Gokal Chand v. Union of India

1. Wihether the Reporters"of local papers may be aitow.ed. • -to; see the judgment?, 2. To be referred to Reporter or not;?. • 3., Wihether the judgment'should be reported:in the •', Digest?;,,;, •' ': PRADEEP NANDRAIQG. i:; - J sn-apology to the reader by referring to a _. ' ndtifiGatibn: iss;ued later' in point of..time gnd tijien to a ''., ^notification issued.prior in point oftime; but the'reason is that ••;, the learned, counsel for.; the land owners had addressed. ^ v\^'th resp,ect.,to the notificatibn issued later and had.. 1 requii^ed, price to be suitably reduced pertaining, to the,, •; ^ inotificatrpn which was issued earlier in point oftime. 2..Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue ' ®,h3lswa Jahangir Purl was acquired'pursuant., LAApp.N[6].999/2010 &connected Vpage.[2] of22 ' •• to a notifiGation dated 15,09.2000 issued under Section 4 of; the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followe.d by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition,0^ announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, whereby he- assessed the fair market, value of the acquired, land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equiyalent 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, th^: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 /?^/ 5//7<7/7 Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value. pf 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 leabhed Land •Acquisition Co.ilector as^ well as the Learned Reference Court,: •while assessing the fair market va.lue; of the' acdui'-ed latidv adopted the-mjnimum. price, for agricultural land fixed by the ' Governinent as on 01.04.2000, notified vide Circuiar dated; 11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as, the learned. Land Acquisition Coliector, while assessing the compensation, did not grant appreciation for the period from 01.04.2000 till the date notificatipn under Section 4 of the L^nd Acquisition -Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 c^ays @12% per annum with reference to the • base date.1.4.2000 and the price ?13.82 "lakhs p'er acre; LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected'matters,Page 3 of22; -h,5. Another parcel Of land -ad-measuring: 929-05 bigha,. situated in the: same,: revenue estate;of'^village •Bhalsv^a;; JahangJr Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification •issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated for the same:public purpose, ile.; ^Reliteilitatioh of:.; ' JJ Cluster'. This was followed by-a declaratioh:(under.Sectibn'5. y^; of the Act issued. on 04.08.1998. After foUbwin^,the duV process, the Land Acquisition Cbllectdr announced; an award.'V bearing No.l8/2000-pi dated 12.03.200l', Whereby he.- assessed the, fair niarket valu[6] of the acquired land at'::^2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalent to ^11.2:0.la'k^ per,,/,a'cre.-:' ^ " '•/. ', ^'^•ssatisfied' with, the.a'ssessmenf:made by,, the^Land' Acquisition Gollector, the. land owners sought reference under,, Section 18 of t:he Act..Tire Learned Reference Court, in the ^. lead matter being, LAC No.ll.lA/2Q08 titled Chaiidrawatr^.,;,; Union ofIndia, assessed the fair marl<et value of the acquired: y. ' land at:m,46,670/- per acre. ' The difference;in ihe^ destination.reached.is on the same reason^ as -noted hereinabove pertaining to the notification dated 15.9.200Q i.e. Land Acquisition Collector adopting the'land rate,, notified by the Government with effect from 1.4.1:997 vide circular dated 25.7.1997 and fgnoring that the notification In question was issued on 3C)'.7.19.98 and the learned Reference '.. • Court granting enhancement: ii% per ahnUm for the ^ interregnum period., " ' ^.:1. The Union of India as well, as; the land:owners, have Vchallenged the assessment made by.the Learned.feference^^ ' LA.App.No.999/2010 &conne.cted.niatters •:,, Page 4of22 •, Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned abQve., • •• '• • • ' • -

8. On* behalf, of the land %owners; justifying higher compensation,.reliance', was. placed on the fdllpwihg.documentary,evidence:- ^; •'' • " ':•, (a) The rate nbtified by the L&DO vide.notification • '^dated:i:6.04,199:9 (Exhibit. PW-4/1), whereby it. -^,.,..disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in; ' respect of developed residential and commercial, properties,. owned; by L&DO. Relying: on this, -, -document; it,was argued that in the year 1999, the '; rate of residential-land in Azadpur, which, is stated to be close to village Bhalaswa Jahangir Pun, was fixed -\ at ?5830/r per square meter or ?2,35,92,400.9;2 per acre and it was urged that if bo% -is deducted.: towards deyelopmerit cost, the land own.ers should / be entitled, to enhanced compensation'm sum of.'. ?1,17,96,200/-per acre..r^ (b) The rate,charged by;MCD,.for ail^Dtment of co|mmercial plot'in. Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, iii. • te:rms of the Resolution Nb.705.dated 23.1'1:19B[7] (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot,,... developed plots to, the-transporters "(g) t425/- per " square meter and '^hibit PW-3/2, a copy pf the Resolution'IM^o.6,10:dated 2i;02.2005, whereby:MCD,;. 'decided to allot:th;e plots in Sanjay Gandhi,Transport Nagar @?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be. material and goOd evidence. Relying;0n these. LA.App.No.999/201,0 & connected matters..' Page 5.of22. documents, learned counsel for. the land owners argued that the.'rate stated in the resolutions;• laforenoted, which >was applicable for the year 1976,. v:^ould evidence that fair marl<et value of'developed i 'land comes to ^17,19,857/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of.the development costs, for undeveloped.lands, fair ', market value would come to t[8],59,928/- per acre In the year 1976 and increasing the same ^y 12% per;. •atjinum, the fair market value as of 15.9.200Q would be ?24,76,592/-. per acre..

(c) Learned counsel for the land owners also /placed reliance on the auction record of plots in; Rohihi Residential'Scheme.ih the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and- PW-8/3). While.relying; pn the brochure of pD/^ pertaining to the; year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square rhetre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri-vat a.price • ranging, between ^23.72 lakh to;^28.[4] lakh, which V according te learned.cQunsertranslates to.a price of ^1436,36,3;63 per acre and counsel urged-that suitable deduction could be effectecl jther^rom / ' pertaining to undeveloped agricultural landv, ~, v

(d) Relying, on a safe deed._of village Kh^ra Khurd, •(Exhrbit PVV-lS/l),.whereunder land measuring 2-19' bigha was sold @.?32,40'300/- oh; 25!04.2601, learned counser urged that the price per acre comes to ^^56,93,163/- or fll,86,169/- per bigha. It was tA.App.No •999/2010 &coimected matters. ' Page 6of22 ' ? Gontendedj that this sale de^d should be relied bpori, ' after making a reasohal|)le deduction towards c^evelopnieht cost to determfhe the fair market value •: -. of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa • Jahangir Puri. Another-sale deed dated •24.03.2000.; (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16' bigha Tsituated in. the revenue estate. of;^illage ^ " •' Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsahg'Vyas at.. a price of ?2;6,75,000/-per acre was also relied^upon.,; (e) Learned counsel for the land ownets also relied. / upon an Agreementto Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which^was-; V \ •. executed by one Shri Khushi' Rafin in favour of^a, •society'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder,land was agreed to be sold on 0'5.08.1996 @>18 lakhs per acre. It was.: urged that th^ 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 ofthe agreement to sei|. / i.e; 5.8.1996.-,; • V,' y '; •;.: 9., Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned semor counsel;:, appearing on behalf of Union of India relied oh a Sale Deeddated^05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2), Whereunder 1-03 bigha of land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Purr; was. sold at a price of ' 1,40,MO and urged that even if 12% appreciation,.per anhun^.,i,s to b|ii given on said value/, the price as on the date of the notific^ion under Section 4 comes to fl,94,782^per:bigha, and.. thus ityvas argued that since price of similar land rs available in the,|Same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoinilg village or to adopt the price of developed fand for. LAApB.No.99972010 &coimected matters ' Page 7of2^2".-.A IV fixing the market value of undeyeloped agricultural, land. having a^ vast area.. Learned counsel also argued that the teamed.Land! Acquisition Collector. has assessed..'the fair:;; ' iTiarket value of the land at a price much higher than the one; reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so.has the learned Reference Court..';., - ••; • >" •id-:It may be noted that when, judgment was reserved in the.. /, above captioned. matters on August, ZOll, decisioh had " -been reserved' for judgmeht In^ a batch of land;;acquisition •appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.266/2008 title^^. Vs.. UO! &Anr. m which similar arguments as were advanced "with respect to similar evidence relied upon' in the instant, ^ appeals^ and learned senior:coansel,Sh.Sanjay • Poddar '• submitted that in response to the arguments,of learned counsel, for the land owners, the argiJnnents:;,which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be:treated as. his,. r respoi^se.; y.. v ' il. "the topography of village Bhalswa jahangiri Ruri has ^ come out in the deposition of Shri TrilokChand (//a/^a /^fM/a/7) who appeared, as PW-2 mLAC No.ll2A/20q[8]::titled: i/cr Union ofIndia in which he has explaihed the topology of the / area while proving '^^ Aks Sizra Ex:PW--2/l of village BhalsWa • Jahangir Puri. His testimony would reveal that village Kadipur '. and Libaspur are situated, in the North, villages Mukhmelpur;. and Burari are situated In the East, villages Samaipur BadIi and • Haiderpur ar^ situated iin-the West and villages,B;harola and -: Sarai,Pipalthala are Situated in.the South of/village Jahangir ' - Puri.' • • •. ^ " • LA.App;No,999/2010 ^ connectedmatters; • " Page 8of22:]5: • i[2]. T rnay, additionkily note that the •jay but plan of the. National; Capital- Temtbry of.- Delhi/ published by the- GoverntTient of NCT Delhi -would reveal that village BhalsWa Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of:G.T.Karnai Road i.e. National, Highway No.l. Villages Badli, Samaipur, Llbaspiir, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mahiobrpur (Narelaj. 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 agncultural lands in the revenue estate of saiefvillag^fwas for re-settlement of.slum and J.J. dwejlers'J.e. the charac|er of urbanization in the area was of a"kind Where. Vpotential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as 5//7<7/7 I/5. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) A81, it was noted thatthere existed a resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri in the area which had sprung: up during the,period of emergency i.e. the year 1975- -, 76. It has to be remembered that the two subject Acquisitions-^,:werfe also for rersettlenientofslum andJJ.Clusters.'

14. The decision in^ LA.App.No.266/2Q08 iai Sinaii Vs. UOi /^ ML:y:Jh\ch was reserved- on 12.8.2011 and-liad yet to be" pronounced on 19.8:,201i;.when iristant appeals were reserved • for judgment, has since been prohouhced. by me on 23.8.2011' and- 1 would highlight that while assessing the fair..market- •'.value of the land, situated, in' 10 revenue estates in,the same ^revehue. district i:.e. North-West Delhi being reyenue•'estate of " villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth,>lipur, Narela,; ^ Rajapur Kalan,. Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, HoJambi Khurd and Bawana, 1 had noted that the topology of the area '.LA.App.No.999/201'0.& connected matters 'Page 9of22 '.iV constituted a 'V at tine point of intersection where G.T.Kariiai Road i.e.,NH-1 and RolntaI< Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point, proceeding in. different directions, at Sabzi jViandi. It needs to be higl-ilighted tiiat village Bhalswa JahangJr Puri is, outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1. ^,; ?

15. In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued fronfi time to time,[1] had dealt with nqtifications issued in'the year ' 20pC), 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel,for theMand.owners -hafl relred' upon; the sale^de^ dated 25.04.2001 (Exhibit,:PW-15/1) and the,s^l0 deed datfd,24.0,3.2000 (Exhibit RW-15/2) i.e. the.same,; sale deeds oh which ' learned'-counspl for the land owners haye' placed reliance upon as: noted in sub-para (d) of paratS h^reinabove. In the said judgment dated; 23.8.2011,^1 have discafded these two sale deeds: for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 tci 23.whic.h are reproduced hereunder;-., r; • ' 21., The: first argument is, predicated on the 2. sale deeds,.Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, ^hd the:'. sale deed Ex.PW'-l/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per;the 'fornier, fair niarket value for the.former i comes to ?26.75 lakhs per acre and the, latter (a).,, t63.478 lakhs per acre. The jearned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale-deeds as reliable, evidence to determine fair niarket value of agricultural lands,/fpr all the villages In questioh on the reasoning that, the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was 1 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.68/2g05 had stated that to his kn.owledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-;i/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters- '.Page 10 of-22 i-'-.1^ ' • been held not to-be reliable evidence to determine, fair markej: value of agricultural lands on the,;, reasoning 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 pricefor the said.piece of land as it was the'; ^ only plot of the retiuisite size suitable, for the, requirement of the-organization and is being.used for destitute vyomen i.e. there was'"a special ' ' circumstance, personal to the vendee..; -v, 22v As held iri the decisions reported as 1995 (1);: see.717 Land Acouisition Officer Eiuru'& tPrti Vs. ' ^ jsti Rohini&Ann (Refer para 6) and'2009 (14) SGC,, 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land AcauisiHnn Cmc(^t (Refer.para p) sa-le 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 marlcet yaiue 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 weH informed willing buyer would pay to an equally Well informed seller ! • without being influenced by -.; any special ';' circumstances orthe faricy to buy a particular pidce of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the marl<et and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood; the /. topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would hot be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the ' ' area. I would be failing if I do not highlight th,at the Union of India had/vpelied 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 tb ah; agriculturist for a much less.ei" price i,e'. ?17,74,109/-; per:.acre as against the'^ ptrice which.corned-to, ?63,478' lakhs per acre fdr Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28 89, lakhs per acre.for Ex.;PW-l/3. The 2 sale deeds LAApp.No;999/2010 &.corrected'matters', ' • '., Page 11 of22./I '• •: •, EX-PWrl/2 >nd iBx.pw-1/3, themselves 'are fiavina s •.eyidSnce of the, • •,;.;• -destroy each-othier. '. •' p.;.,; "T'hus, apart from the reasoning of the learned - /;> Keference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted -;. reasons in para 21, abo\/e would be> ad^ltiDhal reasons: to hold.that the 2 sale deeds Would. ' advisably not be good evidence wherefrom, fair niarket value of subject lands can be determined and more so^ for the. reason Ifind that under various •' between. 7,000 to 8,000 bigha ofland / have been;,acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would, make all the more a - reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having.intrinsic evidence of the transaction beingth# result of^a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing.hot to ' ^ note an unreportecl decision cited by learned '• •. the.-decisbn dated =, ^^-12.2008 disposing of a batch Of appeals lead,,,, matter being LA.App.No.193/20d[6]; r-g//7ce deceased) thm !Rc; j/s. um x /ire if ^35,, highlighted that the sale deed therein by whiih L&T, had purchased 8 bigha and.[9] biswa of agricultural.land; for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and >,hence^ the price reflected therein could not be. treated as a good.evidence of value.of land in the area was: rejected by the Court:and the-price in ^ u deduction on account Of the being large, was accepted by the ' •. r; in the instant cases the 2 sale^ • /' t •'/?.^Mestioh i:.e. Ex.PW-1/2..and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis: to.,determine'fair,.. The argument;ignores the reasoninq.A.; '•,38 Wherein the.Division Bench,,, did^not accfept the:.,.value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative ' •, -, \: of the market value,- but found that if the mrice ^ ther^n was reduced by 1/3.^^^ the'price arrived:at •:;,, would be the same.as wouId.be price arrived at with V ref^ence.to the average rate:, of ^ the sale deeds • V ^ Procluced by:the Union of India i:.e..the-sale deeds / •I^AApp/No..999/2piO;& ',. •. Pagb 12 of22' produced by the Government were giving a [Drice of ?1,37,000/- per bigha' and the sale deed under w:hich L&T had purchased the land gave'the price ^3,26,600/- per bi^'ha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'^ would be.deducted. frofn the sum of ^3,^6,600/-. It may further be higihlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale vyas 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995. and the Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at " as • aforesaid i.e. ?2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning'of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is, not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so,. the.appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. 1 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 a'nd good evidence to determine fair market value' of agricultural land in.village, Bhalswa jahangir Pun..

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 ns lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at n[5],70,000/-..... •, 18.. Now, if the price,,as per the own showing of the land owners was ^5,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, •it. is L^.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 13 of22 difficult to comprehend the abnormally high value as per Ex,PW-6/l which is dated'8.4.1996 in which the stated price is. ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs 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-e/l has opined that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and an.informed willing seller and..without being influenced,by special needs pertaining to a '"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., -.v

19. I have discussed- this, issue in my decision dated, 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah Vs. UP/ & Ann i.e. where an abnormally high' price for a parcel. of land is with', evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being wellinformed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be good evidence to detei'mine 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. Ireiterate the saqe. -,2.0.. As regards,auction rates, of developed; plot of land situated in the,Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,; I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned- Reference Court contained in paragraphs'29 and 30 which are premised oh the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Laf LA..App.No.999/2010 &connected matters ' Page 14 of22.0, Chand l/s. Union of India, 2009 (15) SCC 769. Sin^ilar is'the reasoning pertaining to the evidence relating 'to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.

21. in my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008,, ' l3iSingh l/s. UOi &Qrs., Thad extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme' Court in Lai Chand^ with reference to price at which developed, plots were allotted bydifferent agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC; Relevant observations and findings in-para 29 to 31 of the decision in iaiSinah'^ cases are extracted hereunder;- ^ have evidence asvto Wh^at was I I - 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 Lai Ciiand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine., ' the.value of land in the subject cases. 't is no doubt true, as held even by the learned Reference Court, that with the development of •: 'Bswana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subjeict 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. Ihold 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 eviderice-as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the « •• reader of th.e decision,, to deal with the same while 1 shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value ofthe.lands., ' ' ^ V ?LA.App.No.999/2010 &• connectedmatters ' •.Page 15 of22 /<, 22.. Highlighting that in La! 'Chancfs case (supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and. was too inchoate wherefrom, fair marl<et,value could be crystallized.

23. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land. \ (24: Pertainipg tq.price notified py, L&DQ ^f€?f,..charging;/. unearned increase vyhen Ie^se-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 Lai. Chands case (supra). wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded • withi 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 | am;, concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^ 758.01bigha 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 Jahangir Purir, and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we ti"ave[ towards Mubarka Chowk from the Tibetan Re-settlem'ent colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. the. two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer..Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2016 connected matters;' ' •' ' •Page 16 of22 A 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 of the land situated mvillage Burari, which was acquired pursuant to notifications dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07.2003 issued under Sectidn 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.Appeals, lead rhatter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! Anr., Vs. Uninn nfinHi=, In the said decision, Ihad assessed the fair market valu^ of agricultural land at ?11,60,580.82 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 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; \n.JarSingh's.(supra), ^ had assessed.the fair market value of land in 10 villages as;under;-.^ S.NO. 1. Village Name' Date oTiMotification under Section 4 Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000 Fair market value, On lakhs per acre). ^^14.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for. Category 'B'