Full Text
LA.APP. 374/2011
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.
-X-T'r^ PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19068 /p il 0^
HIGH COURT OF DELHI ludqmentR^erved On: IQ^'' Annnet- yn 77 ludamenf ---- - ^ fvered On: 19^^ SpptemhRr. ?rm
LA.APP. 999/2010 &
CM No.6549/12011 (Cross-Objection)
RAJ SINGH
Tk u n. Appellant
Through; Mr.B.S.i^ann, Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and
. Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. ;
Vs.
UOIS, ANOTHER ... Respondents
Through. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate &Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin
Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-l
CM
No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 1007/2010 &CM No.15181/2011
1036/2010 &CM No.12865/2011, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP.
6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM
No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2013
163/2011 248/2011, 375/2011, 394/2011, 407/2011.
11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP.
, LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP.
, LA.APP. 3.47/2011, LA.APP.
, LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP.
, LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP.
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 &
Award No, 06/2002-2003, Village-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)
Al\ D LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters Page 1 of22 i'rnri. fll
•<
83/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011,. LA.APP. 200/201
202/2011/LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201
244/2011, LA.APP. 245 CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP.
1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP.
1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP.
1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP.
/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, LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4114/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 30 07 1998 &
Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village- Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)
ORDER
1. Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment? ^DEEP NANDRAJOG local papers may be allowed
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment sh Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. ould be reported in the
1. I proceed with an apolog/ to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir 3oint of time and then to a t 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 of time..
2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue ! ' • estate of village Bhalswa Jahafigir Purl was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatlers to a notification dated 15.09 2000 issued und.er Section 4 of tine Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, Rehabilitation ofJJ Cluster'. This 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 marl<et value of the acquired land at ^2,87,9.16.66 per bigh lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at?13.82 lakhs per acre.
3. Dissatisfied with the:a Acquisition Collector, the land a, which is equivalent to n[3].82 u'alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed ssessment made by 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 Rai Sinah 1/9. Union of Indid, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or ^14,56,963 per acre.
4. It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition-Collector as well as the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the Government as on 01.04.20(10, 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 cippreciation for the period from 01.04.2000 tiirthe date notification under Section 4 of the Land, Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court graited appreciation for the said period of 165 days (§> 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the price ?13,82 lakhs per acre: LAApp.No!999/2010 & connected mati;ers Page 3 of22
5. Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same reve Jahangir Puri was acquired p under Section 4 of the Lar 30.07.1998, for the same put JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on 04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior lue estate of village Bhalswa ursuant to a notification issued id Acquisition Act 1894, dated lie purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of 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 m.20 lakhs per ssessment mad^ by the Land, owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The [.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.inA/2Q08 titled Chandrawati 1/9. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^11,46,670/- per. acre.. The difference: in the the same reason as noted destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. -ollector 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 @ 11% per annum for the interregnum period.
7. The Union of India as well as the land owners have challenged the assessment rr ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters (•: ill \ I !;' i Court by way of tlie appeals above.
8. On behalf of the land owners, justifying: higher compensation, reliance was placed on.the following documentary evidence;- (a) The rate notified b^ the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by and cross objections mentioned:iibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in "esidential 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 Bhalaswa Jahangir Purl, was fixed at ?5830/- per square meter or T[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 commercial plot in Sanja; terms of the Resolutior 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 sqi transporters (S ^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 maters P documents, learned counsel for the land owners argued that the rate it Stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fai land comes to n[7],19,85 that even if 50% deducti development costs, fo " market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made on account of the r 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 placed reliance on the for the land owners also auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/ on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006,;r the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between X23.12 lakh to T28.[4] lakh, which according to. learned coinsel translates to a price of n[4],36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged, that suitable deduction coujld 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 @ ?3 learned counsel urged th 2,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/- or ?11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat:ers contended that this sale after mal<]ng a reas deed should be relied upon, onable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated 24.03.2000 reby land measuring 4-16 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 of undeveloped agricuit Jahangir Purl. Another: (Exhibit PW-15/2), whe bigha situated in the Mamurpur was sold to R upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri ell (Exhibit PW-6/i) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 ?18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land vyas in the revenue estate of i village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o" the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1,996.
9. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay. appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2; in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^oddar 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 94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would adjoining village or to adopt LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the:he price of developed land for ers fixing the market value of having a vast area. Learne learned Land' Acquisition C market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and Court.
10. It may. be noted that wh^n judgment was reserved in the August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition.App.No.266/2008 titled faiSinah l/s. UOI.&Anr. 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 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 Shh Trilok Ch^ndi {Ha/qa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC. No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoii above captioned matters on been reserved for. judgment appeals, lead matter being LA undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the Dllector has assessed the fair price much higher than the one so has the learned Reference ys Union ofIndia in which he t as explained the topology of the area while proving the Ai<5 Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa Jahangir Pun. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in ould reveal that village Kadipur 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 Purl. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 8 of22
12. I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory jof Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on t-h^ eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l.. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorj3ur (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 Ian js in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in •potential price increased due the area was of a kind where to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinnh \/s. Union nf India 1998 fV) AD (Delhi) A81, resettlement colony called Jat it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period cf 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.h Ann which was reserved on O.266/2008 lai Sinah l/s. UO! & 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, whem instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and I. would highlight that vi hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in:.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar and Bawana, I had noted t t Delhi being revenue estate of Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd Tat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 9 of22 f constituted a 'V at tine pointi of intersection wiiere G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak common, point,, proceeding 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. for the land owners had re 25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/ Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi iviandi. It needs to be Iniglnligtited tfiat village Bhalswa Jainangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesEiid and as explained hereiliabove and abuts towards the east of NH-l.
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 In those cases, learned counsel lied 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 sul; 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, 1 have discarded these ns 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 @ 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 tPie land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010 8c connected matters im been held not to be reli fair marl<et vaiue of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S Organization" and as per ister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price for the sai' only plot of the requ requirement;of the or'gj for destitute women d piece of land as it was the site size suitable for the nization and is being used I.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.
22. As held in the dec see,717 Land Acauisiti Isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer 369 Mohd. Raufuddin I (Refer para 13) sale.tr sale, deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L. sions reported as 1995 (1) on Officer E/uru & Ors. I/5. para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC ^5. Land Acquisition Officer ansactions evidenced in a:iered in evidence by virtue A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market v the reason there may which have led the buye true test is the price wl" alue of land in an area for be special circumstances •to pay a higher price. The ich a well informed willing without being, influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bi studied the market and buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller need by any special y to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all topology of the area anc buyer'has a fancy for a may pay a.much higher available land in the area; has understood the the prevailing prices. If a ^articular piece of land, he orice and this would not be a good index of fair markjet value of the lands in the area. Iwould be failing if Ido not highlight that the 7 n K dated 20^5.2002 which was accepted by the learned 9! n Court pertainiipg to the notification dated ®?ncultural land In village Rajapur Kalan was,sold agriculturist for a much leisser price i.e. T17,74,109/per acre as against th ^63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre, for Ex.P\ LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matte e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds by an agriculturist to an rs Page 11 of22 Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, thennselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.
23. Thus, apart from t Reference Court, with \ reasons in, para 21 a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec he reasoning of the learned vhich I concur, afore-noted bove 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 reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence ofthe transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer, I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited •by learned counsel Sh.I.S.Dahiya f)eing the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead 0.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh Rs Vs. UP! & Ops. It was matter being LA.App.K (since, deceased) thm / 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 learnecj Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a ancy 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 t • " k, y nc deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th le instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair in the decision of the Di\ 38' wherein the Division value in the sale deed or of the market value, bL therein was reduced by would be the same as wo ignores the reasoning in the decision of fhp n \/icir.r,:. ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative t found that if the price 1/3'"'', the price arrived at Jid be price arrived at with 4- 4-u HI iv-c ai 1iveu dL wicn reference.to tlie average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 12 of22 r 1.ir produced by the Govern ^1,37,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas innent were giving a price of and the sale deed under:ed 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. p,15,1,60/- per bigha, f 1/3^^ would be deducted 5,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd the Notification under 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 sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, fronn the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the the sale was 19.93 a Section 4 of the Land the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the / inherent contradiction In the vakie of the land price as per s itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deeds reflecting the 2 sale deeds and th destructive evidence of fair market value."
16. For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land In village Bhalswa jahangir Purl.
17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of as lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ?15,70,000/-:
18. Now, if the price, as.per the own showing of the land owners was ?15,70,000/- per acre as on 0r;07.2003, •it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters 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 leiarned, Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned 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 particular land, and had thus
19. I have discussed this 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 paid by a buyer smitten with special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 iai Sinah 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 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 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 "ate the same. es of developed plot of land 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 30 whicli are premised on tiie decision of th^ Supreme Court reported as Lai ^f!) Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the widence relating to auction rates 3DA.; 3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 d extensively discussed the law reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by
21. In my decision dated 2 lai Sinah l/s, UO! & Ors.. I he declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case, with eveloped plots were allotted by d DSipC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in iaiSingh's case are extracted h ere under:reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DOA ar
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 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 Narela Residential S acquired a building pc would be what would building potentiality wou 20% or 75%, we do not l<now. has resulted in the same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which most unreliable to determine jbject cases. as held even by the learned with the development of Rohini Residential Scheme:heme, the subject lands had tentiality, but the question be the value to which the translate itself. Id
31. 1hold 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, tp'deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 15 of22 ij-
22. Highlighting that in La! Chands case (supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too. inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be crystallized. '. " •
23. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair hnarket value of agricultural land..
24. Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lea;;e-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 Ga:5e (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with reference to village, Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I n where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that 1am 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 NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha: village Burari is on the east of village. Bhalswa jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vill and indeed the- plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards NTubarka Chowk from the. Tibetan' Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Surudwara jviajnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and •ff thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.
26. While,assessing the fair •in village Burari, which was c dated 24,07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I record i.e. the evidence ir notification dated 24.7.1998. notification dated 18.07.200E ?19,20,568/- per acre for Catepory Aland and ?17,28,512/- per had market value of the land situated cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of lad considered the material on my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of.LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & 1/5. Union nf inriiR Pi's. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60 d assessed the fair market value,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 C land pertaining to the The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at acre for Category B land. In Jai. Singh's case {supra), assessed the fair market value ofland in 10 villages as 'under:- 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. Holambi Kalan 7.8. 2000 n[4].75
3. Bawana 7.8. • i 2000 n[4].75 for •^4.38125 for
4. Khera Khurd 11.^1.2000 ^4.835 for.Category 'A' ^14.46413 for EA.App.No.999/2010 & coruciected matters yf.5. Nareia 2.5i.2001 i n[6].165, for n[5];76087 for
6. Holambi Kalan 22, 8.2001 ?16.745 for ae.43811 for Category 'B' • 7.. Alipur 22. 8.2001 n[6].745, for ?16.43811 for
8. Holambi Khurd 22. 8.2001 ? 16.745 for ?16.43811 for 9- Rajapur Kalan 22. 8.2001 n[6].745 for ne.43811 for
10. Sanoth 7.12.2001 ^17.295 •11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 ^8.655
12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002, ^8.655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 ?18.655
14. Alipur. 23.5.2002 n[8].655
15. Sanoth 27. i L2003 ^9.435 for ?18.94:912 for ?18.47539 for Category 'C
16. Rajapur Ka an 27.;L.2003 T19.435 for nS.94912 for ns.47539 for Cateaorv 'C 11: In fai Sinoii's case fq,, pra) 1 had also analyzed the by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit oi the to time.and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010 & cqrinected matters Page 18 of22 cni 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 AI^ Delhi 13 GairaiSinoh \/s. UP! & Mn, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. UOL 111 (2004.) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UOf..& 6>r[5]. 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 • the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:-
LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters • I agricultural yield and foi per annum was ?95,00C the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of jnd that the gross return per acre /- for multiple cropped- land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ?9.[5] lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to T10,03,364/- 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,121/- per acre for Category 'A' ler acre for Category 'B' lands, that the potentiality had been the Government issued the i^n w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions the _ 3inst the minimunh price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ?10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ^0,03,364/- per acre. average figure of ?9,76 lands and ^9,51,121/- p The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as age
52. The decision in to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court v\ comniercial and indu agricultural land in Delh had noted that notwit projecting and - the la ^bender Sinoh's case, pertaining of the notification with concerned, virtually no c •"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, jstrial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality:hstanding the Master Plan so - -Jnds theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality fact that tiji 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 ovn ^4-; ^ t a_ i i..... exploited the potential, para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The As 1 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 Sinoh's translated itself into a wlnen prices rose by case liiglnlight that potentiality reality between 1990 and 1997 about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate mtum and the acceleration fell to n to 11% per annum. One reason to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and indusitHal and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated. with the requisite mome between 10% per annun could be that pursuant
53. The empirical evic ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the. land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras irned Reference Court has given upon and for which 1have given 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 of agricultural lands would be the fair market value ?19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 oh the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for T[5],39,690/- and ?70,160y mean that ^6,09,850/spent would yield the'p the date of the sale i.e. 2 - was paid as stamp duty would (^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 tl-e minimum price notified by the Government from time to 1;jme, 1 hold that the Learned Reference' Court has rightly adopted the correct principle and has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnum period between t he dates when minimum prices were notified and. the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matteirs Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections, whether filed by the land owners or the Union of India.
29. Ileave the parties to bear their own cost., • sic? SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010 & coimected matters • (1 (1
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 22 of22