Full Text
LA.APP. 1001/2010 & C.M.No.12885/2011 (cross-objection)
SHEO RAJ SINGH Appellant
Through; Mr.Deepak Khosia and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay
Pathak, Advocate for UOI.
19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
RAJOG, PRADEEP NAND SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19000
"Hli'
•1 [ •' h finii'
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ORDER
LA.APP. 999/2010 &
CM No.6549/boii (Cross-Objection)
RAJ SINGH
T-K L. ••• Appellant
Through; Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mr.Deeiiak Khosia, Advocate and
Mr.lXl.S.Negi, Advocate.
Vs.
UOI & ANOTHER Respondents -ri , ^ lUCI ILb
Through; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate & Mr.Sa
Nawani, njay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K
Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AN D LA.APP. 961/:
^•Mn v"A.APP. 1001/2010 & CM
^o428g572011JbO,PP. 10D7/^uj.u ^ CM No.lblBl/ZOll" luO^oio, LA.APP. 1010/2010 la.app'
1036/2010 &CM No.12865/2011, LA.APP 5/2011 LA APP
6/2011 & CM No.6756/20ll. W.APP 38/20li No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C
142/2011, LA.APP. 160/201]
163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011
375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011
407/2011.
11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP.
, LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP
- LA.APP. 3,47/2011, LA.APP.
. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated is nq ^nnn
Award No, 06/2002-2003, Viilage-BharswaJahan^Pp" rS
A^ D LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatte|rs Page 1 of22
164/2011,, LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201
241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP.
88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP.
1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP.
1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP.
1, LA.APP, 243/2011, LA.APP.
244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP^ 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011.
LA.APP, 399/2011, LA.APP.
(^Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 &
, , •"'lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Purl)
ADEEP NANDRAJOG local papers may be allowed Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi
CO RAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PR
1. Whether the Reporters of to see the judgrnent?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported In the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.
1. I proceed with an apolog/ to the reader by referring to a notification issued later In notification issued prior In poir 3oint of time and then to a t of time; but the reason Is that the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notification which was issued earlier In point oftime.
2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue I estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 8c connected matiers Page 2 of22 r to a notification dated 15.09 2000 issued under Section 4 of tlie Land.Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster', This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After the Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired a, which is equivalent to T13.82 /alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed following the due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigh lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at ^13.82 lakhs per acre.
3. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference" under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference.Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or fl[4],56,963 per acre.
4. It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well as the-Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the Government as on 01.04.2090, notified vide Circular dated 11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing the compensation, did not grant cippreciation for the period from 01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period, of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the pri:e ?13.82 lakhs per acre.- LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat ers Page 3 of22
5. Another parcel of land ad-measurIng 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on 04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior by a declaration under Section 6
1998. ' After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 daied 12.03.2001,,, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^2,33,333 per.bigha which is equivalent to m.20 lakhs per acre., • I
6. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The [.earned Reference Court, In the lead matter being LAC No.il lA/2008 titled Chdndrswsti Vs. Union ofIndia, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at m,46,670/- per acre. The difference; in the the same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate with effect from 1.4.1997 vide destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference ^ 11% per annum for the Court granting enhancement interregnum period. \
7. The Union of India as challenged the assessment rr iA/ell as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected mat;(ers Page 4 of22 li dated 16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by developed plots to the square meter and Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to aliot the plots Nagar @ ^4,500/- per squ material and good evicilence. Relying- on these Court by way of tiie appeals and cross objections mentioned above.
8. On behalf of the land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on the following documentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified b/ the L&DO vide notification nibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in "esldentiai and commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential iand in Azadpur, which is stated to be close to village Bhala|swa Jahangir Puri, was fixed at ?5830/- per square rr|eter or ?2,35,92,400.92 per acre and it was urged that if 50% is deducted I towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation In sum of fl,17,96,200/- per acre. (b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705 dated 23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby, MCD decided to allot transporters @ ?425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the 21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Pages of22,rn documents, learned counsel for the land owners argued, that the rate stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was Applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fair market value of developed land comes to ^17,19,857/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, fo[r undeveloped lands, fair I market value would come to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be ^24,76,592/-per acrel
(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the for the land owners also auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of DDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Purl at a price •ranging between X23.17 lakh to ^28.[4] lakh, which according to. learned cbinsei translates to a price of ^14,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged, that suitable deduction coi^ld be effectedtherefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land,
(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd
(Exhibit PW-15/1), where under land measuring 2-19 "bigha was sold @ ?32,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to ?56,93,163/- or ^11,£6,169/- per bigha. it was vP LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat:ers Page 6 of22 /im, /]
9. contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, after making a reasonable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair marl<et value of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. Another.sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to.Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- per acre was also reiied upon, (e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied IplI (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a 'hereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^8 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in aid as" good evidence or fair market value of land in the said village as of the date of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1996. I Per contra, Sh.Sanjay.Poddar learned senior counsel upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2: in village Bhalswa Jahangir of India relied on a Sale Deed, whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of n,40,000 and urged that evert if 12% appreciation per annum is to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the notification under Section-4 comes to n,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt i;he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected mat;ers Page 7 of22 ifint, fixing tine market value of having a "vast area. Learne above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA submitted that in response counsel for the land owners 1/5 Union ofIndia in which he h \V undeveloped agricultural land id counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Cpllector has assessed - the fair marl<et value of the land at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court.
10. It may,be noted that whan judgnient was reserved in the 19^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition uApp.No.266/2008 titled lai 5inah Vs. UOL&Anr. in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to the arguments of learned the arguments: which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response. •
11. The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come-out in the deposition ofShri Trilok Chand {Halqa Patwarf) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sfnoh as explained the topology of the area while proving the Ai<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. His testimony would reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated, in fhe North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badii and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of village Jahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010 «& connected matters Page 8 of22 in V") 12., I may additionally notfe that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory j of Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on.the eastern side of.G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. V|illages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, IMamoorDur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.
13. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due the area was of a kind where to urbanization.was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah Vs. Union nf India 1998 fV) AD (Delhi) 45i, resettlement colony called Jah it was noted that there existed a angir Purl in the area which had sprung up during the period cf emergency i.e. the year 1975-
76. It has to be remembered that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement of„;lum and J.J.Clusters.
14. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinah 1/?. IIOI rC 12.8.2011 and had yet to be Anr. which was reserved on pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in:.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. Nortli-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu" Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 9 of22 -constituted a W at the point of intersection where G.T.Karria!.Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak common point;, proceeding Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl is outside the V aforesciid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east 0/ NH-l.
15. In the, appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to d ifferent notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notifications issued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated 25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/ comes to T26.75 lakhs W3A78 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the evidence to determine agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 1). and the sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in suti-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two'sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-
21. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the • sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable fair market value of the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was c -• r- - name of Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 10 of22 "ftl. been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural iands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price for. the said piece of land as It was the only.plot of the requ site size suitable for the requirement,of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.
22. As held in. the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see.717 Land Acouisitton Officer Eluru & Ors, l/s. fsti Rohinf &Anr. (Refer| para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin fe. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale, deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the LA.Act 1894 have, not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being Influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular pieice of land. An informed bu studied the "market and area. I would be failing i Union of India had relied 20.5.2002, which was yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be f^9°od index of fair market value of the lands in the do not highlight that the ^upon the sale deed dated accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land Jn village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e ?17 74 109/per.acre as-.against th " • ^ ' T63.478 lakhs per acre e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre-for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 11 of22 /I Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facle destroy each other. !
23. Thus, apart from t he reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which 1 concur, afore-noted bove would be additional the 2 sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair,: lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large -an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence ofthe transaction bejng the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be falling not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahlya jDeing the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (Since deceased) thru liRs Vs. UOl ^ Ore, it was highlighted that the sale deed, therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of, its factory which had been Ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a tjancy for the said land ahd hence the price reflected, therein could not be treated as.a good evidepce of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the reasons In para 21 a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc market value, of subjec Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. stiould be treated as th ie instant cases tine 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair market value. Tlie argurrient ignores tine reasoning mthe decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed on of the market value, bi therein was reduced by would be the same as wo Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative It found that if the price 1/3''^ the price arrived at uld be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 12 of22 •,r^-.irTTTt, produced by the Govern ?1,37,000/- per bigha iment were giving a price of and the sale deed under which L&.T had purchased the land gave the price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'^ would be deducted ),600/-..it may further be said judgment the year of nd the notification under Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair mari<et value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i,e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not Ithat the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and thijS itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."
16. For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa jahangir Puri.
17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the frorn the sum of ^3,26 highlighted that in "the the sale was 1993 a Section 4 of the Land land situated in village Bhalswa jahangir Purl has been agreed to be transferred for a sum'of ns lakhs per acre. The land owners, have- also relied upon another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ^5,70,000/-.
18. Now, if the price, as pe owners was ^15,70,000/- per r the own showing of the land acre as on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 13 of22 difficult to comprehend the Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.[4] vt abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is fl[8] lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was flB lakhs per acre and 7 to ^15.[7] lakhs per acre. 1 ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the kiarned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned that the said price was for special considerations and npt the price settled between an informed willing buyer and an informed wiHing seller and, without being influenced by particular land, and had thus special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 iaf Sinah Vs. UOI & Ann I.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence, of neither the buyer nor the seller being wellinformed and theire being a special feature qua the land and
19. I have discussed this 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision; 1reite
20. As regards. auction rat situated in the Sanjay Gandh "ate the same. es of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned.Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised on the decision of th 2Supreme Court reported as La! LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 14 of22; I Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) 5CC 769; Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e\/idence relating to auction rates of residential piots or fiats by IDDA.
21. In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh 1/5. UOi & Ors.. I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Ciourt In La! Chands case, with reference to price at which ceveloped plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in jai Singh's case are extracted hereunder:-
29. Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted larld sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Nareia Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai render this evidence as the value of land in the s
30. It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area and Nareia Residential S 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in the same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which most unreliable to determine jbject cases. as held even by the learned with the development of Rohini Residential Scheme iheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.
31. 1hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence ^s reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating- itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010 & coiinected matters Page 15 of22
22. Highlighting that in La! Chancfs, case (supra) the I • Supreme Court held that sucli raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefroin fair marl<et value could be crystallized. 23.. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which ivICD allotted developed plots in Saijay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.
24. Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when leaSe-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to deve:loped plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, 1 n colony adjoining the famous where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.
25. From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar') who appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008 it emerges thai: village Burari is on the east of village Bhalswa jahangir Purl and indeed the plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Choyvk from the. Tibetan Re-settlement Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 16 of22 a •f) thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.
26. While assessing the fair market value of the land situated cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of nad considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of.LA./appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled R^ibBf & Ors. Vs. Union of IndlB 6^ in village Burari, which was a dated-24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land •atm,60 id assessed the fair market value ',580.82 per acre for Category A land, no,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ^9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.07.200^ had been assessed by me at ^9,20,568/- per acre for-Category Aland' and ^7,28,512/- per acre for Category B land.,.In 7^/ Sfnah's case (supra), I had assessed the fair market value ofland In 10 villages as'under;- S.No. Village Name Dat uno e of Notification er Section 4 Fair market value (in iakhs per acre)
1.
2. Pooth Khurd Holambi Kalan 7.[8] 7 'ft Tfinn n[4].75 for Category 'A' n[4].3728 for Category 'B'
3. Bawana /.o.
7.8. 2000 ^4.75 ^4.75 for m.38125 for Cateqorv 'B'
4. Khera Khurd 11.c t.2000 ^14,835 for,Category 'A' n[4].46413 for Page 17 of22 I !l V ' i| • ? V
5. Narela 2.5.2001 n[6].165, for n5-.76087 for
6. Holambi Kalan 22 8.2001 n[6].745 for n[6].43811 for
1. Alipur 22 8.2001 n[6].745 for ^6.43811 for
8. Holamipi Khurd 2,2.8.2001 ? 16.745 for
9. Rajapur Kalan 22. 8.2001 ' n[6].745 for •10. Sanoth 7.12.2001 fl[7].295
11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 n[8].655
12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 T18.655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 T18.655
14. Alipur. 23.5.2002 n[8].655
15. Sanoth 27. L.2003 n[9].435 for ne.94.912 for ^18.47539 for Category 'C
16. Rajapur Kalan 27.;L.2003 ^19.435 for n[8].94912 for n[8].47539 for Category 'C 27." In /a/ 5/noh's case (su minimum land rates enhance to time, and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojmected matters pra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhancedl by the Governnnent from time not to be the /pse dixit of the Page 18 of22 CMf f Government officers and [lad found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions cpf four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah l/s. UP! & MH, 2004 !V AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UO/. Ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 MahenJer Sinah Vs. UO! &Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t various dates between the years:o the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:-
51. ^ I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the deasion in GajraJs 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 LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 19 of22 •^fTT) the Court discussed, tjhe 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 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 u|i) and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price-would come to fl0,03,364/- 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 T[9],76[l21/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' iands. The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as aga that the potentiality had been the Government issued the Dn w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions the inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was n0,03,364/- per acre. ^3' decision in Mcbender Sinoh's case, pertaining •ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, strial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding the^ Master Plan so ds theoretically acquiring to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Pian for, account by the Court w commercial and indu agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwit projecting and - the la of the notification with concerned, virtually no c actually grows. The c potentiality, the same hjad not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which the Division Bench was,,, evelopment had.taken place in village Bawana and' Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there.is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market ecisions in Ga/rai's case and LA.App.No;999/2010 & connected matters Page 20 of22 A Mahender Singh's • case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990. and 1997 when prices rose by. about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and indusjtrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.
53. The empirical evicence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, In respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in para^ 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fancjiful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have v/lth us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto In some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be ^19;16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003.on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for f[5],39,690/- and f70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (?5,39,690/- + f70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ^17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.
28. in the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than th e minimum price notified by the Government from'time to tjime; I hold that the Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle and has relied upon the correct, evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date of the notification Issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters Page 21 of22 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss ail appeals and crQSj; objections, whether filed by the land owners or the Union of India.
29. 1leave the parties to beartheir own cost.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm T—r (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 22 of22