LA.APP./160/2012 of MANGE RAM Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

$-3*IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

+LA.APP. 160/2012

MANGE RAM

Appellant

Through:

Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate

versus

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER22.05.2012

CM No. 8748/2012(u/S 151 CPC)

Delay is of 669 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal.

Notice.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates,accept notice of the application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2respectively and state that the only opposition to this application isthat for the period of delay, the appellant ought not be grantedinterest on the compensation amount in the event of succeeding inthe appeal.

The reason for the delay finds mention in paragraphs no. 3 &5 of the application constitutes sufficient cause for condoning thedelayinre-filingtheaccompanyingappeal,therefore,thisapplication is allowed while making it clear that for the period of

Signature Not Verified

delay, appellant shall not be granted interest in the event ofsucceeding in the appeal.

Withaforesaidobsei*vations,this applicationisdisposedof

CMNo. 8745/2012(u/S 5 ofLimitationAct)

Notice.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates,acceptnoticeofthe applicationon behalfofrespondentsNo. 1&2respectively.

The reasonfor the delayfinds mentioninparagraphno. 2 ofthe

instantapplication,which is found to be sufficientand hence, thedelayoffive days' in filing the accompanyingappealis condoned.

Application is disposedof

CM No. 8747/2012 fu/S 5 of Limitation Act)

Notice.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates,

acceptnoticeofthe applicationonbehalfofrespondentsNo. 1&2respectively.

This application for condoning the delay in filing the

accompanyingapplicationbeing CM No. 8746/2012(u/0 22 R 3r/w Sec. 151 CPC), is supportedwith the Death Certificateof theappellant, therefore, this appHcafion is allowed and delay iscondoned.

Application is disposed of

CM No. 8746/2012 (u/O 22 R 3 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

Notice.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates,

accept notice of tlie application on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2respectively.

It is stated in the application that there are no other legalheirs of deceased appellant except the ones mentioned in paragraphno.l of the application, which is accompanied by affidavit of thelegal heirs of the deceased appellant.

This application is allowed and the legal heirs of deceasedappellant, as mentioned in paragraph no.l of the application, aretaken on record.

Application is disposed of

LA.APP. 160/2012

The instant appeal relates to Village - Pochanpur,where vide Notificationof 13'^ December,2000, the land of theappellant stood acquired under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned order of 15'*^February, 2010, while upholding thecompensation amountawarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to the appellant, hasdenied any enhancement thereupon.

Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,learnedcounselfortherespondent No.l- UOI, states that the subject matter of this appealstands covered by the decision of this Court in LA.APP No.1195/2008 'Ranbir Sharma Vs. Union ofIndia & Am.'renderedon 6^^ January,2012, whereincompensationamount in respectoflandsacquiredin Village Pochanpurhasbeenenhanced to^16,50,000/-per acre for the Category 'A'lands andto^14,69,600/- per acre in respect of Category 'B' lands.

Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that the case of the

appellant 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 interest for theperiod of delay.

This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

GAUR)JUDGE

MAY 22, 2012

IN THE HIGH'COURTOF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Blese•ved on: November 18, 2011Pronounced on: January 06, 2012

(GRID-A)

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

.. Appellant Appellant

RANBIR SHARA4A.. Appellant AppellantThrough:Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.Amit Maar, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.vSmitaMaan, Mi.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, AdvocatesMr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates.Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.Mr.RaghiivinderGodara,AdvocateMr.M.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Raijtela,AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiiitray,Mr.M.Azam Ansari,Advocates.Mr.Pankaj Vivek, AdvocateMr.Rajesh 'Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khoslaand M-.Dhananjay Mehlawat, AdvocatesMr.H.S.Rautela,AdvocateMr.I.S.Dahiya, AdvocateMr.Sandeep Thaldiur, AdvocateMr.Atul Iripathi, Advocate.Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.&aiitela, (Advocates forrespondent in appeals filed by UOI)

versus

ilNlQ-N OF INDIA & ANR.Respondents

Through:Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdyocatewithMr.SanjayPathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav end Ms.Navlin SAvain,Ms.K.KaunuidiKiran, Advocates for LAC/UOIMr.AJay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.MukeshKumar, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Mr.Pavan Mathur,Mr.Kunal

Sharma. Advocate for DDA

[.A.APP.412/2.008& CM.No.4096/2008 (Cn^ss-Objections);LA.APP,452/2008;La.APP.453/2008;LA.APP.688/2008 &CM.No.5590/2010 (Cross-O'biections);l-A.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Obie:tions);LA.APP.701/2008&CM.No.510/2009(Cross-Objectionsj; LA.APP.VC8/2008;LA.APP.7'70/2008;

iA.A|)|3.No. liy5/2008 & connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalI^.App. No. 294/ZOlO& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwaian

!A.App. No. i:tl/?.010& connectedAppealsofVillaRePochanpur

Page 1 oi 29

LA.APP.771/2008 &CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections)'LA.APP772/9008rMNo^6n/9nT•(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.774/2008&<^Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008-LA.APP.782/2008 &CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Obiectionsv'CM No efsSVr LA.APP.798/2008&CM.No^615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008LA.APP.785/2008; &CM.No931/2009LA.APP.806/f008;LA,APP.813/2008&CM.NoJ795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/Jo08 &CMNo80S/2009LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008-LA,APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP832/2008' LA APP 8^3/9nos'I^.APR844/2008^;LA.APP.845/2008;'LA.APP.8:73/2008iCMNo779^LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008;.''"fo?LA.APP.892/2008&LA.APP.915/2008; CM.No.799/2009LA.APM?Sr& (Cross-ObiectionsVCM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP959/2008-A.APP.973/2008;LA.APP.974/2008& CM.No.5I9./2009(cJs-oXnsVLA.APP.975/2008;' LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 &CM.No;572/2009Cross-Objectio„s);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CMCAlNo.17340/2008' No 17340/2008VCross-Objections);LA.APP.1031/2008& CMNo ^7385/2008rPm.. ni; faLA.APP.1032/2008&CM.No.599/2009(Cross-OhX^r/rAPP1^^LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM Nn/S"46/2008,LA.APP.1049/2008&CM.No.420/20.^9(C^s^c^on^LA.APP.1051/2008&CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-oijdS)-LAAPP o'?POO.-'rc"LAlTpaosSs"'cm'n^^^^^^^^.j\j.iNo.jhjy/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.}109/'9008- 1A APt> Inn/'-^dns••• N^ 3ir009^fcr"°0?-''n1/2008;L^.A^'lllS^2ni, (Cross-Objectiom);LA.APP.1113/2008& CM.No3826/2009.•.APP.lfpf 12t)/2008;LA..«'P.1115/2008; LA.APP.1129/2008&LA.APP.11=16/2008; CMNo550'^009LA.APP.1ObiZfm^oS-rLA.APP.1137/2008..CMJ.„.17283/.008(C;;;^^^^^^(Cioss-Objections);LA.APP.1156/2008- LAoi •V' rLA.PP.1159/2008;..APP.lAPP1 Ko/onr^o.157/2008,LA.APP.LA.Arr.iLA.APP.lk51/2008'ta* r,T^ ii>«/20081158/2008&&LA/•_ C]\LNoC]\LNoP^^ 1 7774/^009.'/7774/^009lfi,'/9nnp .t,T^t'tnpCM.No.802/2009LA.APP.1170,/2008;LA.APP.1171/2008;LA.APP.(Cross-Obi4ctiiDns)'11^00:lALaIpp \PP S68/2008•:LA.APP.1175/2008;LA.APP.1178/2008;LA.APP.1L/^/JoOs'lIaPP 8 900 ^LA.APP.1182/2008; LA.APP.1183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009('Cro'^s-Ohipri^ -•LA.APP.1184/2008;LA.APP.1185/2008;LA.APP^l186/2008&CM.No.70]3S

iA,./w No. Tiys/MosaconnectedAppeal,,ofVillageBharthali.A.A.c.p.Mo. ?.y4/20:l0?.corinoctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan!.A.App.No. :n.i/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpuri.A.A.c.p.Mo. ?.y4/20:l0?.corinoctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan!.A.App.No. :n.i/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1190/2008;LA.APP n91/2008- LAAPPricnmotions); LA.APP.1200/2008; LA.APP.1200/2008;1200/2008;LA.APP.1202/2008;LA.APP.1203/2008; LA APP 12]0/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008;1211/2008;CMNo''6S9rctt1.r-'i"''r^;!/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008&LA.APP.1225/2008&1225/2008&?cm;LA.APP.1226/2008; LA APP 1241/2008^LA.APP.31/2009;LA.APP.33/2009; LA APP 3/2009;LA.APP.39/2009LA.APP.42/2009 &CM.No.746/2011 (Cross-ObiLA.APP.73/2009 &CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.59/2009ections); LA.APP.74/2009LA.APP.T^108/2009; LA.APP.LA.APP.95/2009109/2009; & LAAPP12lSo9-CM No 95.,'3/2011 (Cross-Objections)LA.APP. 135/2009LA.APP.I36/2009; LA.APP.137/2009 LA APP 3S-'LA.APP. 139/2009LA.APP.140/2009; LA.APP.143/2009! LA.APPlXo'-'LA.APP. 145/2009LA.APP. 191/2009.tiSiSSKsilsLA.APP.201/2009S"pp°2r,S(c^°oSCM.No. 7027/2009ik:HSLA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009-la. APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009-LA.APP.295/2009;LA. APP.3 05/2009LA.APP,459/2009; LA.APP.466/2009-LA.APP,447/2009;LA.APP.458/2009LA.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009'LA.APP.480/2009;LA.A.PP.48 1/2009LA.APP,494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009;LA.APP.491/2009;LA.APP.493/2009LA,APP.507/2009;LA.APP.503/2009;LA.APP.506/2009LA.APP.508/2009;LA.A.PP.572/2009;LA.APP.511/2009;LA.APP.512/2009;LA.APP.LA.APP.509/2009;513/2009;LA.APP.567/2009LA.APP.5 10/2009LA.APP.1177/2008;LA.APP.404/2010;LA.APP.l201/2008;LA.APP.LA.APP.15/2010;13/2011;LA.APP.LAAPR^^ISLA.APP111^/2008;.1,45/2010;LA.APP. 1176/2008LA.APP.48/2010

tions); LA.APP.1200/2008; LA.APP.1200/2008;1200/2008;0/2008;LA.APP.1211/2008;1211/2008;!/2008;LA.APP.1225/2008&LA.APP.1225/2008&1225/2008&

(Relatingto NotificationNo. F.10(30V96/L&B/I A/13417 dated 13.12.200026,.^002-2003dated23.10.2002,Land AcquisitionVillageBharthal, A.Det, 1894 &Award No.hi)

(GRJD-B)

Re^rved on: Deceinher 08. 2011Prgnounded on: .Tamjgrv06. 20/2

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

{:)EVENDERICU]\^R

Appellant

ihrough:

AppellantMr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh

i^^.Api) No. .11.93/2008St connectedAppealsof VillageBhartlialIA.App. |\Ja. 294/2010&ccnnectcdAppealsofVillageBijwasanlAApp. No. r:.l/2010St connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur

Page 3 of 29

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

dated13.12.2000Act,1894 &Award No.

ANDI

IA.npp, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 29,t/?,01C & connected Appeals of Village DIjwasan.lA.App. No.'.111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePoclianDur

Piige 4 of 29

(GRID-C)

Reservedon: DecemhP.r IR^ ?ni}Pronoh need on: January 06. 7017

LA.APP.111/2010(VILLAGEPOCHANPUR)

l.A.App.No. 1]95/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal

LA.App. No. 2.94/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan

I.A.App,No. 111/2010&connectedAppealscfVillagePochanpur

Page 5 of 2.0

(Relating to Notification No.F.10(30)96-1&B/LA/134.17dated13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 &Award No. 30/2002-2003dated09.12.2002,Yill^:•ge Pochanpur, Delhi)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER06.01.2012

1.Since-the grounds on which enhancementof the compensation issought by the appellants in these bunch ofappeals are identical,thereforewith the consentof learnedcounselfor the partiespresentatthe healing of these appeals, these bunch.of appeals pertaining toNotificationNo.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417datf 13.12.2000,relatingtogeographically contiguous Villages Bherthal, Bijwasan andPochanpurare beingdisposedofby this Gomnfbnorder.

2.Acquisitionprocessfor planneddevelopm:nt of 'Dwarka Phase-II' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance cf Notification of 13^"December, 2000 under Section4 of the Larid AcquisiionAct, 1894,pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land i1 onecompactblockcomprisingof thirteenRevenue Estates includinvillages in question.I.e.,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.-5.Agriculturalland of the appellantshereinin the aforesaidthreevillagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide:hree separateAwards,i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003: Award No.28/2002-2003;andAwardNO.30/2002--2003granting compensation@.82 lacs j^er acre for'• Block 'A' (level field - with top soil),and :@;?12.32lacs per acre forBlock'B'(withouttop soil).jI

4.Dissatisfiedwiththe assessmentofmarketValueI oftheir acquiredil-A.App. K!o. 1195/2008S. connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal!lA.App. No. 294/7.010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanI.A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur',pg

agricultural lands, appellants had sought refereice under Section18 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugnedjudgment had enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre for theappellants'acquiredland in Block 'A'and/„@?13.36 lacs per acre for"Atheir Block 'B'land in Villages Bhartha;l iind Bijwasan;whereas,referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave been dismissed,5.In these appeals, further enhancement ofcompensation sought bythe appellantsofVillagesBharthaland Bijw?^,sanis at the rate ofRupeesFiftylacs per acre, whereasappellantsofVillagePochanpurhave soughtcompensationat the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs3er acre by relying uponthe precedents in the shape of decisions i1 ExecutiveEngineer,Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag andOrs., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr.,(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. Sta'e ofHaryana and Am.,(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunihala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. SpecialTehsildar(LandAcquisition)& Ors., (2010)3see 661; Ranvir SinghandAnr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Pati!(D) through LRs vs. The SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer, Jalgaon,2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai lal vs. Union of "India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227;Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs Vs. iInion ofIndia<& Anr.,2002 (65) DR.T 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. Stateof Hary ana &Ors.,2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab S.Ors., 2011 (9)SCAI^E 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. St(Be rf Maharashtra,(2009)11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through'LRs and Ors vs. State ofHaryana &. Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C)No. 4143/2003-titled asSmt. Indu Khorana vs. Ckam Sabha & Ors,decided on 26.03.2010;Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MIC Rafiq Saheb, (2011)

/ see 714; ThakarsibhaiDevjibhaiand ors vs. ExecutiveEngineer,

IA.Ape No.:119.S/2008& connected Appeals of Village BharthalLA.App. No. 7.9'1/2010&. connected Appealsof VillageBijwasanlA.App. No. in/201.0&connected Appeals of VillagePochanpurLA.App. No. 7.9'1/2010&. connected Appealsof VillageBijwasanlA.App. No. in/201.0&connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur

Pane 7 of 29

Gujaratand Anr.,AIR 2001 SC 2424;,:'^iryanaStateIndustrialDevelopment Corporation, (2010) 11 SCC 175:Risal Singh iS Ors. Vs.Union ofIndia & Am., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB);Lai Chand vs. Unionof India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; Get'.eral Manager, Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd vs. Rameshbhai JivanbhaiPatel andAnr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and AnrSpecial Tehsildar(Land Acquisition) ami Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs.Allahabad Development Authority, (2004)10SCC745;MaheshDattatray Thirthkar ra. State of Maharashtna, AIR 2009 SC 2238;Kapil Mehra (Major General) &Ors. Vs. UMon of India&.Anr,176(2011)DLT 361; AV.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh ra.Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Am., decided on 24.04.2008;Prakash (dead)by LRs and Ors vs. Unionofintdia, (2004) 10 SCC 627;Satpal &Ors vs. Union of India, {1991) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP.No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on/..6.09.2011,LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram ys'. Union ofIndia, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia,2010 '(170) DLT371.

6.On the strengthof the.aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset, itwas urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguing counsel for the appellantsthat the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to befirst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must beadjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over periodoftime and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

7.It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellantsthatIDelhi-Rewari-Jodhpurbroad gage railway lini of Village Biijwasanpasses through the land of Village Bharthal,' di^/iding it into two parts,i.e., on the eastern side ofthe railwayline is theIGI Airport, Nev/ Delhi

i.A./'.pp.N;3. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthali.A.App. No. .7a4/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasaniA.App, No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpuri.A.App. No. .7a4/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasaniA.App, No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur

Page 8 of 29

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 agiculturallandintotwoportions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii)South Eastern side, where developedFami;Houses are located on theland of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Sainaout by Mr.S.K.Solanldlearnedcounsel for the appellants that northernpart ofthe land ofVillageBharthalwas first a(;quiredfor the extensionof IGI Airport in the year 1971 and ag^inin the year 1980 forestablishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafter''inthe year 1982 for BharatPetroleumand the lands ofVillageBharthalandVillage Pochanpur werealso acquiredin the year 1984 for developmqnlof Dwarka Phase-I andthe lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras werealso acquired for the development of Phas(;-II, Dwarka Sub-City.Attentionwas drawnto the aks ^zzra^/mapto'highlightthatthe boundaryof Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arecontiguous.8.It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maanlearned counsel for theappellants that the Reference Court has fa:led to appreciate thepotentialityof the acquired land in the lightDf its locationand hasillegally treated the acquired land to be a.gricultural in spite ofNotificationof 16"" October, 2000 vide whicli land use of tlie tlireevillages in question was changed ixom, agrimlturaltoresidential/•Icommercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireIknd ofVillageBharthalhad ceasedto be ruralin viewofthe Notificationof24^'' October,1994.9.It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learnedcounsel for the appellants that the aforesaid t\vo"^lotificationshave beenwrongly discarded by the Reference Court by•elying upon P. Rama

lA.App. No. 1135/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

l.A.App.No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

l.'\.App.fgo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Reddi& Ors. V5. LandAcquisitionOfficer,HyderabadS: Ors, (1995)2 see 305, which has been consideredthe Apex Court in its laterdecisionin Udho Dass vs. StateofHaryana % Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudgedkeeping in view the.developmentin the area ove* period of time andthe same cannot be limited to near future alone and if after theacquisition,if the authoritiesdo not put the landto any use, it wouldnotmean that there is no buildingpotentiality.10.Rehance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma,learned counsel for theappellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds ofVillagePochanpurto highlightthat the sale price reflected therein varied from. ?5:2 lacs to ?62 lacs andmerely because of the said variation, these saleexemplars cannot bethrown out as has been illegallydone by the .Refjrence Court, becausethere is no basis to conclude that these sale exeinplars are overvaluedbecause of any special advantagesand as per'sealed legal propositionlaid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu D'ssai V5. State of GoaandAnr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageof s,^Hesxemplars ought to betaken as representingthe marketprice of the lane which comes to ^57lacs acre and since the salerelied the per exemplarsLpon by appellantsIare the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by theReferenceCourt the minimumrates/circlerates fortheupon detenniningmarketvalueoftheland iserroneous. acquired patently11.Assessmentofmarket value oftheiland was acquired sought byMr.R.Godara,learnedcounselfor the appellantso:i the basis of the L&DO rates fixed the Government and also on the basis of by predeterminedrates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternateplots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the bcation,situationandpotentiality of the acquired land, determination of its marketvalueisl7\.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage BljwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpursought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Pochanpur andVillageSamalkhaor alternativelyon the basis ofthe L& DO rates ofthedeveloped lands in Dwarka Phase-I or onthebasisof thePre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)asreferredto abov6.-developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or onthebasisof thePre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)asreferredto abov6.-12.In the writtensynopsis,appellant ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimitedofLA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton thefollowing grounds;-'a) "ignores the achiowledgementon pe part of therespondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002being flawedinthecourseoftheofLA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton thefollowing grounds;-'a) "ignores the achiowledgementon pe part of therespondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003dated23.10.2002being flawedinthecourseoftheproceedings Civil Writ petition Mo.19012 of 2006.(Referred to in cross-examinationiofappellantdated'(Referred to in cross-examinationiofappellantdated'7.7.2007). Does not accountfor the fact that .b)the PublicNoticedated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedtherates of land inthe areafor more than 15 before years•ethe Notificationdated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedtherates of land inthe areafor more than 15 before years•ethe Notificationunder Section 5 of the LandAcquisftion Act, 1894 wasissued.issued.

c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapitalTerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laiddown variousdecisionsin one ofthe more byincluding,11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapitalTerritoryofDelhi is not in accordancewith the law laiddown variousdecisionsin one ofthe more byincluding,recent decisions oj the Hon'ble Supreme Court inSangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661.SangunthalaversusTahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661.

the evidence and otherfactors which asd) Ignores peresiablishedlaw has to be consideredbejoreascertainingthe valueofthe landunderacquisition.esiablishedlaw has to be consideredbejoreascertainingthe valueofthe landunderacquisition.

e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deedsproduced before the trial Court whereaas per the laM'establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeliCo:irt in the recentcase of Chinda Fakira Patil versusSpecialLandproduced before the trial Court whereaas per the laM'establishedby the Hon'bleSupremeliCo:irt in the recentcase of Chinda Fakira Patil versusSpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No'.5475 of2007. TheHon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that SaleDeedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be^ disregardedinHon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that SaleDeedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be^ disregardedin

III

LA.App. No. 1.195/2008&conncctedAppealsof VillageIJharthal

i-A.Aop.No. 294/2010&connccledAppealsofVillage Bijwasani/.-App.No. ,111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

case the average sale price is loyv$r.Further in AnjanaMolu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 20J0'IS) see 710, theSupreme Court has also held that'he highest of theexemplars and not by averagingofdifferent types ofsalestransactionsshouldbeqonsideredwhileadjudicatingupon compensationupona certan land.,

f) Reliedupon judgment dated3.3.2008inLACNo.-g?A/20.06to decide the market value ofthe subjectlandwhile igiwringthe materialwhich indicatethat themarketvalueofthe landis muchthan 15 lac higherperNo.-g?A/20.06to decide the market value ofthe subjectlandwhile igiwringthe materialwhich indicatethat themarketvalueofthe landis muchthan 15 lac higherperacre in BlockA and X13,36,000in BlockB in violationof the law laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourtincluding in Subh Ram vs. State of^Har)?ana 2010(1)of the law laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourtincluding in Subh Ram vs. State of^Har)?ana 2010(1)see 444. As the consequence, impugnedjudgment consequence, impugnedjudgmentrefused to return an actualfinding 6n the issue No 1framed on 27.2.2007.g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although videNotificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, theland use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal waschangedand these areas ceasedto bS agriculturalandcame now under the urban boundariksof Delhi State.The masterplan and Notifications:oj Governmentforland use change show that in future land can besubjected toresidential, comm.ercial andotherpermissibleuses. It is alsopertinent tomentionthat theappellantleadevidencein respectofth'• 74 ' amendmentof the Constitutionof India, w.ef^ 1.61993 IX A, byvirtue of which the Act was Municipal C&rporationNotificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, theland use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal waschangedand these areas ceasedto bS agriculturalandcame now under the urban boundariksof Delhi State.The masterplan and Notifications:oj Governmentforland use change show that in future land can besubjected toresidential, comm.ercial andotherpermissibleuses. It is alsopertinent tomentionthat theappellantleadevidencein respectofth'• 74 ' amendmentof the Constitutionof India, w.ef^ 1.61993 IX A, byvirtue of which the Act was Municipal C&rporationamendedand the area where the land is situated, M'asdeemeda municipalarea and the mun•cipal Counsellorwas electedfrom, there. No Panchayc'•t electionswereheld in the area.deemeda municipalarea and the mun•cipal Counsellorwas electedfrom, there. No Panchayc'•t electionswereheld in the area.

h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR SupremeCourt 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs Union ofIndiaand refusedto considerthefact that the developm.entinthe area has direct effect on the price that •willingCourt 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs Union ofIndiaand refusedto considerthefact that the developm.entinthe area has direct effect on the price that •willingpurchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

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

l7\.App.No. 1195/2008&connectfidAppealsofVillageBharthallA.App.No. 294/2.010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. Ul/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 12 of 29

auctionedsimilarlysituated land as .ommercialblocksat the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and conchidedthat thesaidlandis "whollyunderdevelopedIand.

j) The valuationofthe subjectland is. even lowerthan thepre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2for simdarly situated land.pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo 2for simdarly situated land.

k) Does not take into accountthe ppssiblit}? of change oflit}? of change ofthe use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquired forwas acquired fordevelopment purposes of DwarkaPhaseII.Itisreiteratedthat the land use of VillageDhool Siras andreiteratedthat the land use of VillageDhool Siras andBharthal was changed and these 'areas ceasedto beas ceasedto beagriculturaland came now under theurban boundariesurban boundariesofDelhi State.I) IgnoredNotificationsdated16.10.2000and 24 101994although they clearly establish thecommercialalthough they clearly establish thecommercial^LATaOimtsc'ril^^^"TahsildarMwhtlhch I J land is relevailtfacto.r Whilefor ,s acquiredpuposevalue of the propertya\Ld the factMwhtlhch I J land is relevailtfacto.r Whilefor ,s acquiredpuposevalue of the propertya\Ld the fact•jfor bulding tuiMn!purposes in immediate,or "usedin near futurein near futureneeds to be considered.'ands'andsoccupiedby thebuildings are to be treated as house s'au As aofthe landisconsidered resiaentiatasqartejsartpr^^^A^^^portionputting being upbeingput in. betteruse as housesitesin tht' near future.au As aofthe landisconsidered resiaentiatasqartejsartpr^^^A^^^portionputting being upbeingput in. betteruse as housesitesin tht' near future.13.Ill the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and othJrs of LA. App. No.347/2009,the factualdetailshave been provided*ithaprayerthat theappellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with theco-appellantsof theappellantsof this appeal be treatedat par with theco-appellantsof theotherappealsin thesebunchofappeals

J4.Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsaaVancedon behalfoftheappellants,it was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethatthe effectoflUa'"'A.App. m" No. 294/2010&^connectedAppealsofVillageVillageBijwasanBharthal'-A App. No. lH/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePcchanpur

Page 13 of 29

urbanizationofthe lands in thein Villages que3tion, i.e., the change inland use has been consideredin MaheshDattatrayThirthkarra. StateofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMeOrs. Vs. Union ofIndia &'Anr, 176(2011)JLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, Resei-vedAuction Rates ofdetemiinethe market value of the acquired':lands and infaot the saleinstancesrelied theai-eandto haveuponby appellants comparable oughtbeen relied the ReferenceCourt to asiiess the con-ect marlcet upon byvalue of the acquired lands. Thus, enliaticeinentof compensationreflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands issoughtin these appeals.

15.Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby theRespondents,Mr. SanjayPoddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-AofLand certified o AcquisitionAct, 1894,copyf the Sale Deed is anadmissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidencefor determinationof the market value unless and until tlie same isproperly comiectedwith the land-in question and element of specialfancy of tlie purchaserand otherfactorsnamely,lature, situation of theto theetc. are alsoproperty,proximity village required to be consideredand the sale instancesrelied thecorrectupon by Respondentsdisclosingmarket value of the acquiredlands have beeri;'illegallyrejectedby theReferenceCourtand whilereliancethe decisionsin JaiLaiplacinguponvs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DR.1 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. •.Unio t ofIndia andAm.,(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008titleflas Sushil Kumar vs.Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urg;d that sharp increase\n price in shortperiodcannotbe taken to be reaistic until reasons forSLich sharp uicrease are explainedby producingin evidencethe seller

LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthall-/\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasanW.App. No. 1.1.1/2010&connectedAppeal.';ofVillagePochanpiirl-/\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasanW.App. No. 1.1.1/2010&connectedAppeal.';ofVillagePochanpiir

.1^3ge 14 of 29

and the purchaser as no prudent person having loiowiedge of the usualprevalenttrend in the marketwouldpay such higherpay as reflectedinthe sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by theappellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contendedonbehalf of the cross-objector that adoptionof L&DOrates/PreDeterminedRates cannot be countenancedinview of the decisionofApex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by acoordinateBench ofthis Court in SushilKumar (supra)andRaj Singh(supra).16.So far as potentiality of the land is con;erned, it was urged byMr.Sanja^^ Poddar, learned senior counsel Ibrthe Respondents/cross-objectorsthat the same has alreadybeen fac'tor(jdinto, while fixing theminimumindicativeprice ofthe agriculturalland by the Governmentason 1'' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% perannum, market value of the acquired laridslias beenerroneouslydetermined by the Reference Court, as inSushil Kum.€ir (supra)appreciation@ 10% per annum has been granted.Thus, it is submittedthatthereis nofor furtherenhancementfrmn theof scope priceacquiredlands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollater and so, the impugnedjudgment deserves to be modified deleting tfce enhancementby theReferenceCourtwhiletakinginto consideration;h.e appreciation@ 12% annum and the same deservesto be in line whileper brought grantingappreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

17.After considering the rival subixiissidnsadvancedby both thesides and upon closeperusalofthe impugned|u(igmem,the evidenceonrecordand the*decisionscited,what emergesh that the true market valueoFthe comparableland is the pricepaid by willinpurchaser to v/illing

LA.App. No, 119S/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalU.Aop. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanIJV.App. No, .111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

seller and the best evidence is the comparabLe sale instances.While with theofvalue\ odealing questionpotentialf the acquired land, whathas to be considered in assessing the marlat value thereof, standsreiteratedby the Apex Court in Udho DmsState of HaryanaOrs., 2010(9)SCALE41 in thesewords

the situationofthelandv(i) acquiredis-a-vis the city oris-a-vis the city orthe town or village which had i?een growing in sizebecause of its commercial, imiusirial, educational,because of its commercial, imiusirial, educational,religiousor any otherlandofimportance or becauseofits explosivepopulation;ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii)the suitabilityofthe acquired'landforputting up theforputting up thebuildings, bethey residentikl,commercialorindustrial,as the casemay be;•industrial,as the casemay be;•(lii) possibilityofobtainingwater andoccupantsofbuildingsto beput up[electric]on that land;[supply][for]occupantsofbuildingsto beput up[electric]on that land;[supply][for]

absenceofor(iv)statutoryimpedimentsthe likefor usingthe likefor usingthe acquittedlandfor buildingpurpose;(V)existence- of highways, public rcads, layouts ofbuildingplots or developedresidenial extensionsinthe vicinityorcloseproximityoftheacqvdred land;buildingplots or developedresidenial extensionsinthe vicinityorcloseproximityoftheacqvdred land;(vi)benefits or advantages of educatio•v.mal institutions,mal institutions,health care centres, or the like inthe surrounding-the surrounding-areas of the acquired land which maybecomeavailableto the occupiersofbuildin'gs, if built on theacquired land; andavailableto the occupiersofbuildin'gs, if built on theacquired land; and

(vii) lands aroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredlandItself being in demandfor buildi)ig purposes, tospecify few. "Itself being in demandfor buildi)ig purposes, tospecify few. "

18.Theofland for theas alsoforpotentialitypurpose(ifdevelopmentbuildingpuiposesdependsupon largenumbercffactors.For tlie saidthe Court not have to bear in mind theforpurpose, may only purpose

lV\.App.Mo. ll9.'3/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal1LA.App. No. ;.94/;M10&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan!LA.App Nu. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpLir11

Page 16 of 29

which the lands were sought lo be acquired but also the subsequentevents to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court inAvinash(supra).Whilereiteratingthe relevant'actors for detemiinationofcompensationfor acquiredlands, it has beenheld by the Apex C.ourtin AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmall pieces ofland reliedupon by the appellantscouldnot be groundtodiscardthem especiallywhen exemplarsoflargepiecesoflandwere notavailable.19.Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby theApex Court in SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer<&. Am vs. M.K RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC714. The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsrelieduponon behalfof the appellantsis that where thereis no basic differenceeither in location, situation or potentialityof:he villages, which aresituated similar avasimilarlyhaving advantageliable to them even asregards future prospects, there is no justificjLtion for reducing thecompensationon the groundof distancebetweensimilarly situated landsand the acquired land.'20.It is a. well establishedpropositionof law that the burden ofpiovingthe true market value of the acquiredlaid is on the State whohas acquired the agriculturalland for particularpurpose. But, it isequally tme that the burden of proving inadequacyof compensationawarded is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of theApex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be refer•ed to with advantage,21.Apex Courtin Valliyammal(Supra),whiletaking note of the factthat the acquired land was situated in close /icinity of residentialcolonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., l^ad heldthat deductionof 40% towards development charges was imDroper. The pertinent.observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnpmiMolu Dessai (Supra)deserve attention, which are as under

lA.App |\io, 3195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillage BharthalIA.App, No. 294/20.10& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. .1.11/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 17 of 29

"The legal position is thai even wherethereare severalexemplarsMnth referenceto similarlands,usuallythehighest of the exemplars, which is bonafide transaction,will he considered.Where howeverthereare several salesofsimilar lands M>hoseprices range in rarrow bandwidth,the average thereof can be taken, asrepresenting themarket price. But where the values discijsed in respect oft\vo sales are markedly different, it 'gayonly lead to aninference that they are with reference to cHssimilar lands orthat the lower value sale is on accountof under-valuationor other price depressing reasons. Consequently averagingcannot he resorted to. "

22.It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching obsen^ationspertainingto detemiinationof fair market, rateDf acquired landsmadeby the Apex Court in ChindhaFakira Patil(Supra), which are asfollows

"Jt is well settled that genuine dndbona fidesaletransactionsin respect of the land underacquisitionor inits absence the bonafide sale transactionsproximate to thepointof acquisitionofthelandssituatedintheneighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similarvalue or utility takenplace between willing vendee andthe willing vendor which could be expected to reflect thetrue value, as agreed between reasonable prudent personsacting in the normal market conditions are the real basis todetermine the market value. "23.Principlesto detemiinethe market value of the acquired lands as

reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil and Naiurcl Gas CorporationLid.

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

"Primarily, the increase in land pricesidepends on fourfactors - situation of the land, natxire of developmentinsurroundingarea, availabilityofland/cjr developmentinthe area, and the demand for land in the area. In ruralareas unless there is any prospect of development in thevicinit).', increasein priceswouldbe slow,steadyandgradual, Mnthoutany suddenspurts orjumps.

IA,A|jp. Wo. J19S/2008 & connected AppeaLs of Village BliarthalLA.App. Mo. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasanLA.App. Mo. IJ1/2010 8i connected Appeals of VillagePochanpurLA.App. Mo. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasanLA.App. Mo. IJ1/2010 8i connected Appeals of VillagePochanpur

On the other hand, in urban or semi-urbayi 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 q j^uch higher rate, ascompared to rural areas. In somepockets in big cities, dueto rapid development and high demand forland, theescalationsin priceshave touchedeven 30% to 50% ormore per year, during the nineties. On the other extrem.e, inremote rural areas where there, was no chance of anydevelopmentand hardly any buyers,[the prices stagnatedforor roseatanominal^rateofF/o oryearsmarginally 2%)per .annum.There is thus significantdifference inincreases in market value of lands inurban/semi-urbanareas and increases in market value oflandsin the ruralareas.Thereforeif theincreaseinmarketvalueinurban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% tc 15%) per annum,the correspondingincreases in rural areas would at best beonly aroundhalfof it, that is about5% tc 7.5%oper annum.This rule of thumb refers to the gen&ral trend in thenineties, to be adopted in the absence ofclear and specificevidence to relating increase in prices.Wherethere arespecial reasons for applying higher rcte of increase,orany specific evidence relating to the actualincreaseinprices, then the increaseto be appliedwould depend upon.the same.

Normally, recourse is taken to the mo^le (f determining themarketvaluee. by providingappropriate•calationover theprovedmarketvalue ofnearby lands 'in/previous years (asevidencedby sale transactionsor acquisilion), where thereis no evidence ofany contemporaneoussale transactionsoracquisitions ofcomparable lands in thk neighbourhood.Thesaid method is reasonablysafe where ,'he relied-on-saletransactions/acquisitionsprecedes the. s\ ^ibject acquisitionby onlyafew years, that is uptofour tofiveyears'Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouringland. What be reliablestandardif maythe gap is only afew years, may become unsafe and un•reliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. For example]for determining themarket value of land acquired in 1992, adopting theannual increase method with reference to sale or

i.A.App. No, 1135/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthall.A.App. No, 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasanlA.App, No. 111/2010Si connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

acquisitionin 1970or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This isbecause, over the course ofyears, the rate' of annualincreasemay itselfundergo drasticchange apartfrom, thelikelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationinpricesorsuddenspurtsinpricesaffectingthe verystandardofincrease."

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

"W^endifferentcategoriesoflands (or lards with differentsituationalarefdr. thesameadvantages) acquiredpurpose, for of residential courts havesay forming layout,sometimes felt that determination of their value withreferenceto previousstatusor situationshouldbe avoidedanda uniform,rate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedforalllandsacquiredunderthe samenotifiiati:in. ''

25,Undjsputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and aroundacquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bywasan of the period inquestionare not availableand the solitarysale ey,emplar strongly reliedupon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpu]', i.e., the seven SaleDeedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beashad purchased the agricultural land in VillagePochEinpur at pricewhichvariedfrom ^52 lacs to ^62 lacsper acre.26.WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds(Ex.PW-l/4io Ex.PW^-1/10)whichare basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand ^adhaSwamiSatsang,Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasaring18 Bighasand 6Biswassitua.tedin VillagePochanpurreflectthg correctmarketvalue ofthe land in the villagesin questionis the mootq,uestionwhich is requiredto be answered. Evidently, aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deedsacquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bywasan of the period inquestionare not availableand the solitarysale ey,emplar strongly reliedupon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpu]', i.e., the seven SaleDeedsvide whichreligiousinstitution,i.e.,RadhaSwamiSatsang,Beashad purchased the agricultural land in VillagePochEinpur at pricewhichvariedfrom ^52 lacs to ^62 lacsper acre.26.WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds(Ex.PW-l/4io Ex.PW^-1/10)whichare basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand ^adhaSwamiSatsang,Beas in respectofthe compactblockoflandmeasaring18 Bighasand 6Biswassitua.tedin VillagePochanpurreflectthg correctmarketvalue ofthe land in the villagesin questionis the mootq,uestionwhich is requiredto be answered. Evidently, aforesaidsale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds

W.App. No 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanI.A.App. No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanI.A.App. No. ill/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 20 of 29

(Bx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetiiat it& price varies from ?52 lacsto ?62 lacs acre. the entire land of the sale per Meaning thereby,-exemplars Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10) did not commandthe same marketIt was thprice. dependentupone nature and situation ofthe aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish iheadvantagesattached toeach parcel of land of these sale exemplk-swith acquiredland inisthesesalecannotbe ti-eatedasquestion, lacking.Therefore,exemplarsdisclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquiredlands in question. Thespecial need of the purchaser of these agricuItural lands in VillagePochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex..?W-1/10) has not beenbrought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has notbeen got examinedby the appellants.Had the pm'chaser/vendeeof theaforesaidsale exemplai-sbeen got examined;then it could have beenelicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pa^ such ahigh price forthese lands. ITie special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Beas'whohadmore tharr 32Satsang, purchased.Bighas of land a,t anexoibitant price in VillageMamui-purvide skleDeed executed on 25"'March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App.No. 266/2008 titled asJai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on ;2l;8.201] and in LA. App.No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. UniL ^ India, decided on19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sal3 exemplar of VillageMainuipm-was discardedwhileholdingthatthe same camiotbe treatL'•as representativeprice for the acquiredlands.27.In the instantmatters, though the land useof the acquired landswas changedmuchpriorto theiracquisition,biif ithas come in evidencethat the acquiredlandswere beingused for agricul;ural purpose till theiracquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentthat the ,accuired lands were notdeveloped lands. No prudent person having Ibiowledge of prevailing•A.App. Mo. T195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal•AApp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

market price of the land in questionwould 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-l/lO) have been i'ightly discarded by theReferenceCourt.

28.So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samallcha (Ex.PW-1/11)relied upon by the appellants is concemed, disclcsing exorbitant price of^1,76,55,172.41per acre relating to Sale Deed cf 27"^ January,2000, itneeds to be noted that becausethis sale exem-plar (Ex.PW-]/]l)wassituated on the National Highway - 8 and becausevideSaleDeed(Bx.PW-1/11)vendorhadsoldnot only the laridbutthe structurethereonincludingtube well, boring,fitting,fixture,lane, by-lane, etc., therefore.it had fetched such high price. In view tViereof, this sale exemplarcannot be treated as representativeprice .forthe acquired lands inquestion.

29.Left with no sale exemplarsdisclosing.realisticprice ofsimilarlysituatedlands in the vicinity,now it is requiredto be consideredas towhetheradoptionofL& DO circularrates for the developedlands andPre-DeteraiinedRates for the alternateplots'bythe DDA ought to beIadopted to determinethe true market value of the acquired lands inquestion.i

30.Parametersgoverningfixationofmarketvalue of acquiredlandshighlightedby Apex Courtin its decisionreportedas P. Ram ReddyandOi's. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban DevelopmentAuthorityHyderabadand Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

"12. However, in eitherof the said cases ivhetherit be thedeterminationofthe marketvalueofthe acquired land withbuildingpotentialit)^with referenceto thevrice fetched bysale ofplots in welldevelopedlayoutmtl^e neighborhoodbuildingpotentialit)^with referenceto thevrice fetched bysale ofplots in welldevelopedlayoutmtl^e neighborhood

LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasanLA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan

l-A.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 22 of 29

or whetherit be the determinationofthe marketvalueoftheacquiredland with buildingpotentialityt, uyfwith reference tothepricefetchedbysaleofbuildingplotsn an undevelopedlayout ofbuildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomesinevitablefor the Court to find out whatuuLwnuLwill be the priceWILL oe me pricefetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layoutsreliedliedunnnh^}pon by any oftheparties,with refe/•,rence to the pricewhich thecouldhavefetchedifsoldun .ne uaie or meplotson the date of thepublicationof the preliminarynotific^ionunder Section() of the Act. Further,whereno evidenceofpricefetchedby the sales oftheplots in layoutsofbuildingplots in theneighborhoodof^the^ acquired lands be\omes available,then what couldbe done is tofind out thethe acquiredland with reference to the[market][ value][ of]relevant date ofpublicationunderSection4(1) ofthe LA Act, accordingtothe actualdCTlJ/^I77.^/^use to//^ which it-i4- wasputj and7 incneease its value bya small percentage having regard to the degree of itsbuildingpotentialityascertainedon the bas.is of evidence tohe made available in that regard. sinail percentageincrease to be given shall not exceed l/5tnh of oj me the market marketvaue of the landfound out its actual user according td,since resort to the method ofgiving inc)easedvalue forsuch hujlcbngpotentialityarises only when there is'noevidenceofsales ofbuildingplots in the neighborhoodofthe acquiredland indicatingthat there'wlsno immediatefor buildingplots e.&n fjormedIn the

In view of tlie difficultiesin adoptionofrate of land chargedby

31.the DDA afteracquiringthe agriculturallands,developingthe same, andtransferringperpetualleaseholdrights, the AjIjxCourt i,n Lai Chandheld that it is not safe or advisabletdi re(Supra),y upon the allotmentrates/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining themarket value of theadjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Followingthe dictum of LaiChand(Supra),a coordinateBench ofthis Courtin Jai Singh (Supra)and SushU Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua ftedevelopedlands as being not relevantfor assessingthe marketvalueof

lAApp. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal

".APP,29W010Sc.„„Mcd»pp3,|.o,VNI. "bS",:

- -App. No. 111/2010&connected/AppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 23 of 29

the undevelopedacquired lands. Thus, I find tlat the ReferenceCourthas rightly not adoptedthe DDA rates for allotment of developed land orthe DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing themarketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsir. question.

32.Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincreasemethodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe market value of theland in questionwhiletakinginto consideration;he earlier acquisition ofthe year 1984 in VillageBharthaland.othervillagesfor developmentofDwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be arguedby Mr.Sanjay Poddar,learnedseniorcounsel for the respondent/cross-)bjector that even if theescalationat the compoundedrate of 10% prsr aonum is taken from theyear 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for theperiod intervening theNotification for development of Dwarka Phase-IandtheinstantNotificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-ILstillthe pricefixed bythe Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than tliieforesaidescalatedpriceand therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court isunjustified.33.Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictum ofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautipniig the Courts to adoptprogressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of theacquiredland only when the gap is of 4-5 yearsmd beyond that it maybe unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouringland. What may be areliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew yetrs, may become unsafeand unreliablestandardwhere the is gap larger.[n the instant case, ,thegap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDv^'arljaPhase-Iand DwarkaPhase-IIis ofsixteenyearsandtherefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthemode of determining the market value byproviding appropriate

LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal •LA.App. No. 294/2010& connpxtedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurLA.App. No. 294/2010& connpxtedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 24 of 29

escalationoverthe marketvahieofthe nearbylandofthe previous3^ears.

34.Mr.SanjayPoddar,learnedseniorcounselfortherespondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court hasgranted escalation12% per annum, Wihich is unwarranted as acoordinatebench of this Court in Smhil Kumar (Supra), has grantedescalation @ 10% per annum. After havingDerusedthedecisioninSushilKumar (Supra), I fmd that 10% increase on account of higherpotentiality of the acquired land over and above the market valuedeterminedby the ReferenceCourt has been-'grmtedand so, by relying SushilKumar escalation the ReferenceCourtupon (Supra)grantedby 12% annum cannotbe reducedto 10% annum. In this view of@ per perthe matter,the cross-objectionsofthe responden';are dismissed.

35.Now what is to be seen is whether adciption of Government'sminimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi,by the ReferenceCourtIS reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe marb^t value of the acquiredland and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% pdr annum grantedby theReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimumprice for theagriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f 1'^April, 2000 till the date ofNotificationin the instant appeals deservestobe furtherincreasedornot.•36.Adoption of Government's minimum ra:es of agriculturallandpertaining to the Notificationin question |iasbeen assailed by thelearned counsel for appellantsbecausethe. aCqured land had ceased tobe an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificatiorof 24"^ October, 1994declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to beurban.It is tru'ethatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe 1994the land yearuse ofthe acquiredlandhad changedbutthatby itselfis not sufficienttol-A.App, No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalU.App. Mo, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan17\.App.Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurU.App. Mo, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan17\.App.Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 25 of 29

that the lands had forpresume acquired gainec. potentiahty beingconsideredas developedlands. The evidence?led is lackingon the vitalaspectofthere being any developmentin anil a-oundthe acquiredlandsin question. Not only this, even the sale exeraplarsof Radha SwamiBeasrelied theSatsang,heavilyupon by appellnts disclose that the saleofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.:37.Rather, it emerges from the evidenceon recordthattilltheissuanceof Notificationunder Section4of the Land AcquisitionAct,1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultu:al use. Had there beenincreasein pricedue to higherdemand,on accolintofpotentialityoftheacquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, thenappellantscould have laid their hands on other sale instancesin the areain question.But, indeedappellantscannot.relyupon the sale of the landin VillagePochanpurto religiousinstitutionand anothersale instanceof Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11)without leading any evidencetoestablishthat-thequalityand potentialityofthe sale exemplarsofRadhaSwami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur''ani the sale exemplar ofVillageSamallcha(Ex.PW-1/11)are comparaylewith the acquired landsand so the contiguityof the acquired land wih the sale instanceof.Village Samallcha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be ti-eated to be sufficientground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaidsale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-Apex Court in Haryana State IndustrialDevzlopmentCorporation(HSIDC)(Supra),uniformrate ofcompensation(Reservesto be awardedfor the lands acquired under the same Notificaton in the light of theminimum price fixed by the Governmentfor tlle agriculturalland inDelhi, which -generally factors in the rise ofprice due to higherpotentiality.Taking note ofthe fact that there is gap between whatIA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthalLA.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasanLA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

Page 26 of 29

would be expectedto be the market growthand what the market hadactuallygrown, Government'sminimumagricutural price has been heldto be reasonable basis for assessingthe mark•t value of the acquiredlands in JaiSingh(Supra)as well as in Suskil^i'umar (Supra) and I findno reason to take different view than the onevhich had been taken bycoordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh(Supra)andSushilKumar(Supra).

38.This Court is of the considered view tha'the ReferenceCourt inthe matters pertainingto Village Bharthal^anii Village Bijwasan has relied the Government'sminimum forrightly upon price agriculturallands in Delhi to fix the marketvalue ofthe:^accuiredlands in question.Findingofthe ReferenceCourtinmatterofVilkge BharthalandVillageBijwasan,ofthere beingno evidencethat the potentialand the situationof the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borne out from theevidenceon record.ButIfindthatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityoftheacquiredlands beingin closevicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil andBharatPetroleumDepots a,nd of Railway line fassing through VillageBharthal and there being 100 meters vide,road starting from Nli-8from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City,PartIand PartII, dividingtheacquired lands in two portions, and there beinFarm Housesin thevicinityof the acquiredlands has somehowmisjled the attention of theReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinionof th;s Court, on account ofafoiesaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainlyassumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-LWhatpersuadesthis Courtto grant 10% increaseover and abovemarketvalue of the acquired lands as assessed by'th(: Reference Court onaccount of the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is theLA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthallv\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlV\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpurlv\.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanlV\.App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

settled legal position aptly highlightedby the Apext Court inNamherwan Khan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in thesewords:

"When once conclusion is reache&thatthere was thepossibilityofthe acquiredland bein^'\uszdfor putting upin the immediateor nearfuturebuildingssuch conclusionwould be sufficientto hold that the acq\lired land had abuildingpotentialityand proceed to determine„„its marketvalue takinginto accountthe increasetinprice attributableto such buildingpotentiality. "'

39.Consideringthe fact that it would be yer^^ difficultto provide adefinite value qua potential, and in view of thefact that exactnesscannever be achieved in the matters of: assessingBir compensation, it isbroadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuades me to treat themwith equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimumprices for the agriculturallands for computingtle fair market value ofthe acquiredlands as there are no special featurjs to treat the acquiredlands differentlyand so, appellantsofVillagePDchanpur are treated atpar with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants ofVillage Bharthal andVillage Bijwasan.However, while relying uponthe decisionin SushilKumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% iricrease over and above themaiketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdetermined'bythe Reference Court inthese matters on account of the aforesaidlocational advantagespiovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.definite value qua potential, and in view of thefact that exactnesscannever be achieved in the matters of: assessingBir compensation, it isbroadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases,whichpersuades me to treat themwith equivalenceby uniformly applying the Government'sminimumprices for the agriculturallands for computingtle fair market value ofthe acquiredlands as there are no special featurjs to treat the acquiredlands differentlyand so, appellantsofVillagePDchanpur are treated atpar with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants ofVillage Bharthal andVillage Bijwasan.However, while relying uponthe decisionin SushilKumar (Supra),I am inclinedto grant 10% iricrease over and above themaiketvalueofthe acquiredlandsdetermined'bythe Reference Court inthese matters on account of the aforesaidlocational advantagespiovidingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlandsin question.

40.Accordingly,these appeals are partly allowedto the extentofawarding10% increaseover and abovethe markevalue assessed by theReference Court in matters pertainingto VillageBharthal and VillageBijwasan.Whiletreatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpur at par withthe appellantsofVillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan, the appeals of

W.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal "LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanLA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan

l.A,App.No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur

the appellants of Village Pochanpur are alscallowedto theextentindicated above. Thus, the market value of theacquiredlands of theseithree villagesin.questionis determined@?16,f0,000/-per^i^iglj^fortheCategory 'A' land and @^14,69,600/-per 1^ta for the Category 'B'lands in question.-v|\

41.On the aforesaidenhancementin thecompensationawarded,benefitsas the LandAstatutory per Acquisition-ct, 1894 as explained inthe judgmentreported in Sundervs. UOl 2)01(93) DLT 569 aregranted, except for the period where there is dslay in filing the appeal,for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshallbe paid. Theseappellantswouldbe entitledtq'proportionatecosts.42.The above captionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedofin the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registryto remit thecompensationamount,ifany, depositedby eitherside withthe RegistrarCjeneralof this Court, to the concernedReferen;e Court. Decree sheetsbe accordinglyprepared.

January 06, 2012pkb

JUDGEV. ^^T:p

l7\.App.No..X195/2008& connected Appeals of VillageBharthaliy\.App.No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasanI.A.App.No. 111/2010 & connected Appealsof VillagePochanpur

Page 29 of 29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW BELHI+LA. APP. 1195/2008RANBIRSHARMAAppellantThrough.Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mr.JaiPrakash,Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.SiVe:•ma, Mr.JitinTewathia, AdvocatesMs.Anita Tomar, Advocate.Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,'AdvocateMr.N.S.Negiand A^.H.S.;Rautela,AdvocateMr.S.K.Rout,Mr.B.K.Routray,Advocates.Mr.N.S.NegiandMr.H.S:,RaLtela,(Advocatesforrespondentin appealsfiledby UOI)Mr.Sudhanshutomar, Adv9cateforMr.R.S.Tomar.Mr.B.D. Sharma,Mr.S.K.So]anki andMr.S.K.Rout, Advocates

versus

UNIONOFINDIA& ANR.•••• RespondentsThrough:Mr.SaiyayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate withMr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav andMs.NavlinSwain,Ms.K.Kauinudi Kiran,Advocates for LAC/UOIMr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. AmitaSingh,Mr.BanlceyBihariShanna^Mr.Kunal Sharma andMr.SomerK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA.CORAM:'HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR •

ORBER12«01„2012

CMvAbbLNo. 752/2012fFarIhis IS an applicationfor seekingtypographicalcorrectioninOrderof6^'' January,2012.Counsel appearingfor the appellantshaveaccepted the noticeLA.App.No.1195/2008Page 1

f|-•/•••.

ofthe application.Advancecopyofthis apphcitionhas alreadybeengivento remainingcounselfor the appellants.The typographicaleiTor pointed out bythe respondent in thedecision of 6'" 2012 is that in January, par;graph no: 40 of theaforesaidjudgmenttlie rate ofcompensationaJsessedis 'per bigha',whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is notdisputed by learnedcounselappearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationisallowedand it is orderedthatthereferenceto 'plrbigha'in pa.-agraphno: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008be read as 'per acre'. Necessarycorrectionsbe carriedout forthwith.

In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof

JANUARY12,2012pkb