LA.APP./58/2010 of RAJBIR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

$2*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+LA.APP. 58/2010

RAJBIR SINGH

Through: Nerno.

Appellant

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.RespondentsThrough:Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,Advocate

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAURORDER16.10.2012

CM No.760/2011 (cross-objections filed by respondent no.1/UOI)& CM No. 758/2011 (u/O 41 R 5 filed by respondent No.1) inLA.APP No. 58/2010

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate, for firstrespondent/objector states that fate of this appeal as well as objectionstands already determined by decision of this Court in +Ranbir Sharmav. Union of India & anr. '2012 (187) DLT 781.

Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and material on record,I find that learned counsel for first respondent/ objector is right in hissubmission.

Accordingly, this appeal and cross-objections stand disposed ofin terms of decision of this Court in Ranhir Sharma (+Supra).Application for stay is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.

OCTOBER 16, 20112Signature Not VerifiedI•5Digitally SignedBy:AMULYA

SAUR,J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on.. November 18, 2011

Pronounced on.. January 06, 2012

(GRID-A)

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

RANBIR SHARMA

Appellant

Through:Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita

Maan, Mr.R. S .Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates

Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomàr, Advocates.

Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.

Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate

Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate

Mr. S .K.Rout and Mr.B .K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari,Advocates.Mr.Pankaj Vivek, AdvocateMr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr. Samit Khoslaand Mr.Dhananjay Mehiawat, AdvocatesMr.H.S.Rautela, AdvocateMr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate

Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate

Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate.

Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for

respondent in appeals filed by UOI)

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.Respondents

Through:Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. SanjayPathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain,Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOIMr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.MukeshKumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.KunalSharma, Advocate for DDAPathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain,Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOIMr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.MukeshKumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.KunalSharma, Advocate for DDA

LA.APP.4 12/2008& CM.No.4096/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.452/2008;LA.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008 &CM.No.5990/20 10 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.70 1/2008 &CM.No.5 10/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008;

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

LA-App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village BijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpurLA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 1of 29

LA.APP.77 1/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008;LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3 835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.774/2008 &CM.No.6 11/2009 (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.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 &CM.NO.61 5/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.93 1/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 805/2008; LA.APP. 806/2008; LA.APP.8 13/2008 &CM.No. 1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.8 14/2008 & CM.No.806/2009(Cross-Objections); LAAPP.8 18/2008; LA.APP.8 19/2008; LA.APP.820/2008;LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008;LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/201 1(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.90 1/2008; LA.APP.9 15/2008; LA.APP.95 1/2008 &CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008;LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.5 19/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.975/2008;LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP. 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;LA.APP. 1047/2008 ;LA.APP. 1 048/2008& CM.No.785 1/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008;LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008;LA.APP. 1053/2008 & CM.No.4 16/2009 (Cross-Obj ections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 &CM.No. 1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1055/2008;LA.APP. 1057/2008 &CM.No.752/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/201 1(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. I 7259/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1 060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1075/2008; LA.APP. 1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1 084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1086/2008& CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 087/2008& CM.No.6 19/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1093/2008; A.APP. 1094/2008; LA.APP. 1095/2008;LA.APP. 1103/2008 & CM.No.44 1/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1108/2008 &CM.No.3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1109/2008; LA.APP.1110/2008 &CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAMP. 1111/2008; LA.APP. 1112/2008 &CM.No.383 1/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1115/2008; LA.APP. 1116/2008; LA.APP. 1121/2008;LA.APP. 1126/2008; LA.APP. 1129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1130/2008; LA.APP. 1131/2008 & CM.No.566/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1133/2008; LA.APP. 1135/2008 & CM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1137/2008 & CM.No. 17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1140/2008;LA.APP.1 156/2008; LA.APP.1 157/2008; LA.APP.1 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1159/2008; LAMP. 1161/2008; LA.APP. 1166/2008;LAMP. 1167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1168/2008;LA.APP. 1170/2008; LA.APP. 1171/2008; LAMP. 1 172/2008; LAMP. 1 173/2008;LA.APP. 1175/2008; LAMP. 1178/2008; LAMP. 1179/2008; LAMP. 1181/2008;LAMP. 1182/2008; LA.APP. 11 83/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1184/2008; LA.APP. 1185/2008; LA.APP. 11 86/2008& CM.No.70 13/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1190/2008; LA.APP. 1191/2008; LA.APP. 1192/2008;LA.APP.1 193/2008; LA.APP.1 194/2008; LA.APP.1 195/2008; LA.APP.1 197/2008;LA.APP. 11 98/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008;LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008;LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008&CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1226/2008; LA.APP. 1241 /2008&CM.No.3 841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1243/2008; LA.APP. 1252/2008;LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008;LA.APP. 1280/2008; LA.APP. 1281/2008; LA.APP. 1283/2008; LA.APP. 1284/2008;LA.APP.3 1/2009;LA.APP.33/2009;LA.APP.37/2009;LA.APP.39/2009;LA.APP.42/2009 &CM.No.746/201 1 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009;LA.APP.73/2009 & CM.No.7 103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009;LA.APP.79/2009; LA.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/20 11 (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. 138/2009; LA.APP. 139/2009;LA.AP. 140/2009; LAMP. 143/2009; LAMP. 144/2009; LAMP. 145/2009;LA.APj: . 1 62/2009 LAMP. 187/2009; LA.APP. 190/2009; LA.APP. 191/2009;LA.APP. 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009; LA.APP. 199/2009; LA.APP.20 1/2009;LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009(Cross-pbjections); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/201 1 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.2 11/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009;LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No. 7206/2009(Cross-pbjections); LA.APP.24 1/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009;LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009;

LA.AP367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; LA.APP.447/2009; LA.APP.458/2009;

LA.APi'.459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA.APP.48 1/2009;

LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.49 1/2009; LA.APP.493/2009;

LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.506/2009;

LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP. 508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.5 10/2009;LA.APP.5 11/2009; LA.APP.5 12/2009; LA.APP.5 13/2009; LA.APP.567/2009;LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.45/20 10; LA.APP.48/20 10;LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP.13/201 1; LA.APP.1 138/2008; LA.APP. 1176/2008;LA.APP. 1177/2008; LA.APP. 1201/2008; LA.APP.23 1/2009

(Relating to Notification. No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA! 13417 dated 13.12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No.26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi)

(GRID-B)

Reserved on: December 08, 2011Pronounced on: January 06. 2012

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

DEVENDER KUMARAppellantThrough:Mr.R.S.Tomar, Mr.Virendra Singh

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

Advocates

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No.28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi)

AND

(GRID-C)

Reserved on: December 18, 2011Pronounced on: January06. 2012

LA.APP. 111/2010 (VILLAGE POCIIANPUR)

SEHAJRAM AND ORS.AppellantsThrough:Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki andMr.S.K.Rout, Advocates for appellant (inR-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40, 44to 49, 59, 63 to 71)Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocate for appellant inLA.App.No. 61, 64, 65/2011)Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for appellantin R-22)versusUNION OF INDIA & ANRRespondentsThroughMr-Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate withMr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.MohitraoJadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocatesfor UOI/LACMr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.KunalSharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocatesfor DDA.LA.APP. ,1 11/2010LA.APP. 154/2010LA.APP. 155/2010LA.APP. 156/2010LA.APP. 160/2010LA.APP. 165/2010LA.APP. 209/2010LA.APP. 215/2010LA.APP. 228/2010LA.APP. 248/2010LA.APP. 249/2010LA.APP. 250/2010LA.APP. 254/2010LA.APP. 260/2010LA.APP. 261/2010LAMP. 270/2010LA.APP. 192/2010LA.APP. 293/2010LA.APP. 305/2010LA.APP. 306/2010LA.APP. 1307/2010LAMP. 317/2010LA.APP. 392/2010LAMP. 393/2010LA.APP. 395/2010LAMP. 396/2010LA.APP. 397/2010LAMP. 412/2010LA.APP. 420/2010LA.APP. 432/2010LA.APP. 433/2010LA.APP. 434/2010LA.APP. 466/2010LAMP. 489/2010LA.APP. 577/2010LA.APP. 635/2010LA.APP. 637/2010LAMP. 639/2010LA.APP. 640/2010LAMP. 657/2010LA.APP. 60/2010LAMP. 662/2010LA.APP. 741/2010LAMP. 758/2010LA.APP. +67/2010LAMP. 768/2010LA.APP. 784/2010LAMP. 918/2010LA.APP. 919/2010LAMP. 1052/2010LA.APP. 61/2011LA.APP. 64/2011LA.APP. 65/2011LA.APP. 116/2011LA.APP. 117/2011LAMP. 119/2011LA.APP. 120/2011LAMP. 121/2011LA.APP. 129/2011LAMP. 429/2011LA.APP. 476/2011LAMP. 485/2011LA.APP. 521/2011LA.APP. 522/2011LA.APP. 523/2011LAMP. 525/2011LA.APP. 526/2011LAMP. 535/2011LA.APP. 536/2011LAMP: 554/2011LA.APP. 591/2011

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

LA-App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village BijwasanL.A.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/i 3417 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)

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER06.01.2012

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 toNotification N6-F10(30)96-L& B/LA113417 dated 13.12.2000, relatingto geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan andPochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

2.Acquisition process for planned development of (Dwarka Phase-II( in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13thDecember, 2000 under Section 4--of-the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,_pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact blockcomprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question,i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.II( in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13thDecember, 2000 under Section 4--of-the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,_pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact blockcomprising of thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question,i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

3.Agricultural land of the appellants herein in the aforesaid threevillages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards,i.e.,. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and AwardNo.30/2002-2003 granting compensation @ 713.82 lacs per acre forBlock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @ Z12.32 lacs per acre forBlock 'B' (without top soil).villages stood acquired by the Respondents vide three separate Awards,i.e.,. Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and AwardNo.30/2002-2003 granting compensation @ 713.82 lacs per acre forBlock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @ Z12.32 lacs per acre forBlock 'B' (without top soil).

4.Dissatisfied with the assessment of market value of their acquired

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 Block 'A' and @ 713.36 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 sought bythe.[ appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees]Fifty hcs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have soughtcompeisation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying uponthe precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer,Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag andOrs., (2011) 2 SCC 246; [An)ani Molu Dessai vs. State ][of ][Goa andAnr.,](2010)13 SCC 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State of [Haryana and Ann,](2010) 1 SCC 444; [Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special]Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; [Ranvir Singh]and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; [Chindha Fakira Patil](D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon,2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lal vs. Union of [India, ][2002 (62) DRJ 227;]Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of [India & Anr.,]2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Bass vs. State of Haryana [& ][Ors.,]2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of [Punjab & Ors., ][2011(9)]SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State [of ][Maharashtra, ][(2009)]11 SbC 171; Alma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State [of]Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled asSint. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, [decided on 26.03.2010;]Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. [Rafiq Saheb, ][(2011)]7 SCf 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer,

l.A.App. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village BharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village BijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpurPage 7 of 29LA.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village BijwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpurPage 7 of 29

Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2001 Sc 2424; Haryana State IndustrialDevelopment Corporation, (2010) ii scc 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs.Union of India & Ann, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La! Chand vs. Unionof India and Ann, (2009) 15 scc 769; General Manager, Oil andNatural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! andof India and Ann, (2009) 15 scc 769; General Manager, Oil andNatural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate! andAnr, (2908) 14 scc 745; Valliyamma! and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar(Land Acquisition) and Ann, AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs.Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; MaheshDattaträy 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. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs.Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr,176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Surat Singh vs.Delhi Development Authority & Ann, decided on 24.04.2008; OmPrakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 627;Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP.No.6562008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union ofNo.6562008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhu!e Ram vs. Union of India, 2010(170) DLT 371.(170) DLT 371.

6.On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, itwas urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned arguing counsel for the appellantsthat the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to befirst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must beadjudged keeping in view the development in the area over period oftime and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned arguing counsel for the appellantsthat the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to befirst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must beadjudged keeping in view the development in the area over period oftime and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

7.It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, counsel for appellants thatrailwpasses through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into twogts,railwpasses through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into twogts,

i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, New Delhi

and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and road 100meters 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 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 extensionof 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 Bhartha! and Village Pochanpur werealso acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I andthe lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras werealso acquired for the development of Phase-11, Dwarka Sub-City.Attention was drawn to the aks sizras!map to highlight that the boundaryof Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arecontiguous.8.It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for theappellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate thepotentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and hasillegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite ofNotification of [16th ]October, 2000 vide which land use of the threevillages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthalhad ceased to be rural in view of the Notification 0f24th October, 1994.9.It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learnedcounsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have beenwrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama

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 Háryana & 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 be 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 Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs andmerely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot bethrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, becausethere is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvaluedbecause of any special advantages and as per settled legal propositionlaid down by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo!,, Dessai vs. State of Goaappellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlightthat the sale price reflected therein varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs andmerely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot bethrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, becausethere is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvaluedbecause of any special advantages and as per settled legal propositionlaid down by the Apex Court in Anjani Mo!,, Dessai vs. State of Goaand Ann , (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to betaken as representing the market price of the land which comes to 157lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellantsare the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by theReference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates for determining themarket value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to 157lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon by the appellantsare the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by theReference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates for determining themarket value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

11.Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought byMr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L&DO ratesi fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determined 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 isMr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L&DO ratesi fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre-determined 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

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 (PDRs) as referred to above.

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

a): "Ignores the acknowledgement (n the part 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)respondent 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)

b) Does not account for the fact that the Public Noticedated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land inthe area for more than 15 years before the Notificationunder Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 wasissued.dated 18.9.1987 adversely affected the rates of land inthe area for more than 15 years before the Notificationunder Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 wasissued.

c) I Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated1 11. 9.2001 issued by the Government of National Capital(Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laiddown by various decisions including in one of the more1 11. 9.2001 issued by the Government of National Capital(Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laiddown by various decisions including in one of the more(recent decisions of the Hon (ble Supreme Court inSangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) SCC 661.Sangunthala versus Tahsildar, 2010(3) SCC 661.

d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per(established law has to be considered before ascertainingthe value of the land under acquisition.(established law has to be considered before ascertainingthe value of the land under acquisition.

e) Does not deal with disparity in value of the Sale Deedsroduced before the trial Court whereas as per the lawroduced before the trial Court whereas as per the lawestablished by the Hon (ble Supreme Court in the recentFase [of ][Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land]Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal N6.5475 of 2007. TheIon (ble Supreme Court has specifically held that SaleFase [of ][Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land]Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal N6.5475 of 2007. TheIon (ble Supreme Court has specifically held that SaleDeed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in

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

fi 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 713,36,000 in Block in violationof the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Courtincluding in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1)SCC 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 713,36,000 in Block in violationof the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Courtincluding in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1)SCC 444. As consequence, the impugned judgmentrefused to return an actual finding on the issue No.]framed on 2 7.2.200 7.g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although videNotification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, theland use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal waschanged and these areas ceased to be agricultural andcame now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State.The màsterplan and Notifications of Government forland use change show that in future land can besubjected to residential, commercial • and otherpermissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that theappellant lead evidence in respect of the [74th ]amendmentof the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.61993 IX A, byvirtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act wasamended and the area where the land is situated, wasdeemed municipal area and the municipal Counsellorwas elected from there. No Panchayat elections wereheld in the area.Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, theland use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal waschanged and these areas ceased to be agricultural andcame now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State.The màsterplan and Notifications of Government forland use change show that in future land can besubjected to residential, commercial • and otherpermissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that theappellant lead evidence in respect of the [74th ]amendmentof the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.61993 IX A, byvirtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act wasamended and the area where the land is situated, wasdeemed municipal area and the municipal Counsellorwas 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. Union of Indiaand refused to consider the fact that the development inthe area has direct effect on the price that willingpurchaser would pay for the subject land.Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union of Indiaand refused to consider the fact that the development inthe area has direct effect on the price that willingpurchaser would pay for the subject land.

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

auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocksat the rate of about 72.6 lakh and concluded that thesaid land is wholly underdeveloped land.

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

k) Does not take into account the possibility of change ofthe use of the land although the land was acquired fordevelopment purposes of Dwarka Phase H. 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 Dwarka Phase H. 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.

1) Ignored Notifications dated 1610.2000 and 24.1 0.1994although they clearly establish the commercialpotentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose forwhich land is acquired is relevant factor. Whiledetermining value of the property acquired the factwhether the land has got building potentiality to be usedalthough they clearly establish the commercialpotentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar(LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose forwhich land is acquired is relevant factor. Whiledetermining value of the property acquired the factwhether the land has got building potentiality to be usedfor building purposes in immediate or in near futureneeds to be considered.needs to be considered.

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

13.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 theother appeals in these bunch of appeals.

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

urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change inland use has been considered in [Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State]of Maharashtra, [AIR 2009 SC 2238; ][Kapil Mehra (Major General) ][&]Ors. Vs. Union of India [& Anr, ][176(2011) DLT 361 and that Pre-]Determined 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 marketvalue 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. Sanjay]Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51-A ofLand Acquisition Act, 1894, [a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an]admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidencefor detrmination of the market value unless and until the same isproperly connected with the land in question and element of specialfancy of [the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the]property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be consideredand 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 La!]VS. Union of India, [2002 (62) DRJ 227, ][Satpal & Ors vs. Union ][of]India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; [La! Chand vs. Union ][of ][India and Anr.,](2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as [Sushi! Kumar vs.]Union of India, [decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase]in price I in short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons forsuch shrp increase are explained by producing in evidence the sellerand 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 the]appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended onbehalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision ofApex Court in [La! Chand ][(supra) which has been followed by a]coordinate Bench of this Court in [Sushi! Kumar ][(supra) ][and Raj Singh]

(supra)..

16. $o far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged byMr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing theminimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government ason [1St ][April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per]annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneouslydetermined by the Reference Court, as in [Sushi! Kumar ][(supra)]appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submittedthat there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquiredlands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugnedjudgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by theReference Court while taking into consideration the appreciation @ 12%per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while grantingappreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

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

seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. Whiledealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, whathas to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, standsreiterated by the Apex Court in Udho 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 town or village which had been growing in sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educational,religious or any other kind of importance or becauseof its explosive population,the town or village which had been growing in sizebecause of its commercial, industrial, educational,religious or any other kind of importance or becauseof 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;

(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply foroccupants of buildings to be put up on that land;occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;

(ivj) absence of statutory impediments or the like 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)benefits or advantages of educational institutions,health care centres, or the like in the surroundingareas of the acquired land which may becomeavailable to the occupiers of buildings, if built on theacquired land, andhealth care centres, or the like in the surroundingareas of the acquired land which may becomeavailable to the occupiers of buildings, if built on theacquired land, and

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

18. The potentiality of land for the purposeof development as also forbuilding urposes depends upon large number of factors. For the saidpurpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for

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 determination]of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Courtin Alma Singh [(supra) that the exemplars of small pieces of land relied]upon by the appellants could not be ground to discard them especiallywhen exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

19.Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in [Special]Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. [M.K. ][Rafiq Saheb, ][(2011) 7 SCC]714. [The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon]on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic 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 justification for reducing thecompensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated landsand the acquired land.

20.It is well established proposition of law that the burden ofproving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State whohas acquired the agricultural land for particular purpose. But, it isequally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensationawarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of theApex Court in Kiran Tandon [(Supra) can be referred to with advantage.]

21.Apex Court in Valliyammal [(Supra), while taking note of the fact]that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residentialcolonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deductionof 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinentobservations made by the Apex Court in [Anjani Molu Dessai ][(Supra)]

deserve Attention, which are as under:-

"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 themarketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect oftwo sales are markedly different, it can only lead to aninference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands orthat the lower value sale is on account of under-valuationor other price depressing reasons. Consequently averagingcannot be resorted to."

22.Itwould be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observationspertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands madeby the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (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 proximate to thepoint of acquisition of the lands situated in thenighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similarvalue or utility taken place between willing vendee andthe willing vendor which could be expected to reflect thetrue value, as agreed between reasonable prudent personsacing in the normal market conditions are the real basis todetermine the market value."

23.Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as

reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

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

"Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on fourfactors - situation of the land, nature of development insurrounding area, availability of land for development inthe area, and the demand for land in the area. In ruralareas unless there is any prospect of development in thevicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady andgradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps.

On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where thedevelopment is faster, where the demand for land is highand where there is construction activity all around, theescalation in market price is at much higher rate, ascompared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, dueto rapid development and high demand 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 stagnatedfor years or rose marginally at nominal rate of 1% or 2%cant difference inpçr annum. There is thus significantincreases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urbanareas and increases in market value of lands in the ruralaeas. Therefore the increase in market value inurban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum,tIe 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 specificevidence 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 determining themarket value by providing appropriate escalation over theproved market value of nearby lands in previous years (asevidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where thereis no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions oracquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. Thesaid method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-saletransactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisitionby only few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouringland. What may be reliable standard if the gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and unreliable standardwhere the gap is larger. For example, for determining theriarket value of land acquired in 1992, adopting theannual increase method with reference to sale or

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 HaryanaState Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) [(Supra), regarding]computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adoptingcomparäive sales methods. What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC(Supra) i as under:-

"When different categories of lands (or lands with different'situational 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 be awarded forall lands acquired under the same notification. "

25.Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and aroundacquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period' inquestion are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly reliedupon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven SaleDeeds vide which religious institution, i.e., [Radha Swami Satsang, Beas]had purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at pricewhich varied from Z52 lacs to Z62 lacs per acre.

26.Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) whichare basically between one set of co-owners and [Radha Swami Satsang,]Beas [in respect of the compact block of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6]Biswas stuated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value ofthe land in the villages in question is the moot question which is requiredto be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds

(Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) indicate that its price varies from Z[52 ][lacs]to 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 commandthe 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 VillagePochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/10) has not beenbrought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has notbeen got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaser/vendee of theaforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have beenelicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such high price forthese lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., [Radha Swami]Satsang, Beas [who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an]exorbitant price in Village Mamurpur vide Sale Deed executed on 25thMarch, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled asJai Singh vs. Union of India, [decided on 23.8.20 11 and in LA. App.]No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union [of ][India, ][decided on]19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of VillageMamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treatedas 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 evidencethat the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till theiracquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were notdeveloped lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing

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.PW-1/10) have been rightly discarded by theReference Court.

28.So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/1 1)relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of [27th ]January, 2000, itneeds to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) wassituated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed(Ex.PW-l/11 ) 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 be treated as representative price for the acquired lands inquestion.relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of [27th ]January, 2000, itneeds to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) wassituated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed(Ex.PW-l/11 ) 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 be 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 developed lands 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.Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired landshighlighted by Apex Court in its decision reported as P. Ram Reddy andOrs. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development

• Authority 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 ofpots in well developed layout in the neighborhood

or whether it be 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 of plots in the layouts,relid upon by any of the parties, with reference to the pricewhibh the plots could have fetched if sold on the date of thepublication of the preliminary notification inder Section4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence ofprice 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 tobe made available in that regard. small percentageincrease to be given shall not exceed 115th of the marketvalue of the land found out according to its actual usersince, resort to the method of giving increased value 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 such, for building plots even if formed in theacquiied land."

31. In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged bythe DDA after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, andtransferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in [La! ((hand](Supra), held' that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotmentrates/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of theadjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of [La!]Chand [(Supra), coordinate Bench of this Court ][in ][Jai Singh ][(Supra)]and Sushi! Kumar [(Supra) ][has excluded the DDA rates qua the]developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of

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

32. 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 be 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 theyear 1984 liii the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening theNotification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instantNotification for development of Dwarka Phase-IT, still the price fixed bythe Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated priceand therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court isunjustified.33. Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum ofthe Apex Court in La! Chand [(Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt]progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of theacquired land only when the gap is of [4-5 ][years and beyond that it may]be unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouring land. What may be areliable standard, if the gap is of only of few years, may become unsafeand unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, thegap between the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and DwarkaPhase-TI is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt themode of determining the market value by providing appropriate

escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

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 acoordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar [(Supra), has granted]escalation @ 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 relyingSushi! Kumar [(Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court]upon @ 12% per annum 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'sminimum 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 price for theagricultural land by the Government w.e.f. 1 [st ][April, 2000 till the date of]Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased ornot.

36.Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural landpertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by thelearned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased tobe an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of [24th ][October, 1994]declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to beurban. It 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

presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for beingconsidered as developed 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 Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the saleof the said !ands was for agricultural purpose.

37. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till theissuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, 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 Potchanpur to religious institution and another sale instanceof Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) without leading any evidence toestablish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of RadhaSwami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar ofVillage Samalkha (Ex.PW- 1/11) are comparable with the acquired landsand so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance ofVillage Samaltha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficientground to grant higher compensation while relying upon the aforesaidsale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referred dictum of theApex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation(HSIDC) (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awardedfor the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of theminimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land inDelhi, which gnerally factors in the rise of price due to higherpotentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is gap between what

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 find]no reason to take different view than the one which had been taken bycoordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of [Jai ][Singh](Supra) and Sushi! 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 question.Finding of the Reference Court in matter of Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situationof the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from theevidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of theacquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil andBharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through VillageBharthal and there being 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing theacquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in thevicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of theReference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, on account ofaforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainlyassume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I.What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above marketvalue of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court onaccount of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the

settled legal 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 marketvalu taking into account the increase in price attributableto such building potentiality."

39. [Consdering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a]definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can,[*never be achieved in the, matters of assessing fair compensation, it is]broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat themwith equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimumprices for the aricu1tural lands for computing the fair market value ofthe acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquiredlands differtly and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated atpar with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal andVillage Bijasan. However, while relying upon the decision in [Sushi!]Kumar [(Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the]Market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court inthese matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantagesproviding higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

40. Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent ofawarding 10% increase over and above the market value as[-][ses6gadby ][the]in matt'ers pertaining to Village Bharthal and VillageBijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par withthe appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of

the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extentindicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of thesethree villages in question is determined @ 16,50,000I- per acre for theCategory 'A' land and @ 14,69,600I- per acre for the Category 'B'lands in question.

41.On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded,statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained inthe judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 aregranted, except for the period where there is delay in filing the appeal,for which period 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 remit thecompensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the RegistrarGeneral of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheetsbe accordingly prepared.

• January 06, 2012pkb

(SUNIL GAUR)JUDGE