Dariyio Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

5. In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Anr., (2010) l 3 SCC 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State ofHaryana and Anr., (20 10) 1 SCC 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon,

2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai La/ vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227: Rama 1Vand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DR.J 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALE 362: A11inash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of JV/aharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Har..vana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. lndu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special LantfAcquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb~ (2011) 7 SCC 714; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, 111 llpp No. 11%/2008 & connected Appeal~ of Village Bharthal I A ''·PD· No. <94/2010 & connectt!d Appeals of VillagP Bijwa~an I/\ App No. 11112010 & connHctl!d AppE'als of Village Pochar.pur Gu]arat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Har.vana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 sec 175; Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); La/ Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SeC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., AIR 2011 Se 2937; Kiran TandQn vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SeC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 se 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007 titled as Sural Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 sec 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi/ Kumar vs. Union of India, decided on 26.09.2011; ·LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011; and Bhule Ram vs. Union oflndia, 2010 (170) DLT 371.

6. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions. at the very outset, it \Vas urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to the near future alone.

7. lt was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, counsel for appellants that Delhi-Rewari-Jodhpur broad gage railway line of Village Biijwasan passes throug11 the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, i.e., on the eastern side of the railway line is the IGI Airport, New Delhi •;, l'.pp. No. ll 95/2008 & conrwctcd Appeal~ of Village Bharthal.,\ 1\p;>. No.?:'14/2010 & connew•d Appe<~ls of Village Bijwasan t /u\pp. No. 111/2010 & connPctPd Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 8 ot 29 and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub- City Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solan~i learned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were also acquired in the year 1984 for developme.nt of Dwarka Phase-1 and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamnoli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizraslmap to highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

8. It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Comi has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notification of 161 h October, 2000 vide which land use of the three v!ll~ges in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industriaL etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in view of the Notification of 24th October, 1994.

9. It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid two Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama I'' 1\po No 1195/2008 & tonn<>cted Appeals of Village Bharthal '.\;\p;; No. 2<M/2010 & con'1ected Appeal<; of Village Bijwasan • '1\flp. No. 111/ WlO & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur @--® I.,.!,. --- ~£ Reddi & Ors. l'S. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Das.[5] vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, ifthe authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

10. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Shanna, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to ~57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplars relied upon hy the appellants arc the comparable sale instances, therefore, rei iance placed by the Reference Court upon the minimum rates/circle rates for determining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous. I I. Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates tixed by the Government and also on the basis of predetermined rates tixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in view the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is t r, ·lpr; l'w. 11%/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal: I 'lpp. No. )9t,f7010 & connect<>d Appeals of VillJgP Bijwas~n LA.1\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur P~ge 10 of 29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates ofthe developed 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 Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.2612002-2003 dated 23.10.2002 being flawed in the course ql the proceedings Civil Writ petition No. 1901[2] of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of appellant dated

7. 7.2007) b) Does not account for the fact that the Public Notice dated 18. 9. 1987 adversely affected the rates qf'land in the area for more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis (?f the letter dated I 1. 9.2001 issued by the Government ofNational Capital Territory qfDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions including in one of the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala versus Tahsildar. 2010(3) SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per established law has to be considered before ascertaining the value ofthe land under acquisition. e) Does not deal with disparity in value q( the Sale Deed'i produced before the trial Court whereas as per the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Col!rt in 1he recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land Acquisition Qfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 ~f 2007 The Hon'hle Supreme Court has spec{fically held that Sale Deed showing higher rate should not be disregarded in '.·1 llpp l~o. J 1'15/2008 & co:1nected Appeals of V1llage Bharthal ':, !lop "Jo. 294/7010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan i fu\;>p No. 111/2010 & conni!Cted Appeals of Village Pochanpur Pdge 11 of 29 case the average sale price is lower. Further in Aniana l\1olu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710. the Supreme Court has also held that the highest qf the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land. f) Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No. 97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value ofthe land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ~13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment refused to return an actual.finding on the iSSlfe No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to he agricultural and came novv under the urban boundaries qf Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Government for land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in respect ofthe 741 h amendment of the Constitution of India, w.ef 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, was deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected from there. No Panchayar elections were held in the area. h) Refused to app~y the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union qf"Jndia and refused to consider the fact that the development in the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing purchaser would pay.fc)r the su~ject land i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also 1/\.App. No. 119!;/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 1/\ App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan 1/\./lpp No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate (~{about ~2.[6] /akh and concluded that the said land is whol~v underdeveloped land j) The valuation ofthe subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land. k) Does not take into account the possibility of change of the use qlthe land although the land was acquired.for development purposes of Dwarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State. I) Ignored Not(fications dated /6.10.2000 and 24. 10./994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality qfthe said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar (LA), (2010) 3 SCC 661 it was held that the purpose.for which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value qf the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to be used for building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. m) The presence of a number qf buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The land'i were acquired for purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion ofthe land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the nearfuture. "

13. In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. NO. 347/2009, the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par -with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals. 14.. Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of 11\ 1\pp. No. 11%;2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 11\.App. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan •;, flpp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur urbanization of the lands in the Villagc·s in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of lWaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Or."•· V..'t·. Union of India & Anr, 176(20 II) DL r 361 and that Pre- Dctermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value of the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought 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 of IAmd lkquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence for determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference 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)

II SCC 423; La/ Chand t'S. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi/ Kumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 26.09.2011, it was urged that sharp increase in price in a short period cannot be taken to be realistic until reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller c,\.1\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connectP.d Appeals of Village Bharthal 11\.1\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan 1.~.1\pp No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre- Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex 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. So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/crossobjectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on I st April, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushi/ Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the Reference Court while taking into consideration the appreciation@ 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation (j_z) 10% per annum and thereby allowing the crossobjections to the aforesaid extent.

17. After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugned judgment, the evidence on record and the·decisions cited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparable land is the price paid by willing purchaser to a willing Ll\ 1\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal II\ 1\op No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan Ill 1\pp. No. i 11/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 15 of zg •• seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 201 0(9) SCAl_,E 41 in these words:- "(z) the situation ofthe acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because ~(its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind ofimportance or because ofits explosive population;

(ii) the suitability ofthe acquired landfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(iii) possibility r?f obtaining water and electric supply for occupants ofbuildings to be put up on that 1and;

(iv) absence C?.fstatutory impediments or the like for using the acquired landfor buildingpurpose:

(v) existence ~( highways, public roads, layouts of building plots· or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity ofthe acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas ~( the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers ofbuildings. {(built on the acquired land: and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itse(l being in demand for building purposes, to spec(fj,· a few. "

18. The potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for- I1\ /\piJ. 1\Jo. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal i /\:,pp No. )94/2010 & connected App!'als of Village Bijwasan 11\ ·\ilr No. lll/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra) that the exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available. i 9. Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (20 II) 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 difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which are • similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

20. It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to with advantage.

21. Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Anjani Molu De.ftsai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- 1 A./1pp t~o. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal: fl flrp 1\Jo 1.94/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan;:\.flpp r~o. ll 1/2010 & tonnected Appeals of Village Pochanpur.If"~. ~~~~~1.. "The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest ofthe exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly d({ferent, it can only lead to an inference that they are with r~ference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account qf under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequent~v averaging cannot he resorted to. "

22. It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as follows:- "/! is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point qf acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value. as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value."

23. Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and IVatura/ Gas Cmporation Ltd. (ONGC) (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily. the increase in land prices depend(i on four factors - situation qf the land. nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land.fiJr development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity: increase in prices would be slow. steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts orjumps. 11\,\pp. Nc; J19~/2008 & lOnnected Appeals of Village Bharthal i '1.1\pp. llio. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan I i\.flpp 'Jo. 111/2010 & connE>cted Appeals of Village Pochanpur ~~ On the other hand in urban or semi-urban areas, where the - ' development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as. compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of I% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant dtflerence in increases in market value of lands in urbant~'lerni-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Ther~fore (f the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about I 0% to 15% per ~mnum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around halfofit, that is about 5% to 7. 5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties. to be adopted in the absence ofclear and spec(fic evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any !)pecific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode ofdetermining the market value hy providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in. previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence ofany contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions ofcomparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ?f it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard {f' the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market· value of a land acquired in 1992. adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or i /\.1\!Jp No. ! 195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal:A,\rn. No /94/2010 & conn<>CI!!d Appeals of Village Bijwasan I'· ·'PJ: No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village PochanpUI acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood ofoccurrence ofvarying periods ofstagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard ofincrease. "

24. This Court is mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods. What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- 25. "When d!fferent categories oflands (or lands with different situational advantages) are acquiredfor the same purpose, say fbr forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a un(form rate ofcompensation should he awardedfor all lands acquired under the same notification. " Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars m and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not available and the solitary sale exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land in Villag~ Pochanpur at a price e \Vhich varied from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs per acre.

26. Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/1 0) which are 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 situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the correct market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question which is required t.o be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds 11\.·\pp. Nu 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal ! 1\.,\pp No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan 'r,;q>p No. 111/'-010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur -- (Ex.PW-114 to Ex.PW-1110) indicate that its price varies from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars-- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1110) did not command the saine market price. It was dependent upon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land m question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1110) has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendee of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaser/vendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these 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 251 h March, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as.Jai Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 23.8.201 I 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 Village e Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same caruiot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands.

27. In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come in evidence that the acquired lands were being used for agricultural purpose till their acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge <)f prevailing 't, 1\pp No ·: 195/2008 & connected Appeals ot 'Jillage Bharthal: AApp. No 294/2010 & connectc,d Appeals of Village Bijwasan • •\ /lpiJ. '~" 11 J 11010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur PagP. 21 of 29 market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (l:x.P'N-1/4 to Ex.PW-1110) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

28. So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1111) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ~1,76,55,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of2i11 January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1 /11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1 I 11) vendor had sold not only the land but the strueture thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

29 Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question. e 30. Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in its dee~sion reported asP. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-.. /2. However. in either ofthe said cases vvhether it be the determination ofthe market value ofthe acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched by sale qf'plots in a well developed layout in tne neighborhood 1/\.,\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connect1•d Appeals of Village Bharthal:_/\.1\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan 1/\./\pp No lll/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page zz of 29

31. or whether it be the determination (?lthe market value qfthe acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price.fetched by sale qfbuildinr;.; plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becomes ine1/itable for the Court to find out what will- be the price fetched or to be fetched by the sales ofplots in the layouts, relied upon by any ofthe parties, ·with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched ifsold on the date ofthe publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further, where no evidence ofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to.find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it was put and increase its value by a small percentage having regard to the degree qf its building potentiality ascertained on the basis ofevidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 1!5th (?(the market value q( the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence ~f sales of building plots in the neighborhood qf the acquired land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for building plots even ifformed in the acquired land. " In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the DDA alter acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights. the Apex Court in Lal Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Fo1lowing the dictum of Lal Chand (Supra). a 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 I1\.1\pp. No. l 19',/2001! & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 1·\./\op. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan /.11.1\pp. No 111/?010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Pag~> B of 29 the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA 's Pre-Determined Rates for alternate allotments for fixing the market value ofthe acquired agricultural lands in question.

32. Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-1. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalation at the compounded rate of 1Oo/o per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phasc-J and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-II, still the prke fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

33. Aforesaid argument does not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in La/ Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may he unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notitications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase·-1 and Dwarka Phase-II is of 8ixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafe to adopt the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate l/\.1\pp. No. 1195/2008 & conncc.ted Appeals of Village Bharthal lA./\pp No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan ! 1\./\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur escalation over the market value ofthe nearby land ofthe previous years.

34. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned semor counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 1Oo/o per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra), I find that 1Oo/o increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi/ Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court (g) 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 10% per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections ofthe respondent are dismissed.

35. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural land in Delhi, by the Reference Court is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of fixation of the minimum price for the agricultural land by the Government w.e.f. 1st April, 2009 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

36. Adoption of Gove~nment's mtmmum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by virtue of Notification of 24th October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is true that vide aforesaid Notification of the year 1994 the land use ofthe acquired land had changed but that by itself is not sufficient to 111./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 111./\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IA/\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence Jed is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon by the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

37. Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agricultural use. Had there been increase in price due to higher demand, on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year.1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on other sale instances in the area in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and another sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1111) without leading any evidence to establish that.the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1111) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensation while relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referred dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra), uniform rate of compensation deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of the minimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land in Delhi, which ·generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what ill 1\pp. No 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal L/\.1\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan Ll\.1\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ~ would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actl:lally grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been held to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in.fai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi/ Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate 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 in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference Court in matter ofVillage Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village I Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to Dwarka Sub-City, Part I and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference Court. In the considered opinion of this Court. on account of aforesaid locational advantages, the acquired lands in question, certainly assume higher building potentiality being in vicinity of Dwarka Phase-I. What persuades this Court to grant 10% increase over and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquired lands is the 111./\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.llpp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan 111.1\pn. No. 111/2010 & ·connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur Page 27 of29 Y) settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such buildingpotentiality. "

39. Cons"idering 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 ofthe instant cases, which persuades me to treat them • with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-parts, i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. 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 in these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the acquired lands in question.

40. Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters pertaining to Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants of Village Pochanpur at par with the appellants ~of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan, the appeals of l/1.1\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal lA./\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan 111.1\pp. No. 111/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur ·---.--~.••... the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these ~ three villages in question is determined@ tl[6],50,000/- per~ for the ~ r - Jf--'~\l Category 'A' land and@ ~14,69,600/- per ~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 in the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period ofdelay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

42. The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared..January 06, 2012 pkb 11\.1\pp. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of VIllage Bharthal: -~ 1\pp. No. i.'l4/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan Itu\pp. No. lll/7010 & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur l, c___ --,/·(SUNIL GAUR).JUDGE -·- P'Qe!!.h ¢:.«) /-.JD' ~~~J'"}, PoJ.. t.o"'("r~ -~t!'J"-1 ·.-- * IN THE· HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -l- LA.APP. 1195/2008 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 Ms_Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr_N.S.Negi and Ivlr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar.

VERSUS

Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates UNION OF JNDIA & ANR...... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LACIUOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharma and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 12.01.2012 C.M. AQpl. No. 752/2012 (For correction). I I This is an application for seeking typographical correction in Order of 6th January, 2012. Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice LA.App.No. 1195/2008 Page 1,. • of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been givei[1] to remaining counsel for the appellants. The typographical error pointed out by the respondent in the decision of 6th January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly. this application is allowed and it is ordered that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In view ofthe aforesaid, this application stands disposed of.

JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb LA.App.No. 1195/2008 -------=- ~MLG-:wR) JUDGE ~ ~"' I.J7'1..Jjt~ (f,.-~/..;.,,;. ~-lr t:tr. 6 -1.1. -1~) Page 2 $~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 1061/2008 DARIYIO SINGH & ANR. Through: Mr.Rohtas, Advocate.

VERSUS

JUSTICE V.K. SHALl ORDER % 03.12.2013 C.M. No.13793/2013

1. This is an application seeking correction in the order dated 06.12.2012.

2. I have heard the LRs of appellant no.2 (since deceased).

3. The learned counsel for the respondent is response to the advance copy having been sent. He has chosen not to file any reply.

4. By virtue of the instant application, the LRs of appellant no.2 seek correction in the order dated 06.12.2012 by virtue of which CM No.5059/2011 was allowed. The aforesaid CM was allowed for • S[1] bringing the LRs of appellant no.2 on record. The LRs which were reflected in the application were: i) Shri Krishan, ii) Rajender Singh, iii) Satbir Singh, iv) Omprakash and v) Rakesh Kumar. All these LRs were intended to be substituted in place of appellant no.2. However, the order dated 06.12.2012 gives an impression as if the appellant no.2 was Shri Krishan. The order dated 06.12.2012 accordingly stands corrected and the aforesaid order in place of para 3 shall read as under: "In the absence of any opposition, both the applications are allowed. LRs of deceased appellant No.2/Subey Singh are brought on record except Satbir Singh whose name is also shown in the application as LRs of appellant No.2/Subey Singh. Satbir Singh is not impleaded as LR of appellant No.2/Subey Singh on account of the fact he had died before passing of the order dated 06.12.2012." Accordingly, the application stands allowed. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. ~· V.K. SHALl, J DECEMBER 03, 2013.sR.