Full Text
LA.APP. 88/2011
SURESH KUMAR & ANR Appellants
Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay, Pathak, Advocate for UOI. i
19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19085 \ HIGH COURT OF DELHI ludqment ReservRri On: igtn August 207 7
ORDER
CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection)
RAJ SINGH
UOI & ANOTHER Nawani, Kaomud
T-. . • ••• Appellant
Through: jVjr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and
Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate.
Is. r/r r- . Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate &Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin
Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1
AND
[^°-12885/2011, LA.APP. 1007/2010 & CM Sl81/20U
&CM No.12865/2011, LA.APP. 5/2011, U.APP.
6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011 LA APP i r r\i\
"-APP. 41/20li, uIpJ: alSi; U-A™
.160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2011 LA APP ?.t®^2Pl^ .LA.APP. 247/2011,' LA.APP.'
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 r, Award No, 06/2002-2003, Vill^ge-BhalswaJahangi^^^^^^^^^
AND
, • . i
LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected mattdrs Page 1 of22 i
88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011,,, LA.APP. 200/2011, 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, 244/2011, LA.APP. 245
CM No.12871/2011, , LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP.
^2011, LA.APP. 323/2011
LA.APP: 374/2011, LA.APP.
5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011
393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011
(Relating to Notification u/Sec, 4 dated 30.07.1998 &
Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi CORAIVI:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PR lage- Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)
^DEEP NANDRAJOG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.[1] i PRADEEP IMANDRAIQG. I. i
1. 1proceed with an apologi/ to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir the learned counsel for the arguments with respect to the required price to be suitab 3oint of time and then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed notification issued later and had ly 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 LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters a;rl 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'. Tjhis was followed by a declaration "• I under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following the due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai the Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, ir market value of the acquired land at ^2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ^3.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed at^l[3].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.ll2'A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or ^4,56,963 per acre.
4. It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well c while assessing the fair marl s the Learned Reference Court,:et value of the acquired land, adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the Government as on •01.04.20C 0, notified vide Circular dated 11.09.2011. Different destinai:ions 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 Acquisitio,n Act was isjsued on 15.09.2000, but the' learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the pri ce ?13.82 lakhs per acre; LA.App.No.999/2010 & coimected matiers Pages of22 % iri) r
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 bearing No.18/2000-01 dated 12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^2,33,333 per.bigha which is equivalent to ^11.20 lakhs per acre.. '
6. Dissatisfied with the a|ssessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The [.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati V.^. Union ofIndia, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?11,46,670/- per acre. The difference i in the the same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate with effect from 1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in J Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on 04.08. process, the Land Acquisition destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and question was issued on 30,7.:(998 and tlie learned Reference Court granting enlnancementj @ 11% per annum for the interregnum period.
7. The Union of India as challenged the assessment rr well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 &coimected mafi:(:ers Page 4 of22 Court by way of the appeals above. |
8. On behalf of the l^nd owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance w^s placed on the following, documentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified b/ the L&DO vide notification and cross objections mentioned dated 16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by nibit 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 Bhalajswa Jahangir Pun, was fixed at,^5830/- per square rr acre and it was urgec eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should d compensation in sum of be entitled to enhance ?1,17,96,200/- per acre. (b) The rate charged | by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanja> terms of the Resolution / 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 (a) ^"4,500/- per squ 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 LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 5 of22 ^ I;I ! i documents, learned cojunsel for the land owners argued that the rate stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fai land comes to ^7,19,85 that even if 50% deducti r market value of developed )7/- per acre and it was urged ion is made on account of the development costs, fo|r undeveloped lands, fair I 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 be ?24,76,592/-per acre,
(c) Learned counsel for the land owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, • the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ^23.72 lakh to ?28.[4] lakh, which according to. learned col nsel translates to a price of ^14,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged, that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undevelopejd agricultural land,
(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd
(Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold (a) ^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 matjers /! fl
9. contended that this sale after making a reas deed should be relied upon, onabie deduction towards development cost to determine the fair hiarket value of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another- (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 ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated 24.03.2000 upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w be sold on 05.08.1996 Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a thereunder land was agreed to ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence o; the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay. appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir ^ 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 4comes to n,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed tend for j LA.App.No.999/2010 &coimectedmatters Page 7of22 •if fixing tine market value of having a vast area. Learne above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA undeveloped agricultural land ^d 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 wh 2n judgment was reserved in the August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition v.App.No.266/2008 titled lai Sinah Vs. UO!.& Ann in which similiar 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 1/5 Union ofIndm in which he 1" to the arguments of learned the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.
11. The topography of village Bhalswa jahangir Purl has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand {Ha/qa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC,No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoh as explained the topology of the area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa jahangir Puri. His testimony w 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 • Saral Plpalthala are situated in' the South of village Jahangir Puri. LA.App.No.999/2010 & coiiaected matters Page 8 of22 iH' I
12. I. may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory | of Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi wpuld reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purr is situated on.th^ eastern side of G.T.Karnai Road i.e. National Highway No.l.: \iillages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoor side of National Highway No.l
13. It needs to be highligh took place in the revenue es Dur (Narela) are on the western ted that whatever development:ate of village Jahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due of slum and j.J. dwellers i.e. the 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 India AD (Delhi) 46'i, resettlement colony called Ja^ villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar and Bawana, 1 had noted t it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period cjf emergency i.e. the year 1975-
76. It has to be remembered that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement of,:5lum and J.J.Clusters.
14. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 /^/5//7a/7 l/^. um ^ 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 i)ronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and 1, would highlight that Alle assessing the fair market value of the land situated in io revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-West 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 % ft •constituted a 'V at the point Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak common point,, proceeding of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-IO; bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl is outside the 'V aforesaiid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east oil l\IH-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-1.5/1) 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 sufcj-para (d) of para 8hereinabove. In. the said judgment dated 2j[3].8.2011, 1have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced here jnder:-
21. The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-l/B which ^63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the is predicated on the 2 sale.. — is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4:2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter ~ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was ^ f"e''g'OLJS trust by the name of 'Badha Swami Satsang' had tendered the sale and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while '">4^ No.68/2005 had'stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and wafe being used for a religious purpose. The sale dedd Ex,PW-l/2 has likew°sl LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected mattlrs I • Iff been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government ^ r _ ^ X.! II I _ • I • ^ Organization "Christian the testimony of P\A/-7 S the organization stated Organization" and as per )ister Annie, the secretary of that the organization had to pay the price for the saipl piece of land as it was the only plot of the requ site size suitable for the requirement.of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.
22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see 111 Land Acou/sition Officer Eluru & Or^. 1/? /St/ Roh/ni &Ann (Refei^ para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin !Rnd Acoumitinn Offirpr (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale, deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the LA.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 i[5] there may be special circumstances which have led the buyej- 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 circunistances orthe fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed bi studied the market and available land in the yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all area; has understood the r... y. UllUCIiLUUU Lllfci topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value ofthe lands in the area. 1would be failing if Ido not highlight that the 7n"? deed dated Rpfprpnr» r" ^ was accepted by the learned,[1] 5 Court pertaining to the notification dated ^7,1.2003 where-under agricultural iand in viilage Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74,109/th|e price which comes to 478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 11 of22 Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other. | j 23, Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons reasons in para to hold intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of it:s factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and ed therein could not be ice of value of land in the Te Court and the price in Eduction on account of the hence th'e price reflec treated as a good evide area, was rejected by t question, with suitable parcel of land being large, was accepted by the 21 above would be additional -. that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be gooc evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason 1find 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 transaction bejng the result. I would be failing not to. -- -ecision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya oeing the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.lH]o.l93/2006 Pratao Sinoh (since, deceased) thru LRs urn [t was Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th market value. The argur ie instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair lent ignores the reasoning in i-ho • • rZ, ^ LIIC itidboning ^ T i" paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed on Bench, did not accept the ' its own logic as indicative nf 1 a.. " IIIUILdtlVe fhplfn that if the price 1/3'"^ the price arrived at Jld be price arrived at with therein was reduced by would be the same as wo rpfprpnrp> fr. ^ "veo ac witn reference.to the average rate of the sale deeds, produced by the Union,ojf India i.e. the sale S LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matteb Page 12 of22 /'Hi' m (iT'Pr, produced by the Government were giving a price of ?1,3.7,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ?2,15,160/- per bigha, f would be deducted from the sum of ?3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that 1n the said judgment the year of ind the notification under Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market x/alue as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. f[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 sale was 1993 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 value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value."
16. For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa jahangir Purl.
17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalsw to be transferred for a sum o a jahangir Puri has been agreed, f ?18 lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 liigha i.e. 1acre 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 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 13 of22 difficult to comprehend the abnormally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the learned P^eference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opned that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an an informed willing seller and special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market \yalue of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 fai Sinah 1/5. UP! & Anr. i.e. where ah 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 was ^18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ?15.[7] lakhs per acre. I ne informed willing buyer and without being influenced. by pariiicular land, and had thus
19. I have discussed this 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 have held the same not to be market value of a large part: paid by a buyer smitten with good evidence to determine fair 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. 1reiterate the same.
20. As regards auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandh Transport IMagar, 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 which are premised on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as ^/ Page 14 of22 Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e\/idence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.
21. In my decision dated 2|3.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh l/s. UOI & Ors.. I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme' Court in La! 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 iaiSingh's case are extracted hereunder:-
29. Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted lar reference to the Bawan by DSIDC and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in LM. d sold by DSIDC or DDA with a Industrial Estate developed esidential Scheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in the same 3er which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as the value of land in thes most unreliable to determine Jbject cases.
30. It is no doubt true, Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area as held even by the learned with the development of.. Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Spheme, 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 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, 1promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mattdrs Page 15 of22
22. Highlighting that in La! Chancfs case (supra) the i • Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too. inchoate wherefrorn fair market value could be crystallized. 23.. 1 reiterate the reasoning allotted developed plots in Sa price at which DDA sold dev to hold that price at which MCD njay Gandhi Transport Nagar and Bloped 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 ca:5e (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, 1n village. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with referenc(i to L&DO rates noting that 1am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 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 that village Burari is on the east of 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 Mubarka Chowk frcjim 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.•11 thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.
26. While assessing the fair market value ofthe land situated •in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to notifications dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, I had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in. my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of. LA./|ppeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled R^ajbal &Ors. l/s. Uninn ofIndia ^ Ofs. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at ^11,60 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 notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at ^9,20,568/- per acre for Category Aland, and ^17,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. In fai Singh's case [supra], I had, S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section 4 Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)
1.
2. Pooth Khurd Hnlpmhi
7.8. 2000 i ( ^4.75 for Category 'A' n[4].3728 for Category 'B' 3. 1 lUJal I lUl txdldn Bawana /.O.i/iUUU 7.8.|2000 j i • - i • 1 n[4].75 ^4.75 for ^4.38125 for
4. Khera Khurd ll.c i i ! 1.2000 ^14.835 for.Category 'A' n[4].46413 for EA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters % •[1.5. Narela 2.[5] I—I o o CM ?16.165, for ^5.76087 for
6. Holambi Kaian 22, 8.2001 ?16.745 for n[6].43811 for 7.. Alipur 22. 8.2001. ^6.745 for ne.43811 for
8. Holambi Khurd 22. 8.2001 i ! ? 16.745 for ^16.43811 for
9. Rajapur Kalan 22.18.2001 ^16.745 for ne.43811 for • 10. Sanoth 7.[1] 2.2001 ^17.295
11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 ^8.655
12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 ^18.655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 ^18.655
14. Alipur. 23.5.2002 n[8].655
15. Sanoth 27. ( 1.2003 ^19.435 for ns.94:912 for n[8].47539 for Category 'C
16. Rajapur Kalan 27.]1 L.2003 ^ w f jr. ^9.435 for n[8].94912 for ^8.47539 for Category 'C
27. In jai Singh's case (supra) 1 had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the to time, and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojmected matters Government officers and hacJ 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 l/s. UOt & Mn, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. UOI. ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinph Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah UP! & Qrs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence various dates between the years;o the minimum price fixed by the Government 1 had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under;-
50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring outtwo 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 Df 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 land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t the average price increa rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years se would be 16.436%. The price 3r 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 corroloorative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ga/rafs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.
51. 1need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in GajraJs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras'9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected' i «!1:.•f!T ( th.e_ Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,000/- 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 thp said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to no,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered,the prices notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76!l21/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights welj-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as aga that the potentiality had been the Government issued the Dn w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions the ^ inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at no lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the pries was ^10,03,364/- per acre..52. _The decision in Mahender 5inoh'<; case, 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 ^hich was projecting residential, conimercial 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 hjad 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 1have 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 Ga/'raj's caise and LA.App.No;999/2010 & connected matters Page 20 of22 V f[1]: Mahender Singh's • case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a when prices rose by reality between 1990. and 1997, about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and'the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturateqi.
53. The empirical evic from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the. land owners, in ence in the instant case, apart respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras jrned 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 the, fair market value of agricultural lands would be ?19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for ^5,39,690/- and ?70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 (?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 the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time; I hold that the Learned Reference Court has, rightly adopted the correct principle and has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and. the date cif the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 21 of22 y. 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 cross objections, whether filed by the land owners or the Union of irjidia.
29. i leave the parties to bear their own cost.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 22 of22