LA.APP./137/2012 of JAGAT SINGH & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

$-7* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+LA.APP. 137/2012

JAGAT SINGH & ORS.AppellantsThrough: Mr. S.K. Rout & Mr. VinayKumar, Advocates.Through: Mr. S.K. Rout & Mr. VinayKumar, Advocates.

versus

Respondents

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Through:Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr.S.N. Pandey, Advocates for R-1/UOI.S.N. Pandey, Advocates for R-1/UOI.

Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA.2/DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER30.04.2012

%30.04.2012

CM No. 7354/2012 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act)

Signature Not Verified

Signing Date:19.09.2024 17:05:20Certify that the digital and physical file havebeen compared and the digital data is as perthe physical file and no page is missing.

What has occasioned delay of 189 days' in filing theaccompanying appeal is disclosed in Paragraphs No. 3 & 4 of theapplication, which is supported by affidavit of the appellant.

Notice.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates,accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2respectively and state that only opposition to this application is thatfor the period of delay, the appellants ought not be granted theinterest on the compensation amount in the event of it beingenhanced.

Since the reasons disclosed in Paragraph No.3 & 4 of theapplication do not disclose gross negligence for the delayoccasioned, therefore, this application is allowed and the delay of189 days' in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned, whilemaking it clear that for the delayed period, the appellants shall notbe granted interest in the event of their succeeding in the appeal.

Application is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

CM No. 7353/2012 (u/S 151 CPC)

The reason for the delay of 517 [days' in re-filing the]accompanying appeal is stated in Paragraph No. 3 of theapplication, which is supported by affidavit of learned counsel forthe appellants.

Notice.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates,accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2respectively.

Since the reasons disclosed in the application does notdisplay gross negligence, therefore, this application is allowed andthe delay of 517 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal iscondoned, while denying interest for the period of delay.

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

LA.APP. No. 137/2012

The instant appeal relates to Village Bijwasan, wherevide Notification of [13th ]December, 2000, under Section 4 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894, the land of the appellants stoodacquired.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondentNo. 1- UOI, states that the fate of this appeal stands determined bythe decision of this Court in LA.APP No. 1195/2008 'RanbirSharma Vs. Union of India & Anr. ', rendered on [6th ]January, 2012,wherein 10% increase over and above the market value assessed bythe Reference Court in respect of lands acquired in VillageBijwasan was awarded by this Court.

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

In the light of above, this appeal is allowed in terms ofdecision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (Supra) with statutorybenefits and proportionate costs, while declining the interest for theperiod of delay.

This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

fNIL AUR)JUDGE

APRIL 30, 2012

IN `911E.. mca cotiRT .0_r 71DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Revedon:Novenj_.J_.QLL

(GRID-A)

,LA.APP. 119 5/20.08 (\'1LLAGE- BJ-JARTHA.L)

R.Ai1BiR SHA.Ith4A. Appell?ntThrough:Mr.B.S.Maan, tr.Arnit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.SmitaMaan, Mi R S Veima, Mr Jitin Te athia, AdvocatesMi Ananci Yadav and Ms Anita Tomat, Advocates4r Rohl.as, AdvocateMr Raghuvindez Gdar, AdvocateMr.N 1S.Negi and Mr.I-I.S.Rauteia, AdvocateMi SJ( Rou an'd Mi K Routiay, Mr .1\/T. Azam Ans in,Advocates.Ivli Pankaj (Iivck, ACI\ ocateMi Rajesh 'i'dav, Mi Deepak IK1o'1d Mr rnht Khoslaand Mi Dhananjay Mch1twat Advocate'Mr.H.S.Rautela, AdvocateMr.LS.Dahiya. Advocate.Mr.Sancteep Tbakhur. Advocate.Mr.AtulTripathi, Advocate..:.t'li N S Negi and i'vh Rauteh Advocates1 D( ithnL in appal iiec[1][ b][y][ U01,]

.... ., Rjondent

1NJC)N OF INDIA & AN}t.... ., RjondentThrough: Mi Sanj [t\' ][Puddai, Snior Advocate wit M Sanay]Pathaic. Mr.Mohitrao acthav and Ms,Navii:n swain.IVIS K i<au iudi Kcan, /\clvoCct[E]ec for LAC[i1.JOJ]Mi Ajav \'rnii, Ms Be'ntsha'w Sorn, Mi MukesliKumar Vii ' [K Sel'u, Mr Pa\an Mathur, Mi Lutial]Sharma. Advocat or 1)DA

\ APP 11 2'2UO' & I\'4O0OOCs-Qb tiu, iJ\ J).5 /')() )I e' &PP 4312oo gI APP [68$120i)8][CM ][No ][5i9OI2O1][ '][.) ][(Cri Ob' to'm)]A API 697iz00SCM No 13 12009 ((.. ro's-ObJL(;t1ons), APP 101 '?OOSA API 697iz00SCM No 13 12009 ((.. ro's-ObJL(;t1ons), APP 101 '?OOSCM .No. 51 0/2009 (Cross-0h jectios); LA.AP11[.768/2008; LA.APP.O/.2CO;]

:,AApp. ......i./2OO8 connected Apptais of Village BharUiI'.p. No 2E4/201,0 & connected AppdUIS Of Village I3ijwnn'App. No. 1:11/2.0710 & '.:;inctd ApaaIs of ViIiao Pocianpur

age 1. ci .?J

-----I A.APP.771 /2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); 1,A.APP.772/2008LA .APP,773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.A pp.174/2008 &CM.No.61 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008:LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-objections);LA.APR783/2008• LA.AP p 784/2008 LA.APP.785/2008• 1,A.APP.798/2008 &(M No 615/2009 (Closs-Ohiections), LA APP 799/2008 & CM No 931/2009(Cross-Objections)' 1,A.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008;1,A.APP.81 3/2008 &CM No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009(Cross-Objectiois) LA.APP.8 18/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/20081.A.App.829/2008 1,A.APP.830/2008• LA.APP.832/2008 LA.APP.83/2008;LA.APp.844/2008 • LA.APP.845/2008• LA.APP.873/2008 &CMNo.779/201 1(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.899/2008 LA.A pP.901/2008 LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 &CM.No.709/2009(Cross -Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP;973/2008;A APP 974/2008 & CM No 519/2009 (Cross-Objections), LA APP 975/2008,LA.APP.976/2008 LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No572/2009APP 1029/2008& CM-No. 17340/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1031/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections)'LA APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008;1.AAPP.1 047/2008;LA.App 1048/2008& CM,No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections)'LA.APP .1049/2008 & CM. NI T.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008:LA APP. 1051/2008 &. CM.No. 17262/2008 (CrossOhjeetions)LAApp1 052/2003;LAAPP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objectjons)•Ij. APP ]0547'2008 &CM No. 1166,12009 (Cross -Qbiectjons)' LA.APP. I 055/2008;LA APP 1057/2008 &M No 752'2011 (Cross-Objections); LA APP 1058/2OO8CMNo 15S7'201 I(C 1os-01jcctions), IA APP 1059/2008 & CMNo l7?S9/2OO8(C10-ObjLctIo h)I %, APP 1060/2008,1 APP 1062/2008 & CM No 546i2009 (Cross-Objcc ' jI \ \PP 1073/2008, IA APP 1074/2008 & CMNo 62)12009 ((1os_Object1o11)I ' 'PP 1075'7008 LA APP 108F2008 & CMN 462 2009EJoss-Ob)LtoJ];I APP 1 084'2008& CM-No-1730,2/2008 (Cross-Objections) I \.PP I 086 2.O1iSLA .APP,773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.A pp.174/2008 &CM.No.61 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008:LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-objections);LA.APR783/2008• LA.AP p 784/2008 LA.APP.785/2008• 1,A.APP.798/2008 &(M No 615/2009 (Closs-Ohiections), LA APP 799/2008 & CM No 931/2009(Cross-Objections)' 1,A.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008;1,A.APP.81 3/2008 &CM No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009(Cross-Objectiois) LA.APP.8 18/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/20081.A.App.829/2008 1,A.APP.830/2008• LA.APP.832/2008 LA.APP.83/2008;LA.APp.844/2008 • LA.APP.845/2008• LA.APP.873/2008 &CMNo.779/201 1(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.899/2008 LA.A pP.901/2008 LA.APP.91 5/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 &CM.No.709/2009(Cross -Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP;973/2008;A APP 974/2008 & CM No 519/2009 (Cross-Objections), LA APP 975/2008,LA.APP.976/2008 LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No572/2009APP 1029/2008& CM-No. 17340/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP, 1031/2008 & CM.No. 17335/2008 (Cross-Objections)'LA APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008;1.AAPP.1 047/2008;LA.App 1048/2008& CM,No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections)'LA.APP .1049/2008 & CM. NI T.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008:LA APP. 1051/2008 &. CM.No. 17262/2008 (CrossOhjeetions)LAApp1 052/2003;LAAPP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objectjons)•Ij. APP ]0547'2008 &CM No. 1166,12009 (Cross -Qbiectjons)' LA.APP. I 055/2008;LA APP 1057/2008 &M No 752'2011 (Cross-Objections); LA APP 1058/2OO8CMNo 15S7'201 I(C 1os-01jcctions), IA APP 1059/2008 & CMNo l7?S9/2OO8(C10-ObjLctIo h)I %, APP 1060/2008,1 APP 1062/2008 & CM No 546i2009 (Cross-Objcc ' jI \ \PP 1073/2008, IA APP 1074/2008 & CMNo 62)12009 ((1os_Object1o11)I ' 'PP 1075'7008 LA APP 108F2008 & CMN 462 2009EJoss-Ob)LtoJ];I APP 1 084'2008& CM-No-1730,2/2008 (Cross-Objections) I \.PP I 086 2.O1iS& CR4 No 2448/2008 (Cross-Objections): [A APP 087h008 CN 1 No61 )Pi)09( 1os-Ob)ections), LA APP 1093/2008, APP 1094/2008 LA APP 1095'200,1 APP 1103/2008 & M NC) 441/2009 (Cross-Objins) I APP 11 08i200, &( RI No 3839/2009 (Cross-0byciions), IA APP I 109'2O0 I APP 11 10i200Ni N 3828/2009 (Cioss-Objectioiis), LA APP 1111/2008 LA AP 1 112/2003 &( M No 3831/2009 (Cross-Objections), IA APP 1113/2008 & CM }\ o.3- 812 6 P000(r Loss0hject1ons): L.A.APP 1115/2008, L P? 1116/2008, L APP 1121/20081 \PP 12b/2008, LA APP 1129/2008 & CMNo 550/2009 (Cross--Objections);L \ APP 11 30P008, I APP 1131/2008 & CM NC) 66/2009 (Cross ObJect1of1sL/\..APP, 11331/2008; LA.APP.1 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections):1 ..A.APP.! 37/2008 &. CM.No. 17233/2008 (C:ross-Objectio p s); LA.APP. 1140/2008;LAAPP1 156/2008; LA.APP.1 157/2008; LA.APP.I 158/2008 & CMNo.7774/2009( .Cross-Ob)ections); .LA.APP. 1159/2008; LA.APP. 1. 161/2008; LA.APP. 1166/2008;LA.APP.1 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 168/2008;1\.APP.1 170/2008; I.A.APP.1 171/2008; LA.APP.1 172/2008; LA.APP,1 173/2008;I.A.APP.fl 75/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP. 1179/2008; LA.APP,1 181/2008;L.A.A.PP.1 182/2003; LA.APP.1 183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cros-OhjectLns):i../\.APP. 1184/2008: LA.APP.1 185/2008; LA.APP.1 1 86/2008&. CM.No.701 3/2009( 1os-Ob)ections), LA APP 1093/2008, APP 1094/2008 LA APP 1095'200,1 APP 1103/2008 & M NC) 441/2009 (Cross-Objins) I APP 11 08i200, &( RI No 3839/2009 (Cross-0byciions), IA APP I 109'2O0 I APP 11 10i200Ni N 3828/2009 (Cioss-Objectioiis), LA APP 1111/2008 LA AP 1 112/2003 &( M No 3831/2009 (Cross-Objections), IA APP 1113/2008 & CM }\ o.3- 812 6 P000(r Loss0hject1ons): L.A.APP 1115/2008, L P? 1116/2008, L APP 1121/20081 \PP 12b/2008, LA APP 1129/2008 & CMNo 550/2009 (Cross--Objections);L \ APP 11 30P008, I APP 1131/2008 & CM NC) 66/2009 (Cross ObJect1of1sL/\..APP, 11331/2008; LA.APP.1 135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections):1 ..A.APP.! 37/2008 &. CM.No. 17233/2008 (C:ross-Objectio p s); LA.APP. 1140/2008;LAAPP1 156/2008; LA.APP.1 157/2008; LA.APP.I 158/2008 & CMNo.7774/2009( .Cross-Ob)ections); .LA.APP. 1159/2008; LA.APP. 1. 161/2008; LA.APP. 1166/2008;LA.APP.1 167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1 168/2008;1\.APP.1 170/2008; I.A.APP.1 171/2008; LA.APP.1 172/2008; LA.APP,1 173/2008;I.A.APP.fl 75/2008; LA.APP. 1178/2008; LA.APP. 1179/2008; LA.APP,1 181/2008;L.A.A.PP.1 182/2003; LA.APP.1 183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cros-OhjectLns):i../\.APP. 1184/2008: LA.APP.1 185/2008; LA.APP.1 1 86/2008&. CM.No.701 3/2009A..';p No. 19/2oo8 & Coil roctcd Appeals of VIILOc BloarthalNo. 294/20 1 0 L conoocted Appeals 6f ViiIage Bijwasan

.A.Ap;. Lir.. 1 1.1/2010 &comected Appoals of Vidage Pochaipur

Page 2 o 29,

([Cr]oss-Objections); LA.APP, 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP.1 192/2008;LA-APP. 1193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008;LA.AI AP1 pp ] 202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 121.1/200.8--I 198/2008& (f\4No 693S/2009 CrOsQbjectjons) LA APP 1200/2008LA-APP 1212/2008; J.A.APP 1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008&CM.No ; 6957/2009(C1;OssObjectjofls); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241/2008&'-CM.No.3 841/2009 ((ross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008;LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APPJ277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008;LA.A PP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008;LA.APP.3 1/2009;LA.APP.33/2009LA.APP.37/2009.LA.A pp.42/2009 &CM.No.746/20 11 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009;LA.APR39/2009;LA.App.73/2009 &CM.No.71 03/2009 (Cross-.Objections); LA.APP.74/2009;LA .APP.79/2Oo9 LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No. 953/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 108/2009; LA.APP. 109/2009; LA.APP. 121/2009; LA.APP. 135/2009;LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009; LA.APP. 13 8/2009; LA.APPj39/29;LA.APP. 1 40/2009; LA-APP. 143/2009; LA.APP.144/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009;LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009;LA.APP 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009;LA.APP.201/2009;LA.APP 202/2009; LA.APp.203/2009 . LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009(Cross-Objections). LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970,'2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.A pp 21 1/2009; LA-APP-220/2009; LA.APp.222/2009 .LA.APP.224/7009 LA.APP.223/2009;LA.APP.227/2009 . LA.APp.230/2009 & CM.NO.7206/2009(Cross-Ohjectjoiis). LA2APP.241/2009. LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009LA.APP 749/2009 LA.APP.257/2009; L A.APP.295/2009; i.A.AP p.305,'2039 .

APP 367/2009, 1 APP 437/2009, LA APP 447/2009 1 APP 45812009

LA APP 459,2009, IA APP 466/2009, IA APP 480/2009, LA APP 481/200,

LA.A pp 489/70O9 LA.APp.490/7009; LA.APP.491,12009; LA.APP.493/20)9 .

LA. --'0P.494/2009; LA.APP 495P009 • LA.APP.503/2009. LA.APP.506/7009;

LA APP 507/2009 LA.APP 508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009 . 1, A.10/2009;I APP 11/2009, LA APP 512/2009 LA APP 513'2009 LLA APP 572/2009IA APP 15/2010LA APP 45'2010,,'[A.AP][.P][..567/2009.]IA APP 48'2t10,LA APP 404/2010, L APP 13/2011, LA APP 1138! L & \P1' 1176,12008 .'LA APP 1177/2008, LA APP1201/2008, 1A APP 231/2009

(R'-elating to Notification No 10(30V96/L& B/LA/13fi7 dated 13 12 2000issued tinder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthaj, Delhi)

(GRID-B)

Reserved on. Decen'jbei 08, 204 1PonowwedonjanijO6,0p

L.A.PP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE- BJJWASAN)

I)EVENDI p [<JJIviA.R

AppellantTI 'hro ughMr.R.S.Tornar, Mr.Virendra Singh

'1'4) P [No ].1f/2Uo8 & connecj Appods of JHage Bhartha!"po. .ANC) 294/7.010 & ccnnected AppoN orVUae BijwasanL..4p9. N..1/7.OiO & conflei:td Appeth of Villiigo Pochaiiur"po. .ANC) 294/7.010 & ccnnected AppoN orVUae BijwasanL..4p9. N..1/7.OiO & conflei:td Appeth of Villiigo Pochaiiur

Pace 3 of 29

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417dated 13.12,2000issued under Section 4 of the Laud Acquisition Act, 1894[.] & Award No.28/2, 00-2-2003 ..'Village Bij lxasan, Delhi)

AND

-ipp. No. 1195,i2(08 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

i-A App. No. 29/1/20-ic & connected App aIofViUage Bijwasan

.App. Jo . 11./2010 & c;onnectcd Appeals of Village Pochanour

4 of 29

(GRID-C)

Reserved on.Dece,nberj8 2011

Pronounced on: January 06 -2-012

1A.AFP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR)

tf./pp. o. 1] 05/2008 .

connected Appeal; of Village lhziiThal

294/2010 & conoocted Appeals of Village £3jwasan

i.4.f\pp. No. I .ti/2010 & connected Appoaj of Village Pochanpur

Page of 20

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& .B/LA/13417 dated13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 &Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi)

1IONBLE MR JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER06.O1.2012

1. Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation issought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical,therefore with the consent of learned counsel for. the parties present atthe hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining toNott/Ication IVO.F. 10(30)96-L& 13/LA11341 7 dated 13.12.2000, relatingto geographically contiguous Villages Bharthai, Bijwasân andPochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

2 Acquisition process for planned development of (Dwaika Phase.-II in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of 'Votitkatton of [31/i]II in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of 'Votitkatton of [31/i]December, 2000 under Section 4 of theLand Acquisi ion ct, 1894,pertaining to vast tract of agucunuial land in one [0 ]mpapt blockompi ismg of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in quesPon,i.e., Bhaithal, Bijwasan and Pochanpuipertaining to vast tract of agucunuial land in one [0 ]mpapt blockompi ismg of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in quesPon,i.e., Bhaithal, Bijwasan and Pochanpui

3 Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the[.]aforesaid threevillages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards,i.ç., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003 ;and AwardNo.30/2002-.2003 granting compensation @ Z13.82 lacs per acre forBlock 'A' (level field with top soil) and @T i2.32 ias per acre for8-lock. ' 13 ' (without top soil).

4.i)issatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acquired

.AApp. No. 1.19/2008 &. connected Appeils of Viiage Bharthil".App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasanA./pp. 1o. :111/20:1.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur".App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwasanA./pp. 1o. :111/20:1.0 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 6 of 29

agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugnedJudgment had enhanced compensation @ Z15.00 lacs per acre for theappellants' acquired land in: Biock 'A' and 13.36 lacs per acre fortheir Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas,references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

5. In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation soi.ight bythe appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at therate of RupeesFifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have soughtcompensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying uponthe preceents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer,Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag andOrs., (2011)2 SCC 246; AnjaniMoluDessa! vs. State of Goa andAnr.,(2010) 13 Sec 710; Subh Rain and Ors vs. State ôf Haryana , and Ann,(2010) 1 SCC 444, Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs Vs SpecialTehsiidar(!,and Acquisition,) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCE. 66 1' Sing/iand 4nr, vs Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467, (hi,uIh Fakira Paul(1)) through LRs vs The Special Land Acquisition OfJwer, Jii'gaoei,2011(2) SCALE 321, Jai La! vs Union of India 2002 (6)) DRJ 227,Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRc vsto of India & ,-ia2002 (65) DRJ I (OB), Lidho Dass vs State ofHa an' & Ors,2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas i's. Stale of Punjab & Qrs., 2011 (9)S '\l L 362, 4vznash Dhavaji Nailc vs State of tl(Ialuzrashtra, (2009)Ii SCC 171.; Alma Singh (Dead) through LRs and :Ors vs State ofthuyana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled asLSJnI. [Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, ]decided on 26.03.2010;Special LanitAcquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. .Rafiq Saheb, (2011)7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs.. Executive Engineer,

•\4 çr) No. 1,9/2008 i con nectd Ap:eals of Vlage Martha ,(\,\p . N. (94/2010 & connected Appeis of Viiiige BijwasanIi\.App No. 01l2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur,(\,\p . N. (94/2010 & connected Appeis of Viiiige BijwasanIi\.App No. 01l2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur

Page? of 29

Gujarat and Anr. AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haryana State IndustrialDevelopment coiporation, (2010)11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs.Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lal chand vs. UitionDevelopment coiporation, (2010)11 SCC 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs.Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lal chand vs. Uitionof India and Ajir., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and• Natural Gas Corporation Ltd i's. Rameshbhai Jivanbiuji Pate! andAnr, (2008) 14 scc 745; Valliyammal and Anr i's. Special Tehsiidar• Natural Gas Corporation Ltd i's. Rameshbhai Jivanbiuji Pate! andAnr, (2008) 14 scc 745; Valliyammal and Anr i's. Special Tehsiidar(Land AcqIisitiQn) and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kira n. Tandon i's.4.ilahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 scc 745; MaheshDattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238;K up/i Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr,Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238;K up/i Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr,1.76(2011) 1DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs.A [Dl/ii Development Authorit' & Ann, ][decided on ][24.04.2008; ][Om]A [Dl/ii Development Authorit' & Ann, ][decided on ][24.04.2008; ][Om]Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 :SCC 627;Satpal & Ors vs Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 42, LA APPSatpal & Ors vs Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 42, LA APPNo .656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs Union of India, decided on26.09.2.01 1; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Rain vs. Unio;i ofIndia, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhule Rum vs. Uni&n oflndia.2010(170) PUF 3 71of India, decided on26.09.2.01 1; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Rain vs. Unio;i ofIndia, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhule Rum vs. Uni&n oflndia.2010(170) PUF 3 71

6On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the vety outset, itwas urged by Mi 13 S Maan, learned arguing [co ][u_1_1]. for the appellantsthat the location and situation of the acquired agncultuial land has to befirst understood in order to appreciate its potentialhih must headjudged keeping in view the development in the area over -a period oflime and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

7. It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tornar, counsel for appellants thati elhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage railway line of Village Biijwasanpasses ifirough the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts,

i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IG1 Airport, New Delhii./.p,:. No. 11J5/2OC8,& connected Appeals of Village BharlhafNo. 2 d4/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Uijwasan.A..pp. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpLlri./.p,:. No. 11J5/2OC8,& connected Appeals of Village BharlhafNo. 2 d4/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Uijwasan.A..pp. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpLlr

and Oil I)epots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and road 100meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-City Part .4. and Part-11 again divides the agricultural land into --tportions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii)South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on theland of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointedout by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northernpart of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension.of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 forestablishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for BharatPetroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur werealso acquired in the year 1984 for developme,nt of Dwarka Phase-I andthe lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras werealso acquired for the development of Phase-IT, Dwarka Sub-City.Attention was drawn to the a/cs sizras/rnap to highlight that the boundary'of Village Bharthal, Village Pochmpur and Village Dhool Sfras arecontiguous.

8 It was strenuously urged by Mi S Maan, learned counsel fol.theappellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreci Lte thepotentiality of the acquired land in the light of its Iocation and hasillegally treated the acquired land to be ricultural in spite ofNotificat1on of 16th Octobei, 2000 vide which land use of the threevillages in question was changed from agricultural •t ;1idential./commercial/industrial ., etc. .and infact the entire land ofVillae Bharthalhad ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 20' October, 1994.it was argued with much vehemence by Mr. S.K.Rout, learnedcounsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been

wrongly discarded by the Refrence Court by relying upon P. Rama1-195/2008& 1 onnecto.d Apeak of "illage Bharthal1-195/2008& 1 onnecto.d Apeak of "illage BharthalA.App. No. 212010corilected Appeakof Villa Bijwasan...App. No. it/?O1)connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur...App. No. it/?O1)connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page of 29

Reddi & Ors. vs Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995)2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its laterdecision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryanà & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudgedkeeping in view the development in the area over period of time andthe same cannot bç limited to near future alone and if after theacquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would notmean that there is no building potentiality.

10.Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for theappellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlightthat the sale price reflected therein varied from 52 lacs to Z62 lacsandmerely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars. cannot bethrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court'there is, no basis to conclude that these . sale exemplars are overvaluedbecause of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition!aid clown by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Des ctii vs State of Goaq!ld4fl.r., (2010) 13 SC 710, the average of sale exemplars Ought. to betaken as representing the market puce of the land which oir es to 37ac' pqr acre and since the sale exemplars iehed upon by the appellantsuC the comparable sale instances, therefoic, reliance plated by theReference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rated for..determining themarket value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

11.Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought byMi R Godaia learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L&DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-dterni med. rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternateplots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the location, situation andpotentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is

i..A,App. No. 1 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BharthalLA/pp. No. o(;/zoio & connected Appcis Of Village LlijwasanLA/pp. No. o(;/zoio & connected Appcis Of Village Llijwasan

.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur andVillage Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of thedeveloped lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-Determined Rates (PD-Rs) as referred to above.

12. In the written synopsis,, appeliant - Impulse India Private Limitedof LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on thefollowing grounds:-

a,) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of therespondent about the Award No.2612002-2003 dated23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of therespondent about the Award No.2612002-2003 dated23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of theproceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of 2006.(Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated7.7.2007)(Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated7.7.2007)

b) Does not account for the Jct that the Public Noticedated 18.9. 1987 adversely affected the rates of land -ithe area for more than 15 years before the Notificationunder Section 5 of the Land Acquisition A,dt,, 1894 wasissueddated 18.9. 1987 adversely affected the rates of land -ithe area for more than 15 years before the Notificationunder Section 5 of the Land Acquisition A,dt,, 1894 wasissued

c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated11 92001 issued by the Government of Nationi1 CapitalTerritory of Delhi is not in accordance viJh the law laidclown by various decisions including in one ',f inc inurerecent decisions of the Hon'ble Saptcinc' ('ourt inSangunti'zala versus Tahcildar 2010(3) SCC 66111 92001 issued by the Government of Nationi1 CapitalTerritory of Delhi is not in accordance viJh the law laidclown by various decisions including in one ',f inc inurerecent decisions of the Hon'ble Saptcinc' ('ourt inSangunti'zala versus Tahcildar 2010(3) SCC 661

d) ]oi es the evidence and other factors which. as perestablished law has to be considered before ascei ta'nzngthe value of the land under acquisition.established law has to be considered before ascei ta'nzngthe value of the land under acquisition.

c) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deedsproduced be/are the trial Court whereas as per the lawestablished by the lIon 'ble Supre;'ne Court in the recentproduced be/are the trial Court whereas as per the lawestablished by the lIon 'ble Supre;'ne Court in the recentLqase of Chin cia Fakira Paul versus Special LandAcquisition Officer, Civil Apeai No. 5475 of 2007. TheI-Jon 'h/c Supreme Court has specifIcally held that SaleDeed showing higher rate should not be disregarded inAcquisition Officer, Civil Apeai No. 5475 of 2007. TheI-Jon 'h/c Supreme Court has specifIcally held that SaleDeed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in

L.A .Ap. N O]..W/2QO& connected Appeals of Village l3harthaLI\.p. NO 294/2010 & connected AppeLils of Village Bijwasar,LI\.p. NO 294/2010 & connected AppeLils of Village Bijwasar,A.A;>p. NO 111/2010 & coiinectd Appeals of Village Pochnpur

Page 11 of 29

-,---.--.---.--- -.-.----------.----.------.--.-------------.---------- --------

case the average sale price is lower. Further in AnjanaMo/u Dessaj vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, theSupreme Court has also held that the highest qf theexemplars and not by averaging of diftèrent types ofsales transactions should be considered whileadjudicating upon compensation upon certan land.

I) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LACNo.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subjectland while ignoring the material which indicate that themarket value of the land is much higher than 15 lac peracre in Block and 13,36,00O in Block in violationof the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Courtincluding in Subh Ram vs. State of Hai'yana 2010(1)S(.'C 444. As consequence, the impugned judgmentrefused to return an actual finding on the issue No.]No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subjectland while ignoring the material which indicate that themarket value of the land is much higher than 15 lac peracre in Block and 13,36,00O in Block in violationof the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Courtincluding in Subh Ram vs. State of Hai'yana 2010(1)S(.'C 444. As consequence, the impugned judgmentrefused to return an actual finding on the issue No.]framedon 27.2.20O7.

g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although videNotification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, theland use of Village .Dhool Siras and ha rtha 1 waschanged and these areas ceased to be agricultural andcame. now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State.The masterplan and Notifications 01 Government forland use change show that in future 1cimd can' becubjected to residential, commercial and ot1erpermissible ucs It is also pertinent to mention that theappellant i ad evidence in respect of the 74" amendmentof the Constitution of India, w ef 1 6 I99 IX 4, byvirtue of which the Municipal Corpoi ation Act wasamended and the area where the land is situated, wasdeemed municipal area and the municipal ('ounsello'was elected from there No Panchayat elections wereheld in the area.

h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR SupremeCourt 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Unior of Indiaand refused to consider the fact that the development Inthe area has direct efftct on the price that willingpurchaser would pay fbr the subject land.Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Unior of Indiaand refused to consider the fact that the development Inthe area has direct efftct on the price that willingpurchaser would pay fbr the subject land.

0 Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had alo

!A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthull/.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appeals of Village BijwasanlA.pp. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpui-

auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocksat the rate of about Z2.6 lakh and concluded that thesaid land is wholly underdeveloped land.

j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than thepre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2jr similarly situated land.pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2jr similarly situated land.

If) Does not take into account the possibility of change ofthe use of the land although the land was acquired fordevelopment purposes of i?warka Phase Ii. it isreiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras andBharthal was changed and these areas ceased to beagricultural and came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State.the use of the land although the land was acquired fordevelopment purposes of i?warka Phase Ii. it isreiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras andBharthal was changed and these areas ceased to beagricultural and came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State.

l, Ignored Notifications dated 16.10.2000 and 24.10-1994although they clearly establish the commercialalthough they clearly establish the commercialpotentiality of the said land in Sangunthala v. Tahsildar(LA), ((2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose for(LA), ((2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose forwhich land . is acquired is . relevant factor. Whildetermining value of the property acquired the jctwhether the land has got building potentialitY tobe useddetermining value of the property acquired the jctwhether the land has got building potentialitY tobe used1f?r building purposes in immediate or in near jutureneeds to be consideredf?r building purposes in immediate or in near jutureneeds to be considered

m) The presence of number of bu'ldings on the landsacquired and the said land being occupied by thebuildings are to be trecited as house cites The landswere acquired for purpose of putting up residentialquarters. As portion of the land is being considered ashouse cite, the adjoining lands have the potential ofbeing.put in better use as house sites in the near fitfre."acquired and the said land being occupied by thebuildings are to be trecited as house cites The landswere acquired for purpose of putting up residentialquarters. As portion of the land is being considered ashouse cite, the adjoining lands have the potential ofbeing.put in better use as house sites in the near fitfre."

1 3. in the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App No.347/2009, the factual details have been provided with prayer that theappellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of thectJicr appeals in these bunch of appeals.appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of thectJicr appeals in these bunch of appeals.

. Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of theSupplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of theappellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of

Ii.App. No. 1195/2008 & cpnnected Appeals of ViIlge BlarthalA.App. No. 294/201.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan.A App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 13 of 29

urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change inland use has been considered in Mahesh .Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State0 i1ahariishtra, AIR. 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) &-Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that P-ri-l)etermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates -of the area are relevant todetermine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the saleinstances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to havebeen relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market -yalue of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensationreflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands issought in these appeals.0 i1ahariishtra, AIR. 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) &-Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361 and that P-ri-l)etermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates -of the area are relevant todetermine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the saleinstances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to havebeen relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market -yalue of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensationreflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands issought in these appeals.

15. Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, Mr. SanjayPdciar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51. OfLind Acquisition Act, 1894, certified copy of the Sale Decd is anadmissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as ielevant evidenceicr determination of the market value unless an:d until the same isproperly connected with the land- in question and element.pfspecia.1fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of t1eproperty, proximity to the village etc are also iequircd to bc 'onsideieand the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correctmarket value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by theReference- Court:and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jai LalVS. Union of India, 2002 (62) PR! 227, Scitpal & Ors vs. UnionJndji, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lal. (hand vs. Union of India and Anr.,(2. 009) 15 SCC 769; I.A. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sus/üiKunuzr vs.Ujüon of India, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increasein, price in short period cannot he taken to be realistic until reason.s foruc.h sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller

LA.App. No. 119S12008 & connected Appeals of Vii! Ige Bharthal

J.App. No. 294/2010 &, connected Appelc of Villeg. WjwasanA.App. No. 11.1/2010-A connected Appeals of Village PocharpurA.App. No. 11.1/2010-A connected Appeals of Village Pocharpur

and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usualprevalent trend in the market would pay such higher pay as reflected inthe sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by theappellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended onbehalf of the cross-objector that adoption of I& DO rates/Pre-I)etermined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision ofApex Court in La! [Cvhand ](supra) which has been followed by . acoordinate Bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (supra)- and Raj Singh(supra).

16. So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged byMr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the RespQndents/cross-objectçrs that the same has already been factored into while fixing theminimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Qovernment ason 1st April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% perannum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneouslydetermined by the Reference Court, asn Sushi! ICui'nar (supra)appreciation. @ 10% per annum has been granted Thus, it is submittedthat there is no scope for further enhancement from th puce of acqt' edlands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so the impugnedjudgment deserves to be modified deleting the .e-haicernent by theRefence Court wh1e taking into consideiation the ippr&iation jJ 1 2%per annum and the same deserves to be brought in !uiL '\hile grantingappreciation ( lO% per annum and thereby allowing the dross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

fulk

17. After considering the rival submissions advanced by both thesides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgment, the evidence onrecord7and the-decisions cited, what emerges .is that the true market valueof the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to willing

LA-App. No. 1195/2008 & connécted-Appe-as of ViUage Bharthal

LA.Aup. No. 294/2010'& onnected AppeaJs -ol-Village BijwasanLA-App. No. 11(1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpurLA-App. No. 11(1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page iS of 29

seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. Whiled.a1ing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, whathas to b. considered in assessing the market value thereof, standsreiterated by the Apex Court in Who Dass vs. State of Haryana &Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city orthe acquired land vis-a-vis the city orthe town or village which had been growing in sizebecause of its commercial industrial, educational,because of its commercial industrial, educational,religious or any other kind of importance or becauseof its explosive population;of its explosive population;

'ii) the suitability, of the acquired land for putting up thebuildings, be they residential commercIal orindustrial as the case may be;buildings, be they residential commercIal orindustrial as the case may be;

NO possibility of obtaining water and electric supply foroccupants of buildings to be put up on that land;possibility of obtaining water and electric supply foroccupants of buildings to be put up on that land;

(iv,) absence qfstatutory impediments or the li/ce for usingthe acquired land for building purpose*the acquired land for building purpose*

(v,.) existence of highways, public roads, layouts Ofbuilding plots or developed residential extensions inthe vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land,building plots or developed residential extensions inthe vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land,

(vi)bene.fits or advantagres of eduationa/t(lStitUtiQ;igres of eduationa/t(lStitUtiQ;ihealth care centres or the like in the,surioundingcare centres or the like in the,surioundingareas of the acquired land which'.ày becomeavailable to the occupiers oJ buildings, if built on theacquired land, andavailable to the occupiers oJ buildings, if built on theacquired land, and

(vii)lands around the acquired land or the acquired landitself being in demand for building purposes, tospecify Jew."lands around the acquired land or the acquired landitself being in demand for building purposes, tospecify Jew."

18, The potentiality of land for the Purpose of development as also forbuilding pu1poes depends upon large number of factoi For hL saidpirpose, the court may not only have to bear in mind the Purpose for

Il.i\,App. No. 1.95/200 & r:onrcted Appea of \Ifflige itharthalrio. ?)4/2O1) & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwrsanrio. ?)4/2O1) & connected Appeals of Village l3ijwrsanLA..\pp No. 13.1,'rjjQ & connected Appeals of Village Pàchanpur

Page 160129

Mr- .......................________.______.J....._.•1..__.___--------------j

which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequentevents to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court inAvinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determinationof comensation for acquired lands, it has been held y the Apex Courtin .4/ma Singh (supra) that the exemplars of small pieces of land reliedupon by the appellants could not be ground to discard them especiallywhenexemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

19. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in SpecialLand Acquisition Of & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC714. J legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied uponon behalf of the appellants is that where there is no bask differenceeither in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which aresimilarly situated having similar advantage available to them even asregards future prospects, there is no justificatiên for . reducing thecompensation on the, ground of distance between similarly situated landsand the acquired land

20 It, is well established proposition of Liw that the burden ofProvin the true market value of the acquii ed Icirid is on thc State whohas acquired the agricultural land for particular püipO se.But, it isequall', true that the burden of proving inadequacy of ornpensationawarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decisIbn. of theApex Court in ICircin Tandon (Supra) can be referred to wi th advantage.21.. Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking ñote of the factthat the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residentialcolonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction:of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinentobservations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo/u Désai (Supra)deserve attention, which are as under:-

A./pp No. 11.95/2008 & ccinected Appeals of Village Bharthal

I /, App. No. .9 11/2010 & con cteci Appeals of Vilsge Bjwasan

.A.tp No 111 12010 & coirecteel Appeals of Vill,ge Pochanpur

"The legal position is that even where there are severalexemplars with reference to similar lands, usually thehighest of the exemplars, which is bona fide transaction,will be considered. Where however there are several salesof similar lands whose prices range in narrow bandwidth,the average thereof can be taken, as representing themarket price. But where the values disclosed in respect ofiwo sales are markedly different, itan only. lead to aninference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands orthat the lower value sale is on account of under-valuationor other price depressing reasons. Consequently averagingcannot [be ]resorted to."

2. It would he worthwhile to take note of the clinching observationspertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands madeby the Apex, Court in Ghindha Fakira Paul (Supra), which are asfollows:-

"It is well settled that genuine and bona fide saletransactions in respect of the land under acquisition or inits absence the bona fide sale transactions prox•inate to thepoint of acquisition qf the lands situátëd in theneighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similarvalue or utility taken place between willing vendee andthe willing vendor which could be expected to icylect thetrue value as agreed between reasonable pi' uci'i' personsacting in the normal market conditions are the rea ' 'asls todetermine the market value23Principles to determine the market value of the , acquired lands asreiterated by the Apex. Court in Oil and Natural Gas Csrporauion Lid.

(Oi'GC) (Supra), are as under:-

"Primarily, the increase in land prices oi.j2ür,factors - situation of the land, nature of development insurrounding area, availability of land for development inthe qrea, and the :emand ,for land in the area. In ruralareas unless there is any prospectof develokinent n the'ticiniiy increase in prices would be slow, steady, andgradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps.factors - situation of the land, nature of development insurrounding area, availability of land for development inthe qrea, and the :emand ,for land in the area. In ruralareas unless there is any prospectof develokinent n the'ticiniiy increase in prices would be slow, steady, andgradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps.

A.p. N. 1 1,/2308K. connected Appeals of Village BhrthaiApp. No ?94/2010& connected Appeals-of village Bijwasan.A ,(pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Podia npu.App. No ?94/2010& connected Appeals-of village Bijwasan.A ,(pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Podia npu.

On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where thedevelopment is faster, where the demand for land is high• and where there is construction activity all around, theescalation in market price is at much higher rate, ascompared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, dueto rapid development and high dema,nd for land, theescalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% ormore per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, inremote rural areas where there was no chance of anydevelopment and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnatedJhr years or rose marginally at nominal rate of 1% or 2%per annum. There is thus significant difference inincreases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urbanareas and increases in market value of lands in the ruralareas. Therefore if the increase in market value inurban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum,the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best beonly around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum.This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in thenineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and spec j/icevidence relating to increase in prices. [Where. ]there arespecial reasons for applying higher rate of increase, orany specific evidence relating to the actual increase inprices, then the increase to be applied would depend uponthe same.

Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determimng themarket value by providing approprzate escalationovei theproved market value of nearby lands in previous years[(][CS(]evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), wherc there,is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale ti ansactions oracquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood Thesaid method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-saletransactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisitionby only'a few years, that is up-to four to five years. Beyondthat it ma)) be unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouringland. What may be reliable standardlf the gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and unreliable standardwhere the gap is larger. For example, for determining the-market value of land acquired in 1992, adopting theannual increase method with reference to sale or

J.Aop. No. II !j5/200& & connected Appeals o Village Bharthztl

.App. Na. 294/2010 & connected Appeals(ofviliage Bijwasan

1 1.1/20 & connected Appeals of ViLge Poclianpur

.A.App (40.

Page 19 of 29

-......................---------------------------------

-••-•• --.-..

acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls This isbecause, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annualincrease may itself undergo drastic .change apart from thelikelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation inprices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standardof increase.

24. This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana

State Industrial Development corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regardingcomputation of compensation for the acquired lands by adoptingcomparative sales methods.. What was said by the Apex Court in. HSIDC

(Supra) is as under:-

When different categories of lands (or lands with differentsituational advantages) are acquired for the same purpose,say for forming of residential layout, courts havesometimes felt that determination of their value withreference to previous status or situation should be avoidedand uniform rate of compensation should he awardedfrrall lands acquired under the same notification.

25 Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exempoli s, in and aroundacquired land of Village Bharthal Village Bijwasan of the period inquestion are not available and the solitaiy sale exemplai strongly reliedUpon - by the appellants is of Village Pochanpm, i.e., fte seven SaleDeeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Swami Sats.ang, Beahd purchased the agricultural land in Villagt. Pochanpui at prlcLwhich varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre26Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex PW-i/4 to Ix PW-iilO) whichare basically between one set of co-owners and .Radha Swami SaisanSeas in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6B swas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value ofthe La11(17111 the villages in question is the moot question which is requiredlo be answered. Evidently, aforesaid safe exemplars, i.e., Sale 'Deeds

L4.App. No 1 Lc5/2c08 & connected Aopels of Viige Bharthe

L.\pp. No. !94/2CY1u & connected Appea&of Village Bijwasanj, t/?.OiO & connected Appk of Village Pochanpuij, t/?.OiO & connected Appk of Village Pochanpui

(Ex.PW-1/4 to Fx.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from Z52 lacsto Z62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the saleexemplars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) did not comtandthe same market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation ofthe aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached toeach parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land inquestion, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated asdisclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. Thespecial need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in VillagePochanpiir vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has riot beenbrought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural Ind has notbeen got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaser/vendee of theafoicsaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have beeie]c.ited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such high price forIhese lands. ThQ special fancy of the purchaser, i.e.,. Radha SwamiSitsang, J3eas who had purchased more than 3 Bighas of land at anxoi hitarii price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale Peed executed on 25thMarch, 2000 was also subject matter in LA App No 266/2008 titled as1(11 Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23 -8.201111 arid in LA AppNC) 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs Union of India, decided on19 9 01 1 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale e\cmplai of VillageMamurpur was discarded while holding that the same can.td be treated.as representative price for the acquired lands.27. In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired landswas changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidencefl-14t the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till theiracquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were notdcvcloped lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing\I. 195/2008çfnnected Appeals VUage 13harthal.o 21)4/),--,:j0 & conjcctcdAppajs of Viflage BijwasnNo. 1: i!?O10 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpurfl-14t the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till theiracquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were notdcvcloped lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing\I. 195/2008çfnnected Appeals VUage 13harthal.o 21)4/),--,:j0 & conjcctcdAppajs of Viflage BijwasnNo. 1: i!?O10 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

- ..................-.-..--.---...- ........-...-...-.. -------

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

28.So -far as the sale exempt r of Village Sarnalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1)relic4 tjpon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of 27 [Ih ]January, 2000, itneeds to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/1 1) wassituated on the National Highway. - 8 and' because vide Sale Deed(Ex.PW-l/1 1) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereonincluding tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore,it had fetched such high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplarcannot he treated as representative price for the acquired -lands inquestion

29.Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic- price of similarlysituated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as towhether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the dcveloped ,land andPre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to beadopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands inquestionsituated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as towhether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the dcveloped ,land andPre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to beadopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands inquestion

30 Paiameteis governing fixation of market value of acquiièd laneshighlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P Rain Reddy andOrs. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Deveiôpnient

Aiit/writ;; Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be thedetermination of the market value of the acquired land withbuilding potentiality with reference to the price fetched bysale ofplots in well developed la out in tJ'è ihborho'od

.A,App. No. 1195/2008connected Appeals of Village BharthalLA,Ao. No. 294/2010-;& connected Aoeals Of Village BliwacanI.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpurLA,Ao. No. 294/2010-;& connected Aoeals Of Village BliwacanI.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 22 of 29

how-------- ----

or whether it he the determination of the market value of theacquired land with building potentiality with reference tothe price fetched by sale of building plots in 'an undevelopedlayout of building plots in the neighborhood it becomesinevitable for the Court to find out what will be the pricefetched or to be fetched by the sales ofplots ,in the layouts,relied upon by any of the parties, with,- reference to the pricewhich the plots could have fetched sld on the date of the'publication of the preliminary notification under Section4(1) of the Act Further, where no evidence ofprzce fetchedby the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in theneighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available,then what could be done is to find out the market value ofthe acquired land with reference to the relevant date ofpublication under Section 4'1 of the LA Act, according tothe actual use to which it was put and increase its value bya small percentage having regard to the degree of itsbuilding potentiality ascertained on the basis of evidence tobç thde availble in that regard small percentageincrease to be given shall not exceed 115th valueof the market of the land found out according to its actual user.since resort to the method of giving increased valt'e forsuch building potentiality arises only when there, is noevidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood ofthe acquired land indicating that there was no immediatedemand, as cuch, for building plots even if formed in theacquired land

31 In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged bythe I)I)A after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, andtransferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in La! Cliand(Supra), held that it is not safe 01 advisable to rely upon the allotmentrates/1 rc-Determined Rates in determining the market value of theadjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum o,f-La!Ch and (Supra), • coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Sing/i (Supra)and Sushul Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua thedeveloped lardsas being not relevant for assessing the market value of

A.App. No. 11.9 .5/2008 & connected Appeals Of Village BharthaIA-App. No, 294/201() & thflflectd Appeals Of Village BiJwasan

LA.App. No. 1.11/2010 & Connected Weals of Village Pochanpur

Page 23 of 29

'-,.------------------.--..------.---....

the undeyeloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Courthas rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land orthe DDA's Pre-Deterrnined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing themarket value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

2. Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increasemethod would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of theland in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition ofthe year 1984 in Village .Bharthal and, other villages for development ofDwarka. Phase-I. It was sought to he argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar,learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if theescalation at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the* year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening theNotification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instantNotification for development of Dwarka Phase-11, still the price fixed bythe Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid esca1ted priceand therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court isunjustified

33Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum ofthe Apex Court in La! Cliand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adoptprogressive increase method in assessment of the market value of t1acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it mayhe unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouring land. What may be areliable standard, if the gap is of only of few years,- may beconteunsafeand unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, theLgap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwatka Phase-I and DwarkaPhase-11 is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt themode of determining the market value by providing appropriate

LA.App ilo. 1195/2002 & connected Appeals of Village BharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010& connected . Appeals ofVillage BijwasanLA.App. No. 294/2010& connected . Appeals ofVillage Bijwasan

I A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected ApPeais of Village Pochanpur

Page 24 of 29

escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous yeais

34.Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for therespondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court hasgranted escalation @ 12% per - annum, which is unwarranted as arespondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court hasgranted escalation @ 12% per - annum, which is unwarranted as acoordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has grantedescalation (0-)10 per annum.. After having perused the decision inSushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higherpotentiality of the acquired land over and above the market valuedetermined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relyingUpon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court12% per anni.jrn cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view ofthe matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed.escalation (0-)10 per annum.. After having perused the decision inSushi! Kumar (Supra), I find that 10% increase on account of higherpotentiality of the acquired land over and above the market valuedetermined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relyingUpon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court12% per anni.jrn cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view ofthe matter, the cross-objections of the respondent are dismissed.35.Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government'sniinimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Courtis reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquiredland and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by theReference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum puce 101 theagricultural land by the Government w 1" April, 2000 till the date ofNotification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased ornotniinimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Courtis reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquiredland and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by theReference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum puce 101 theagricultural land by the Government w 1" April, 2000 till the date ofNotification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased ornot

36: Adoption of Government's minimum ratesof a.:ricultural landpeitainin to the Notification in question has been assailed by thelearned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had-ceased toby an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 24 t11 October, 1994declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to beirban1t is true that vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the landuse of the acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to

LA.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BharthalIA.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appeals;of Village BijwasanIA.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appeals;of Village Bijwasan

LA.App. NC). 111/2010 connected Appeils of Village Pochanpur

Page 25 of 29

presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for beingconsidered asdeveloped lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vitalaspect of there being any development in and around the acquired landsin question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Raciha SwamiSat.ang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the saleofth said lands was for agricultural purpose.

3 7. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till theissuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1 894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there beenincrease in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of theacquired lands upon change of their use post the year. 1994, thenappellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the areain question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the landin Village Pochanpur to religious institution and another sale instanceof Village Sarnalkha (Ex PW-1/l 1) without leading any evidence toestablish that , the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars àfRadhaLSwaml Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of\'illage Samalkha (Ex PW-l/l 1) are comparable with theacquned landsand so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of\'illage Sarnalkha (Ex PW-1/1 1) cannot be heatedto be sufficientground to giant higher compensation while ielying upon the aforesaidsa1ç instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddidturn of theApex Court in Haryana Stale Industrial Development corporalion(HSIDC) (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awardedfor the lands auirel under the same Notification in the light of thenpiium price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land inDelhi, -which -generally factors in the rise of price due to higherpotentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is gap between what

A.App. NO. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals ofVillage Bharthall.A.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appeals of Village BijwasanLA.App. lo. .111/2010 (&, connected Appeak of Village PochanpurPage 26 of 29l.A.App. No. 294/2010& connected Appeals of Village BijwasanLA.App. lo. .111/2010 (&, connected Appeak of Village PochanpurPage 26 of 29

would be expected to be the market growth and what the market hadactually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been heldto be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquiredlands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and I findno reason to take different view than the one which had been taken bycoordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jal Singh(Supra) and Sushul Kumar (Supra).

38. This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court' inthe matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan hasrightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agriculturallands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in questionFinding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situationof theacquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from theevidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality' theacquiied lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Auport, Indian Oil andBharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through VillageJ3haithal and there being 100 meters side road startir, from NH-8fibrn Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Pait II,ivdmg thcacquned lands in two portions, and there being Fairn Houses in thevicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of theAc: Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, n account ofaforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands iñqUestion, certainlyassume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I.What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and 'above marketLvalueof the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court onaccouT of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the

I.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & conhected ApeaIs of Village BharthalIA.App. No. 294/2010 & corrnetod AppaIs of Village BijwasanLA:App, No. 111/2010 & 'connected Appals of Village PochanpurIA.App. No. 294/2010 & corrnetod AppaIs of Village BijwasanLA:App, No. 111/2010 & 'connected Appals of Village Pochanpur

Page 27 of 29

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

"When once conclusion is reached that there was thepossibility of the acquired land being used for putting upbuildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusionwould be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had abuilding potentiality and proceed to determine Its marketvalue taking into account the increase in price attributableto such building potentiality."

39.Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide adefinite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness cannever be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it isbroad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat themwith equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimumprices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value ofthe acquired lands as there are no special features to tieat the acquiredlands differentl.' and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated atpar with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal anddefinite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness cannever be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it isbroad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat themwith equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimumprices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value ofthe acquired lands as there are no special features to tieat the acquiredlands differentl.' and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated atpar with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal andVillage Bijwasan However, while relying upon the decision in Sushi!Kumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase.ovei and above themarket value of the acquired !ands determined by the Refeience Court inKumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase.ovei and above themarket value of the acquired !ands determined by the Refeience Court inthese matters on account of the aforesaid locctional advantag spiovidrng higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in questionpiovidrng higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question

40.Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent ofawardmg 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by theReference Court in matters 'pertaining to Village Bh-arthal and Villagepijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpür .at par withthe apllants bf Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals ofawardmg 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by theReference Court in matters 'pertaining to Village Bh-arthal and Villagepijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpür .at par withthe apllants bf Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of

I.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

A.Apn, No,.294/2010& connected Appeals of Village BijwasanA.App No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PóchanpurA.App No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Póchanpur

Page 28 of 29

-. ......................... -----------.-------------------------..-- .........................-..--- ---

- -.-.-.-----...

the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extentindicated above Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of theseihie villages in question is determined 16,5O,OOO/- perjigh for theCategory 'A' land and @ !14,69,600/- per ha for the Category'B'lands in qiestion.

41. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded,statutory',[benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained ]illthe jucgmçIr1t reported in Sunder vs. UQI 2001 (93). DLT 569 aregranted, except for the period where there is delay in filing the appeal,for which pei iod of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shallbe paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

42 The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed ofin the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to lemit thec onipensatioii amount, if any, deposited by either side with the RegistrarGeneral of this Court, to the concerned- Reference Court Decree sheetsbe accordingiy prepared

Januay 06, 2012

- (SUMLcALR)JU)GE

App. No, U9/2008 P. connected Appeals of Village Bharthal294/2010 & t:orineted Appeals ofVigi( (E3ijwaanA Apr. No. : il/201.0 & connected Appeals .& Village. Pocharipur

Page 29 of 29

*IN I THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

LA.APP, 1195/2008RANBIR SHARI\4AAppellantThrough: Mr.B . S .Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr. Jai Prakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.JitinTewathia, AdvocatesMs.Anita Tomar, Advocate.Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, AdvocateMr.N.S.Negi and Mr.I-I.S.Rauteia, AdvocateMr. S .K.Rout, Mr.B .K.Routray, Advocates.Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates forrespondent in appeals filed by UOI)Mr. Sudhanshu Tornar, Advocate forMr.R. S .Tomar.Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solankj and/Mr. S.K.Rout, AdvocatesversusUNION OF INDIA & ANRRespondentsThrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate withMr-Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadh.av. andMs Navirn Swain, Ms K Kaurnudi Kiran,Advocates for LAC/U01Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethj, Ms. .Aiita Singh,Mi .ankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kuna1 Sharma andMr.Sorner K.Seth, Advocates••• for DDA-CORAM:HON'BLE MP. JUSTICE SVNIL GAUR

QRER12.01.2012

752/2012correcti

This is an application for seeking typographical correction in

Order of [6th ]January, 2012.

Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice

LA.App.No. 1195/2008

Page 1

of the application. Advance copy of this application has already.beengiven to remaining counsel for the appei.lans.The typographical error pointed out by the respondent inthedecision of 6th January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of theaforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'pr bigha',whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learnedCounsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application isallowed and it .is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in parágráphno: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessarycorrection be carried outforthwith. ......

In view of the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of.

UNJL. GAUR)JUDGE.. . ... .

JANUARY 12, 2012.. . ... .pkbpkb

Page 2