UOI v. CM Prakash Decd Thr Lrs & Anr

1. 'Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? •

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. 1.

1. ^Vide three awards as afore-noted pronounced pursuant to three notifications issued, under Section' 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on 23.12.1994,,28.4.1995 'and 27.10.1999, agricultural lands in village Shahbad Daulatpur were acquired for.development of RohinI Phase-IV. It may behighlighted that lands for the colony RohinI were first acquired in the year 1961 and from time to tinie acquisitions were made as and when.Rohini Phase-!, Rohini Phase-il and RohinI Phase- •111 were developed and colonized. The effect of what I have highlighted Is that 'by the time subject acquisitions, wereeffected; the surrounding lands had not only been acquired but had been fully developed and largely-colonized and'thus the subject lands, had acquired a building potentiality."

2. When'judgfnent was reserved in the ihstant appeals on 19.8.2011, arguments were advanced and' decision 'was reserved in Appeals pertaining to acquisition of land in the adjoining village Rithala..Agricultural lands of said village LA.App.No.358/2007.& connected matters' Page 2 of10. Rithala were'also • acquired for" the expansion-of the Rohini Residential Scheme'pursuanf-to'a notification dated 21.7.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

3. Arguments "advanced in the instant appeals were the same as-were advanced in the appeals pertaining to village Rithala and thus; since 1 have dealt with.the arguments while ' pronouncing decision today in the appeals pertaining to village Rithala, I need not re-pen the arguments and my reasons dealing with the same.

4. Suffice "would it be to state thatamongst other arguments, one argument.advanced was.with respect tosubject lands having acquired a building potentiality. This < •. ' • ' ' • •; V' 9^^ of the many arguments advanced in the appeals pertaining to village Rithala.

5. I had rejected all arguments save and except the one qua building potentiality, and-for which reasons could be gathered from the decision pronounced. today pertaining to village Rithala and the lead matter is LA.AP'P.No.656/2008 Sushif Kumar vs. UOl & Ors. The' same may be treated a^ incorporated by reference in the present decision.

6. With reference to the decision of the: Supreme Court reported as 1995 (2) SCC 305 -P.Ram Reddv & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority &. Ors.. on the. principle of subject lands having -acquired a building potentiality, but there being no reliable evidence to. translate the potentiality into a money value, as held in the • decision in P.Ram Reddv'scase isupri). on the basis of market value determined as per actual 'user I.have, to give effect to "building potentiality acquired, enhanced "the price by 10% and LA.App;No.358/2007 & connected matters } on said basis, •pertaining to the notifiGation.dated 21.7.1993 have determined f^ir market value of la.nd in village Rithala as of said date to be ^1,53,000/- per bigha and would highlight that the said sum was arrived at on the basis that as per actual user fair market value on said date would be ?1;39,026.40 per bigha.

7. Giving same benefif to the subject lands and with reference to the fact that as of 21.7.1993, factoring in the benefit of building" potentiality, for adjoining village Rithala-1 have determined fair market value at ^1,53,000A; taking the said price.and the said date as the base indices, pertaining to the notifications dated 23.12.1994 and 28.4.1995, increasing ^ the land price by 10% per annum, I- determine the fair market value to be n,69,515.61. per bigha i.e. ^8,13,674.92 per acre, rounded off to ?8,13,675/- per acre aS of 23.12.1994 and ?1,83,390.41 per bigha or^8,80,273.96 per acre' rounded off to f[8],80,-275/- per acre.

8. • Appeals by the land owners pertaining to the..said two notifications are partially allowed. by increasing the compensation payable as above. '

9. Pertajning to the notification dated 2.10.1999, ft needs to be highlighted that the learned Additional District Judge has'. determiined fair market value at ^12,96,455.89 per acre on the strength of the minimum price notified by the Government for ^ agricultural lands as of 1.4.1999..

10. if Iwere to adopt the land price at ^1,5^000/- per bigha as.of 21.7.1993 and increase the "same by 10% per annum, as 1 • have done for the previous two notifications, the land price would come to ^11,89,728/- per acre, which would be less than LA.App.No.358/2007 &connected matters • -Page 4Of10 T the minimum price notified.by the'Goyernment with effect from 1.4.1999. ' •,

11. 1 do-not do so for the reason, in my judgment delivered • on-'23.8.201i deciding a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.APP. No.266/2008 lai Sinah i/s. C/0/ & •A/7r.. discussinQ the.notifications issued by the Government of Delhi from time,to time enhancing market value of agricultural lands and decisions by..Courts on the issue of market value of agricultural lands on various-dates and in particular the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (IV) AD (Delhi)

13 Gairai Sinah 1/5. UO! & Ann, in paragraphs 49 to 52 1 had observed as under:- } - ' • ' "49. I have, in para 37 above) noted a decision of a Division Bench of this -Court ' in LA.APP.No,866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinah vs. UO! & Ors. wherein pertaining to village Bawana, fair market value determined as of 15.11.1996 is 99,904.68 per bigha which equals to ' t[9],59,542.46 per acre. The said decision would be relevant on the issue of.potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision-notes that the subject lands i.e. the lands with which the.Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural Delhi were. identified for providing major health facilities, • schools, markets and rural industry,, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted that G.TXarnal ' Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access-, to village Bawana and that the Master Plan for Delhi notified In the year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed- in the future to industrial •and commercial, but 'had also observed that notwithstanding this, for the reason no zonal plan •was notified as contem-plated by Section llA of the LA.App.No.358/2007 &connected matters, Page 5 of10. ] ' Delhi Development Act 1957,'the. lands continued to. be used for agricultural -purposes and there was no '.evidence that till the year 1996:; any land use had been actually changed and put to the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put • •. to agricultural" use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put It pithily, the potential use of - ^ the lands giving'birth to a potential land.value with.. reference to the area being known" to all as being:• required- in the future for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference to the potentiality I.e.' the lands being, in the.near future capable of being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so expressly. stdting, would be a proposition that there is a difference 'between the" undeveloped land having ^ building potentiality in presenti vis-a-vis a land". having a building.potentiality, inTuturo. As:already noted by me in para- 36 ^above, as of the date. 15.11.1996, fair market valuedetermined ' was t[9],59,542.46 per acre and. which I highlight "once again is the same as would be determined with • reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. the notification dated 25.7.1997 whereunder for agricultural- lands in Delhi minimum price. •^ • • "fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was flO • ^ lakhs per acre. Interestingly, the same Division" •Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gairai Sinafi i/5. UOl & Ann-. where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land •was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated —• 15.11'.1996, fair market value determined " for. Category 'A' lands was ^9,76,121/- per acre and for sK Category-'B' lands was 79,51,121/- per acre i.e. near approximate to tfie fair market value of lands in ' village Bawana.. It needs to be highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi - Kalan, " evidenced from the observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development work carried out in the surrounding "lands was considered. I would highlight that another LA.App.No.358/2007& connected matters Page 6of10 •e Division Bench of.this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V i.e. between G.T.Karnai Koad land Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola determined f^ir market value as of 19.3.1993 @^1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. ?6,26,510.40 per acre. The-decision is reported as 2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Raw Chander vs. UQland the same Division Bench, as per the decision reported as 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinoh vs. UOI. pertaining,to a notification. dated 14.1.1994 for • • village Singhola determined fair market value (§)• ' Tl,40,230/- per bigha i.e. T[6],73,104/- per acre.,50. The; aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as • also the ' various. notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in,. para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to,determine the growth/rise in the prices of agriculturaf land In Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price ' was ^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ^5.35 lakhs •„ spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase In 7 years and the average price' increase • would be 16.436%. The. price-rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2%,and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, betw.een the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court.in Gajrafs case (supra), which i have discussed in para 49 above. \J 51. •I need to elaborate a little more with. respect to-the decision in Gairafs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining.to fair market value of ' agricultural land in village Holambi Kaian as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found' that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,000/-for multiple cropped land and having good LA.App.No.358/2007 &connected matters Page 7of10 irrigation facilities and'thus capitalized the land price, at, ^9.[5] lakhs per acre. Discussing the second, method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale •. instances found that based on the said sale instahces and' giving'benefit of industrialization the land price would come to ^10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices notified by the 'Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The- decision highlights' that the potentiality had been well-factored in when the Government issued the minimum price' notification w.e.f. 1.4.1997,- evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court.found that as against the minimum price notified as 'of 1.4.1997 at ^10.lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ^10,03,364/- per acre.