Full Text
LA.APP. 161/2011
CHANDER MOHAN Appellant
Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay
Pathak, Advocate for UOI.
19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
1l PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19083 f)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI ludqment Reserved On: 19^^^ August 2011 ludament Dri vered On: 19^^ September ?m i
LA.APP.
CM No.6549/2 999/2010 & Oil (Cross-Objection)
RAJ SINGH
Through: Mr.B.S.
Mr.Deef:
; Mr.H.S. ' UOI& ANOTHER ^ ... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate & Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin
Nawani, |Vir.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-l
Appellant Mann, Advocate - ak Khosia, Advocate and
Negi, Advocate.
Is.
No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100
1036/2010 & CM No.12865/
7/2010 &CM No.15181/2011, APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP
Oil, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP.
6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM
142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011, 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011'
248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011
394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 &
Award No, 06/2002-2003, Village-Bhalswa jahangir Puri)
LA.APP.
LA.APP.
LA.APP.
AI\ D LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matte'rs
.APP. 161/201^^^^:!"^
3.47/2011, LA.APP.
387/2011, LA.APP.
406/2011, LA.APP.
Page 1 of22 jfDiii
88/2011 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, 8/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, i5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011.
(Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi
ORDER
1. Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporte
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ' 'Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 & iage- Bhalswa jahangir Puri) local papers may be allowed r or not? PRADEEP IMANDRAIOG. L
1. I proceed with an apolog notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir the learned counsel for the arguments with respect to the 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 Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant / to the reader by referring to a Doint of time and then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed notification issued later and had LA.App.No.999/2010 & comected mat! ers Page 2 of22 to a notification dated 15.09 2000 issued under Section 4 of the 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 market value of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigh lal<hs per acre i.e. fair market at^l[3].82 lakhs per acre.
3. Dissatisfied with the a Acquisition Collector, the land a, which is equivalent to ^13.82 i/alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed issessment 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 /?a/5//7a/7 l/s. Union ofIndia, 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 ss the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price fbr 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 notif Land Acquisition Act was is.learned Reference Court gra cation under Section 4 of the sued on 15.09.2000, but the nted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the price ^13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No!999/2010'& connectedmat ers Page s of22
5. Another parcel of land ad-measuring 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 by a declaration under Section 6
1998. After following the due Collector announced an award Jj Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on 04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior bearing No.18/2000-01 dated 12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market v ^2,33,333 per bigha which is acre.
6. Dissatisfied with the a Acquisition Collector, the land alue of the acquired land at equivalent to ?11.20 lakhs per ssessment made by the Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.11 1A/2008 titled Chandrawati Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^11,46,670/- per acre. The difference; in the destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the,learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and the same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. Collector adopting the land rate with effect from. 1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement interregnum period.
7. The Union of India as challenged the assessment m @ 11% per annum for the well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat;ers, Court by way of the appeals above. 8.. On behalf of the.l£ compensation, reliance wa 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 nd owners, justifying higher s placed on -the following libit 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 eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted at.?5830/- per square rr acre and it was urgec 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 square meter and Exhi Resolution No,610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ^4,500/- per sqi transporters @ '^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 LAApp.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 5 of22 documents, learned co argued that the rate unsel for the land owners stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, " market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped Mands, fair market value would conhe to ?8,59,928/-;per acre in the year 1976 and increiasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.'2000 would be ?24,76,592/- per acre
(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the
Rohini Residential Scher would evidence that fai land comes to ^17,19,85 on the brochure, of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav for the land OiWners also auction record of plots in ne in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, • the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ^23.72 according to, learned col lakh to ?28.[4] lakh, which nsel translates to a price of ^4,36,36,363 per acr^ 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 under land measuring 2-19
2,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes (Exhibit PW-15/1), where bigha was sold @ ^3 learned counsel urged th 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 making a reas deed should be relied upon, enable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Anotherural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the Mamurpur was sold to R upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w be sold on 05.08,1996 ( revenue estate of village ladha 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 ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which.was Khushi Ram in-favour of a hereunder land was agreed to ?18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of r village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence,o the said village as of the, i.e. 5.8.1996.
9. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^pddar 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 the price as on the date of the Ties to ?1,94,782 per bigha, and price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the is to be given-on said value, notification under Section 4 co thus it was argued that since, in the same village, it would adjoining village or to adopt i;he price of developed land for LA.App.NG.999/2010 & connectedmatters Page 7 of22 l! if 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 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 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 JaiSinah Vs. (JO!.& Ann in which sirnil ar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response counsel for the land owners advanced on the earlier oc response.
11. The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand [Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoh to the arguments of learned the arguments, which he had lasion may be treated as his 1/5 Union ofIndia in which he h area while proving the Al<s Si. jahangir Puri. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in as explained the topology of the ra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa. rould reveal that village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badli 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.999/2010 & comiectedmatters Pages of22
12. I may additionally not^ 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 th s eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l.. Villages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorour (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 revenues 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 Sinah l/s. Union nf />Z^1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 45i, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c
76. It has to be remembered it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the.^area which had f emergency i.e. the year 1975that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement ofslum and J.J.Clusters.
14. The decision in LA.App.^ Ann which was reserved on 0.266/2008 lai Sinah l/s. (JO! & 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, whcin instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and. 1. would highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in;.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar and Bawana, I had noted t Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela,, Khera. Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters Page 9 of22 constituted a 'V at the point of intersection wliere G.T.Karnai.Road i.e. NH-1 and Rolitak 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 Mandi. It needs to be highliglited tliat village Blialswa Jahangir Purl is outside the 'V aforesE id 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 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 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 these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded In paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-
21. The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh agricultural. lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered the sale is predicated on khe 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the....ch is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair mcirket 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 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 I t • C ^ VV ! I I IC 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.No.999/2010 & connected mattfirs been held not to be reli fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on the Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated pay the price for, the sal only plot of the requ reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization" and as per ister Annie, the secretary of:hat the organization had to J piece of land as it was the site size suitable for the requirement.of the organization and is being used for destitute, women circumstance, personal t
22. As held in, the dec see. 717 Land Acaiji<=;iti.e. there was 0 the vendee. a special sions reported as 1995 (1) on Officer Eluru & Or^ i/? Isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Qffirpr ansactions evidenced in a liered in evidence by virtue A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated aS: an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyerto pay a higher price. The true test is the price wh ich a well inforrried willing would pay to an eiqually well informed seller need by any special y to buy a particular pie'ce yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all (Refer para 13) sale tr sale deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L without being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bL studied the'market and available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area anc buyer has a fancy for a the prevailing prices. If a ^articular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index offair market value ofthe lands in the area. Iwould be failing if Ido not highlight that the dsecl dated 20 5.2002, which was accepted by the learned O? 1'"onn? pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan.was sold agriculturist fora much ki per, acre as against th T63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre for Ex.PV by an agriculturist to an isser price i.e. n[7],74,109/price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mattexs i Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-] intrinsic evidence of the destroy each otiier../3, themselves are having ^ fanciful price and ex-facie 23.. Tinus, apart from t ne reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec bove would be additional the 2 sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair: 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 ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result I would be failing not to ecision cited by learned Deing the decision dated reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya matter being' LA.App.N (since, deceased) thru / 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead rvT^-h-h^i- I a a r « ' ' ' o.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh Rs Vs. (JO! & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deed, therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of' its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a Ijancy for the said land ahd 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 d eduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the { r^lir-h... * Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th ie instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning •3Q ^ l^ivision Bench in paras 37 to \A/h^^POin t^ fc-k n 1_ it t 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed or of the market value, bi therein was reduced by Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative It found that if the price 1/3''^ the price arrived at would be the same as woijlcl be price arrived at with reference to the averagte rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected mattelrs Page 12 of22.liirilproduced by the Govern ^1,3.7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ment 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 ?2,15,1.60/- per bigha, froni the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the the sale was 1993 a Section 4. of the Land the appreciation for 2 given. I would highligl" hereinbefore already, contradiction in the value of the land price as per 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 Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum.of ^8 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/-; f 1/3'^. would be deducted ),600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd the notification under Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.li.l995 and the Court determined fair market |alue 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, years had required to be t once again, that I have noted the inherent s itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deeds reflecting r the own showing of the land acre as on 0i;07.200:3, it is
18. Now, if the price, as pe owners was ?15,70,000/- per LA.App.No.999/2010 &• connected matte-rs Page 13 of22 li' Ir 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 ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ?15.[7] lakhs per acre! I ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the• learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op special considerations and n have held the same not to be market value of.a large part paid by a buyer smitten with ned that the sai^d price was for lot the price settled between an informed willing buyer and an informed willing seller and without being influenced by special needs jDertaining 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 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where an abnormally high p issue in my decision dated 008 iai 5inah ]/s; UP! & Anr i.e. "ice 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 good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by m^s hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision; I reite "ate the same.
20. As regards., auction rates of developed plot, of land situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen land owners and concur wit Transport Nagar, 1 do not find ts of the learned counsel for the h the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised oh the decision of th s Supreme Court reported as La! LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters. Page 14 of22 € I A % Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769, Similar is the reasoning pertaining to tine e \/idence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.
21. In my decision dated 2 lai Sinah l/s. UP! & Ore;.. [ h 3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 d extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case, with reference to price at which ceveloped plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in lai Sinoil's case are, extracted hereunder:- •
29. Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted lard 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 20% or 75%, we do not know, has, resulted in the same 3er 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 and Narela Residential S:heme, the subject lands had acquired a building • pc would be what would tentiality, but the question be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.
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 is reliable. On the issue of potentiality, relating itself to the value, I promise the decision, to deal with the same while 1 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 '^1;
22. Highlighting that in La! Chancts case (supra) the I • Supreme Court held that sucli raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefrorn fair marl<et value could be crystallized. ', 23., 1reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Saijay 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 hsssee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in Lai Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I n NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village. Bhalswa jahangir Purl would reveal that the two' vil and Burari are separated by t towards Mubarka Chowk frc colony adjoining the famous where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that Iam concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^ 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.
25. From the topology of th(i area and as per the testimony of Trilok. Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC village Burari is on the east of and indeed the; plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl he outer ring road as we travel m the. Tibetan Re-settlement 3urudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 16 of22.5) 4]>. thus the fair market value of 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 land on a particular date in the 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./.ppeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raibal & Ors. Vs. Union of India ^ d assessed the fair market value.580.82 per acre for Category A land, no,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464.65 per acre for Category: Cland pertaining to the The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at 3ory A land and ^7,28,512/- per lai Singh's [supra), 1 had Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60 notification dated 24.7.1998. notification dated 18.07.2003 ^19,20,568/- per acre for Gate acre for Category B land. Ir 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 ^4.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B'
2. Holambi Kalan 7.8. 2000 - J -/ n[4].75
3. Bawana. 7.8. 2000 •n[4].75 for,n[4].38125 for
4. Khera Khurd.11.c.2000 ^ j — •^4.835 for.Category 'A'.^4,46413 for EA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 17 of22 i'B.5. Narela 2.5.2001 n[6].165. for n[5].76087 for
6. Holambi Kalan 22. 8.2001 n[6].745 for, Category 'A' n[6].43811 for 7., Alipur 22.8.2001 ^6.745 for ne.43811 for
8. Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 ^ 16.745 for Category'A' ^6.43811 for
9. Rajapur Kalan 22. 8.2001 ^6.745 for •?16.43811 for -10. Sanoth 7.112.2001 ?17.295
11. • Shah pur Garhi 16.5.2002 n[8].655.
12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 ?18.655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 ^18.655
14. Alipur. 23.5.2002 ^8.655
15. Sanoth 27. i 1.2003 ^19.435 for n[8].94:912 for n[8].47539 for Category 'C 16.; Rajapur Ka ah •27.[1] L.2003 a[9].435 for ns.94912 for T18.47539 for ' Category 'C 27.' In /ai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhancec to time, and found the same by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit the LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojmected matters Page 18 of22 -3, 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 Delhi 13 Gairai Sinoh I/5. UOI Court reported as 2006 IV AC MH, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOL ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinph \/s, UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 •Mahender Sinoh l/^. UO! & Qrs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence various dates between the years 0 the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to. 53 of the said decision as under:-
50. The aforesaid udgments noted in' the preceding land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t paragraphs as also the time to time by the Go various notifications issued from ^ernment of NOT 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 Del from the year 1990. As ?4.65 lakhs per acre whi ii over the years commencing 3f 27.4.1990 minimum price was ofi/iiQQ7- rose to no lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 I.e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 jjears which gives us a.lil[5].054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The orice r'lca rwfrst- i-Kz-N n.-.L iL ^ ^.. r rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of. 1.4.2001.. It sh;ows that, due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corrol^orative evidence for this would be the decision of the Gajrafs case (supra), -wf above.
51. r need to elaborate decision in Gairafs ca pertaining to fair marke. village Holambi Kalan as LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matte Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 a little more with; respect to the 5e. Discussing " the evidence t value of agricultural land in of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 rs Page 19 of22 rrfii, ••.m- The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as age as of 1.4.1997 at flO lak highlighting that the pric the Court discussed the valuation oh the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,00C/- for multiple cropped land and haying 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 FGl 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 theh considered,the prices notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. that the potentiiality had been the Government issued the on w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions the inst the minimum price notified hs per acre, saleMnstances were e was ^10,03,364/- per acre.
52. The decision in Mahender Sinoh'^ case, pertaining to. village Bawana,. refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for -ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court wjhich was projecting residential, cornrriercial and indu!strial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhij and on the issue, of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and - the iahds theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the yea.r 1996 i.e. the date 4-U i.! ^ ! I. ». I • i. •... of the notification with, concerned, virtually no c which the Division Bench was evelopment had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential, para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The c As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the. market 'ecisions in Gaira/'s case and LA.App;No;999/2010 & connected matters se highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 and 1997 about 16.5% per annum and d potentiality did not translate ntum and the acceleration fell to Mahender Sinah's • ca translated itself into a when prices rose by thereafter the extende with the requisite mome 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 evic ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds resiled upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras relying upon, being fane irned Reference Court has given upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not:iful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.the fair market value of agricultural lands would be n[9],16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning which was sold for /- was paid as stamp duty would (55,39,690/-,+ ^70,160/-) were rice ?17,74,109/- per acre as of !0.5.2002. ^5,39,690/- and ?70,160/ mean that ^6,09,850/spent would yield the p the date of the sale I.e. 2
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 aelopted the correct principle and has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increjasing the price to make up the interregnum period between ijhe dates when rninimum prices were notified and, the date cif the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 21 of22 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and finding no scope to furtiier enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and crosj; objections, whether filed by the land owners or.the Union of India.
29. I leave the parties to bear their own cost.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm
1. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matte:xs d (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE