Full Text
LA.APP. 387/2011
UNION OF INDIA
Through:
Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay
Pathak, Advocate for UOI.
Through: None.
19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
Respondents SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
2011:DHC:19053 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
• ludament Reserved On: 19^^'' Auoust 2011 ludameht Delivered On: 1&^ September. 2011
LA.APP.
CM No.6549/2 999/2010 & Oil (Cross-Objection)
RAJ SINGH
! Through: Mr.B.S.
Mr.Deep Mr.N.S.' Appellant , Mann, Advocate ak Khosia, Advocate and
Negi, Advocate.
/s.
UOI & ANOTHER
Through: Mr.Sanjc & Mr.Sa' Nawani, Kaomud ... Respondents ay Poddar, Senior Advocate njay Kuniar Pathak, Mr.Sachin
Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K i Kiran, Advocates for R-1
7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010, LA APP
^ No.12865/2011, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP.
CM
6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C
142/2011, LA.APP. 160/201]
163/2011 248/2011, 375/2011, 394/2011, 407/2011.
11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP.
, LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP.
,CLA.APPr387/20ia1 LA.APP.
LA^ .APP.
LA.APP.
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 &
Award No. 06/2002-2003, Village-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)
A^ D LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 1 of22
\0 I'
88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/201
202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201
(Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi
ORDER
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporte CM No.12871/20.11, LA.APP. LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP..1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP..1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP..1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. 244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011,.5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, H4/2011. Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 & lage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) r 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 nojtification issued prior in point of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for the arguments with respect to the required price to be suitab land owners had addressed notification issued later and had y reduced pertaining to the notification which was issued earlier in point of time.
2. Land hieasuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 2 of22 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'. T riis was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following the due process, announced his award bearing the Land Acquisition Collector 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 bigh lal<hs per acre i.e. fair market at ?13.82 lakhs per'acre.
3. Dissatisfied with the a Acquisition Collector, the land Section 18 of the said Act. a, which is equivalent to ^13.82 value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed ssessment made by the Land owners sought reference under he Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5. Union 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 a s 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 01.04.20C 0, 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 is learned Reference Court gra sued on 15.09.2000, but the ited appreciation for the said period of IpS days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the pri ce ?13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010 &'connected matters J
5. Another parcel of Ian situated in the sanne reve J ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, Tue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Lar d Acquisition Act 1894, dated 30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster', This was followed of the Act issued on 04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior by a declaration under Section 6
1998. After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated 12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market v ^2,33,333 per bigha which is acre.
6. Dissatisfied with the a Acquisition Collector, the land alue of the acquired land at equivalent to ^11.20 lakhs per 5sessment made by the Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.l] lA/2008 titled Chandrawati Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?11,46,670/- per acre. The difference: in the destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and the same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate with effect from 1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement interregnum period.
7. The Union of India as challenged the assessment m @ 11% per annum for the i/vell as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat:ers Page 4 of22 V dated 16'04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned >. •above. i y. is.' 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 hibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in residential and commercial L&DO. Relying on 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 Bhala at ^5830/- per square rr acre and it was urgec jswa jahangir Purl, was fixed eter or ?2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of n,17,96,200/- per acre. (b) the rate charged commercial plot in Sanja> terms of the Resolution by MCD for allotment of Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated 23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot developed plots to the square meter and Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ?4,500/- per sqij transporters (a) ?425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the 21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters J documents, learned co argued that the rate aforenoted, which was e would evidence that fai land comes to ?17,I[9],85 on the brochure of DDA it was argued'fjiat as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ranging between ^23.7/ according to learned col unsel for the land owners stated in the resolutions pplicable for the year 1976, " market value of developed 7/- 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 \/alue 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 pertaining to the year 2006, " the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square •e in Jahangir Puri at a price lakh to ^28.[4] lakh, which nsel translates to a price of ^14,36,36,363 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), where^under land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ^32,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, learned counsel urged th to ?56,93,163/- or m,g at the price per acre comes 6,169/- per bigha. It was \ Gontehded that this sale deed should be relied upon, after malting a reasonable deduction towards development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Purl. Another ernnine the fair market value ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the Mamurpur was sold to R upon an Agreement to S executed by^'one Shri village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996.
9. Per. contra, Sh.Sanjay, appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir revenue estate of village.adha 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 leil (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.BLitterfly^ whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996, Q ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell Poddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed, whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri 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 ei,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would •rice of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt i;he price of developed liand for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters Page 7 of22 i fixing tine marl<et value of undeveloped agriculturaT land having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the fair I price much higher than the one so has the learned Reference market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit,R-2 and Court.
10. It m'ay be noted that wh above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA en judgment was reserved in the 19^'^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition •App.No.266/2008 titled laiSingh Vs. (JO! & Ann 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 counsel for the land owners to the arguments of learned the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.
11. The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the deposition of Stiri Trilok Z\\^w^{Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs Union ofIndia in which he h area while proving the Al<s Si. as explained the topology of the ra 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 Badii and Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipal.thala are situated Puri. West and villages Bharola and ' n the South of. village Jahangir., LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matti:ers Page 8 of22
12. 1 may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory Government of NCT Delhi w Jahangir Puri is situated bn th village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the decision reported as Amar Singh Vs. Union of it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had \ if emergency i.e. the year 1975that the two subject acquisitions India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) A81, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during: the period c
76. It has to be remembered of Delhi, published by the ould reveal that village Bhalswa IB eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.1. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Aljpur, MamqorDur.(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 of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to urbanization was of a weak were also for re-sgttlenient of.slum and J.J.Clusters.
14. The decision:in LA.App.h Anr. which was reserved on 0.266/2008 iai Sinah Vs. UOi & 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on; 19.8.2011, vyhen instant appeals were.reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 a.hd I would highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in !-0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-We? villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar and Bawana, r had noted t t Delhi being revenue estate of ' Garhi, Sanoth, Allpur, Narela,, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat the topology of the area •LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 9 of22 i. constituted a 'V at the point Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak common point, proceeding 25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/ of intersection wliere G.T.Karnai Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi iviandi. it heeds to be highliglited that village Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1. 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
1) and the sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for reliance upon as noted in sut In the said judgment dated 2 two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced here
21. The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh per the former, fair me comes to ^26.75 lakhs ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the the land owners have placed i-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. 3.8.2011, I have discarded these IS recorded in paragraphs 21 to jndenis predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As rket value for the former per acre and the latter (g) The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered the sale the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was js trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No;68/2005 had'stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale dedd Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 10 of22 been held not to be rel fair market value of reasoning it was purchased by a Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated pay the price for the sai only plot of the requ able evidence to determine agricultural lands on the Non Government Organization" and as per ister Annie, the secretary of chat the organization had to d piece of land as it was the site size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee. 22, As held in the dec sions reported as 1995 (1) SGC: 717 Land Acouisition Officer Eluru & Ors. \/s..Isti Rohini & Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd.'Raufuddin I/5. Land Acquisition Officer ansactions evidenced in a Jered in evidence by virtue 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 (Refer para 13) sale tr sale deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L. the reason there may which have led the buye without being. influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bi studied the market and available land in the be special circumstances, to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an eiqually well informed seller need by any special cy to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index offair marl<et value ofthe lands in the area. Iwould be failing if Ido not highlight that the Union of India had relied 20_5.2002 which was accepted by the learned pertaining to the notification dated upon the sale deed dated 27.1.2003 where-under Rajapur Kalan was sold agricultural land in village by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much k:sser price i.e. ^17,74,109/per acre as against th ^63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per 'acre for Ex.PV e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28.89 V-l/B. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 11 of22 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 t ie reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 a reasons to hold that advisabjy not be gooc marl<et value of subjec ibove would be additional the 2 sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair:t lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition, is of such large an area, it would make all the more a )ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result would be failing not to decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UP! & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale! deed therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fjancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported area, was rejected by t question, with: suitable d he Court and the price in eduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should, be treated as tt" ie instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the.decisibn of the Di\ 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed on ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative therein was reduced by would be the same as w;o reference to the averag of the market value,,biit found that if the price 1/3'"'', the price arrived at Jid be price arrived at with e rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds / Page 12 of22 produced by, the Govern n,37,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ^2,15,160/- per bigha, from the sum of ^3,26 highlighted that in the the sale was 1993 a Section 4 of the Land 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market \'alue as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ment were giving a price of and the sale deed under 2d 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 1/3'"'': would be deducted,600/-. It may^ further be said judgment the year of nd the notification under Acquisition Act was dated ^2,15,160/-: In other w ords, the reasoning 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, years had required to be t once again, that I have noted the inherent the appreciation for 2 given. I would highiigl" hereinbefore already 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 reason^ 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 l^uri.
17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the a Jahangir Purl has been agreed f ^8 lakhs per acre. The land land situated in village Bhalsw to be transferred for a sum o owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre, land, was sold at fl[5],70,000/-.
18. Now, if the {Drice, as pe owners was ^15,70,000/- per r the own showing of the land acre as on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters Page 13 of22 difficult to, comprehend the Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.[4] abnormally high, value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ?18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and,[7] to ^15.[7] lakhs per acre. I ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has pp special considerations and n informed willing buyer and. without being influenced by particular land, and had thus informed and there being a s have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with ned that the said price was for 3t the price settled between an an informed willing seller and special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefr^om fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed.. issue in my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Singh 1/5. UP! & Ann i.e. where an abnormally high price for a'parcel of land is with evidence, of neither the buyer nor the seller being wellpecial feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy. Which observations have already been extracted by'me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reite
20. As regards auction rat situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen "ate the same. es of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, I do not find ts of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned Reference Court contained In paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as LM LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 14 of22 V. Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots.or flats by
21. In my decision dated 2 iai Sinaii Vs. UOi & Ors., I ha vidence relating to auction rates DDA. 3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 d extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case with reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DDA an and findings in para 29 to 31 are extracted here under:-
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 Nareia Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai render this evidence as the value of land in the s
30. It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area and Nareia Residential S acquired a building pc would', be what would building potentiality wou eveloped plots were allotted by d DSIDC. Relevant observations of the decision in iai Sinaii's case 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in the same 3er which were noted by the lhand's case (supra), v^hich most unreliable to determine jbject cases. as held even by the learned with the development of Rohinj Residential Scheme:heme, the subject lands had tentiality, but the question be the value to which the Id translate itself.
31. I hold.that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the/ observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Ciiands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I prorhise 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. V: crystallized. 23.. I reiterate the reasoning allotted developed plots in Sa price at which PDA sold dev
22. Highlighting that in La! Chands case (supra) the Suprenne Court held that such raw data was nneaningless and was too inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be to hold that price at which MCD njay Gandhi Transport Nagar and, eloped plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.
24. Pertaining to price n()tified 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 sahie relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chands case (supra) wherein this kind of l (discussed and discarded with where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^ 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.
25. From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri he outer ring road as we travel evidence was specifically reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I n NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil and Burari are separated by t towards Mubarka Chowk from the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous 3urudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and ).. LA.App.No!999/2010 & connected matters Page 16 of22 thus the fair marl<et value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.
26. While assessing the fairin village Burari, which was a dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, market value of the land situated Required pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. 1/5. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at ^11,60 land, no,44,522.73 per ac d assessed the fair market value,580.82 per acre for Category A re for Category B land and ?9",28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. notification dated 18.07.200^ The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at n[9],20,568/- per acre for Category A land and n[7],28,512/- per acre for Category B land. In lai Singh's case {supra), I had assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as unden- S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section 4 Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)
1. Pooth khurd 7.8. 2000 ^14.75 for Category 'A' ?14.3728 for Category 'B'
2. Hblambi Kalan 7.8. 2000 ?14.75
3. Bawana 7.8. 2000 n[4].75 for ^4.38125 for
4. Khera Khurd US.2000 n[4].835 for.Category 'A' ^4.46413 for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 17 of22 V
5. Narela 2.5.2001 n[6].165, for n[5].76087 for
6. Holambi^Kalan 22, 8.2001 n[6].745 for ^6.43811 for
7. Alipur 22. 8.2001 n[6].745 for ?16.43811 for
8. Holambi Khurd 22. 8.2001 ? 16.745 for n[6].43811 for
9. Rajapur Kalan 22. 8.2001. n[6].745 for ?16.43811 for
10. Sanoth 7.[1] 2.2001 n[7].295
11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 n[8].655,12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 ^8.655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 n[8].655
14. Alipur 23.5.2002 n[8].655
15. Sanoth 27. L.2003 n[9].43;5 for nS.94:912 for n[8].47539 for Category 'C
16. Rajapur Kalan 27. 1.2003 ^9.435 for ?18.94912 for fl[8].47539 for Category 'C pra) I had also analyzed the by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the
27. In lai Singh's case (su minimum land rates enhancec to time and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojinected matters \. 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 ACi Delhi 13 Gairai Singh Vs. UP! & ^, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander 1/5. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. ^(9/and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahehder Singh Vs. UO! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t various dates between the years 0 the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under;-
a little more with respect to the SG. Discussing the evidence;U the Court discussed the valuation on the basis agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annunri was ^95,00C/- 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 incljuding 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 no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered,the prices notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as age that the potentiality had been the Government issued the on w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions the inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the pric
52. The decision in to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court vi e was no,03,364/- per acre. hender Singh's case, pertaining ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential. agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwit projecting and the la potentiality, the same h commercial and industrial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding the Master Plan so nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality of the notification with concerned, virtually no c evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which the Division Bench was evelopment had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the market ecisions in Gairafs caise and LA.App.No;999/20r0 & connected matters Page 20 of22 Mahender Singh's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices" rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.
53. The empirical evicence in the instant case, apart froni 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 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be ^19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and, 13 biswa of land which was sold for ^5,39,690/- and ^70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ?6,09,850/spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 (?5,39,690/- +^70,160/-) were ice ^^17,74,109/- per acre as of 0.5.2002.
28. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than th e minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that the Learned Reference Court has rightly a has relied upon the correct ev Jopted the correct principle and dence 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 & connected matters Page 21 of22 Section 4 of tfie Land Acquis furtlner enhance tlie compe dismiss all appeals and cross land owners or the Union of
29. I leave the parties to ition Act and finding no scope to nsation or to reduce the same I objections, whether filed by the dia. r their own cost. In bea SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 22 of22