Full Text
LA.APP. 243/2011
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.
-r-7 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J.
SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19084 . -i m HIGH COURT OF DELHI ludament Reserved On: Aunust 2017 ludqment Delivered On: 19^'^ September. 2011
LA.APP; 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Ot^ectioni
RAI SINGH, Applnant ^ :
, Through: Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mff-DeepalcKhosIa; Advocateand
Mr.W.S.Negi, Advocate.;
• .^ ' L . ' iX
UOl & ANC^ER , : ; : Respbndte
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate ' & MrSanjay Kumar Pathak/ M^^^^
/ i^r-Siddharth Panda and Ms.k ' : ' Kaoniudi Kiran, Advocates-f^^^^^ . :
AND :
1007/2010 &.CM No.l51&/201l' l^,/\PP. 1009/2010, LA.APP; 1010/2010/ LA.APP'
'\'o-12865/2011, LA.APP- 5/2011 LA'aPp' W2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP.
^'^'.^•^''-^^2011, LA.APP.:89/^mAP^
|65/2011 LA.APP. 24q/201i; LA.APP. 24moM' U'^p'
?4®2Q11, LA.APP. 29,§/2011, LA.APP. 3.47/201]!'* APp'
LAvAPP. 387/20li' tAAPp' U.APP. 3:9^/2011. LA.APP. 406;2Si: KaPP;
(Relating to Notification u/Sec.;, '4 ;dated 15.09.2000 &
Award No. 06/2002-200p, VillagepBhalswaJahanglrSi) V
CM
AND ;
>LAApp.No:999/2010 &connected matters •
' ••• • 'V-'
••• • :
• i^age.l of 22^
818/2011 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.APR. 216/2011, LA;APP. 240/2011. LAAPP.
241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011,fT:A.APP. 243/201i^H^r^APP.
244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2OT:-i, LA.APP. ; 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.l5194/2011, LA.APP.34,9/2011 & CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LAiAPP. 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 Jaha'ngir Puri) "
ORDER
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? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.
1. Iproceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time and then to- a notification issued prior in point of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for the land owners had' addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitably, reduced pertaining to the notification which was-issued earlier in point oftime.:
2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated,in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl was acquired pursuant, LA.App.No.999/2010„& connected matters • ^, '• Page 2of22 - • to a notification dated 15.09.200,0 issued under Section 4 of tlie Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This.was followed by a deciaratipn under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04'.2001. After following the due process, the Land;AcqLiisit|on Collector announced his award bearing No,6/2002-Q[3] 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. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as., well as the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the '.Government as on 01.04.2000, notified'vide. Circular dated 11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing the compensation, did not grant appreciation for the period from 01.04.2000 till the date, notification under Section.[4] of the Land Acquisition'. Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted, appreciation for the.said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the base date:i.4.2000.and the price ?13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010 &'comiected matters • ' Page'3 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, forthe same'.pubiic purpose i.e; 'Rehabilitation of ' JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration 'Under Section 6 ',of;the Act. issued on 04.08.1998.., After following the due; process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced „an award, bearing No.18/2000-01 dated 12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market, value of the acquired land at ^2i33,333 per bigha which is eq;u,iValent to m.20 lakhs per acre. /. - 6.. Dissatisfied with the assessment made.by 1 the Land, Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought referehce'under Section. 18 of the Act. The Learned Referen.ce Court, in.the.'lead matter being LAC.No.lllA/2008 titled Chandi^awRti l/^r. Union ofIndia, assessed, the fair market value of the acquired • '. land at ni,46,670/- per,, acre..: The difference iin 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' 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 made by the Learned Reference. LA.App:No.999/2010 (S: connectedmatters •,: '. Page 4of22 J Court by way of the ajDpeals 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 16.04.199,[9] (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it • disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in.' respect of developed residential and commercial properties pwned by L&DO. Relying on'l, this. — document, it was argued that in the year.1999, the rate of residential Jand in Azadpur, which/is stated to •. be close to village Bhalaswa jahangir Purl, was fixed •; at ?583(j)/- per square meter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per acre and it was urged that,if 50% is ^deducted towards development cost, the land owners should ' • be entitled to enhanced compensation in \sum of ^1,17,96,200/-per acre. (b) The rate charged by MCD for allotmeht of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in. ' terms of.the Resolution No.705 dated 23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to.allot developed plots tO' the transporters @ ?425/-..per square meter and Exhibit P:W-3/2, a copy of.the •. ' • Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD decided to aijot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport ' •' Nagaf (a) ?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No,999/2010 &coimected matters, Page 5of22. 1 documents, learned counsel for the land 'owners, argued, that..the rate stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was. applicable for the year 1976,. would evidence that fair market value of d.eyeloped ' land comes to fl[7],19,857/-per acre-and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ^8,59,928/-,per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would ie ?24,76,592/-per acre. •,. ^c) Learned counsel for the land owners also, placed reliance on the auction record of plots, in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98. and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of PDA pertaining to the year 2:006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69.square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ^^23.72 lakh to ^28.[4] lakh,- which according to learned counsel translates to a price of n[4],36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged /that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land. •. (d) • Relying on a sale deed of village Kherai Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land mieasuring 2-19. bigha was sold @ ?32,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, ': learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/-. or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters' '' Page 6of22 contended that this sale deed should^ be relied upon, after making a reasonable deduction, towards development cost to, determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricultural, land in village Bhalswa; Jahangir Purl. Another.sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2),. whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha 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 upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was ' executed by one Shri Khu.shi Ram in favo.ur of a:., society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed'to be sold on 05'.08;i996 @ n-8 lakhs per acre. At was' urged that the land, was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence, of fair market value of land in the, said village as of the date of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1996. '
9. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay.Poddar learned senibr-.counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India relied on aVSale 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 a,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum is to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the. notification under Section 4 comes-to fl,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: fand for LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters • Page 7of22 •r I' ff 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 ahd 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/?:•UP! &Ann in, which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and' learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in respo.nse to the arguments •of lea counsel for. the land owners, the arguments which he had advanced oh the earlier occasion may be. treated as iiis, response.
11. The topography of village Bhalswa Ja-hang.ir Puri has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok phand '{Halqa Patwari). who appeared as PW-2.in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Raj Sincjh 1/9 Union ofIndia\n which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the yi/rs S/zra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl. His testimony would reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated, in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and B.u.rari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badii and Haiderpur are situated' in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala. are situated in the South of. village Jahangir • Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters.. • " '. Page 8of22
12. I may additionally note that the lay out.pl-an 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 Badii, Sama.ipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalap, Alipur, Mamborpur.(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 saidvillage was for re-settlement of slun^ 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 weiak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah l/s. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 45i, it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri in the area" which had: sprung up during the perio.d of emergency i.e. the; year 1975- ^ I
76. It has to be remembered tha,t the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement of slum and J.J.Clusters... 14.. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinah l/s: UOi &, Mn which was 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 oh 23.8.2011. and I would highlight that; while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue' estates in the same ' revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of ^ villages Pooth Xhurd, 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 c[6]; connected matters " Page 9of22 Go'nstituted a 'V at the-point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< Road i.e.. NH-IO bifurcated afa common point, proceeding in -different directions, at Sabzi, Mandi. 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 NIH-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 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-lS/l) and the sale,.deed dated.. 24.03.2,000 (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 hereinabdve.' In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, J 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 former, fair market value for the formercomes to ^26.75. lakhs per acre and the iatter @ ' f63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned. Reference. Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable • evidence to determine fair market value • of agricultural lands, for.all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-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-172 has likewise • LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters.' Page 10 of22 Ik been held not to. be reliable evidence to determine fair market value, of agricultural lands on thereasoning it was purchased by. a Non Government ^ ' Organization "Christian Organization" and.as per • the testimony of PW-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,19^5 (1).. sec.717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors Vs., /sti Rohini&Ann {Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC ~ 369 Moiid. Raufuddin l/s. Land Acnuisifinn (.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 facto.treated as an exemplar sale! deed, to determine the market Value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced, by any special circumstances 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 prides. If a buyer has a'fancy for a particular piece of land, he niay pay a much higher pri.ce and this would not.be a:good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be faiiing if i do not highlight thatthe Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated.20..5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village - Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to.an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74,109/per acre,, as against the price which comes to, ^63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and. ?28 89 lakhs per acre.,for; Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters, Page 11 of22 ';• t") Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.
23. Thus,, apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted • reasons in para 21 above would be additional ' that the 2 sale deeds, would advisably not be good evidence whe'refrom 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 niake all the rhore a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result or a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned dated d[9].]^2.2008 disposing of a batch ^of appeals, lead • matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinnh decked) thru !Re: Us. upi ^ If highlighted that the sale.deed therein by which L&T I 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 thereincould 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 0f the parcel of land being large, was accepted by. the' Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale ' Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3.. should be treated as the basis to determine fair' market^value. The argument ignores the reasoning ITo u of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the •, value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but found that if the price; ^er^iT w^,reduced by 1/3^^ the price arriv^ 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.999/2010cfe connectedmatters ^ • 'Page 12 of22 produced by the Government we're 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 f[2],31/800/- which was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- 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 tlie 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 sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, 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 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." j.
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 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 ?18.,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 n[5],70,TO0/-.
18. Now, if the price, as per the ^own showing of the land owners was,^15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.b[7].2003, it is, LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters 'P'age 13 of22 ' difficult to, comprehend the abnornnaHy 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.^'IS lakhs per 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 wiiling 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 lai Sinah Vs. UP! & Anr. i.e. • where an abnormally high price, for a parcel of jahd 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 d.eterniine 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. 1reiterate, the same. • 20. As regards auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, ] do.not find any substance in the arguments of the learned couns;el for the land Owners and concur with the decision of, the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised on the decision of the Supreme Court,reported as La! ' LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters ' Page 14 of22 Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SGC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the evidence relating to auttion rates of residential plots or fiats by DDA. •.21. In my decision dated 23.8.201,[1] in LA.App.No,266/2008 jai Singh l/s. UOI &Qrs., I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme •Court in M_CMz^s 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 of.the decision in lalSindh'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 Scheme 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 Lal Chand's case (supra), which render this.evidence as most unreliable to determine 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 question; would be what would be the value to which the' building potentiality would translate itself. • -
31. 1hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping m view the observation and the findings,of the Supreme Court in Lai Chand^ raqp (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On' the issue ^of • potentiality relating, itself to the value, I proniise the • 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.999/201O &coimectedmatters '' ' "; Page 15 of22''
22. Highlighting that' in La! Chancfs case (supra) thd Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and. was' too'inchoate •wherefrom., fair market value could be, crystallized.. • 23; 1reiterate, the reasoning to hold that price at which MGD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land. 24; Pertaining to price notified by L&DO' for, charging. unearned increase when lease-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of. reasoning in La!•Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded •with; reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for Rohini Residential Scheme, I negate the plea for compensation'. to be enhanced with reference to. L&DO rates noting that I amconcerned with large tracks of (ands ad-measuringi 758.Or bigha and 929.05 bigha.; 25.^ From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW.2- in LAC • NO.112A/2008 it emerges that village Burari is on the east of • •village Bhalswa,Jahangir Puri and indeed the plan for Delhi •would reveal, that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jaharigir Pun and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel. towards Mubarka Chowk from.'the Tibetan, Re^settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer, Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters " -Page 16 of22 0- 1/ thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable. '
26. While assessing the fair njarl<et value of the land sltuatetl in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to notifications dated 24,07.1998 and 18.07.2003 issued under Section 4of the Land Acquisition Act, I had considered the material on record i.e. the. evidence In my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of U.Appeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal IMo.971/2008 titled Raibal fi Or'; Vs. Union 'nflnr<i^ 'x, Qrs, In the said, decision, Ihad assessed, the fair market value of agricultural land at ?U,60,580.82 pe.r acre for Category A land, ?10,44;522.73 per •acre for Gategory 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. In Jai Singh's case {supra), \ had assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as;under> S.No. Village Name uate of Notification under Section 4
1. Pooth Kburd 7.8.2000
2.
3. Holambi Kalan Bawana. 7.8.2000 7.8.2000 4.:Khera Khurd 11.9.2000 LA.App.No;l99/2.010 &comected matters• Fair, market value (in lakhs per acre)- ?14.75, for Category 'A'. ?14.3728 for Category 'B' ^4.75 ^14.75 for Category 'A' ^4.38125 for ^14.835 for.Category 'A' ^4.46413 for •Page 17 of22 ••-1/
5. Narela.,2.5.2001 n[6].165. for n[5].76087 for
6. Holambi Kalan 22.8.2001 ^16.745 for ^6.43811 for Category 'B'.
7. Alipur 22.8.2001 ?16.745 for Category'A' n[6].43811 for 8.; Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001.. ? 16.745 for Category 'A'. ^16.43811 for Category'B'
9. Rajapur Kalan 22.8,2001, ^16.745 for ne.43811 for
10. • Sanoth, 7.12.2001 n[7].295
11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 n[8].655
12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 • n[8].655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 n[8].655
14. Alipur 23.5.2002.?18.655
15. Sanoth 27.1.2003 ^19.435 for Category 'A' • ?18.94:912 for Category's' ^8.475,39 for Category 'C,16. Rajapur Kalan 27.1.2003 ^9.435 fon' ?:18.94912 for ^18.47539 for. Category'C • 21.. In jai Singh's, case (supra) I had also analyzed, the minimum land-rates enhanced by the Governrrient.frqm time to time and found the same not to be the ipse dixit of the.. •LA.App.No.'999/2010 & cojinected matters Government officers and had found not only rationale but a reflection of' urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah Vs. UOl Mn. 2004 IV AD Delhi,20 Ram Charider l/s. UOl.,11 T- (7Odd] DLT 95 Hukum Sinph Vs. UP! and an unrieported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UO! & Ors. decided •on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on various dates between the years 1993 to 1996 and in relation to the minimum price fixed by the, Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said, decision as under:- 5,0. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also,the various notifications issued, from. • time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated' by me in. para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was.^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?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 and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price • rise over the next.l year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and.11.5% for the next year i.e. as of. 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gajr^s case (supra), which 1have discussed in para 49 above... 51.,;l need to elaborate a little more witF] respect to the decision in Gajrafz case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural.land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras'9 to 17. LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters. Page 19 of22 the Court discussed •the valuation on- the basis of agricultural.yjeld and found that the gross return per acre per annuhi was,^95,0.00/- 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 i^ncluding 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 sate instances found that based on the said sale instancies 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 but the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' Tu" per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the. minimum price notified sale instances were highlighting that the price was no,03,364/- per acre-. p. The decision in Mahender Sinqh'<^ pertaining -to village Bawana, referred to by me 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 residential commercial and industrial future exploitation of ' agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same, had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was. concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana, and Holambi Kalan and nobody had, exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in. para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the. market actually grows.. The decisions in Gairafs caise and LA.App.N,o;999/20r0 & connected matters Page 20 of22 lM Mahender Singh's case highlight -that potentialiliy! translated itself into a reality.between. 1990 and 1997 when, prices rose. by about 16:5% per annum- and thereafter the-i extended • potentiality did not translate. with t'he requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum'. One reason could be that pursuant to iVjaster 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 em|,pirical evidence in the instant "case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied, upon by the land owners, in respect wher^eof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and. 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds,.to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned. Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as.of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be fl[9],16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that. 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which; was isold for ^"5,39,690/- and ?70,160/- was paid as starhp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price n[7],74,10,9/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002;.,:
28. In the absence,of any cogent evidence.placed, on record by either parties other than the minimum price notified-by the Government from time to time, 1 hold that, the Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle andhas relied upon the correct evide.:nce and has given.the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnum period between the dates when -minimum price^s were notified and the date of the notification issued under.... / • ' LA.App.No.'999/2010 cS: connected matters Page 21 of22 Section 4of the Land Acquisition.Act and finding no scope to, furtiier eniiance tine compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss ali appeals and cross, objections, whether filed by the land owners or the Union of India, • • • •
29. Ileave the parties to bear their own' cost. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) SEPTEMBER 19, 2011, JUDGE mm. A LA.App.No.999/2010iconnectedmattirs ' ' •:. „•,; Page 22 of22