Full Text
$-23 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 961/2010
SATYAVRAT Appellant
Through: Mr.Deepak Khosia and Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocates.
Through:
Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay
Pathak, Advocate for UOI.
19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm
-T—r irxx^-si-s:
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J.
2011:DHC:19003 i? '"v
• •
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
; ' ludament Reservp.d On: Aunu^t ?nn :
ORDER
CM IMo.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection)
RAJSINGH , Appellant
Through: Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and
Mr.N.5.Negi, Advocate.
- • Vs. . • , \ •.UOI&angler . ,Respondents •:
4 ' • Through. Mir.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate
&|Mr.Sanjay Kuniar Pathak, lyir.Sachin .. Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.k:
K^.omudi Kiran, Advocates fonR-1
• ^ AND ty ' l^=2S2Z2^0, . LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM •
1009/2010,; LA.APP. 1010/2010, LA.APp' 1036/2010 &CM No.12865/2011, LA.APP 5/2011' LA APP"
™. No.6756/2011, La.APP 38/20r± & «
No.6740/2011, LA.APP.I 41/2011, LA.APP 89/2011 LA APP
160/2011, LA.APP. 161/20n
298/2011, LA.APP. 3.47/2011,. LA.APp'
- Iw20n: ;u;app;
(Relating to Notification u/Sec.. 4 dated 15.09.2000 &
Award No. 06/20,02-2003, Viiiage^BhalswaJatiangir ^
AND
• LA.App.No.999/2010,& connectedmatters ; J?a|ei:of22
, + LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP'.
88/201.1 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP
16.4/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP.
202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, LA.APP, 240/2011, LA.APP.
241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, 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, LA.APP.349/2011: &CM No.l5182/i011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011,'
, LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 &
Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village- Bhalswa Jaha'ngir Puri)
1. Whether the Reporters oflocal 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. I.; 1., I. proceed with an apology to, the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time and- then to a notification issued prior in point 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 estate of village Bhalswa jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant.• LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatters Page 2of22 to a notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, nannely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under.Secti.on. e of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following the due process, the Land, Acquisition Collector announced his award bearing No,6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002,: whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ^13.82. lakhs per ^cre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed at ?13.82 lakhs per acre. • 3.i 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 Sinoh 1/5. •: -Union of India, assessed the fair market value;of the acquired, ' land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or n[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 01:04.2000, 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 appreciation for the period from 01.04.2000 tiir the date notification under, Section 4 of the: Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.200G), 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 price ?13.8.[2] lakhs per acre.' LA.App;No.999/2010 &connected matters., Page 3 of22 p
3. 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 by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. issued on 04.08.1998. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector/announced an award bearing, No.18/2000-01 dated 12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,33,333 per bigha'which is equivalent to ^il.20 lakhs per acre; •,. '. •..• ' •;,• '
6. Dissatisfied with the assessment. made..by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act..The Learned Reference Court, in.the lead matter being LAC,No.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati I/? Union ofIndia, the fair market value of the acquired land.atm,46,670/- per acre. The difference.-in the ' destination reached is on the same reason as noted hereinabove pertaining to the notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector adopting the land rate notified by the Government with effect from, 1.4.1997 vide circular dated 25.7.1997' and ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting, enhancement @,11% per annum for the interregnum period..
7. The Union of India as well as the land owners have challenged the assessment made by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters. Page 4of22 Court by: way of the 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 by the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whdreby^ itdisclosed Its intention.to charge unearned Increase in respect of developed residential and commercial. properties owned, by L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the yearM,999, the; rate of residential land In Azadpur, which. Is stated to. be close to village Bhalaswa.Jahangir Purl, was fixed at.^5830/- per square meter or ^2,35,92,400.'92-per. acre.and it was urged that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land qwners should be entitled to enhanced compensation In sum of ^1,•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, developed plots to the transporters (g) ^425/- per • •. square, meter and Exhibit P:W-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD decided to allot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport ^, Nagar (5) ?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. • Relying on th.ese LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters ' 'Page'5 of22 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, for undeveloped lands, fair 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-.200d would < be ?24,76,592/-per acre. ' • '
(c) Learned counsel for the land owners also placed reliance on the 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 Puri at a price ranging bet.ween^23.72 lakh to ^28.[4] lakh, which according.to learned counsel, translates to a price of n[4],36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged that - suitable deduction, could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land. •/ • "
(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera'Khurd
(Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder 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 ^11,86,169/-.per bigha. It was LA.App.Nq.999/2010 &connected matters '•,Page 6of22 fly contended that this, sale deed should be relied upon,. after making a reasonable deduction.• towards,. development cost to determine the fair market value,. ^ - of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa ' Jahangir Purl. Another-sale'deed dated 24.03.20G0 (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. 9 P'''ce of ?26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon. (e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied, • ^pon an Agreement to Sell ('Exhibit 'pW-6/1) which was •executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a ' society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder 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 Purl and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of.land in ' the said village as of the date,of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1996. '., ^. \
9. Per, contra, Sh.Sanjay.Poddar learned,senio.r counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, relied on a Sale Deed. ^ dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2), whereunder 1-03 bigha of land.. • • in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl was sold at. a price of.^1,40,000 and urged that even 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 ?1,94,782.per bigha, and. thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available; in the same village> it would be imprudent to.traverto the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed land for f ' • " LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters.Page 7of22 fixing the m.ar:l<et value of undeveloped agricultural land having a'vast area. Learned counsel also argued, that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed. the fair,, • market 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 when judgment was reserved in the. above captioned matters on August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment in,,a batch of land acquisition; appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.266/2008'titled 1/9. 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 submitted that in response to the argundents of' learned ', counsel for the land owners, the arguments which he had / advanced on' the earlier occasion may be treated as. his response.
11. The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilo.k Chand {Hafqa PatwarJ). who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Raj Singh' I/? Union ofIndia in Which he has explained, the topology of the area while proving the Ales Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa jahangir Puri. His testimony would reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated, in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badli 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 8of22 &
12. I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of; Delhi, published by the • Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that,village Bhalswa jahangir Puri is situated on.the eastern side of G.f.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.I. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the western • side of National Highway No.1. 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 village, was for re-settlement of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the character of urbanization in the. area was of a kind where potential price increased c|ue to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinoh Vs. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri in the area Which had sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the.'year 1975-
76. It has to be rem.embered that the two subject acquisitions, were also for re-settlement of.sium and J.J.Clusters.- •
14. The decision in LA.App.No;266/2008 iai Sinah l/s. UOi & Mn which was reserved,on 12.8:2011 and had yet to. be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when ihstant appeals were-reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and r would -highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue dis.trict i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur G.arhi, Sanoth, AlVur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holahibi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and:Bawana, i had noted that. the topology of the' area LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters.; Page 9of22.constituted, a 'V at tine pojnt of intersection wliere GT-Karnei Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-IO- bifurcated at a common poipt, proceeding in different directibris,, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be tnigtilighted,tlnat village Blnaiswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained fiereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1., •15. In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land' were acquired pursuant to different 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-15/1) and the sale deed dated.24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-1'5/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned' counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment.dated 23.8.2011, 1 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 comes to^26.75. lakhs per. acre'and the latter @. ^ ^63.478 lakhs'per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence,to deterrinine fair market value, of agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning: that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was ^ purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami. Satsang' and Suraj Bhan;PV\/-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. • purppse. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise ' LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatters. Page 10 of22,,,. been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands 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 requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. i there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.,. •
22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see.717 Land Acoursitiori 'Officer Eluru & Ors-. Vs.,, Isti Rohini &Ann fRefpr ppira anH'^nno (T/j) grc 369 Mohd. Raufudd'in Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para, p) sale transactions.evidenced in a sale deed which are tend'ered in evidence by virtue.,of Section 51A of the L.A.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 buyerto 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 orthe fancy to buy a particular pidce of land:-An informed, buyer would be one who has \ ' studied the market and has apprised himself orall available land in the area; has understood the. topology of the ai"ea and the prevailing prices.: If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he > • pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land.in 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 the price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28 89. lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-l/B., The 2 sale deeds,,,. LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatters ' ' Page 11 of.22 Ex.PW-1/2;and Ex.PW-1/3,, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.
23. Thus, apart from the reasoning of the. learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would' be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason Ifind that under various awards nearly between.7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired a,nd 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 of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. 1would be failing.not to note an unreported; decision cited by learned being the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.IMo.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh (since deceased) thru ! ^ nr/ highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T I ^ 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural _lanc( for expansion of its factory which had been ignored, by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the, price reflected therein could not be reated as a good evidence 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 Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale • ^ question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be_ treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning ITo u of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the ' value in the sale deed, on its own logic as indicative of the, market value,'but found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3^", the price arrived at would be the,same as would 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 &'coimectedmatters Page 12 of22 • •' produced by the Government were giving a price of ^1,37,000/- per bigha and. the sale deed under • which. L&T had purchased tine land gave the,price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and. the average would, conne. • to ^2,31,800/- which,was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3would be'deducted from the sum of ^3)26,600/-.. It may further.be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale. was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Cpurt • determined fair market 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 hot that 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 this 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,jn the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine' fair market value of agricultural land in village • Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. •, ^. 17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit.PW^6/1), the land situated in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred, for a sum of ^18 lakhs per acre.- The land •owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at.^•5,70,000/-.;•.18. Now, if the price, as per th;? own showing of the land owners was ^15,70,000/- per acre as^ on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters •.' Page 13 of22. ^,•: difficult to compreliend.the abnormally hi^h value as per Ex.PW-;6/l which is dated 8.4.1996 in.which the stated price Is: /; ^18 lakhs per acre. Jt is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price': yvas ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the pricefell to ^15.[7] lakhs per acre.,[1] need to highlight that in paragraph '. 39 of its decision, the learnedi Reference Cpurt, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the said.price was for. special considerations and not the price settled between an •informed willing buyer ^nd an informed willing seller and., without being influenced by special needs-^ertai^^^^^ %, '^particular land, and had thus discarded the s3id sale deed as ' _ 'not reliable evidence wherefrom; fair market value-of a large, ',,; track of land had to be fixed.; • 19. ' have discQSsed this issue, in' niy decision dated, 23.8:2-0al in LAApp:.No.266/2008 lai Sfnoh vk UO! & Ann lu •;,. '. where an- abnormally high price for a parcef; of lland is.with. evidence of.neither the buyer nor the seller:being: well- ' ' ^, informed antl there being a special feature qua the,land and:; have held the same not to be good evidence to deterrnlne fair •^ niarket.value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price' paid' by a buyer smitten vyith fancy, which observ.citions have r-...already been extracted by me hereinaboye i.e. paras 22 arid' / 23 of the,said decision. I reiterates^the same..•.
20. As regards auction rates of developed plot of land • situated in the Sanjay Gandhi 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 3Q which are premised oh the decision of the Supreme Court reported as La! LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters. Page 14 of22 >), chand Vs. Union of Indm 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to tine evidence relating to'auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.
21. In my decision dated.23.8>2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 Vs. UO! & Ors., I had extensively discussed the law declared by 'the Supreme. Court in La! Chand^ case with reference to price at which developed plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in- para 29 to 31 of the decision in laiSinah's^ case are extracted hereunder:-,
29. Now, we do-, not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with ' reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed ' by DSIDC and Narela Residential •Scheme developed • by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which' were noted by the Supreme Court in La/ Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable tp determine the value of land in the subject cases.
30. It is no doubt true, as held even by the learned Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, 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. Ihold that the learned Reference Court, keeping In view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in La! Chandz case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as 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 &coimected matters.. •Page 15 of22-'
22. Highlightmg that in La! Chands case.(supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefrom fair market value 'could be crystallized.
23. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that pride at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Tra,nsport 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 developed plots and on the parity of • reasoning in La! Chands case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with' reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired foH Rohini Residential Scheme, I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am,. concerned with large tracks of jands ad-measuring^ 758.01' bigha and 929.05 bigha., 25. From the topology of the. area and as perthe testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC ' NO.112A/2008 it emerges that village^ Burari is on.the east of village Bhalswa jahangir Puri and indeed the, plan for Delhi.' would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as. we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the. Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the. famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka T|la. The two are adjoining villages separated by.'Outer Ring,Road' and LA.App.No.999/20r0 &connected matters ', Page 16 of22 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 m village Burari, which was acquired pursuant „to notifications dated 24.G[7].1998 and 18.07.2003 issued urider.Section 4 of the Land Acquisition^Act) Ihad cqnsidered thf',n^^t4^a| record i.e. the' evidence in my."decision prc^noyncld' on.7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being LA. Appeal NO.971/20Q[8] titled Raiba! &Qr<;. \/<, iininn ofincim Qr^ In the said decision, Ihad assessed the fair market value of agricultural land at ?11,60,5:8:0.82 per acre for Category A land, no,44,522.73 per acr| for Category..B land and ?9.:28,464.65 per acre for Category Cland pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired.pursuant to notification dated 18.07.2003 had been ^assessed by me at ?19,20,568/- per acre for Category Aland and. ei[7],28,512/- p'^r acre for Category Bland.^ \n,.M_Sin^'s {supra), I had S.No. -t Village Name Date of Notification under Section 4 Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)
1. Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000 n[4].75 fdr Category 'A' ^4.3728, for Catedorv 'B'
2. Holambi Kalan 7.8.2000 ^4.75 3; A ' Bawana 7.8.2000 ^14.75 for Category'A' ^14.38125 for Category 'B'
4. Khera Khurd 11.9.2000.^14.835, for Category'A' fl[4].46413 for LA.App.No,.9.99/20ip &connected matters Page 17 of22 ft
5. N^rela 2.5.2001 T16.165. for ?15.76087 for
6. Holambi Kalan '22.8.2001 ^6.745 for ^6.43811 for 7,. Alipur 22.8.2001 n[6].745 for ?16.43811 for Category'B'
8. Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 ? 16.745 for ^16.43811 for
9. Raja.pur Kalan 22.8.2001 ^16.745 for ?16.43811 for
10. Sanoth 7.12.2001, ?17.295
11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 n[8].655
12. Shahpur Garhi. 23.5.2002 n[8].655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 ?18.655,14. Alipur' 23.5.2002 n[8].655
15. Sanoth, 27.1.2003 ^19.43;5 for Category 'A'. ?18.94912 for ^8.47539 for Category '.C
16. •. j Rajapur Kalan 27.1.2003 ?19.435 for ?18,94912 for ^18.47539 for Category 'C
27. In lai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time to time and found the same not to be the ipse dixit the LA.App.No.999/2010 &'cojinected matters., Page 18 of22, Government officers anci^ had found not only rationale but a, Reflection of urbanizatiort^ inipacting..such increase. With';,/reference to the decisions Of ^bur Division Benches of-this, Court reported IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah Vs. lini % • Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 2Q Ranh ChandRr l/<7. llhl Hi (VnnziV DLT 95 Hukum Sinph Vs. UO! and an unreponted decision in LA.App..No.866/2005 Maherider Sinah Vs. UQ! Ors: dpridpri:; on 11.5.;2006 wherein based on sale deeds andvother evidence ^ land price'was deterniined on various dates beitweenthe years 1993 to 1996 and in relation to the minimum price fixed by the; Gpvernnient I had highlighted ih paras 50 to 53,otthe said. ',. decision as under;- V
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 agricultural land in Delhi over the years cohimencing, from the yea.^ 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;Q54% increase in 7-years and; the average price increase would be 16.436%.' The price; rise over the next I yedr is.by,ll,2% and thereafter byv, 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,•, between 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 Gourt in GajraJs case (supra), which. I have' discussed in para 49 above. ' - • •. '
51. r need to. elaborate a little more with/respect to the decision in GajTafs case. Discussing the evidence. pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land In; village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in par^s-9 to 17,• •LA.App.Nd.999/2,010 & connected matters Page 19 of22.