Bimla v. Union of India & Anr

9. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir revenue estate of village >adha 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 05.08,1996 (3) ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell Poddar 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 4 comes to n,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 land for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat):ers Page 7 of22 fixing the marl<et value of having a vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C marl<et value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and Court.

10. It may be noted that wh above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA 1/5. UP! & Ann in which simil •<2/ V undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the 3llector has assessed the fair price much higher than the one so has the learned Reference len judgment was reserved in the 19^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition >k.App.No.266/2008 titled lai Singh ar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response to the arguments of learned counsel for the land owners, the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.

11. The topography of villeige Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand {Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoh las explained the topology of the 1/5 Union ofIndia in which he h area while proving the Al<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa jahangir Puri. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated in ould reveal that village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the Eiast, 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 8 of22

12. I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl is situated on the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoor^ur (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 ds in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to urbanization was of a weak acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah I/5. Union of India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, resettlement colony called Jaf it was noted that there existed a angir 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 were also for re-settlement of.slum and J.J.Clusters.

14. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Sinah l/s". UO! S, 12.8.2011 and had yet to be Anr. which was reserved on pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and 1 would highlight that hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu t Delhi being revenue estate of ^ Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalarj, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat the topology of the area and Bawana, I had noted t LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mati ers Page 9 of22 ^constituted a 'V at the point Road i.e. NH-1 and RohtaI< common point, proceeding Mandi. It needs to be highligl Puri is outside the 'V aforesE 2000, 200i, 2002 and 2003. of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi ited that village Bhalswa Jahangir id'and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1.

15. In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notifications issued in the year In those cases, learned counsel 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-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these ms recorded in paragraphs 21 to two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

21. The first argumentiis 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 ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable of ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the, evidence to determine fair market value agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered the sale the villages In question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was js trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 10 of22 V been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S Organization" and as per ister 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 circumstance, personal to the vendee. i.e. there was a special

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see,717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. isti Rohini &Ann (RefeH para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 i^oiici. Raufuddin l/s. Land Acouisitinn nffirpr (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 which have led the buye true test is the price wF buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bu studied the market and be special circumstances •to pay a higher price. The ich a well informed willing need by any special cy to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area ano 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 marl<et value of the lands in the I do not highlight that the upon the sale deed dated 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 thje price which comes to ^63.478 lakhs per acre jfor Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28 89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds area. 1would be failing i Union of India had relied 20.5.2002, which was V LA.App.No.999/2010 Sa connected mattdrs Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-]./3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fancifui price and ex-facie destroy each other.

23. Thus, apart from t Reference Court, with \ reasons in para 21 a reasons to hold that 19.12.2008 disposing o matter being LA.App.h (since deceased) thru L highlighted that the sale had purchased 8 bigha land for expansion of il ignored by the learnec ground that L&T had a 1 hence the price reflec treated as a good evide Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as tY market value. The argur in the decision of the Di\ 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed or ie reasoning of the learned vhich I concur, afore-noted bove would be additional the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be gooc evidence wherefrom fair market value of subjecjt 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 would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer, I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya Deing the decision dated a batch of appeals, lead 0.193/2006 Pratap Sinah Rs Vs. UOJ & Ors. It was deed therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural s factory which had been Reference Court on the ancy for the said land and:ed therein could not be nee of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable dsduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the he instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair lent ignores the reasoning ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative therein was reduced by would be the same as wo of the market value, but found that if the price 1/3''^ the price arrived at uld 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 i LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 12 of22 produced by the Governjment were giving a price of ^1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchaspd 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 1/3'"'^ would be deducted,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd the notification under Acquisition Act was dated from the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the the sale was 1993 a Section 4 of the Land 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 v\|ords, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is npt 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."

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 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 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at land situated in village Bhalsw to be transferred for a sum o ?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 Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4, abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ^18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was fl[8] lakhs per acre and 7 to ?15.[7] lakhs per acre. I ne years down the line the price fell id to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the learned Reference Court, while I ' examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned that the sale) price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and without being influenced by particular land, and had thus

19. I have discussed this 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where an abnormally high p have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with an informed willing seller and special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 lai Sinah Vs. UP! & Ann i.e. "ice for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being wellinformed and there being a Special feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reite "ate the same.

20. As regards auction rates of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, I do not find its of the learned counsel for the th 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 La! situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen land owners and concur wit LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Chand 1/5. Unioh 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 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah 1/5. UP! & 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 lai Singh'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 The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai render this evidence as the value of land in the s

30. It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area would be what would 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in the same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which most unreliable to determine Libject cases. as held even by the learned with the development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.

31. 1hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itsel reader of the decision, t shall be discussing as market value of the lands to the value, I promise the D deal with the same while I to what should be the fair LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 15 of22 V

22. Highlighting that in La! Chancts case (supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefrorn fair market value could be crystallized. 23.. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which jviCD 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 iease-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 am 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 tha village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi lages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir. Puri and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous iurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and V thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable. market value of the land situated jcquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of 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 matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. l/s. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at ^11,60 land, n0,44,522.73 per ac

26. While assessing the fair in village Burari, which was a dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I d assessed the fair market value,580.82 per acre for Category A re for Category B land and ^9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. notification dated 18.07.2002 The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at ^9,20,568/- per acre for Category Aland and n[7],28,512/- per acre for Category B land. Ir •iai Singh's case {supra), I had assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as unden- S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section 4 Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

1. Pooth Khurd 7.[8] 2000 n[4].75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B'

2. Holambi Kalan 7.8. 2000 ?14.75

3. j Bawana 7.8. 2000 ?14.75 for ?14.38125 for

4. Khera Khurd 11.c.2000 ?14.835 for,Category 'A' ^4.46413 for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters Page 17 of22

5. Narela 2.5.2001 n[6].165. for n[5].76087 for

6. Holambi Kalan 22 8.2001 n[6].745 for n[6].43811 for

7. Alipur 22. 8.2001 n[6].745 for

8. Holambi Khurd 22. 8.2001 ? 16.745 for

9. Rajapur Kalan 22.8.2001 n[6].745 for ?16.43811 for

10. Sanoth 7.12.2001 ?17.295

11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 n[8].655

12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 ^8.655

13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 ^8.655

14. Alipur 23.5.2002 n[8].655,

15. Sanoth 27. L.2003 n[9].435 for as.94912 for ^8.47539 for Category 'C

16. Rajapur Kalan 27.;L.2003 ^9.435 for ns.94912 for ^8.47539 for Category 'C

27. In jai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from 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 Singh Vs. UP! & Ann. 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander 1/5. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. (JO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 i^ahender Singh Vs. UOi & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t various dates between the years • the minimum price fixed by the Government I 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 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 whi of 1.4.1997 i.e. the incre ch rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as ase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increa rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years as of 1.4.2001. It. sh between the year 199C 5e would be 16.436%. The price r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11.5% for the next year i.e., ows that due to urbanization, and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the -• • • Gairats case (supra), wh above. ! I,

51. I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gajrafs case. Djscussing the evidence pertaining^ to fair market value of agricultural land in of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 village Holambi Kalan as Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 the 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 the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to ^^10,03,364/- per acre (flefer 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 ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- 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 as of 1.4.1997 at ?10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the pric^ was ^0,03,364/- per acre.

52. The decision in Mahender Sinoh's 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 forjoelhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court Which was projecting residential, cornmercial 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 la potentiality, the same h nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality of the notification with, concerned, virtually no c evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which the Division Bench was. - -evelopment had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in n:=ir[3] /I Q i.. ^ para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The c LA.App.No;999/2010 & connected matte a gap between what would be et growth and what the market ecisions in Gairafs case and rs Page 20 of22 Mahender Singh's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by 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 saturated.

53. The empirical evicence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which 1have 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 jAcquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some refereqices 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 ^70,160y mean that ^6,09,850/spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 was paid as stamp duty would (?5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were rice ^"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 I Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle and has relied upon the correct ev dence 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 of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 21 of22 I. Section 4 of tine Land Acquis furtlier enhance the compe dismiss all appeals and cross land owners or the Union of I

29. I leave the parties to bea SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm ition Act and finding no scope to nsation or to reduce the same 1 objections, whether filed by the ndia. r their own cost. -j— d

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.App.No.999/2010 & coimected matte:TS Page 22 of22