Full Text
LA.APP. 245/2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with l^lr.Sanjay
Pathak, Advocate for UOI.
Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA.
19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
-t—;•
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. y SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm
2011:DHC:19042 1., I f
• 1
"1;
"v.,-)
'
• rc/
THE HIGH Ct)Mmr OF DELHI ^ Ji;Jdqment Reserved On- ig^h Ahanc^f- 'ymi ' -
ORDER
GIVI Mo.6549/2011 (Crqss-Ot^ectidn)
Appellaint:^^ ^^L9U9h: ,Mr..B.S.Mann, Advocate
; , . Mr.Deepak KhosIa; Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi,, Advocate. uor& another
Through; M
Vs.
••• Respondents r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachih Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K
Kaomudi Kjran, Advocates^fonR-l.
AND •;
, M , 961/201.0, , LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM I/? LA.APP. 1007/2010 &CM NOil5181/2011
-Tn^ LA.APP.- 1010/2010 LA.APp' &CM No.12865/2011, LA.APP; 5/2011, lA.APP
6/2011., & CM No,6756/2011, LA.APP 38/2011^ & CM
^-APP. 41/2011, LA.APP. 89/io,li?ilL™-
142/2011,, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP 161/2011' IA APP
^ 24#Pii; LA.Z.: :m;app:^ ^ 298/2011, -lX;APP. 347/2011/ LA.APP i75/2011, L/\.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP 387/201l' LAAPP'
4o7/2oii: la-app. Jo6/2on•^
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 1^ nQ9hhh \;c
Avyard No. 06/2002-200^, •
AND
-- LA;App.No;999/20.10 &icoimected'matters .'^agel of22
A-
•-H. LA.APP. 57/2011 & CIVI No.12871/2011, LA.APP, 8.8/2011 LA.APP. 130/2:011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP.
164/2011, 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^__2^.2Z20^^ 243/2011, LA.APP.^
,244/2011,^^^^:X^. 245/^U^ LA.APP. ' 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2^)TX~t?WP==H^7^1 &CM No.15194/2011, LA,APP.349/2.011 &CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, LA.APP. 382/2011, .LA.APP. 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011/
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. ,4 dated 30.07.1998. &
Award No. 18/2000-200i, Village- Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)
1. Whether the Reporters of local, papers may. be ailowed to see the judgnfient?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3.. Whether the judgment should be reported-in thei' 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 a'ddressed' 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 of time. 2: Land measuring 75.8-01 bigha.situated in the revenue estate ofvillage Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 2 of22 ~r to a. notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, nannely,"' 'Rehabilitation of J] Cluster'. This-was followed'.by a declaration under Section. 6 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 n[3].82, lakhs per acre i.e'. fair niarket value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed., at ^13.82 lakhs per acre.. ^, • 3.. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisitipn Collector, the land owners sought reference upder Section 18 of the said Act; The Learned Reference.Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.112A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs.. U/7/0/7 of India, assessed the' fair market value of the acquired.^,. land,at ?3,03,534 per bigha or ^14,56,963 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 Or.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition^ Act., was issued on 15.09.2006',' 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 pric^?13.82 lakhs per acre.' •'.•. 'LA.App.No.999/2010 &comiected matters. Page 3of22,,.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 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.l8/2000-0l' 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 ^11.20 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 ChandrawP^H l/^r Union ofIndia, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at m,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. •^ 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. 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), whereby, it • disclosed its intention to charge'unearned increase in respect of developed residential and commercial properties owned by L&DO. Relying oh this. document, it was argued that in the year 1999, 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% i^.- deducted • • •..towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced cohipensation in sum of v, „ ',. ^1,1.7,96,200/-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 @'^425/- persquare meter and Exhibit P:W-3/2, a ^copy ofthe -, Resolution N0..6IO dated 21.02.2005, whereby>MCD. decided to allot the jDlots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar (3) ?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these-,, LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 5of22.' " • docurnents, learned., cdunsel for the land owners argued, that the rate stated in' the'' resoltltiohs. • aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence thatfair market value of'.developed. ' land comes to?17,19;857/-,per acre arid it was urged • that even if 50% deduction is made on accbuntof the-.' development costs, for undeveloped;jands, 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 15.9.2000 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 vyas. 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 ^23,72 lakh to ^28.[4] lakh, whi.ch according to learned courisel translates to a price of • • ^4,36,36,363 per acre, and counsel.urged that suitable deduction could be effected therefrorri pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land-. (d) ' Relying on a sa'I.e 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.f^ll,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA,App.No.999/2010 &coimec'ted'matters •. \ Page 6of22 ' •. /i-. contended that this sale deed should be relied uporr, after making a reasonable deduction, -towards ' development cost to determine the fair market value: ' of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jafiangir 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 Swanni Satsang Vyas at ' a price of ^26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon.'. • (e) Learned.couhsel for the land owners also relied. •, upon an Agreement.to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was executed by one Shri Khushi'Rarp in favour of a', society'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to.,,be sold on 05.08.1996 @ nS'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' of fair, market value of land in., the said village as of the date, of the agreement.to sell. • ',. 5.8.1996.. •. •, • V.9. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay.Poddar learned senior 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 Vat 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 4comes tb n,94,782 per.bigha, and. thus it was argued that since price of similar land is aVailab.le, in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developeQl Hand for •. la.App.No.999/201.0 &connected matters "• Page 7of22://. fixing the marl<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 notec^ that when judgment was reserved in the above captioned matters, on 19^'^ August, 7011, decision had been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition. appeals, I'ead matter being LA.App.No.266/2008 titled, lA. uo! &Anr. ]^ which similar arguments as..were advancedwith respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and, learned senior counsel Sh.Sa.njay Poddar • submitted' that in response to the arguments 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 Trilok [Halqa Patwari). who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No,112A/20d[8] titled Rat Sinqh 1/5. Union ofIndia in whichhe hasexplained the topology ofthe area while proving the Aks 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.Sari^iNr Badli and • Haiderpuf are situated in the West and villages Bharola and.•. Sarai Pipalthala are situated in. the South, of. village. Jahangir Puri., ' LA.App.No.P^P/l.OlO.&.coi-mected matters, ' ' ' Page8o.f22 •IV
12. I may additionally note th^t 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.T.Karnai Road i.e. National Highway No,l. 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 developmenttook 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 due to urbanization was of a^ weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah Vs. IJhinn nf • ' India 1998 (V) AD {DeM) A81, 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 remembered that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement of,slum and J.J;Glusters., 14. The decision in LA;App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah -I/5. UOl & which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be,, pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved. • for judgment, has since been pronounced by me oh 23;8.2011y. and I would highlight that while assessing the fair marketvalue of the land situated in 10 revenije estates in the same, revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue.estate of, villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi 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 coris'tituted a 'V at the point:of intersection where G.T.Karnai Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a; common point/ proceeding in;differeht. directions, at Sabzi iviandi. It needs tb be highlighted that village Bhaisw'a Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V-aforesaid and as explained hereihabove 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 defed dated 25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) 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 pwners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-p^ra (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. 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. determine fair market vafue of ' agricultural lands, for all the villages in question onthe 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-PW-6 who.;• had tendered the sale deed in evidence,, while I 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 • ' been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural' lands oh the reasoning it was.purchased by a IMon 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. there was a special circumstance, personal to.the vendee. ',. 22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995. (1) see.717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vk isti Rohini &Anr. (Refer para 6) and 200,[9] (14) SCC, ~ 369 iviohd. Raufuddin \/s: Land Acquisition Offir^r, ".. (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a,. sale, deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section SlA 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 inforhied willing buyer would pay-.to an equally wel.l informed-seller. • without being influenced, by any special ' '• '^''''^u'T^stances or the fancy to buy a particular pieice ' of land. An informed buyer would be one wlio has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in. the area; has understood „the. id ' ' ' • topplogy of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he ( I may pay a niuch higher price and this would.not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the ' area. I would be failing if1do 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 ejated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural-land in village • • Rajapur Kalah 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-1/3. The 2 sale.deeds. LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatters'.Page 11 of22 n •Ex.P,W-l/2,and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence, of the fancifur price d'hd ex-facie;. destroy each other.-. ' v,'
23. Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned.;, Reference Court, with which Tconcur, afore-hoted reasons in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the' 2 sale deeds, would advisably not be good evidence..wherefrdm 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 and when the acquisition is of. such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds havina intrinsic evidence of,the transaction being the result '.. of^a fancy,of the buyer. Iwould be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned decision dated., 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead 'matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh u //?c Us. UP! nrc, It.1. 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 fancy for the said land and • V reflected, therein could not be, treated as a good evidence, of value of land in the ' area,^.was rejected by the Court and the price in 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 deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW,-l/3 • ^ mnrt t- I to- determine fair • fho 3'^gLJ'^ent ignores the reasoning. mthe decision 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'• 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&(jormectedmatters ' Page 12 of22 ¥ produced by the Government were giving a price of ^1,37,000/- per bigha and tlie sale deed under whicfi L&T had purcliased 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. f[2],15,1.60/- per bigha,-if 1/3'"'' would 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 • Court. 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.Teasoning of the. Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but - meaningfully." It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question, as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had. requii"ed. to be: given. 1 would hi.ghlight once again, that 1 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 evid^ence 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 Purl..
17. As regards the, agreement,to seir (Ekhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalswa Jahangir Pun has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ?18 Jakhs per acre. The land: owners have also relie.J upon another sale deed dated. 01.07.2003 whereunder4-fl[6] bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ^5,70,000/-... ' 18..Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^5,70.,000/- per acre as on 0l'.07.2003, it is LA.App.Nd.999/2010 &connectedmatters. ' •.•Page 13 of22 difficult to comprehend the abnprmally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is. ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was^lS lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price fell to ?15.[7] lakhs per acre. I need to highlight that In/paragraph ^ 39 of, its decision, the learned Reference Court, - while examining Ex.P\/V-6/l has opined that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between ah informed willing buyer and an informed willing seller and without being influenced.by special needs pertaining to a. '• particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale,deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value.of a large track of land had to be fixed..
19. 1 have discussed this issue in my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.N0.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. UO! &Anr. 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 there being a special feature, qua the land and have held the sahie not to be good evidence to determine fair market value of a. large part of land, being the fanciful price,• paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have already beeri extracted 'by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision; I reiterate 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 teamed Reference Court contained in paragraphs '29 and 30 which are premised,on the decision„of the Suprenie Court reported La/ • LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters, Rage 14 of22, Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is tlie '"^^soning pertaining to the 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. (ai Singh Vs. UOi & Ors.: I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme 'Court in M-CMz^s case with" reference to price at which developed plots were ^Hotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations.and findings in para 29 to 31 ofthe decision in iaiSingh's case are,extracted hereunder:- ' •.. '' we do not have evidence as to what was- ' - th^ extent of plotted land sold by.
DSIDG 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 Lai Chand's case (supra), which r^f^dsr this evidence as most unreliable to determine •,, the value of land in the subject cases. -.. ' 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 Lai Chand^ 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.999/20i0 &coimectedmatters • ' 'Page l5of22
22. Highlighting' that -in La! Chancfs case (supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data-was rheariingless and was too inchoate wherefrphi -fair market value- could. beV;• crystallized. ' 23. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at:which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport fsiagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be ' irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land. 2A. Pertaining to price notified' by L&bO 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! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of, evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with, reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for 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 lands ad-measuringi 758.01... • bigha and. 929.(35 bigha. • ' -
25. From the topology of the area and. as per.the testimony ^. =of Trilok Cha,nd (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. Bhaisw^ Jahangir Puri and Burari are separated by the outer ring roaid as We travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the. Tibetan Re-settlement ' colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by.'Outer Ring. Road' and... LA.App.No.99$/2010 &connected matters ',.• Page 16 of22 f "• thus the fair market value of land On a particular date in the two villages would be comparable. '.
26. While assessing the fair marl<et Value of the land situated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to ndtlflcations dated 24.07,1998 and 18.07.2003 issued under Section 4 of the. Land Acquisition Act, I had considered, the material on record i.e.; the evidence in my decision' pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of t_A.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal I^Jo.971/2008,titled ' Rajba! &nr.; |/s. Union r^f Inrli. Qrs^ In the said decision, ihad assessed the fair marl<et vaiue of agricultural land at ni,60,580.82 per acre for Category-A, land, ?10,44,522.73 per- acre, for Category B land and ^9,28,464.65 per acre for Category Ciand pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.07.2003 had been asstesed by me at ' ?19,20,568/- per acre for Category Aiand and ?17,28,512/- per: B 'and. in lai Singh's(supra), I had assessed the fair mari<et value of iand in 10 villages as under:- S.No. Village Name
1. Pooth Khurd
2.
3. Holambi Kalan' Bawana
4. Khera Khurd Date of Notification under Section 4 Fair market value (in laklis per acre). 7.8.2000 7.8.2000 7.8.2000 11.9.2000 ^14; 75 for Category'A' m.3728 for Category 'B' n[4].75 tl[4].75 for Category 'A'.^4.38125 for ^14.835 for.Category 'A' ' ^4.46413 for LA.App.No.999/2010 &-connected matters Page 17 of22 •?/. 5.-, • _ IMarela 2.5.2001.. fl[6].165 for ?15.76087 for
6. Holambi.Kalan 22.8.2001 ^16.745 for n[6].43811 for Category 'B':
7. Alipur 22.8.2001 f 161745 for ^6.43811 for Category 'B'. 8.- Holambi Khurd | 22.8.2001 ^ 16.745 for Category 'A' m ne.43811:for Cateqorv'B',
9. RajapurKalan 22.8.2001 ^"16.745 for n[6].43811 for Category 'B''
10. Sanoth 7.12.2001 ?17.295
11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 n[8].655
12. ShahpurGarhl, 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,^19.435. for, Category'A' ?18.94912 for n[8].47539 for: Category'C ' 16.. Rajapur Ka an / 27.1.2003 ^9.435 for ns.94912 for Category 'B •• -. ^8.47539 for Cateqorv 'C In.lai Sinqh's case.(supra) 1 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 of the. LA.App.No;999/2010 & cojinectedmatters.: Page 18 of22, /s • ny- Government officers and. had found, not only rationale but'a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With, reference to the decisions of.four Division Benches of this Court reported as,2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinoh V^. lini /^. Arij\, 2Q04 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. IJOI. m (2004) DLT 95 Hukum SinQh Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UQ! & Ors. decided' on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and. other evidence land price was determined on various dates between the years 1993 to 1996-and in relation to the minimum price fixed by the Government 1had highlighted in paras 50 to.53 of the said, decision as under:-, "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 comniencinq,, from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was' t[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, ' between the yea,r 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 Gafrafs case (supra), which 1have discussed in para 49 above..,..;
51. 1need to elaborate a little more with' respect to the decision in Gajrais case. Discussing the' evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi K.alan as of 15.11.1996, in paras^9 to 17: LA.App;No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 19 of22. the, Court discussed the' valuation, on the' basis of agricultural yield and fo,und that the gross return per acre per annurh was^95,000/r 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 up and based on sale instances found that based, on the said;.sale instances 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 datefi 1.4.1997 and thus worked, out, the mean ' ' average figure of 9,76,121/- per acre for Category.'A' ' -. 1.21/- per acre for Category.'BMands. 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 ur,lakhs per acre, sale, instances were highlighting that the.price was no,0,3,364/- per acre..^2. 1"he decision in Mahender Singh''^ case, pertaining... to village Bawana, referred to,: by me in para 49 above highlights with reference to para 2.[8] to 31 of the decision: that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into - account by the Court.which, was projecting, residential, V commercial and industrial future exploitation of ^9'''cultural land, in Delhi and on the. issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so. • projecting and the lands' theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date • ^ of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually ho development had taken place in •• - village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had, exploited the potential. As 1have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be ' expected to be the market growth and what the. market actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs case and., LA.App.No;999/2010 &connected'matters Page 20 of22' •.n)l 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 potentiaiity-did not translate,. with the requisite momentum'and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% peranhum.,One reason •, could be that pursuant to Master Plan, for Delhi 1990 a,. '.,, fairly large area came to be developed;,, both'residential,' • commercial and industrial and probably there was. • ' * enough availalDility of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated. - ' V
53. The empirical evidence. 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 paras 21 and 22 herein^bove for not relying upon,.being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair niarket value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon.. by, the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kaian, 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 isoid for ^5,39,690/- and ^70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (?5,39,690/- + 1^70,160/-) were spent would yield, the price fl[7],74,109/- per acre as of ^ the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.20.02. ' -
28. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than the minimum ppce notified by the Government fronh time, to time, I hold thaf 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 &coiineeted matters ' '•,Page21of!22 v Sect,OR 4of the Land Acquisition Act and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections, whetherfiled by the land owners orthe Union Of India;
29. •'the parties to bear their own cost. (PRADEpP NANDRAJOG) SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 JUDGE mm LA.App.No.999/2010^connectedmatters ';. '' Page22of22"•