Full Text
\ $-81 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 414/2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with l^lr.Sanjay
Pathak, Advocate for UOI.
Through: None.
19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
T—Ts
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19049
•• y
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
I'udqment Reserved On:19^'' Aunust 2017
ORDER
CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection)
Through:, Mr.B.S.IVIann, Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and '
Mr.lM.S.Wegi, Advocate.
Vs.
UGI& AN,o™er : Respondents
Through: Mjr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate &:Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathai<, Mr.Sachin
Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K. , Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1
. ; AND
No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 1007/2010 &CM No.15181/2011
1036/2010 &CM No.12865/2011, LA APP 5/2011 LA APP
6/2011, & CM No.6756/2011 La APP 38/7011^ No.6740/2011, U,APPj4i/2011..LArPP: sSl^L^.APP
142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP 161/2011 LA APP
163/2011 LA.APP. 24672011; LA.APP. 24%oii; lXAPP:
248/2011, LA.APP, 298/2011, LA.APP. 347/2011 LA APP
386/2011, LA.APP. 387/201l' LA'APp' 407/2Sn': ^°®^2oii: tA:APp; melating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 &
Award No. 06/2002-2003, Village-BhalswaJahangirP^ '
AND
LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters " Page1of22
•S>
LA.APP.' 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP.
88/2011^ LA.APP. 130/2011, 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. 24C^2011> LA.APP.
241/2011,-LA.APP. 242/2011, LA./\PP. 243/2011, LA.APP.
244/2011, LA,APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. , 323/2011, LA.APP:.346/20il,. LA.APP. 348/2011 &CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP,349/2011 ;& CM ,No.l5l82/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, LA.APP; 382/2011, LA.APP. 39.3/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, ; LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, : LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011.:
. -(Re^ to Notification u/Sec. 4. dated 30.07.1998. .&
Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village- Bhalswa jahangir Purl) '
. : I.- Whettier.tlie Reporters of Ideal papers may be allowed •- to see the judgment? . , ; '
, •2. To.be referred to Reporter or not? , ' "
,3. Whether the judgment should be reportedln the
. • , Digest? ' ' : . . , •^ , i •
PRADEEP NANbRAIQG. I. i
1. Iproceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a' notificatipn issued later in point of time and then to a notification issued prior in point oftime; but the reason is that the learned cc|unsel for the land owners had addressed ^arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had • required price to be suitably reduced pertaini;ng to the;. notification which was issued earlier in point oftime! i
2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the'revenue' estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri Was acquired pursuant LAApp.No,999/201P &co|mected matters. P^ge[2] of22
5. Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 •bigha, •situated in.tine same.revenue, estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.was acquired pursuant to a nkification issued under Section 4 pf 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 announceid an award bearing N[6].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 m.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 ChandrawRti-V^. •. 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 sariie 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 frorri' 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 Preference 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 to a notification dated l[5].09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition' Act 1894,. for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed,by a declarationunder Section 6 of the said Act issued.on 17.04.2001. After, following ths due, process, the Land,'Acquisition? CollectQr announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated.2,0.04.2002,: whereby he assessed the fair market value of tfe acquired, land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent-to ^13.82 •lakhs per acre i.e. fair market vajue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed 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 Raj Sinah l/s. • Union of India, assessed the fair market value of, the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha.om[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 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 price.?13.82 lakhs per acre.' •LA.App,No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 3of22 •- J, r ro Court by Vvay of the appeals and cross objections rrientioned above. - / •;; ' ' • •
8. On behalf of the land ~ owners, justilying higher compensation, reliance was placed, on the, follovving documentary evidence;-.: (a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide, notificatioh. ' dated 16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), Vvhereby it ! ' disclosed its ii7tention to charge unearned increase in. respect of developed residential and Gomm^rcial properties owned by;l&DO. Relying on,' this, ' document, it was argued that in the year'1999y.the. ' rate,of residential labd in.-Aiadpur, which Js stated to be clbse to villa.g,e BilalasVva,Jahangir Purl,.was fixed •, at ^5830/- persquare meter or.?2,35,92,406!;92 per; ' - acre ^,and it, was urged that 4f 50% ii deducted V towaiSds development cost,,1:he land owners'^should ^, be entitled to..enhanced, corhpensation fin sufn of ?1,17,96,200/-per acre. • ' •...., (b)' The: rate charged by MCD for allotmerrt: 'of., ' commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terrns of the Resolution No.705 dated 23.11.1987,. (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot developed. plots to the transporters (a) >f[4].25A per i, square meter and Exhibit PAA/-3/2, a cojDy of.vthe ^ Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD decided to allot the.plpts in Sanjay Gandhi Transport: Nagar @?^,500/- perjsquare meti-e were urged to be material and good ^^^^vidence. ^Relying on;tHese LAApp;No.999/2010 •& connected.matters.. Page 5of22 w documents, learneci.counsel for the land owners. argued that the rate stated. In the,:-resolto aforenoted, which was>pplicable for the. year 1976, Would evidence th^t'fair market value of.; developed land comes to fl[7],19,857/- per acre and it was urged.. that even if'50% deduction is made on actount ofthe, development costs; for undeveloped lands/,... 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 counser 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 PDA 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 jDfice ranging between T23.72 lakh' to ?28.[4] lakh,, which accdrding to learned counsel translates to a price of; T14,36,36,363 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 peracre cbmes to ^56,93,163/- pr ^11,86,l!69/- per bigha. It mas' LA.App.No.999/2010 &.connectedmatters. ' •/; ', •Page'6of22'. ' >^ V • •9. cdi^itended this, sale deed-sho-uW be relied upon, ' after.making a • reasonable deduction towards deveiopnient'cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhaiswa Jahangir furl. Another-sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit 'f'W-15/2), whqreby farid. measuring 4-16 b.igha situated in. the revenue eistate - of' village, Mamurpur was sold,to. Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at -, a price of ?26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon, (e) Learned'.counsel for the land owners also relied upon an.Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/i) which was executed by one Shri- Khushi Ram in favour of a | society 'l^^/s-.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to'.be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^18 lakhs per acre.;lt 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 i.e.,5.8.1996,:..: 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 b'igha 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 ' notiftpation 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 the price of developed liand for' LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected ii^atters P'age[7] of22 • ?.. i fixing the:market value of undeveloped agricijltural land; having a vast. area. Learned counsel, also argued that,the-; learned;Land' Acquisition,. Collect assessed the fair;. vmarket value of the land at a price; much higher than the one ^ xeflected in Exhibit R-2 and, so' bas the: learned, Reference Court.; i ^ •„::10^ It rnay be noted that when judgment was reserv-^d in the^,,-above captioned;: matters th-19^^;August, 20il,.decision had, '; been reserved for, judgment in a batch of iand acquisition • appeals, lead matter being LA.App.l^o:266/2q08: titled ',1/^; iJOl &:Anr. \x\ which' similar arguments as were;advanced- V, with respect to similar evidence relied.upon in the instant;; appeals,:•and learped.;seniior counsel: ShvSanjair Podd^r,. subrhitted that in. response to:the arguments c^ learned, Gou'nsel:for the, land owners/the argunnents whicb ha^;, V iadvanced on the pearlier:occasi6n.'nr^ay be 'treated,as hi|: 'response,,• ".•.11. The topography pf village:Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.ha^ •. come out in the depositibh of Shri Trilok Chand [Halqa Patwari). who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/200& titled^^?5z^^ \/<Union ofIndia has explained the topofogy ofth^;area wbile.proving the Aks Sizra Ex.PV\/-2/l of village Bhalswa.:Jahangir Purl. His testimony would reveal that village Kadipur - and Libaspur are situated in the North, villages;Mukhmelpur: ' and Burari are situated i^n the East, vHlages Samaipur Badli an^ H^iderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola and. Sarai, Pipalthala are situated in the;.South of village Jahangir '• y/Pud// • ^ - LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters."\,v,Page 8'of22
12. I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the' National. Capital Territory of Delhi, publisheid by the Governhient of NCT Delhi would, reveal that village KBhalswea Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of d.T.Kamal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipun Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, iviamdorpur (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 Purl;, 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 o'f^a kind where.potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah Vs. IJmnn /^M^1998 (V) Ad (Delhi) 45p, 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.Clusters..,:
14. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. UOJ Ann 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 on 23.8.2011, and I would highlight that while assessing the fair market' value of the land situated in 10 revenue 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, 1 had noted that the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters. • Page 9of22 • •! 1 / ' *11 ! \ canstituted 'V at the point of intersection where GT.Karna] Road: i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak Road, I.e. NH-IO bifurdated at a, common, point, proceeding, in..,,different directidns,. at. Sabzi,. Mandi. It ne,eds to,be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahan^r Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihaboye., 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 frdnv;: time to tinne I had dealt with notifications issued; in the.year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned couns^, for the land owners had relied upon the; sale deed dat^d 25.04,2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1). and the sale; deed dat^ 24.03.2600 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale.deeds oh; -which learned counsei for the, iand owners have placed,', teliance upon as noted in sub-para.(d) pf^para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded the^e. • two sale deeds for the reasons r^cprded in paragraphs 21 to 23, which are reproduceci hereund;er:-.; •
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-l/2 which is dated 25.4/2001. As <., per the former, fair-market value for the.', former, comes to ?2f.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;,valued 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 Satsahg' and Suraj Bhan PW-6'who ^ '. had tendered the sale deed in evidence,. While •. deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005:had,;stated, th:at to his knowledge'the land was purchased Tor 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 lO of.22,, ". t been held not to-be reliable evidence to determine ' fair marl<et value. of agricultural. lands, on( the ' reasoning it was purchased by a Non Governrhent Organization, "Christian Prganizatiori" and as per ^ the testimony Qf PW-7 Sister Annie/the secretary of /: the organization stated that the orgahizatidn had to pay the price,for/the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for "the, r^uirement 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 Acauisition Officer EJuru & Ors. Vs. fsti Rohini&Ann 6) and 2009 (14),.SGC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land AcauisitiDn <M^c^r^ \- (Refer para 13.) sale transactions \evidenced in a- ' sale deed which are tendered in evidence byvirtue, 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 ah area for. the, reason there may be special circumstances' ', which have led the buyer to pay a higher;^rice. The• •'. ^true test is,the price; whiQh a.well informed' willing,. buyer would pay to an equally well infornied seller - i. without being - influenced by; any.special •cirou.mstances or the fancy to buy,a particular pidce of, land. An informed'buyer would be one who.has studied the market,and has apprised himself oljall 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 lahd;^ he.imay pay a much higher price and this would hot be. v 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 th^; learned Reference Court pertaining,to the notification dated 27.1.20|)3 where-uhder agricultural land in village •Rajapup Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agricult|irist for a much lesser price i.e. tl[7],'74,l09/per* acrtie as.against the price which comes to ?63.478, lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and:f28 89 lakhs per acre, for Ex.PW-1/3.: The 2 sale deeds - •L^.App,No.999/2010 &cormectedmatters Page 11 of22- I..? Ex.PW-1/2.and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having mtrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie:- destroy each other. •; • •
23. Thus, apart froni the reasoning of the,learned Reference Court, with which i concur,^ §fore-noted;reasons in p.ara 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the, 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidente wherefrorn- fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more,so. for the reason Ifind that under various • aw^ nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha-of land ave been acquired and when the acquisition is, of such, large an area, it would make all the rhbre a. reason to;.be circumspect on sale,deeds having; intrinsic evidence'of the transaction, being the result r. of;:a. fancy:;0f.the buyer.. 1would -be failing not to • note an ^unrepo^ted decision:cited by learned being: the decision: dated 19.p.2.008 disposing of a,,batch of appeals lead matter being LA.App.No.l93/2006 Pratao 'S/nnh ^since: decea^sed) fHm LRs uoi ^ 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 ihe:gmund^at L&T had a fancy for the said, land g^d ^ hence. the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the. ar^a was rejected by the Court and the pricyjn question,, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being l^rge, was accepted,hy the ' Court and thus even in the instant,cases the 2 sale 'u i-e- Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-i/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market^value..The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherem the Division Bench, did not accept the value mthe sale deed on its own logic as indicative,of the market value, but found that'if the price ther^rr w^ reduced,by 1/3^^^ the price arriv^^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,• £A.App.No,999/2010 &'.connected matters P^ge 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 the land gave, the price ^3,26,600./- per bigha and the, average would come to ^2,3r,800/-'which was near about the price of i ^2,.15,160/- 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. ^2,15,16.0/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not tOi, 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 required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have • hereinbefore ' already, noted the inherent; contradiqtion 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 in. the present case also as reliable and good evidence todetermine fair market value of'agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. ', '.
17. As regards the agreement to sell.(Exhibit PW-6/1), the, land situated in village Bhalswa Ja.hangir 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. l.acre land was sold at ?15,70,000/-... " \,.
18. Now,, if the price, as per the own showing of-the land owners was ^5,70,000/-. per acre.as,,on.,01.07.2003, -it is LA.App.No.999/2010.& connected matters Page 13 of22, difficult: to comprehend the abnormally higji. •vajije as ^per. Ex.PW-6/1 which is; dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price Is ^ ^18 lakhs.per acre.- It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ?1S lakhs per acre and 7.years down the linje the price fell to tl[5].[7] lakhs per acre. I need to highlight that in.paragraph 39 of its decisipn, the. learne.d Reference' Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the saj.d price was for special considerations and not the price settled bMween'an: 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 seid sale deed as:. • ncit reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value, of a large: •:V:?trackofjand had\tC) be fiked.. 19. I: have discussed this issue in my' decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2Q08 lai Sinah Vs. uar^ Anr i I where an abhomnaHy high price Mr a parcel'of lahd,is with^,,, -evidence of'neither the;, buyer nor, the, seller-b^hg/we{linformed:ahd'there being; a special feature qua thejandand ' •: have held the same not to be good;evidenGe to determinefair • market value 0 large part of. land, being the fanciful price •. paid by a-buyer smitten With fancy,, which observations have, already.been extracted by me hereinabove i.e! paras 22 and;• 23 of the; said decision. Ireiterate the sarne. - -
20. As.regards auction rates of developed plot of larjd, ' situated; in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, l: dd ndtjindany substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the,; land, owners and concur with the decision df the learned:; •.Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are, premised pri the decision of:the Supreme Coij-t reported as Z.a/: LA.App.No.999/20i0 &connected matters..Page 14 of22• r • Chand Vs. Uninn nf Inrli^ 2009 (15) SCO 769,. Sifriilar is the reasoning pertaining to the evidence relating,to auction; rates of residential plots or flats by.DDaI:
21. In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.2e6/20d[8] '. Singh Vs.UO! &dm,, I had.extensively discussed the law.: declared by the Supreme Court \x\ 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;^/a/j5^^'s case • r -^re extracted'h^^^: ' 2^. 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 V and. Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA-'Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know. ' f. The inchoate,evidence has resulted in the: same, • factors,,.being 3 rn number'which were noted by the. Supreme Court in case (supra),, which.'. render this evidence as most unreliable to 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 m view the observation anci the findings of the Supreme Court in Z5/_G^^£7^s case (sbpra) has rightly ^ rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of' potentiality.relating itself to:±he value, I jaromise the ^., reader -of the decision; to dear with, the same while I^ ^ shall be discussing -as to what should be the fair A,; - niarketvalue.of the lands..•. J;.,::LAApp;Nb.999/26lO &coiWt'edmatters • ' '.Page 15"of22 •. • • •, c. I • i ''22^ •Highlighti^^^ in Zjg/ Chancfs case (fwa) the ' Suprenie, Court held that such raw data was mea'mngless and; was too inchoate.\wherefrom.:fai.r n^a:ri<et value could be crystal;!ize,ci; •' •:;23.; I reiterate theTeasdning to hold.that price at-iWhich MCD allottedJd&Velopecl plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport,Nagar and \ price at which DDA sold developed plots and:flats would be. irrelevant to deterhnine 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'wouid 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 arid discarded with^ 'reference to village Rithala where lands were acqt-ijred for Rohini Residential Scheme, i negate the plea for compensation, ' to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I ami concerned, with large tr^cki of lands ad-measuring: 758.Olr ' bigha and 929.05 bigha. 2,5. From the topology of the are^ and as per the testimdhy;,.ofJrilok Ghand (Halka Patwarl) who appeared as Nc).112A/2008 it emerges that village Burari is;on';the east of; • ' village Hhalswa jahangir Purl and indeed the p,lan; for Delhi.would revear that the two-villages, i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Pun and Bur^ri are.separated' by the outer ring road as we travel. towards V Mubarka; Chbwk from,• the. Tibetan,:Re-s^tlemeht.; colony, adjoining the,famous Gurudwara Majnu. Ka.Tlla;^^-^^^ two are adjoining villages^^^^^ by 'Outer Ring Road' and ••• LAApp.'NQ.999/^0l[6]:&:coiitiected matters •;P,agel[6] of22 ?\ v thus' the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would'be comparable. '. -. '.26. While assessing the fair rn^atet Value of thfland situated in village Burari, whrch was acquired pursuant to\nbtifications, dated 2:4.07.1998 and. 18.07:2003 issued.under Section of the Land Acquisition Act I had considered the rfiat&rial on / record i.e. the evidence >in my decision,pronounGed on 7.6.2,011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being LA.: Appeal No.971/20d[8] titled Raibal:& dr^. Vs. Union nf inHi^ Qr^ In the said decision,,[1] had assessed the fair market value of agricultural land at ^1,60,580.82 per acre for Category A; land, no,44,522.73 per acre -for Category B iand ancl ?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 beek assessed:|)y me-at ?19,2,0,568/- per acrefor Category Aliand and k[7],28i5i2A per,acre for Category B[and. In lai'sinoh's {supra), I had; assessed the fair market value of lahd,in 10 vi^ S.Ho.. Village Name i:.Pooth Khurd 2.
3. •Holambi Kalan t- Bawana
4. 'Khera Khurd. Date of Notification, under Section 4 7.8.2000,7;8.200:0 7:8.2000. 11.9.2000; £A.App.No.999/2010.& connected matters Faih;: market valu^ (in lakhs per acre) fl[4].75 fdr Category 'A'.^4:3728 for Category 'B' ^14.75 514;.75 for •Category 'A' ^4.38125 for ^14,835 for T14.46413 for Category 'B.':. Page 17 of22 r- -
5. Narela 2.5.2001 ?16.165, for f15.76087 for
6. Holambi Kalan 22.8.2001 n[6].745 for n[6].43811 for Cateqorv 'B'
7. Alipur ', 22.8.2001 n[6]:745 for ?16.4-3811 for Category'B' 8., Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 ^, 16.745 for Category 'A' \ 9., Raja pur Kalan. 22.8.2001 ^16.745 for Cateqorv 'B'
10. Sanoth 7.12.2001 ?17.295. 11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 ^. ^8.655.12. Shahpur Garhi' 23.5.2002, ^18.655 13; Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 n[8].655
14. ' Alipur 23.5.2002 n[8].655 15.. Sanoth 27.1.2003 ^19.435 for ?18.94912 for. Category 'B', fl[8].47539 for Category '.C 16., Rajapur Kalan 27.1.2003 ( ^ ' ' T19.435 for Category 'A'.. ' n[8].94912 for fl[8].47539 for. Category 'C • /^/' 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 & cojmected matters / Page,18'of22 Government officers and had found-pot onlyVfatidnaie but a. reflection of urbanization inipactihg.such.increa^se. With reference to the decisions of four Pivision Benches of this: ' Court reported as 20:06 IV AD Delhi 13 GairdiSindti-^ iini A,, • Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander I/?, nm 111 (7nna). DLT 95 Hukum Sinoh Vs. UOI and an unreported decisipn in • i l-A.App:N0.866/2005 Mahknder Sinoh Vs, UQ! &Qi^s: deGid% j -on 11.5.2006 wherein based pn sale deeds arid other; evidence:..land price was determined on various dates between the years.,' ^,19:93 to 1996-and in reJatiPn to the. minimum price fixed by th© Gover^nment I had highFighted in ^paras-SO to-.5:^ cif?the said;' dedsion as under:-:•;;. ' v ' K • v - " '
50. The aforesaid judgrrients noted in the/preGeding paragraphs as also the various notificatioris Jssjued from^ time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi'notifying/^. minimum,price for agricultural lands in DeChi as tabulated: • by me in para 7 above bring outtwo very important facts/ relevant to determine the groWth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years corhnfiehcing •.ffQm the year 1.990'. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was". X[4].G[5] lakhs per acre which roseto flO lakhs per acre as •Qf 1.4.1997 i,e. the increase is ?5.35: lakhs spread over 7i. years whicK ^ives usa 115.054% increase in 7 years and; the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price • rise over the next l year is by 11.2% and thereafter by / ^ 11 ^ for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the nextlyear i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to. urbanization between the year 1990 and 19:97 prices grows fairiy,',. sharply and good icorroboi'a.tive evidence for this would '.. be the decision of the Division Bench of this Couri: in; ',, case (supra), which 1 have discussed in pat^a 49 above. •'., ';
51. 1need to elaborate a little more, with respect to the decision in Gajrafs case. Discussing the evidence:.pertaining to fair market value of agrict^ltural'l^:, village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras'9 to 17'::LAApp;No:999/201,0 & Page l[9] bf22 '