Full Text
LA.APP. 241/2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay
Pathal<, Advocate for UOI.
Through: None.
19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
-t—
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19060 - - J..
•
• %
;
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
/udameht Reserved On^ /W//c/- 7n 17
ORDER
CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Ot^ectibn)
R/M SINGH^ . ^Appellant ^ '
Through; I\fr;B.S.|Vlann, Advocate , Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and ;
. M'"-N.S..Negi, Advocate. "
Vs. • . > •
UOI &ANC^HER _ ^ ' Respondents
Through: . Mr.Sanjay Poddar; Senior Advocate ^ 'Si|Mr;Sanjay Kumar Pathak>
Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Pa'nda and |Vis;K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates-fo:r).R-l
AND
No.12885/2011, LA.AP
Mn I^PQI^/OmT I A Anr^ ^ ^ CM 1007/2010 &CM Nd.l5i8i/2011
LA.APP; . 1010/2010 LA APP.
1^6/2010 &-CM No.12865/2011, LA.APPi 5/2011 ilA APp'
^°-6756/2011, LA.APP. 38;^0 cm ^ LA.APP. 41/2011,; LA.APP. 89/2011 LA.APP.
142/2011,, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2011'"Ia"APP"
'246/2011, LA.APP.: ^ISiJ
386/2011, LA.APP. 387/2dll' iLA^Pp" 407/201^ LA-APP..3:9:;/2011, LA.APP. 40;6/2Olli;iliai.APP;.
(Relating to Ndtifiqation, u/Sec.i 4 dated 15 OQ' i
Award No. 06/2002-2003, Villagei-Bhalswa JahangirJ
AND
>• • •
& LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters-
•> '•?a^l of22 ^ '
;i.
, LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP, 88/2ail 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. .240/2011, LA.APP.
241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP. .243/2011, LA.APP.
.24472011, 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. 382/2011, LA-APP. 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. .408/2011
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 &
Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village- Bhalswa Jahangir Puri), CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.. - •
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? - i PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.
1. Iproceed with an apology to the reader b.y referring to a • notification issued later in. point of time aind then to a notification issued prior in point oftime; but the reason is thatthe 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 758-0i;bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa jahangir Purl was acquired pursuant LA,App.No.999/20l0 &connected matters ^ • Page2of22 to a notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, nannely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ: Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001.,After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, whereby he assessed the^ fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ^13.82: lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value 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 1/5.. 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. th;e 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 jDeriod from, 01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4. of the - Land Acquisition Act was- issu,ed 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 ?13,8'2 lakhs per acre; LA.App.No.999/2010 &.connected matters.Page 3of22
5. Another parcel of land ad-measuring. 929-05 biglia, 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 5 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 i[2].03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the. acquired land at.?2,33,333 per bi^ha which is equivalent to ?11.20. lakhs per acre. • 6.. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in.the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/20-08 titled Chandrawati 1/? Union ofIndia, assessed the fair market value of the acquired ' land at m,46,670/- per acre.. The difference;in the destination reached is on the same,reason> as. noted hereinabove pertaining to the notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector adopting the land rate notified, by the Government with effect from, 1.4.1997 vide' circular.dated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference. Coui^t 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 &connectedmatters • Page 4of22 Court by way of the appeals and cross'objections mentioned above. ^ •. • •,
8. On behalf of the land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed • on: the following' documentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04.1999 (Exhibit, PW-4/1), whereby it ' disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase,in respect of developed residential' and commercial ' properties owned by L&DO. Relying 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 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 sho.uld be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum -of v," • ?1,17,96,200/-per acre. ' (b). The rate charged by MCD for, aliotment of comniercial 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 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 @?4,500/- per square 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 bwners argued, that the rate stated in the •resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the •year.1976,: would evidence-that fair market value of developed., land comes to ^17,19,857/-per acre and it was urged ' that, even if 50% deduction is made on account of the.. development costs," for undeveloped' lands, fairmarket 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/-peracre.
(c) Learned counsel for the land owners also placed, reliance ^on the auction record of plots in. Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98. and. 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). •While; relying on the brochure of DDA pertaining to the year.2006, ' it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions, were held qua fiats having plinth area of:69 square me.tre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Purl at a price ranging between ?23.72 lakh' to ^28.4,lakh,., which according to. learned counsel 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), whereunder land measuring 2-19 bigha was. sold @ ?32,40,300/- on 25.04.^01, learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes. to ?56,93,163/-,or ?il,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 mal<ing a reasonable deduction, towards. develppment cost to determine the fair market value: ' of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. Another:sale deed dal^ed 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-I5/2)', whereby land measuring,4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate; of village' Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at., a price.of ?26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon, (ej Learned.counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was executed by one Shri Khushi Rarh in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on,05.08.1996 @ ^18 lakhs per acre. Mt was urged that the land was in the revenue estate, of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and^ thus was pressed in,. aid. as good evidence of fair market value of landjn ^ 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 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 tp be given on said value, the price as on the date of the. notification 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 land for LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 7of22 w fixing, the marl<et value of undeveloped agricultural land having a'vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land, Acquisition Collector has assessed, the fairmarket value of the land at a price much higher than the one reflected,in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference, ' Court.
10. It may"be noted that when judgment was.reserved in the above captioned matters on 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 1/?. IJOl &Aiir. in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instaht 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; 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 Shri Trilok Chand Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC Np.ll2A/2008ytitled; Vq Union ofIndia in which he has explained the topology of the area While proving the Ai<5 Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa.' Jahangir Purl. His testimony would reveal that village Kadipun and Libaspur are situated, in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badll and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of village Jahangir Purl. // LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters ' Page 8of22 ]V 12.; I may additionally note that the lay out^plan of the. National Capital Territory of Delhi, published' by the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l.. Villages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, 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, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue.Estate of said village was for re-settlement of slum and J..J. dwellers i.e. the.'. character of urbanization in the area was of a kind where, potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah l/s. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, 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.CIusters...
14. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinaii l/s. UOi Ann which vyas 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 ! 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, I had.noted that:the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 9of22.constituted a.'V' at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e.'NH-1. and Rohtak Roacj J.e. NH-10 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 1 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, 1 have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which.are reproduced hereunder:- 21.;'. The first argument is.predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is. dated 25.3.2000, and the •, sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As,. \ per the, forme,r, fair market value for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @. •' • ?63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence 'to determine fair market value of. agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PyV-1/3 was purchased,by a religious trust by the, name of,'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6' who. had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while - 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., LAApp.Nb.999/2010 &connected matters. Page 10 of22 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 Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of PyV-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 Lane/ Acquisition- Officer Eluru Ors. Vs. isti Rohini &Aiir. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Moiid. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition. "(Refer.para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso factq treated, as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the.reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyerto pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing' buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being.influenced by any special circumstances orthe fancy to buy a particular piece. 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 may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if Ido not highlight that the,, Union of India had rejied 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. ^7,74,109/- ' /, per acre as against the price which conies 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 of'22 Ex.PW-1/2. and Ex;PW-l/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.
23. Thus^apart from the reasoning of the learned • Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons., in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hoi'd • 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 result of a fancy of the buyer. [ 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.193/2006 Pratao 'sinnh • "O! ^ 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 lahd in the area was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account ofthe • parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale u.[1] question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be^ treated,as the basis to determine fair' l^arket va|ue. 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 val.ue, in the sale,deed on, its own logic as indicative of thq market value,, but found that if the ^price - ther^Ti w^. reduced by 1/3^^ the price Arrived: at would be the same as would be price arrived at with reference.to-the average rate of the sale deeds ' produced by the'Union of India i.e. the sale deeds • LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatters Page12 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 ^2,31,800/- w'^hich was near about the price of ^2,15,1.60/- per bigha,. if 1/3^'' would be, deducted. from the sum of ^3,26,600/-. It may further be.• * highlighted that, in the said judgment the year of, • ' the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the.Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum,, arrived at as aforesaid, i.e. ^2,15,160/-.: In Other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but' meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the saie deed in question as the. basis for if it was so, •. the-appreciation for 2 yea.rs had requi.red to.be.: given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."
16. For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural..land, in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.
17. As regards the agreehient to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhajswa Jahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ns lakhs, per acre.' The land owners have also relie.d upon another sale deed dated. 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at.?15,70,000/-; •
18. Mow, if the price,, as per the own showing of the land owners was ?15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is.LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 13 of22 nr, difficult to compreiiend tine abnormally high value as per Ex.PW,-6/1 which is dated 8.4.1996,in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs pfer acre and 7 years.down the line the price fell to ?15.[7] lakhs per acre. I need to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the learned Reference Court, while examining Ex'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 dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Sincjh ]/s. UQ] & 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 determine fair' market value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have^ already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22.and 23 of the said decision. I reiterate the,same. -.•
20. As regards auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, 1do 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 30, which are premised on the decision ofthe Supreme Court reported as La!, LA.App.No.999/2010 &, connected matters Page 14 of22 Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the evidence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA'.
21. In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh 1/5-. UOJ & Qrs., I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Suprerrte Court in Lai Chands case with reference to price at which developed plots were'allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 ofthe decision,in lai'Singh's case • are extracted'hereunder:- 29'. Now, we do not have evidence as to what was ' the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scherrie developed by:DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in, number which were noted by the Supreme Court in- Lai Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to deterrnine • • 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.qjuestion ' would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.
31. I hold that the learned Reference Court,' keeping ' in view the observation and ' the findings of the • Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected, said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal,with the same while r shall be discussing as to what should. be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No'.9'99/2010 &comected,matters Page I[5] of22 y.,, <22. Highlighting that in La! Chands case (supra) thi; Supreme Court- held that su'ch raw data was- rrieanihgiess and v., was too'.. inchoate wherefronn..fair nnarket value could be V:crystaIlized. - ' ' v ' '.23. I reiterate.the reasoning to hold that price at which. MCD^., allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport IMagar and-.price at which pDA sold' developed, plots and flats would be. irrelevant.to determine fair market value of agricultural land'..... ^. 24. Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging' '.• unearned increase when lease-hold property under'L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state ^ ' that the same relates to developed plots and, on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of: evidence was specificaily discussed and discarded with reference to village Rithala Where lands were acquired for Rohini Residential Scheme, | 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-rrieasuringi 758.01'^:. bigha and 92.9.05 bigha., ' ' ' •
25. From the topology of the area and as pe^ the]testimony, of.Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari). who, appeared as PW-2 In LAC ' • L^; " I Noai2A/2008 it emerges tfiat village Burari is on the^ east of;. ' village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and indeed the;.plan':for Delhi • -would reveal that.the tvyo villages i.e., Bhalswa Jahangir Puri '. and Burari are separated by the outer "ring road as we travel towards •IVIubarka- Chdwk from the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka.tila. The;; two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' andV,. '. LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected ma-tters ', Page 16 of22 thus the fair market valye of land on a particular date in the two villages would be cornparable.
26. While assessing tlie fair matet vaiue of tiie iand situated in 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 pronounced or) 7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeais, lead matter being LA, Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! &nr. lA Unicin nf mm. 'x:, Ors, in the said decision, Ihad assessed the fair market vaiue of agricultural land at ?11,60,580.82 per acre,for Category A land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land' and,?9,28,464.65 per acre for Category Cland pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me;at, ?19,20,568/- per acre for Category Aland and ?17,28,512/- per acre for Category Bland. \nMLSingh's z^s^ ^supra). Ihad. S.No. -t Village Name • Date of Notification under Section 4 Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)
1. Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000 514.75 for Category 'A' ?14.3728 for CatdQorv 'B'
2. Holambi Kalan 7.8.2000 ^14.75
3. A Bawana 7.8.2000 n[4].75 for Category 'A' '' ^"14.38125 for Cateqorv 'B'
4. Khera Khurd 11.9.2000 514.835 for.Category 'A',?14.4fe413 for Cateqorv 'B'.EA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters,Page 17 of22 5.. Narela 2.5.2001 ?I[6].165. for ?15.76087 far Category 'B' 6.; Holambi Kalan" 22.8.2001 ^16.745 fcir n[6].43811 far Category 'B' [
7. Alipur, 22.8.2001, ?16.745, for Category'A' ?16.43811 for 8: • Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 ? 16.745 for n 6.43811 for; 9. Rajapur Kalan \22.8.2001 ?16.745 for • 06..43811 for 10., Sanoth 7.12.2001 n[7].295, 11.. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 ^1,8.655 12.. ShahpurGarhi • 23.5.2002 ^18.655 13.- Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 ?18.655
14. Alipur 23.5.2002 nB.655
15. Sanoth 27.1.2003 ^9.435 for Category 'A' ! ?18.94;912 for Category'B' ?18.47539 for Category 'C, 16..Rajapur Kalan 27.1.2003 n[9].435 fon n[8].94912 for ^18.47539 for Category 'C. /^/' Singh's case (supra) I had alsO: ahalyzed 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 & cojiiiectedmatters.. Page 18 of22 'W •\ "i Governrrient offiicers and^ found noii only; rationale but a reflection of urbanization inipacting/such i^ncrease.. 'With •• preference to-the decisions of four Division Benches of this, „; / / Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 GairaiSinah l/s.. UP! &:;.. Ml., 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UP!. Ill (2004) ^ 95 Hul<um Sinah Vs. UP! and an unfeported decision in,;,,LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UPr& Prs. dprideH V -•/ ' • 11^5.2006 wherein based,on sale deeds anrfothdr evidence •, i.land price was determined on various dates between the years 1993 to 1996 and in relation to the minimum 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 tihne by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agriculturaUands in Delhi as tabulated.: by rrie in para 7 above bring, out two very important facts I relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of'. agricultural land in Delhi over the years cohimencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was - ^4:-65 lakhs per acre which rose to^10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7., years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years arid the average.price increase would be,16.436%. The price ' ^ '"'se over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter byI, 11% for.the next 2 yearsand 11.5% for the next year i.e.. of. 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization,;.: =; between the year 1;990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and: good corroborative evidence for this wouldbe the decision of:the Division Bench of tNs Court ih'.- /; • Gairafs case (supra), which 1, have discussed in para'49 above. •;.' need to elaborate a little more with resjDect to the, decision in Gajrafs Q^sQ. Discussing the evidence,,. pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land In village Holarabi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras"9 to 17 •,LAApp,.No.999/2010 &connected matters. "••• Page 19 of22: the Court disGussed the yaluatibh on the basis of agricultural yield.and found that the gross return per acre • per annuh^ was ^95,000/- for multiple^ cropped [and and ^ having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the ^ land price.at f[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 FG'I Godowns had come up and based on-^sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the. land price would come to ?10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the m4n • average figure of ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' l^ds^and ?9,51,a21/-, per acre for Category /B' l^ds:, The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in, when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f., 1.4.1997, evidenced by the, fact that even with respect to safe transactions the. Court found that as against the hiinimum price notified. hr '^"^hs per acre, sale, instances were •. ^'9h''ghting that the price was,no,03,364/-per acre. in Mahender S/nah's cas^ -pertaining to^village Bawaha, referred to by irie in para 49 above. highlights with 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- i^.esidential com,merciar and. industrial future.exploitation of agricultural [and in Delhi and on, the issue of:potentiality had. noted that notwithstanding the Master. Plan so •. projecting.. and. the lands theoretically acquiring ^ potentiality, the same had not translatecS into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e the date of the.notificatibn 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 anql what the.market actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs caise and;' LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatters • " -Page 20 of22 ' ' v • Mahender Singh's case highlight that' potentiality ',. translated itself into a reality between -1990 and 1^97 when prices rose by about 16.5% per •annunrl and thereafter the extended potentiality flid not translate with the requisite momentum and the Acceleration fell to • betweeh 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 residentiar, commercial and industrial arid probably there was enough availability of developed land, and the hunger of the market got saturated.
53. The empirical, eviderice in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given, further reasons in paras 21 arid 22 hfeiriabove for not ^; relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds,'to determine fair,, market value, we have with, us the sale,deed relied upon • - c 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 j.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. ofJand which:Was sold.,for,. ^5^39,690/-and ?70,160/-was paid as istamp duty would mean that f[6],09,850/- (?5,39,690/- ?70,160/-) were' ^spent.would,yield the price ?=17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.' /, -. • absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than the minimum price notified by the Gbvernment from time to time, I hold, that the Learned,. ' Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle and-, has relied upon the correct eviderice and has given the correct appreciations by suitably; increasing the price to niake up the interregnum period, between the dates when minimum prices ^ Were notified and the date of the notification issued under. •LA.App.No.999/201G &eoimected matters, Page 21 of22 Section 4of the Land Acquisitipn Act and finding no scope to furtlier eniiance tlie compensation or to reduce tlie same i dismiss ail appeals,and cross objections; whether filed by the: land owners or the Union of India. ' ' i'. •
29. •Ileave the parties to bear their own cost. ' SEPTEMBER 19, 2011, mm LA.App,No.999/2010 &cpimected matters -r~r
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 22 of22