Full Text
' r $-48 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 240/2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay
Pathak, Advocate for UOI.
Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate.
19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
-y-TrN/<-S=-^'3^ PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19059 -rS
•A:
# .
'%.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI ludamentReservGci hn: W August 7h r7 .
,; ' ludament DpIh/f^rM pn:. SeptemhRr. 7m 7
CM No,6549/2011 (Gross-Objection)
•
' : : : Appeilaht ^ ^
• " Through:. |\^r.B.S.|Vlann, Advocate, Mr.Deepak KhosIa, Advocate and
. Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate.
UOI & ANOTHER ' Through: IM
Vs.
^ Respondents r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate
MrSanjay Kumar Pathak/:;i\ir.Sachin Nawani, MrSiddharth Panda and Ms.K
Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates-fonR-l AND
•4-
LA,APP. _ 1009/2010, LA.APP; 1010/2010 'LA APP' '
^,™,'^°-12865/201l/LA.APPr5/20il,.LAL^PP; '
6/2011 &. Ciyi No.6756/2oil, LA.APP. 38/2011' & CM
41/2011,; LA,APP. 89/2011,-LA.APP.
142/2011,, LA.APP. 160/2011,^ LA.APP. 161/2011' LA APP" , 163/2011 LA.APP. 24q/20li, lK.APP. 24l7/2dil ^LA'aPp'
248/2011, LA.APP, 375/2011, LA.APP. ,386/2bll> LA.APR. 3:8(7/2011 L/t'APP
407/2011' ,39^/2011, LA.APP. 4d6/201i;;ita;APP;
(^ela^ng to ^Notification ^u/Sec^ 4;dated 15.0^:2000 ^
Award No..06/2002-200p, ViIlag4BhaiswaJahangrr;!!:!)^ ;: ^
1001/2010 ;:;^ CM AND LA.AppiNo.999/2010 &connected matters
• -
V
Page! of22
' 88/20.11 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP'. 132/2011, Li^PP.
164/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LAJ\PP. 201/201_1. J^^APP..
202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, <A.APPrM6/20W 241/2011, LA.APP. 24272011, LA.APP.
244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 &,CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. .376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011-.
LA.APP; 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/Sec., 4 dated 30.07.1998
4 • Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village:- Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) .
ORDER
•. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? , • . ; >!
PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.
1. I proceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time' and then to' a notification issued prior in point of time; but the reason is that the- learned counsel for the land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining; to the notification which was issued earlier in point oftime...
2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated, in the revenue' estate of village Bhalswa jahangir Puri was acquired, pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters ' Page 2.of22 '. • to -a notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of tine Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public jDurpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ 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 Cdllector, announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated ZO.04.2002,,. whereby he assessed the fair market value, of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivaleht to ^13.82 lakhs per acre i.e.. fair nnarket value as of 15.09:2000 Was fixed at ^13.82 lakhs per acre.. ^. 4\ 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 Vs.. Un/on of India, assessed the,fair market value of the acquired. \ land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or ^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 bfi 165 days (g) 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 &comaected matters - • 'Page[3] of22 ' -r... 5. Another parcel of land ad-nneasuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same,.revenue, estate of.village Bhalswa, Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated. 30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of.. JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 • of the Act issued, on,04.08^1998. After following the due \ process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced an award: bearing No.18/2000-01 /dated. 12.03.2001,.whereby he' assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at' ^.. ?2,33,333 per. bigha which is equivalent to n,1.20 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 ChandrawathV^. Union ofIndia, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ni,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 (a) il% per annam 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 &connectedmatters -Page 4of22 by way of the appeals, and cross objections •mentioned above. '. '5
8. On behalf, of the land owners, justifying -higher compensation,, reliance was placed on the.following. r documentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notificationdated 1.6.04.1999 (Exhibit,PW-4/1), whereby it disclosed its intention to charge unearned; increase in. respect of developed, residential and comrriercial • properties owned;. by L&DO. Relying on this,,; • document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential (and in Azadpur, which, is statjed to: be close to'Village Bhalaswa jahangir Puri, was fixed at ?5830/- per.square meter.or'^2,35,92,400.92 per:,. acre..and it was urged that if 50% is deducted.. towards development cost, the land owners should •: - be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of -..^1,17,96/200/-per acre. (b),. The rate charged by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705. dated.23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot developed plots to the transporters @ '^425/- per r square meter and Exhibit P.W-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005,. whereby MCD decided to allot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar (a) ?4,50;0/-persquare, metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 &,connected matters Page 5,of22. documents, learned counsel for the land owners argued that the rate stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fair-market value of developed land comes to^l[7],19,857/-per acre.and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the develppment costs, for undeveloped lands,, fair. • market value would come to.?8,59,928/-per acre In the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •. ^ -annum; the.fair.market value as of 15.9.2000iwould j(' 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 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 price; ranging between ^23.72 lakh to USA lakh, which according to learned counsel translates to a prfce of ^4,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom. pertaining,to undeveloped agricultural land.'
(d) Relying on a sale, deed of village Khera Khurd
(Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land nheasuring 2-19 bigha was sold" @ J^32,40,300/- on 25.0.4.2001,. learned counsel urged that thei price per acre comes to ?56,93,163/- or ?11,86,169/- per bigha. It.Was. • LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters. Page 6of22 contended that this sale deed should be.relied upon, -,. after making a reasonable deduction, towards- " develppmeht cost to determine the fair hiarket value of undeveloped, agricultural land in village Bhalswa. /. Jahangir Purl. Another-sale deed dated 24.03.2000 ' (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16. bigha situated in the revenue estate, of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha Sw.ami Satsang, Vyas at a price'of ?26,75,OO0/-. per acre was also relied'upon, (e) Learned counsel for the, land owners also relied X, •upon, an Agreement to SelKExhibit PW-6/.l) which was ' executed by one Shri Khus'hi Ram 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 hiarket value of land in. the.said village, as of the date,of the agreement to sell., ' i.e. 5.8.1996.
9. Per contra,; Sh.Sanjay.Poddar learned 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 landin •village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was sold at a,.price of a,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.^^l,94,782 per bigha, and thus it vyas 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 matters / • Page 7of22. If fixing the market 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 rnay be noted that, when judgment.vygs reserved ir| the ^ above.captioned matters c?n 19^^ August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.266/2008 titled./a/5//7q^/? 1/?. IJO! &Ann in which similar arguments as were advanced 5 • with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar. ' submitted that in response to the arguments of learned., counsel for the land -owners, the arguments, which he had V 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 Chan.d [Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled,Rai Sinqh Vs Union•ofhidia in which he.has explained the topology ofthe. area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex:PW-2/l 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 West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are.situated" in the South of, village Jahangir Puri...... 1 • \ LA.App.No.9,99/20.10 &connected matters • Page 8of22iiy
12. 1 may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capita! 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.Karnal Road i.e.,National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kaian, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l., 13. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, postacquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said • village was for re-settle,ment 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 1/5. Union of.//7Q(^al998 (V) AD (Delhi) 45i, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Purl 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. LJO! ^ • Ann which was reserved on 12.8.2011-. and had yet to be '.pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instaht 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 Kaian, 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 '. •. r ( (3 constituted a 'V' at the point of intersection where G.T,Kama! Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-IO; bifurcated at.a / common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi jviandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa 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 deed 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 owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. •; In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded thesetwo 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 (a) f63.478 lakhs, per acre. The learned.;.Reference ',. Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable. evidence to- determine fair' market; value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.P.W-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 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.N.o.999/2Q10.connected matters • ' • • Page 10 of'22 been.held not to be reliable evidence to determine. _. fair market value of agricultural lands on the • reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" a'nd as.per ' • the testimony of P\N-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 Acouisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. /sti Rohini &,Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC X Mohd. Raufuddin l/s. Land Acouisition Officer,, ^ • (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced, in •a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by yirtue. of Section 5lA of the LA.Act 1894 have not to be 'PSP facto treated as an exemplar.sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for "the reason there - may be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being; influenced by any.special / circumstances or the fancy to buy. a particular pidce •, of land. - An informed buyer would be one who has •studied the market and has apprised himself of all, available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area.and the prevailing prices. If a, buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he maypayamuchhigherpriceandthiswouIdnot.be a good index of fair, market value of the lands-in.the area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the, Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated •20.5,2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist-to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e."?17,74,1,09/-. 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 &connected matters.' Page 11 of22 Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex,PW-l/3, themselves are fiaving intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-fade destroy each other.
23. Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned •Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair • market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason Ifind that under various awards nearly between.7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired, and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a • •reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having.. intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the Vesult of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned- • • being,, the decision dated.,19-12-2008 disposing- of a batch of appeals,, lead matter being LA.App.No.l93/2006 Pratao Sinnh (since deceased) thru IR^ t/^. up, ^..L, 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 hence the price, 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 question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the ^ Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale ^ t u '-e- Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-X/B. should be'treated as, the basis, to determine fair m.arket value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the 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, therein was reduced by 1/3^^;. the price arrived at would be the same as would beprice arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds •produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 &coimectedmatters Page12 of22 /3 ''••r:;^V produced by the Government were giving: a [3Fice of ?l,37,00p/- per bfgha and'tlie sale deed under which L&T had purchased the lahcl gave the price „ ?3,26,600/-.per bigha and the average would come ^ • to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ' t[2],I[5],160/- per bigha, if 1/3':'' would be. deducted..- from the,Sum' of;0/26,600/-/ ' it, may ifurther be V highlighted that in the said, judgment tjne year Of. the sale, was 1993 and the. notification: under. Section 4- of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.199S, 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. 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,.;the; appreciation for 2.years hajd required to be. •.given. • i would highlight onpe again, that I' have. hereinbefore already noted the;• inherent •.. contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually -,, destructive evidence Of the 2 sale deeds.reflecting,, fair market value."', ^-
16. For the reasons therein, I rejtect these two sale deeds ih. the present case also as reliable,and good eyidence to determine fair market value of agricuiturar landi in vlllaafe Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. ' •,17. As regards the agreennent to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ^8 lakhs per acre.; The iandowners have also relied upon another sale deed' dated 01.0,7.20,03 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold'at ^n[5],70,0007-;, •••., '.[1] • •• is. Now/, if the,price., as,jDer thie own showing of the land, owners was ^15;70,000/^. per acre;as on 0107.200:3, it- is, tA.App.No..-.999/2010 &coimected..matters. Tage 13 of.22..difficult to compretiend the abnormally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1 wh.ich is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is.ns lakhs per acre. It is.indeed a.puzzle that in 19^6 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price.fell to ^5.[7] lakhs per acre. I need to highlight that in paragraph^
39. of its decision, the learned Reference Court, while, examining Ex.PW-6/1 has,opined that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer 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. I have discussed this issue in my decision datec;! 23.^.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 laiSinah 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 same not to be good evidence to deterrriine fair market value of a large part.of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have • already been extracted by me hereinabpve 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 learned.Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 3,0 wh.ich are V premised on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported as La! •LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters, 'Page 14 of22 ''a \ s./I Chand I/5. Union of India 2009 (15) SGC 769. Similar is the' reasoning pertaining to the evidence relating to auction rates • of residential plots or flats by DDA. -•;2L In my decision d^ted 23.8.2011 in LA.App;No.266/200g; /ai Sinqii Vs. liOi &Qrs., 1had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court IK ZaTC^^s case' with reference to price at which developed.plots were^allotted by diffprent agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDG. Relevant observations^ and fihdihgs in para 29 to 31 of the decision in; iaiSinaUs. case are extracted hereunder:- 2Q. Now, we' do.not have evidence as to what Was ' tbe extent of plotted land sold by DSIDG or DDA with,. reference to, the Bawana Industria.r Estate developed,, py, DSIDC and Nareia Resideritial Scherne developed; by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know •^ The inchoate evidence has resulted lil the. same - \ V factors, being 3 in, 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. Itis.no doubl: true, as held even by the learned Reference Court,.that with the develophi-ent of Bawana Industrial. Area, Rdhini Residential Scheme..and Narela Residential Schenie; the subject lands had • ' acquired a. building:potentiality; but the question..would be,.what would. be,th[6] value to which the building.potentiality would translate itself.-^ ' •; '
31. Ihold that the learned Reference Court, keeping ' m view the observation and the findings;of the-.• Supreme Court in case (supra) has rightly. rejected said evidence as reliable.- On the issue of potentiality reiating 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. ^ - V. LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatters • Page 15 of22-. ' 22. Highlighting that in La! Chands casp (supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was nneaningless and was tod inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be ' *• crystallized.. ^. ' • ' 23.. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCP... allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport. Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land. /
24. ^Pertaining,to price notified by L&DO- for charging, unearned increase when lease-hold property under L&DO is •,, transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to developed plots.and on the parity of. -, reasoning in Lai Chands case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed -.and discarded with' reference to village Rithala where lands were aqquired 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-measuring:' 758.01 bigha and 929.05,bigha.
25. From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as P\A/-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008 it emerges that village Burari is on the east of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and indeed the plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and Burari are separated by the outer ririg road as, we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the. Tibetan Re-settlement, colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara iviajnu Ka Tila. The two are.adjoining villages separated by'Outer Ring Road' and' LA.App.No.999/2010.& connected matters • ' ' Page 16 of22 r r) r- • ? thus the. fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be corriparable.
26. •While assessing the fair market value ofthe land situated m:village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to notifications, 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 •pronouhGed on. 7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being Li.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Vs. Union nf inHi^ Qr^ 'n the said.decision, Ihad assessed the f^ir market value of agricultural land at m,60,580.82 per acre,fo^ Category A land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ^9,28,464.-65 per acre for Category Cland fD^ertaining to thP notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification dated, 18.07.2003 had been assessed, by me af ^19,20,568/- per acre for Category Aland and ^7,28,512/- per acre for Category Bland. Singh's {supra), \ had assessed the fair market value ofland in 10 villages as under:- S.No. •1.
2.
3.
4. Village Name uate of Notification under Section 4 Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000 Holambi Kalan Bawana 7.8.2000 7.8.2000 Khera Khurd 11.9.2000. LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Fair market value (in lakhs pei^ acre) ^14.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B' ^14.75: n[4].75 for ^14.38125 for Category 'B ^14.^835 for.Category 'A',^14.46413 for."^CategoW 'B'. Page 17 of22. •<.r"
5. Narela 2.5.2001 fl[6].165, for ns.76087 for
6. Holambi Kalan 22.8.2001 f16.745 for ^16.43811 for Cateqory 'B'
7. Alipur 22.8.2001 ?16.7.45 for fl[6].43811 for. Cateqory 'B' '
8. Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 ? 16.745 for ?16.43811 for Cateqory 'B',
9. Rajapur Kalan 22.8.2001 f16.745 for U[6],43811 for Cateqory 'B'
10. Sanoth 7.12.2001 ?i[7].295
11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 n[8].655
12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 n[8].655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 ^8.655,14. Alipur 23.5.2002 n[8];655
15. Sanoth - 27.1,2003 ?19.43;5 for fl[8].94:912 for ^8.47539 for Cateqory':C' '
16. Rajapur Kalan.27.1.2003 ^19.435 for Category'A' n[8].94912 for, ^8.47539 for Cateqory 'C {: in ]ai Singh's case (supra) I had also; analyzed the minimurn 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 &cojinected matters Page 18 of22, Government officers and had found not only,rationale, but a. •., reffection of urbanization impacting such, increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Ga/ra/ S/nah Vs. UO! & Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah Vs: UO! and an uhreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UO! & Ors. dpridpd 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 niinimum price fixed by the 'Government I had 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 commencing' from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ^4-65 lakhs per acre which rose to nO lal<hs per acre as of 1.4.1997 lie. the increase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7^ years which gives us a 1,15.054% 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 ' for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to- urbanization, • between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would / be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gafrafs case, (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above... -
51. Ineed to elaborate a little more with respect to the: decision in GajraJs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural.land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters •Page 19 of22 '.-.r the Court discussed, the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was, ^95,000/- for hnultiple 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 oh 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 T[9],76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category, 'B' lands. 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 ^he fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price notified ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was no,03,364/- per acre. • in Mahender Singh's ca.sp, pertaining, to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above I.? reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision. that the.Master Plan for Delhi. 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural 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 no development had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the...potential. As I have already highlighted in •' para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the. market ' • actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs,- caise and LA.App.No.999/2010.c&comiectedmatters •. •Page20of22 •.. 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 evidence in.the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in. 'j-. respect whereof.the learned Reference Court has. given K " good reasons not to rely upon and for which Ihave 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 RajapurKalan 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 agriculturaMands.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 isold for ^5,39,690/-and f70,160/-was paid as stamp duty would •, mean that ^6,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- +.^70,160/-) were spent would'yield the price n[7],74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.
28. In the absence of any cogent.evidence placed on record by either parties other than the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that the Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle and' has reli.ed uppn the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to'make ujD 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.,3^- Section 4of tMe Land Acquisition Act and finding no.scope, to furthier enhance tiie compensation or to reduce the same J dismiss ail appeais and cross objections, whether filed by the land owners orthe Union ofIndia.
29. Ileave the parties to bear their own cost. —i—T ) (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 JUDGE mm •LA.App.No.999/2010&coimected matters Page22of22'