleuses. It is alsopertinenttomentionthat theappellantleadevidencein respectofth2 7/'' amendmentof the ConstitutionofIndia, w.e.f. 1.6.1993 IX A, byvirtue of which the Act was Municipal Corporation Municipal Corporationamended and the area where the laneis situated,wasis situated,was mundeemeda municipalarea and theI'cipal Counsellorwas electedfrom there. No Panchayc•t electionswereheld in the area.was electedfrom there. No Panchayc•t electionswereheld in the area.

h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR SupremeCourt 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr kv! Union ofIndiaand refusedto considerthefact that the developm.entinthe area has directeffect on the prite that yvillingCourt 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr kv! Union ofIndiaand refusedto considerthefact that the developm.entinthe area has directeffect on the prite that yvillingpurchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

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

LA.App.No. 1195/2008&connectRclAppealsofVillageBharthal

lA.App. No. 294/20:0&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

auctionedsimilarlysituatedlandas oommercialblocksat the rate ofabout K2.6 lakh and concludedthat thesaidLandis whollyunderdevelopedland.

j) The valuationofthe subjectland is even lower than thepre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2jor similarly situated land.pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2jor similarly situated land.

k) Does not take into accountthe po&sib'iity of change of'iity of change ofthe use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquired forwas acquired fordevelopment purposes of DwarkaPhaseII.ItisPhaseII.Itisreiteratedthat the land use ofVillageDhool Siras andDhool Siras andBharthalwas and these are changedCIS ceasedto be changedCIS ceasedto beand came now under thm uagriculturalrban boundariesrban boundariesofDelhi State.I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24.10.1994and 24.10.1994although theyclearly establish: ,edLuoiisntnehecommercialcommercial: ,edLuoiisntnehecommercialcommercial[Lj/iJj(La),/-r ^ \ (2010)[ZUlU)3J SC.i.see 661]ift yi^as held^^ngunmthat.n^7Tahsildarthepurposeforthepurposeforwhich land is acquired is relevant factor.Whilet factor.Whilevalue-ofthe acdetermining propertywhether thf^7.•quiredthe facts^'- '-"^'•i-uLngpoientto'bewhether thf^7.•quiredthe facts^'- '-"^'•i-uLngpoientto'beJorjor o bildinguuain2prposesnurDnstpaimn immediate^""'^'"SPotenHfy or_in near futurein near futureneeds to be considered.m) The presence ofa number of buildings on the lands^^buumUdinvsildingsareto hp be f^ant^^ treated as house''""S7, jby theites. The landsites. The landswere acquiredfor purpose ofputtingquartersauartpvcAsA p naportionfA-t-iof-thej1 land7-t-is. beingLmiLrZasup residentialhoeno-usesitethoe lands hav&- tls ^""^'aereaas, adjoiningle potentialofquartersauartpvcAsA p naportionfA-t-iof-thej1 land7-t-is. beingLmiLrZasup residentialhoeno-usesitethoe lands hav&- tls ^""^'aereaas, adjoiningle potentialofbeingputin betteruse as housesitesin thnear future. "near future. "13.In Che briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and oftJrs of LA. App. No.347/2009,the factualdetailshave been providedwithaprayerthat theappellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with thejoo-appella.rtsof theotherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.i•14.Supplementingthe aforesaidarguments.dvajcedon behalfoftheappellants,.t was tu-gedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advoiatethattlte,effectofappellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with thejoo-appella.rtsof theotherappealsin thesebunchofappeals.i•14.Supplementingthe aforesaidarguments.dvajcedon behalfoftheappellants,.t was tu-gedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advoiatethattlte,effectof

L/\.A(jp.lA.App.i.AApp.o. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

mbanizationofthe lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change inland use has been consideredin Mahesh DattatrayThirthkarvs. StateofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238;KapUMehra(MajorGeneral)&Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia ^ Am, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, Resei-vedAuction Rates of;he area are relevanttodeterminetlie market value of the acquired laids and infact the saleinstancesrelied theai-euponby appellants compexable and ought to havebeen relied the ReferenceCourt to assess the con-ect market upon byvalue of the acquired lands. Thus, enhanceinent of compensationleflectmgjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands issoughtin these appeals.15.Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby the Rsspondents,Mr. San^yPoddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section 51-A ofLand certified o AcquisitionAct, 1894, copythe Sale Deed is anadmissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevant'evidencelor determinationof the market value unless and.until the same isproperly connectedwith the land-in question and element of specialfancy ofthe purchaserand otherfactorsname|y, lalure,situationoftheproperty,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be consideredand the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcon-ectmarket value of the acquiredlands have been illegallyrejectedby theReferenceCourtandwhilereliance the decisionsin JaiLaiplacinguponvs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) ,DR1 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC-423;Lai Chand vs.\UnionofIndia andAn.(2009) 15 see 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008:titlecas Sushi! Kumar vs.UnionofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it v/as urg:d that sharp increasein in shortcannotbe taken to be rea priceperiodistic until reasons forsuch increase arei shaip explainedby producinga evidencethe seller.App. (Mo. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan

W.App. iMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpiir

.Page 14 of 29

and the purchaser as no prudent person havingIcnowledge of the usualprevalent trend in the market would pay such 1ligher pay as reflected inthe sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by theappellants, but for special consideration. Thu3, it wascontendedonbehalf of the cross-objector that adoptionofL&DOrates/PreDetemiinedRates cannot be countenancedinview of the decisionofApex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by acoordinateBenchofthis Court in SushilKumar(supra)amiRaj Singh(supra).

16.So far as potentialityof the land is concerned,it was urged byMr.Sanja}'^Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen factoredinto, while fixing theminimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturaland by the Governmentason 1'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% perannum, market value of the acquired laijidshas beenerroneouslydetermined by the Reference Court, as inSushil Kum.ar (supra)appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submittedthatthereis nofor furtherenhancement theof scopefrpm priceacquiredlands as fixed, b}' the Land AcquisitionCollectcr and so, the impugnedjudgment deserves to be modified deleting tile enhancementby theReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto considerationthe appreciation@12% annum and the same deservesto beIin line whileper brought grantingappreciation @ 10% per annum and the|-eby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

17.After considering the rival submissionsadvancedby both thesides and upon,closepemsalofthe impugnedqucigment,the evidenceonrecordand the'decisionscited,what emergesi'^ that the true market valueofthe comparableland is the pricepaidby willin•g purchaser to v/illing

L/\.App.No. 119S/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageSharthalW.Aop. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanIV\.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurW.Aop. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanIV\.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 15 of 29.

seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. Whiledealing with the questionof potentialvalue of'the acquiredland, whathas to be considered in assessing the mark(it value thereof, standsreiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho Dass's. State of Hmyana &Ors., 2010(9)SCALE41 inthesewords:-^

the situationofthelandvis-a-vistheor'(i) acquired citythe town or villagewhich had been growingin sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educational.religiousorany otherkindofimportance or becauseofits explosivepopidation;the town or villagewhich had been growingin sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educational.religiousorany otherkindofimportance or becauseofits explosivepopidation;

(ii)the suitabilityofthe acquiredIdndfor putting up thefor putting up thebuildings, bethey residential,commercialorindustrial,as the case may be;industrial,as the case may be;

(iii) possibility^ofobtainingwaterandelectricsupplyforoccupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

(iv)absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor usingthe acquti-edlandfor buildingpurpose;the acquti-edlandfor buildingpurpose;

(v)existence, of highways, public' rc^.^.,ads, layouts ofujbuildingplots or developedresidenvialextensionsinthe vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;buildingplots or developedresidenvialextensionsinthe vicinityor closeproximityofthe acquiredland;(vi)benefits or advantages of educaticmal institutions,mal institutions,health care centres, or the like'^inthe surrounding'the surrounding'areas of the acquired land whic,.h may becomeh may becomeavailableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton theacquired land; and•;acquired land; and•;

(vii) landsaroundthe acquiredlanddr the acquiredlandItself being in demandfor building purposes tospecify few. "Itself being in demandfor building purposes tospecify few. "

18.1heheoflandlandfor the theofdd potentiality purposebuildingpurposesdependsupon alarge numberc the Court not have to bear inpurpose, may only

1heheoflandlandfor the theofddas also for potentiality purposesvelopment potentiality purposesvelopment

factors. For the saidmind the purpose for

jAApp. No. 1.1.95/2008ii connecledAppealsofVillageBharlhaltA.mpp. no. M4/;.010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanl.A.,>pp No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 16 of 29

which the lands were sought to be acquiredbut also the subsequentevents to some extent. It has been so obseTved by the Apex Court inAvinash(supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevantfactors for detemiinationofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has beenheld by the Apex Courtin Atmathat theofsnSingh (supra) exemplars.all pieces of land reliedupon by the appellantscouldnot be groundtodiscardthem especiallywhen exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwerenotavailable.19.Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby theApex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficerd Am vs. M.K RafiqSaheb, (2011)7SCC714. Tlielegalpropositionwhichemergesfrointhe decisionsrelieduponon behalfof the appellantsis that where there is no basic differenceeither in location, situation or potentialityof;he villages, which aresituated similarto them even assimilarlyhaving advantagepailableregards tore prospects, there is no justificationfor reducing thecompensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarly situated landsand the acquiredland.20.It is a. well establishedpropositionof law that the burden ofpiovmgthe true marketvalue of the acquiredland is on the State whohas acquired the agriculturalland for aparticularpmpose. But, it isequally true that the burden of proving inadeqLiacy of compensationawarded is on the claimant. For this propositioii, the decisionof theApex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be refer-ed to with advantage. '21.Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletaking note of the factthat the acquired land was situated in close Vicinity of residentialcolonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc':,l,adheldthat deductionof 40«/o towards development charges was imj^roper. The pertinent.observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai (Supra)deserveattention,whichare as under:-'

lA.AppNo, U95/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthallA.App,No. ;.94/20.l0&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App.No. 131/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 17 of 29

"The legal positionis that even wherethereare severalexemplarsM'ith referenceto similarImds,usuallythehighest of the exemplars, which is bon1fide transaction,will be considered.Where however thereare several salesofsimilar lands whose prices range in rarrow bandwidth,the average thereof can be taken, asrepresentingthemarket price. But where the values' disciosed in respect ofPt'vo sales are markedly different, it caronly lead to aninference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands orthat the lower value sale is on account of under-vahiationor other price depressing reasons. Consequentlyaveragingcannot be resorted to. "

22.It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching obsen^ationspertainingto determinationof fair marketraite of acquiredlands madeby the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira •Patil (Supra), which are asfollows

"It is well settled that genuine andbona fidesaletransactionsin respect of the land underacquisitionor inits absence the bonafide sale transactionsproximate to thepointofacquisitionofthelandssituatedintheneighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similarvalue or utility taken place between willingvendee andthe willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect thetrue value, as agreed between reasonableprudentpersonsacting in the normal market conditions are the real basis todetermine the market value. "

23.to determinethe marketvalue of thelands asPrinciples acquiredPrinciples acquired

reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNature.!.Gas CorporationLtd.

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

"Primarily, the increase in land prices\depends on fourfactors - situation of the land, nature of developmentinsurrounding area, availability of land for developmentinthe area, and the demandfor land in t,he area.In ruralareas unless there is any prospect of developmentin thevicinit).'] increasein priceswould bedoM>, steadyandgradual,Mnthoutany suddenspurtsorjumps.

lA.App. No. J19S/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage BijwasanLA.App. Mo. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage BijwasanLA.App. Mo. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

On the other hand, in urban or semi-urbanareas, where thedevelopmentis faster,where the demand for land is highand wherethereis constructionactivity all around,theescalationin market price is at q much higher rate, ascompared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, dueto rapiddevelopmentand highdemand forland,theescalationsin priceshave touchedeven 30% to 50% ormore per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, inremoterural areaswhere there, was no chanceof anydevelopmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnatedfor years or rose marginally at nominal rate of 1% or 2%perannum.Thereis thus asignificantdifferenceinincreasesin market value of lands inurban/semi-urbanareas and increases in market value oflandsin the ruralareas.Thereforeif theincreaseinmarketvalueinurban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum,the correspondingincreases in rural dreas would at best beonly around half of it, that is about 5% tc 7.5%per annurri.This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in thenineties, to be adopted in the absence ofclear and specificevidence relating to increase in prices.Wheretherearespecial reasons for applying higher rate of increase,orany specific evidence relating to thectualincreaseinprices, then the increase to be applied would depend uponthe same.Normally,recourse is taken to the mode (f determiningthemarketvalue by providingappropriate e,•calationover the-proved marketvalue of nearby lands in/previous years (asevidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition), where thereis no evidence ofany contemporaneousscle transactionsoracquisitions ofcomparable lands in the ne _ighbourhood.Thesaid method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-saletransactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisitionby only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it. may be unsafe, even if it relates to a. neighbouringland. What be reliablestandardif maythe gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and un•reliablestandard,where the gap is larger. For example,Jodetermining the•marketvalue of land acquired in 1992, adopting theannual increase method with reference to sale ormarketvalue by providingappropriate e,•calationover the-proved marketvalue of nearby lands in/previous years (asevidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition), where thereis no evidence ofany contemporaneousscle transactionsoracquisitions ofcomparable lands in the ne _ighbourhood.Thesaid method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-saletransactions/acquisitionsprecedes the subject acquisitionby only afew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears. Beyondthat it. may be unsafe, even if it relates to a. neighbouringland. What be reliablestandardif maythe gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and un•reliablestandard,where the gap is larger. For example,Jodetermining the•marketvalue of land acquired in 1992, adopting theannual increase method with reference to sale or

i.A.App. Mo. 3195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBhartlialLA.App..No.294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBljvvasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 19 of 29

acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may hav,e mafiypitfalls. This isbecause, over the course of years, the >ate' of annualincreasemay itselfundergo drasticchange apartfrom thelikelihoodofoccurrenceofvaiyingperiodsofstagnationinpricesor suddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandardofincrease."

24.This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe ApexCourtin HaryanaStateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),regardingcomputation of compensation for the acquired lands by adoptingcomparativesales methods.Whatwas saidby.the Apex Courtin HSIDC(Supra)is as under:-• ;

"Whendifferentcategoriesoflands (or lands with differentsituationalarefor tike sameadvantages) acquiredpurpose, for of residential courts havesay forming layout,sometimes felt that determination of their value withreferenceto previousstatusor situations]\ouldbe avoided'anda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldhe awardedforall landsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

25.Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and aroundacquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period inquestionare not availableand the solitarysale e}<emplarstronglyreliedupon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpui', i.e., the seven SaleDeeds vide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RaMaSwamiSatsang,Beashad purchased the agriculturalland in VillagePochanpur at pricewhichvariedfrom ^"52 lacs to ?62 lacsper acre.26.WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-lHto Ex.PW-1/10)whichare basicallybetweenone set of co-oMaiersand Radha SwamiSatsang,Beas in respectofthe compactblockofland measiring 18 Bighas and 6Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe c()rrect market value ofthe landmthe villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis requiredto be answered. Evidently,aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds

W.App. No 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

I.A.App.No. 111/20.10&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 20 of 29

(bx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat'itspiice varies from ^52 lacsto ?62 lacs acre.. the perMeaning thereby,entireland of the sale-exemplars Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW•1/10) did not commandthe same marketprice.It was dependentuponthe natureand situationofthe aforesaid lands. Evidence to establishtheadvantagesattached toeach parcel of land of these sale exemplarswith' acquiredland inquestion,is lacldng.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe.treatedasdisclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. Thespecial need of the purchaser of these agricuItural lands in VillagePochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex-^W-1/10) has not beenbrought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agricult-uralland has notbeen got exainmedby the appellants.Had tlie purchaser/vendeeof theaforesaid sale exemplars been got examined^,tl;en it could have beenelicitedfrom him as to he had to^ why agreed pay such high price forthese lands. The special fancy of the purchas'T, i.e., Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas v/ho had purchasedmore thaii 33 Bighas of land at anexorbitant price in VillageMamurpurvide SkleDeed executedon 25'"Maich,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App.No. 266/2008 titled asJm Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 23.8.;!011 and in LA. App.No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Vhiin ''pf India, decided on19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sal^3 exemplar of VillageMainurpurwas discardedwhileholdingthat the same caitnotbe freatldas representativeprice for the acquiredlands.27.In the instantmatters, though the land useof the acquired landswas changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,but ithas come in evidencethat the acquiredtodswere beingusedfor agriculturalputposetilltheiracquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the accuired lands were notdeveloped lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing|.A.App No. ...195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal/.pp. No. 2J4/20a0&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

•.A.App.No.lu./20in& connectedAppealsofVillagePorhanp,r

Page 21 of 29

market price of the land in question would'pdy such high price unlessand until such purchase is meant for speciailconsideration and so, in theconsidered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds(Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by theReferenceCourt.

28.So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11)relied upon by the appellants.is concerned, disclcjsing exorbitant price of^1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed cf 27''^ January,2000, itneeds to be noted that becausethis sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/1,1) wassituated on the National Highway - 8 and: because vide Sale Deed(Bx.PW-l/l1) vendorhadsoldnot onlythe lafidbutthe structurethereonincludingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,lane. by-lane, etc., therefore,it had fetched such high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplarcannot be treated as representativeprice forthe acquired lands inquestion.

29.Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosing'realistic price of similarlysituatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas towhetheradoptionofL& DO circularrates for the developedlands andPre-Detei-minedRates for the alternateplots by|the DDA ought to beadopted to determine the true market value ofthe acquired lands inquestion.

30.Parametersgoverningfixation of marketalue of acquired landshighlightedby ApexCourtin its decisionreportedas P. RamReddyandOrs. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban DevelopmentAuthority?HyderabadandOrs., 1995 (2) SGC305 are as under;-

'12. However, in eitherofthe saidcases Whetherit be thedeterminationofthe marketvalueofthiaa,....quired_ land Math„„„buildingpotentialitywith referenceto the vricefetchedbysaleofplots in awelldevelopedlayoutin t^e neighborhood

LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectGdAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanIW.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanIW.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 22 of 29

or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueoftheacquiredland with buildingpotentialitywith referencetothepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsin an undevelopedlayout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomesinevitablefor the Court tofind out^what will be the pricefetchedor to befetchedby the salesofplots in the layouts,rehed ofthewith referenceto theupon by anyparties,pricewhichtheplotscouldhavefetchedifsoldon the date ofthepublicationof the preliminarynotificationunder Section() of the Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetchedy the sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in theneighborhoodof the acquired lands beLmes available,then what couldbe^doneis tofind out.th\ marketvalue ofthe acquiredland with reference to the relevantdate ofpublicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingtohe actualuse to which it wasputand increaseits value bya small percentage having regard to the degree of itsbuildingpotentialityascertainedon the'balisofevidencetobe made available in that regard Asmall percentageincrease to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the marketvalue of the landfound outto its actual user accordingsince resort to the method ofgiving inc)^asedvalue forsuchariseswhen there is no bufidingpotentiality onlyevidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodof •dL'^'^Tfthat thereno immediateamTanl'^-formedin theI31.In view ofthe difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land chargedbythe DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,deielopingthe same, andtransfetrmgperpetualleaseholdrights, the ApexCourt in Lai Chand.(Supra),held that it is not safe or advisableto'rey upon the allotment•rates/Pre-Determined Rates in determining theadjoining undeveloped fi-eehold lands. FolloWinlmarket value the dictum of of Lai theChandifhni/%j4(Supra),\acoordinate.Bench of this Courtin Jai Singh (Supra)an Sushil Kama, (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua thedevelopedlandsas beingnot relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueofLA.APP No 29J/2OM&cThLA.A P1pp. NO. lia/2010&connectedappealsAppealsofOfVillageVillagePochanpurBijwasan '

the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus, I find that the ReferenceCourthasnotthe DDA rates for allotmentofland or rightl}' adopteddevelopedthe DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates fof alternateillotmentsfor fixing themarketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsir. question.

32.Now what is required to be seen is Avhetler progressiveincreasemethodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe market value of theland in questionwhiletakinginto consideration;he earlier acquisitionofthe year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.otheryillagesfor developmentofDwarka.Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar,learned.seniorcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat even iftheescalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per aonum is taken from theyear 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for tfcperiod intervening theNotification for development.of Dwarka-Ptase-IandtheinstantNotificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-I, still the price fixed bythe Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the cforesaidescalatedpriceand therefore, the enhancement granted by tl;ie Reference Court isunjustified.

33.Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good ir view ofthe dictum ofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand(Supra), cautioning the Courts to adoptprogressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of theacquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 yearsmd beyondthat it maybe unsafe, even if it relates to neighboiiringland. What may be areliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew yeqrs,may becomeunsafeand unreliablestandardwhere the is gap larger.[n the instant case, the betweenthe two ofPhase-Iand Dwarka, gap Notifications,i.e.,Dwarl[aPhase-IIis ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,itwdulc be unsafeto adoptthemode of determining the' market value b^ ^oviding appropriate

LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

W.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandof the previous3'^ears.

34.Mr.SanjayPoddar, .learnedseniorcounselfortherespondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court hasgranted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwaiTanted as acoordinatebench of this Court in SiishilMmAescalation @ 10% per annum. After having oerused the decision inoushilKumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higherpotentiality of the acquired land over and a30vethemarketvaluedeterminedby the ReferenceCourthas been granted and so, by relying Sushil Kumar escalationupon (Supra)grantedby the Reference Court12% annum cannotbe reducedto 10% annum.In this vieAvof@ per pdrthe matter,the cross-objectionsofthe resppnden are dismissed.

35.Now what is to be seen is whether -adciiption of Government'sminimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi,by the Reference Courtis reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland and as to whetherthe escalationof 12%:perannum grantedby theReferenceCourt from the date of fixationof the minimumprice for theagriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f. 1'^ April,2000 till the date ofNotificationin the instant appeals deserves'tobe fiirtherincreasedornot.

36.Adoption of Government's minimum ra:es of agricultural landpertaining to the Notificationin question hajbeen assailed by thelearned counsel for appellantsbecausethe. acquTed land had ceased tobe an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificatioiiof 24"^ October, 1994declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to beurban.It is tm^e thatvide aforesaidNotificationothe year 1994 the landuse ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbut thatbytself is not sufficient to

I.A.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalIA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan17\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurIA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan17\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 25 of 29

that the lands hadpresume acquired gainec.potentiality for beingconsidered as developed lands. The evidence le:•d is lacking on the vitalaspectof there being any developmentin and a-ound the acquired lands,in question. Not only this, even the sale exeriplars of Radha SwamiBeasrelied thents disclosethatthe saleSatsang, heavilyupon by appelhofthe saidlandswas for agriculturalpurpose.'37.Rather, it emerges from the evidenceon recordthattilltheissuance of Notificationunder Section4of th^ Land AcquisitionAct,1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there beenincreasein price due to higherdemand,on acxoacquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, thencouldhave laid theirhands on othersale instancesin the areaappellantsin question.But, indeedappellantscannotrelyupon the sale of the landin VillagePochanpurto religiousinstitutionaiid another sale instanceof Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without;leading any evidencetoestablishthat-theandofthe squality potentialityale exemplars of RadhaSwami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur an1 the sale exemplar ofVillageSamalldia(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquired landsand so theof the land wr contiguity acquiredh the sale instanceofVillage Samallcha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be t•eatedto be sufficientground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaidsale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of theApex Court in Haryana State Industrial Devziopment Corporation(HSIDC) (Supra),uniformrate ofcompensationdeserves to be awardedfor the lands acquiredunder the same Notificat•on in the light of theminimum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland inDelhi, which -generally factors in the rise of price due to higherpotcntiahty.Taking note of the fact that tliere i.s gap between whatlA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 26 of 29

would be expectedto be the market growth ^d what the market hadactuallygrown, Government'sminimumagricu;tural price has been heldto be reasonable basis for assessingthe mark;t value of the acquiredlandsmJaiSingh(Supra)as well as inSusltilkumar(Supra)andIfmdno reasonto talce adifferentview than the one whichhad beentaken b>coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of(Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra),

38.Ihis Court is of the consideredview thatthe ReferenceCourt inthe matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has relied the Govermnent's forrightly uponminiipm price agriculturallands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe'acc[uiredlands in question.Findingofthe ReferenceCourtin matterofVilkgeBharthaland VillageBijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethatthe potentialand the situationof the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from theevidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspect6fhigherpotentialityoftheacquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil andBharatPetroleumDepots and of Railwayline passingthrough VillageBharthal and there being 100 meters videyroad starting from NH-8from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand Part IT, dividingtheacquired lands in two portions, and there beinFarm Housesin thevicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowrnis:iedthe attentionof theReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthisCourt, on accountofaforesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainlyassumehigherbuildingpotentiahtybeingin vicin ^^ity of DwarkaPhase-J.Whatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseoverand abovemaitetvalue of the acquired lands as assessed by.the Reference Court onaccountof the higlierbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the

IALA.App. a''''' No. 294/2010&^connected connectedAppealsAppealsofofVillageVillageBijwasanBharthalLA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App, No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 27 of 29

settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in MirzaNausherwan Khan V5. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:-

"When once conclusion is reachedthat there was thepossibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingupbuildingsin the immediateor nearfuture such conclusionwould be sufficientto hold that the acquired land had abuildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its marketvalue takinginto accountthe increasein price attributableto such buildingpotentiality. "possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor puttingupbuildingsin the immediateor nearfuture such conclusionwould be sufficientto hold that the acquired land had abuildingpotentialityandproceed to determine its marketvalue takinginto accountthe increasein price attributableto such buildingpotentiality. "39.Consideringthe fact that it would be veiy difficultto provide adefinite value qua potential, and in view of thefact that exactnesscannever be achieved in the matters of assessing;air compensation,it isbroadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuades me to treat themwith equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government' s minimumprices for the agriculturallands for computingtle fair market value ofthe acquiredlands as there are no special fea,tur3s to treat the acquiredlands differentlyand so, appellantsofVillagePDchanpur are treated atpar with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants,ofVillage Bharthal andVillage Bijwasan.However, while relying uponthe decisionin SushilKumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above themarketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedbythe Reference Court inthese matters on account of the aforesaidlocational advantagesprovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin questiondefinite value qua potential, and in view of thefact that exactnesscannever be achieved in the matters of assessing;air compensation,it isbroadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuades me to treat themwith equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government' s minimumprices for the agriculturallands for computingtle fair market value ofthe acquiredlands as there are no special fea,tur3s to treat the acquiredlands differentlyand so, appellantsofVillagePDchanpur are treated atpar with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants,ofVillage Bharthal andVillage Bijwasan.However, while relying uponthe decisionin SushilKumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above themarketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedbythe Reference Court inthese matters on account of the aforesaidlocational advantagesprovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question

40.Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowed to the extent ofawarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby theReferenceCourt in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan..Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat parwiththe appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appealsof

LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasanlA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasanlA.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

the appellants of Village Pochanpur are alscallowedto theextentindicatedabove. Thus, the market value of theacquiredlands of thesethree villages in questionis detennined @ ?16,f0,000/- per^iiigh^for theCategoi-y ^A' land and @ ^14,69,600/-per bjfor the Category 'B'lands in question.-V \\-i-<

41.On the aforesaidenliancementin thecompensationawarded,statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionP'.ct, 1894 as explained inthe judgment reported in Sundervs. UOI 2i001 (93) DLT 569 aregianted, exceptfor the periodwherethereis ^ delay in filingthe appeal,for which period of delay no interest on the eiihaneed compensation shallbe paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledto pr3poi*tionate costs.42.The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedofin the aforesaid tenxis with direction to theRegistryto remit thecompensationamount,if any, depositedby either side with the RegistrarGeneral of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheetsbe accordinglyprepared.

CJUDGE•V-/sJO /7--hur-'y

lJ\.App.No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthallA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasanI.A.App.No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 29 of 29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ATNEW DELHILA.APP. 1195/2008!RANBIR SHARMA...... AppellantThrough:Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Ve:rma, Mr.JitinTewathia, Advocates:•Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate.Mr.Rolitas, Advocate.Mr.RaghuvinderGodana;AdvocateMr.N.S .Negi and Mr.H. S.Ra_utela, AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates., Mr.N.S.Negi and Mi-.H.S.RaLitela, (Advocates forrespondentin appealsfiledby UOI)Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advc'cate forMr.R.S.Tomar.Mr.B.D. Sharma,Mr.S.K.Soanki andMr.S.K.Rout, Advocatesversus

UNIONOFINDIA& AiSJR.RespondentsThrough:Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MoHtraoJadhavand•Ms.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.I^auJnudiKiranAdvocates for LAC/UOIMr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.SpthiMs. Amita Singh,Mr.BanlceyBihariSharma,Mr.Kunal Sharma and•Mr.SomerK.Seth,Advocates'forDDA.

CORAM:HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR ^

order'%.12.01.2012C.M.Aonl.752/2012fVn.

This is an applicationfor seeldngtypograjphicalcorrectioninOrderof6^'^ January,2012.

Counsel appearingfor the appellantshaveaccepted the notice

LA.App.No.1195/2008

Pagel

ofthe application.Advancecopy ofthis applicitionhas alreadybeengivento remainingcounselfor the appellants.The typographicaleiTor pointed out bythe respondent in thfedecision of 6'^ 2012 is that in Januaiy, parsgraph no: .40 of theaforesaidthe rate ofasjudgment compensationsessed is 'per bigha',whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is notdisputed by learnedcounselappearingfor the appellants.Accordin^Iiy, this apphcationisallowedand it is orderedthatthe referencetO;''pe:;r bigha'inparagraphno; 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read asper acre'. Necessarycorrectionsbe carriedout forthwith.

In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicatiols

itandsdisposed of

JANUARY12,2012,pkb

JUDGE

•LA.App.No.1195/2D08