Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi @ Dhanpati & Anr

8. On behalf of the lnd owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance w$s placed on the following documentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified bi the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it disclosed its intention toHharge unearned increase in respect of developed esidential and commercial properties owned by L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argue[1] 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/- per square meter or 2,35,92,400.92 per acre and it was urged that if 50% is deducted towards development c9st, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of 1,17,96,200/- per acre. (b). The rate charged i by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay Gafldhi Transport.Nagar, in terms of the Resolutiod No.705 dated 23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to aliot developed plots to the I transporters @ 425/- per square meter and Exhiit PW-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD decided to allot the pIots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar @ 4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matiers.. documents, learned ccunsel for the land owners argued that the ratel stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fail market value of developed 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 corte to 8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and incrqasing the same by 12% per annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be 24,76,592/- per acre Learned counsel Ifor the land owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots in • Rohini Residential M in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of DDA 11pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as per l the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 sqUare metre to 71 square mette in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between 23.[7] Iakh to Z28.[4] lakh, which according to learned coqnsel translates to a price of 14,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land. Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-1511), wherdunder land measuring 2-19 lecil lieu LUUllCi uiyeu L1ldL LIIC pFILC pti dCFk curries to 56,93,163/- or 11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, after making a reasonable deduction towards development cost to deermine the fair marketvalue of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Pun. Another sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whreby land measuring 4-16 • bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Rdha 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 Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.081996 @ T18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangirl Puri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence o 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 J)oddar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Unioni of India relied on a Sale Deed dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2), whereünder 1-03 bigha of lard in village Bhalswa Jahangir I Puri was sold at a price of 1,40,000 and urged that everfi if 12% appreciation per anndm is to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the notification under Section 4 comes to T[1],94,782 per bigha, and thus itwas argued that since price of similar land is available in the same village, it wouldl be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed l:and for LA.App.No.999/2010 & coimected maders. • 1~ fixing the market value of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned, Land Acquisition Cpllector has assessed the fair market value of the land at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 andl so has the learned Reference Court. It may be noted that when judgment was reserved in the above captioned matters on 191h August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgmentI in a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.266/2008 titled /a/S/ncjh Vs. UO/ & Anr. in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evid el relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senir counsel Sh.Sanjay Podda r l submitted that in responsei to the arguments of learned counsel for the land owners the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier ocasion may be treated as his response... The topography of villge Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand (Ha/qa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LA No.112A/2008 titled Rat S/ngh Vs Un/on of/nd/a in which he tas explained the topology of the' area while proving the Aks S/kra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswal jahangir Purl. His testimony v'ould reveal that village Kadipurl and Libaspur are situated. in the North, villages Mukhmélpur 1 and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badli and Haiderpur are situated in thel West and villages Bharola and'' Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of village Jahangir Purl. I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi wuld reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl is situated on th eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.1. Vlillages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway N0.1. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Purl, post acquisition of agricultural lanis in the revenue estate of said village was for re-settlement lof slum 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 weak • nature. In the decision repoted as AmarSingh Vs. On/on of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 484it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Jaangir Purl in the area which had sprung up during the period cf emergency i.e. the year 1975-

76. It has to be rememberedthat the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settIementofluni and J.J.Clusters. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 Ia! S/ngh Vs. 1)0/ & Anr. which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment, hassince been pronounced by me on 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-Wet Delhi being revenue estate of villages P00th Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, • RajapUr Kalan, Holambi Kalar, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat1ers it constituted a 'V' at the point, of intersection where G.T.Karnal • Road i.e. NH-i and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-iO bifurcated at a common, point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be highligted that village Bhalswa Jahangir • Purl is outside the 'V 1 aforesid and as explained hereinabove • and abuts towards the east of NH-i.

15. In the appeal's 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.[1] In those cases, learned counsel • for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated 25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) and the sale deed dated •. 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2b i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for ithe land owners have place[1] reliance upon as noted insub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove'. In, the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded thes two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

21. The first argumentis 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 former comes to Z26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ 63.478 lakhs per acre.t The learned Reference • Court has rejected the ll 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for aIlthe villages in question on the reasoning, that the Isale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a reIigiois trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' land Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the salel deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in L/C 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 ded Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mattrs. been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of iagricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christiaril 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 fp the vendee..

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Lahd AcquisitIon Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. 15t! Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs, Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale tansactiohs evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue • of Section 51A of the LJA.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 buye[1] to pay a higher price. The true test is the price.wt7ich a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced. by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the market and h apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a I buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher brice and this would not be S a good index of fair mar1et value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was.ccepted by the learned Reference Court pertainirg 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 acrefor Ex.P\V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected rnattrs '7 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 vhich I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additiohal reasons to hold that ithe 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 I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it vvould make all the more a reason to be circurnspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to

16. For the, reasons therein,l reject these two sale deeds in the present ca.se also as 171eliable and 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 viIlae Bhalsva Jahangir Pun has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of Z18 lakhs per acre. The lani owners have also relied uron another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at 15,70,000/-.

18. Now, if the price., as per the own showing of the Ia4i owners was, 15,70,000/- pert acre as on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No. 999/2010 & connected mattrs produced by the Govern 1,37,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas 3,26,600/- per bigha ar to 2,31,800/- which w 2,15,16O/- per bigha, from the sum of T[3],26 highlighted that in the the sale was 1993 a Section 4 of the Land 24.7.1995 and 16.[1] determined fair market the same sum arriv 2,15,160/-. In other v Division Bench is not t I. i ~_O difficult to comprehend the abnormally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4.11996 in which the stated price is 18 lakhs per acre. It is inded a puzzle that in 1996 the price was Z18 Iakhs per acre and 7years down the line the price fell to Z15.[7] lakhs per acre. I need to highlight that in paragrap 39 of its 'decision, the learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opned that the said price was for special considerations and nt the price settledbetween an informed willing buyer and Ian informed willing seller and without being influenced by special needs pertaining, to a particular land, and had thusl discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. I have discussed this issue in my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 tat S/ngh Vs. UOI & Anr. i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither the bu'er nor the seller being well 7 informed and there being a Special feature qua the land and have held the same not to begood evidence to determine fai market value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten with Hancy, which observations have already been extracted by m hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and • 23 of the said decision. I reiteate the same. As regards auction rates of developed plot of land situated.in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, I do not find any substance in the argurnents of the learned counsel for land owners and concur with the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in pl aiagiaphs 29 and 30 which are premised on the decision of th Supreme Court reported as Lal LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mattrs.. Chand Vs. Union of/nd/a 2009 (15) 5CC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the ekidence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by pDA.

21. In my decision dated.2.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 Ia! S!ncjh Vs. UQI & Ors., I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chancfs case with reference to price at which 9eveloped plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA ard DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 bf the decision in /aiS/ncih's case are extracted hereunder:- Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted laId 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 evidencel has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in La! Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the sUbject cases. 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 Sheme, the subject lands had acquired a building pctentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality woul{d translate itself. 1 hold that the learrped Reference Court, keeping in view the observatio1n and the findings of the Supreme Court in La! Chancfs case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidenceis reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise 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 & ôonnected matters - Highlighting that in La! Chancfs case (supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefrom fair market value could b crystallized. I reiterate the reason ing to hold that price at which MCb • allotted developed, plots in Sajay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DQA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair mrket value of agricultural land. Pertaining to price nctified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when leae-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! C'hancfs çae (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was • specifically '1iscussed and discarded with reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for Rohini Residential Scheme, I.egate the plea for compensatioh to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha. ' From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LA No.112A/2008 it emerges thai 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 PuH • and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we tra.vl towards Muba.rka Chowk fr9m the Tibetan Re-settlemetit • colony adjoining the famous 3urudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The • two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and •. LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected mattrs Page 16 of[2] 141 2, thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparble.

26. While assessing the fair market value of the land situated in village Burari, Which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 24.07.1998 and 18.072003 issued. under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition. Act, I had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence Irti my decision pronounced oh 7.6.2011 in a batch of LA. 4ppeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal NO.971/2008 titled RIba/ & Ors. Vs. Union of/nd/a & Ors. In the said decision, I had assessed the fair market value of agricultural land at 11,60580.82 per acre for Category A land, 10,44,522.73 per acfte 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 19,20,568/- per acre for Category A land and 17,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. In /ai SIncjh's case (supra), I had assessed the fair m. arket.valu[6] of land in 10 villages as under:..; S.No. Village Name Date of Notification Fair market under Section 4 value (in lakhs peracre) I

1. Pooth Khurd 7.8.12000.. 14.75 for Category 'A' 14.3728 fo 111 Category 'B'.2. HolambiKalan 7.8.2000 T14.75. Bawana. 7.8.112000 Z14.75 for 14.38125 for. Khera Khurd 11.9.2000 Z14.835 for 14.46413 for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected rnattrs. Narela 2.5.2001 T16.165 for 1576087 for Holambi Kalan 22J[8].2001 Z16.745 for 16.43811 for 7.. Alipur.2218.2001 Z16.745 for

8. Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 T 16.745 for 9.. Rajapur Kalan 22.8.2001 Z16.745 for Sanoth 7.12.2001 T17.295 Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 !18.655 Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 T18.655 Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 Z18.655 Alipur 23.5.2002 T18.655. Sanoth 27.11.2003 T19.435 for 18.94912 for 18.47539 for Category 'C' Rajapur Kalan 27.1.2003 19.435 for 18.94912 for 18.47539 for Category 'C' 27.' In Ia! S/ngh's case (sulpra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time to time and found the same inot to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Government officers and had found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization iinpacting such increase. With reference to the decisions 01 f four DivisiOn Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Ga/ra/S/ngh Vs. L/O/& Anr., 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Rm Chander Vs. (JOt, 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sin s (JO! and an unreported decision ih LA.App.No.866/2005 hendr SIncih Vs. (JO! & Ors. decide[1] ).. on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined onvarious dates between the years 1993 to 1996 and in relation to the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlightei in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:- "50. The. aforesaid judments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the Jarious notifications issued froth time to time by the Goiernment of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricdiltural 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 T10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the incrase is T[5].35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 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 shws that due to urbanization, between the year 199d and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the, decision of the pivision Bench of this Court in Ga/rats case (supra), wtlich I have discussed in para 49 above.