Full Text
LA.APP. 246/2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay
Pathak, Advocate for UOI.
Through: None.
19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
-r-7 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19101 ilf.- HIGH COURT OF DELHI ludqmentReservpd nn^^ ig^h [ynn , - Delivered OnSeptember. 20li
, LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011 (Grdss-Ot^ection)
J Thiraugh: Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mr.DeepakKhosIa, Advocate arid / l^r.N.S.Negt Advocate.
•, •; " Vs. •' •" / y v,-'^ •
UOI &ANC^ER , ^Respondent ^ Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Adv&ate
' • , :> 5^ Mf.SanjaY^ Kumar Pathak/iMr.Sachin
. ^ '^fwani, Mr.Siddharth Panda a^d Ms.K Kaomudi Krran, Advocates fpnR-l \
^AND > ;
\ r M 961/2:010, ., LA.APP. 1001/2010' CM 1007/2D10 & GM N0.151§1/2011^'
,. 1009/2010, j ;;LA.APP^ 1D10/2010> ' ^LA.APP'
^ CM No.12865/2011, ;1A.AP:PJ 5/2011 iA API^"
:., ^^2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA^APP/ - : ,. ; Mo.6740/;2011, LA.APP. 41/20n^^^ 89/2011 LA APP '
: if '-A-APP.: .24672011, LA.APR. 24/7/2^11^'la.APP
248/2011j, LA.APP. 298/2011, LArAPP. 347/201l'^ ^E/I aPp'
,375/20llv LA.APR. 386/2011,. LA.APP. 3g^7/2(jll' L/^^PP' ^
4^011; i;APP;v ;|Rdlating Notificatibn u/Sec^ ,4 ;dated 15.O9.2O0D &'
• Award No. 06/2002-200|3, Villag4BhalswaJahah^^^^^^^^^
'••• "AND-V ' •'
;LA.App.No'.999/2010 &connected matters
•age 1 of22 ' c
; 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2dll,, LAAPP. 132/2011, LA.APP/ : ^
•164/2011, LAJpP. 2.0,0/2011, LA.APPi 201/2011; LA.APP.
. 202/2011, LA./^PP, 2l^2011/-LA.APP. 240/2^11, LA.APP. -
V ^ 241/2011, LA.APP. 24^/2,011; ^LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. • :
244/2011, LAAPP; -245/2011,: LA.APP. 323/2011, '
; / LA.APP.346/2011, LA.AHP: 348/2011 &, CM Nb.15194/2011^. >>
; : LA.APP. 374/20ia; ;LA.APP. 376/2011, lAiAPP; 380/2011, --
; . LA.APP/382/2(^1; LA^APP.: 393/2011; LA(APP./ 398/2^)11, ; LA.APP. 39,9/2011,. LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011 •
; LA.APP.;410/2X)11, LA.APP. 414/2011. ." v ;
, • : {R.el,a1:i:n to .Notification u/Seic. 4 .dated 30v0f;1998 & ^ ^
^/.Award No. 18/2000-2001, Viliag;e- BhalsWa Jaba.fifir Purl)
•• 'v CORAM':; \ ' ;v '^ /'
\ ; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRi'^Q^^ i: ^ -
; : 1. ,Whether the Reporters oflocal papers may be allowed ^ T : to see the'
ORDER
. • 3. Whether the judgment should be reported'in th^'^'
• • Digest? ^ \ : " • ' -
PRADEEP NANDRAinri, | ^ i;
1. I proceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time and then to a notification issued prior in fDoint. oftime; but the reason is that '. the learned counsel for the land -owners had addressed: Arguments with respect to the notification issued later and hadi V; required:, price to. be suitably -reduced pertaining to.the;v notification which Was' issued' earlier in point oftime. •V ••, • 2:,;Land h^easuring v/SB-Ol bigha situated i^ theireveriu^K estate of village Bhalswa.jahangi.r Purl was acquired pursuant •:LA;-App.N:o.999/2010,& connected matters ',Page[2] of2i; '. to a notification 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 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of th,e said Act issued, on 17!04.2001. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition. Collector announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated:20:04.2062, •whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ^13.82 lakhs per acre, i.e., fair market value as of 15.0,9.2000 was fixed at ^13.82 lakhs per acre. • ^ -
3. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land' Acquisition Collector, the land owners, sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned ReferenceCourt,. in the lead matter being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinoh 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value,bf the acquired lan.d gt ^3,03,534 per bigha or ^14,56,963 per atre.
4. It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as well,as the Learned Reference.Court, while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land,,.adopted-the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the; Government as on 01.04.2000, notified vide 'Circular dated 11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition Collector, while; assessing the compensation, did not grant appreciation for the period from 01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section:4 of the Land Acquisition,Act. was issued on:15.09'.2000, ' but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation fpr vthe said' period of. 165 days @12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4,2000 and the price ?13.82 lakhs per acre.' LA;App.No.999/^010 &connected matters Page 3 of22,5.. Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue' estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notificatipn issued. under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6,, of the Act issued -on 04.0,8.199,8. After following the due ' process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced an awahd: 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 bjgha which is equivalent to m.20 lakhs per • acre..r
6. Dissatisfied with the assessnnent made.by the Land Acquisition CoHector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in.the lead matter being LAC l\lo.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati Vs.. ' Union ofIndia, assessed the fair market value of the acquired ' •^ land; at,m,46,,670/-' per acre. The difference •in the destination reached is, on the.same rea-son,; as noted, hereinabove pertaining to the notification dated 15.'9.2000 i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector adopting the land rate,. notified by the Government with effect, from 1.4.1997 vide circular dated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notification i:n' • question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference/ • Court granting -enhancement @ 11% per annum for th|v, interregnum period. \ 7;,The Union of India as well as the land,owners havel.chaHenged the assessment made by the Learned Reference • LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page-4 of22. j Court by way of the appeals and. cross objections •.rnentioned:, ^ •.above,, '.• •; •••
8. On behalf of the land,owners, justifying.higher, compensation, reliance, was placed on the foNowing" documentary evidence:- (a). The rate notified by.the L&DO vide notification: ^, dated 16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it • ' disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in.. • y respect of developed residential and comrhercial." properties owned.by L&DO. Relying, on this. „ document, it was argued that in the year 1999i,the ' ' rate of residential land'in Azadpur, which is stated to, be close to village Bhalaswa jahangir Puri,. was fixed ' at ^5830/- per square meter.or;^2,35,92,400;92 per ' acre and jt wa? urged that if 50% is deducted; towards development cost,.the land,owners should • be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of ^1,17,96,200/-per acre., ' • (b). The rate charged, by MCD for allotment of •, •commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705 dated,23.11.1987. (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot ' / • developed plots to the transporters (a) ?425/-, per square meter and; Exhibit P.W-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610..dated 21.02.2005; whereby MCD decided to allot th[4] plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport •Nagar (5) ?4,500/-p^er square metre were urged to be material and good evidence.. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters, Page 5of22.i' • ' i' • 'V.,,.f' •A, > documents,; learried counsel for';the latid ?owners ':' x arg;ued that the rate stated in the resolLitions \, afofenoted,, which was applicable for tii year 1976;,,: wo,uld evidence that tair market value df^developed ' " 'and comes to ^17,19,;857A per acre and it Was urged; • • that even if50% deduction,is made on acSount dfthe development -costs, for undeveloped.'lands,: •fair ^; •; market'vailue would; cofTle tc>,^^,5.9,928/- per^ acre in', ^; -the' year 1976 and increasing the $ame;by 12%,per ! •annum, the^fair market value as qfi 15.9,2000 would.. be f24,76;592/-- per acre.;,• i;. "i. ^•.•. (,c) " Learned counsel for the ' land owners''also.-: placed reliahce on the auction record of plots In, Rohini Residential Schenie in the year, 1997-^98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3); While relying ^, on. the broch-ure of PDA pertaining to the iyear 2006,^ it was argued that as,per the advertisement auctions were held Jqua flats having plinth area of ^69 square metre to 71'square metre in Jahangir Purivat a fjrice ranging between f23.72 lakh to ?=28.[4] lakh, which \ according to learned counsel translates to a, pric^ of: ':.. n[4],36,36,363 per acre and counsel u;rged that suitable deduction could be- effected therefrom (d); Relying on a:sale deed •Of,village Khera Khurd,,.(Exhibit PV^,a:5/l),-whereunder land 'measuring'.2^9,.;;blgha vyas.sold:i@ ?3i[2],40;300A. on 25.04.2&1, • i learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes ' to ^56,93,16:3/- or: ^11,86,16:9/- per bigha.i It 'mas,. ': ' •,. Page 6 of22 y -:, ^ y cDintehded that this^sale deed shQiild be.relied.-lU /,. V, after, 'mal<i:hg a reasonable; deduction,.towards, /y:, 7... developn?;ent costto deterpine th ';; of' undevelQped agrrcuituraJ land in village 'BKalswa • ' Jahangir Puri. Another^sale deed, dated'24.03.2000:: V/ (ExHibit PW7I5/2),.whereby land.measuring. 4-16,/; • bigha situated in the revenue estate of: yillage,;.; S Marhurpur was soild to Radha/Swanii Satsang Vyas at ^ a price of^26,75,000/-per acre was also relied upon. (e) Learned counsel for the jand owners also relied. • upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was executed; by one Shri Khushi Ram in ifavour of a ' society 'M/s;Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to ^;, be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^18 lakhs per acre^ It was: urged that the land was in the revenue. estate of t,.village Bhals.Wa Jahangir Purl and thus was pressed in aid, as good evidence of fair market value di'.land in '..the said village as of the date of.the agreement to sell ' i.e., 5.8.19:96:.9.. Per.corttra,, Sh.Sanjay ^Poddar learned senior:, counsel appeari:hg..-on behalf of Union of India relied, on a-'.Sale Deed..^; dated 05.06.1996 1-03 bigha of land \ in;,village;B;ha|s\^a.Jahartgir Puri was,;sold at a iprice of ', ?l,40,obo and urge.d that.even if 12% appreciation'per annum/: to be.^given -on said.value, the price as;0n the date of the ^'.:/. notification uncjer.Section 4.comes.to^^l.,94,782'per bigha, and/;• ^thus^ it was ai^gued that since price of siniilar. land available in the,, same village, it.w.ouid be" Imprudent to. trayei to the.';, adjoihing village or to adopt the price of developedviahd for: LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters " ' •:e 7 of22; fixing the marl<et value of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel,also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed, the fair..-market value of the land at a price nnuch higher than the one; reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference.,. Court.
10. It may be noted that when judgment was reserved in thq, above captioned matters on 19^^ August, 2011, decision had: been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead matterbeing LA.App.No.266/2008 titledJaiSinqh 1/t. IJO! &Anr- in which similar arguments as were advanced, with respect to similar evidence relied upon in;'the instant appeals and learned..senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in 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 village Bhaiswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand' (//a/t/a Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 i;n LAC NO.112A/2008. titled Vs Union ofIndia \n which he has explained the topology of the' area while proving the Al<5 Sizra Ex..PW^2/l of village Bhaiswa Jahangir Purl; 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 are situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of.village Jahangir Purl. LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters, Page 8of22
12. I may. additionally note tlnat the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of. Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of G..T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on,the western' side of National Highway No.l.
13. It needs to' be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri> post acquisition of agricujtural lands in the revenue estate of said village was for re-settlement of.slum arid J.J. dwellers i.e. the, character of urbanization in the area was of a ki'nd where potential price, increased due to.urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah l/s. Union of- India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, it was noted that there 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 were also for re-settlement of.slum and J.J.Clusters.
14. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 /5/ 5/>7(7/7 l/s. UP! & Ml. which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced, by me 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-West Delhi being revenue estate of, villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth,' Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurdand Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area^ LA,App.No.999/2010.& connected matters.,.. Page 9of22 constituted a 'V at tiie point of intersection where G.T.Karns! 'Road i.e. NH-l commoh point, • Mandi. ilt needs and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a-.. proceeding ih.\different' directions,, at Sabz-i to be highlighted that village Bhalswa jahangi.r 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 ID villages where land • I. • '. were acquired pursuant.to different notifications issued from tinie to time 1 had dealt with notifications issued in the year 200D, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the, land owners had relied', upon the sale deed dated 25.0.4'2001 (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 placad reliance upon as noted in sub-para (d:) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21,tcV 23,which are reproduced hereuhder:- •21. The first.argument is predicated,on,'the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3, which is'dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4:2001. As per the former, fair market value for.'the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ?63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference •.Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine faif market. value of ^ • agricultural lands, for all the villages In question on,.the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW.-l/3, was.'purchased by a religious trust. by the... name of "v. 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhah.PW-6 who, had tendered the sale deed in evidence. While. deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated. •/ that to his-knowiedge 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, been held not to be reliable evidence to. deterrnine fair market 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 price for the said piece of land as it was the. only plot of the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee... " 22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) see 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors) Vs. jsti Rohini &Ann. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC; ~ 369 Moiid. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer. (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, thse reason there may be• special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The,.,true test is the price which, a well informed "willing,; buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being. influenced ' by any Special circumstances orthe fancy to buy a particular pieice of land. An informed buyer would be one who has. studied the market and has apprised himself of all, available land in the area; has understood-the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a; fancy for a particular piece,of land, he Sl pay a much higher price and this would not be • a good index of fair market value of the lands in the, area.. 1would be failing if1do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deied dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court, pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to.!an agriculturist for a much lesser price i'.e. ?17,74,109/- ', per acre as against the price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and U[8] 89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatters Page 11 of22 • Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having mtrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.
23. Thus, apart from the reasoning of the Isarned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be.additibnai reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds •would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands^ can be determined and nnore so for the reason Ifind that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land / have been acquired and when the acquisition is of •,. such large an area, it would make ail the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having • intrinsic evidence of tine transaction being tine resuit of a fancy of tlie buyer. •I'would be failing -not to note an unreported decision cited by learned iqT? 9nnQ decision dated 19,12.2008 disposing of a batcin of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Smnh (since deceased) thru tHs l/s: Um ^nrc it was highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T I Pj^'''^hased 3 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 ahd 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 question, with,suitable deduction, on accdunt of the parcel of jand being large, was accepted by the.Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale ^ t u '-e- Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3., should be treated as the basis to determine fair market yalue. The argument ignores the.reasoning • in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherem the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative.. of the market value, but found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3^^, the price arrived at would be the sanne,as would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds • ' produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 cfe connected matters Page 12 of22 produced by the Government were giving a price of ?1,37,000/- per bigtna 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, if 1/3''^ would be deducted. from the suni of ^3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judghient the year of •, the. sale was 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 Divisioh Bench is not to be read pedantically' but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the <, • sale deed in question -as the basis for.if,it was, so,.. ' the appreciation,for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that 1 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. i.n village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl.
17. As regards the agreement, to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has beeih.agreed to be transferred for a sum of ^18 lakhs per acre. The land owners have also „relied ' upon • another safe 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 land, owners was ^5,70,000/- per acre as^on 01.07.2003, it is, LA.App.No.999/2010 &coimected matters. •. • Page 13 of22 ••• ' ••. • • ••. V: • 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 jn 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-6/1;has opined that, the said price was for special.considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and an informed willing seller and.without being influenced by special needs pertaining to a particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large •'track of land had to-be fixed..
19. I have discussed this issue, in my decision. dated 23.8.20.11 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinoh Vs. IJOl ^ Anr i.e.. I where an abnorrpallyhigh price for a parcel, of lahd is with evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-, informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be good evidence to deterrnine 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.. I reiterate the same.
20. 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 courisel for the land owners and concur, with. the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 a^nd 30 which are premised on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as U^J •LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 14 of^2 r. C/?a/7c/ 1/5. iy/7/o/7 of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar 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. fai Singh l/s. UOI & Qrs., I had extensively discussed the Law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Ghand^ case with reference to price at which developed plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant.observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision In jaiSingh's case are extracted hereunder:-
29. Mow, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or'DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed. by, DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed • by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same ' factors, being 3 in number which wsre noted by the Supreme Court in Lai Chand's case (supra)', which render.this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land-in the subject cases.
30. It is no, doubt true, as held even by the learned Reference, Court, that with the developrnent of,Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini, Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scherine, the subject lan^s had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to' which the ^., building potentiality would translate itself. ",
31. 1hold that the learned Reference Court,, keeping ' m view the observation and the.findings of the ' Supreme Court in LaJ_Chands c^se. (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as 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 &,connectedmatters Page 15 of22-
22. Highlighting that in La! Chands case:(supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate, wher^from fair market value could be crystallized. \ '
23. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanja'y Gandhi Transport'Nagar and price at which 'DDA sold developed plots and-flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural- land.
24. Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for' charging unearned increase when lease-hold property undef L&DQ 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! Chanel's 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 corripensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that! am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^ 758.0l! bigha and 929.05 bigha.
25. From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who-appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2G08 it emerges that village Burari is on the east 9f village Bhalswa jahangir Purl and indeed the plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu. Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and •LA.App.No.999/2010 &Qonnected matters • • Page 16 of22 '\p •thus the fair market'value of land'on,a particular date in: the two villages would be comparable. 26, While assessing the fair nnarl<et value ofihe la'nd 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 rny decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter'being LA Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & nr. l/c Union nf inH,: Qr^ In the said decision, l.had assessed the fair market value of agricultural land at ?11,60,580.82 per acre for Category A land, ?10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and- ?9,2,8,464.65 per acre for Categpry Cland pertpining to the notifipition dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to not|fic|tlon dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at ?19,20|568/- per acre for Category Aland and ?17,28,512A per acre f|r Category Bland, In./ai Singh's case (supra). Ihad assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages ^s.;under:- S.No. Village Name' | Date of Notification under Section 4
1. Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000
2. 3.. Hojambi Kalan Bawana 7.8.2000 7.8.2000
4. Khera Khurd 11.9.2,000 LA.App.No.999/2010 8c connected matters Fair market value:(in lakhs per acre).^14.75 for Category 'A', ^14.3728 for Category's' fl[4].,75 ^14.75 for Category 'A' ?14.38125 for ^Category 'B' ^14.835 for.Category 'A' ^14.46413 for Category 'B', Pagel[7] of22 \ V 5-, Narela 2.5.2001 •. n[6].165 for n[5].76087 for Category 'B' '
6. Holambi Kalan 22.8.2001 ^16.745 for n[6].43811 for Category 'B' i
7. Alipur • 22.8.2001:-?16.745 for ?16.43811 for Category'B' 8.. Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 ? 16.745 for ?16.43811 for
9. Rajapur Kalan 22.8.2001 ?16.745 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, 27.1.2003 •n[9].435 for fl[8].94912 for ^18.47539 for Category'C 16:, Rajapur Kalan 27.1.2003,^19.435 for Category 'A'. n[8].94912 for Category'B' fl[8].47539 for Category'C /q'/ Sinqh's case (supra) 1 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 & co^mected matters Page 18 of22 Government officers and^ fiad found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With, referet^ce to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah Vs. UP! & Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOl. Ill (2004} DLT 95 Hukum Sinah l/s. UP! and an unreported decision in, • LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UP! & Prs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on various dates between the years 1993 to 1996 and in relation to the minimum,price,fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said.decision as under:-. "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 tabulatedby me in para 7 above bring outtwo very important factsi,,. relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of' agricultural land in Delhi over,the years commencin.g' from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990' minimum price was ^4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to no lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.,e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 ye.ars which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and • the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 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 shows that due to urbanization, between the year. 1-990 and 1997 prices grows fairly. sharply and gpod corroborative evidence for this would' be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gairafs case (supra), which I have discussed ih-para 49 above. • •.
51. ^ I need to elaborate, a little more with respect to the decision in Gajrafs case. Discussing the y^vidence. pertaining to fair market, value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras'9 to 17 • ' • • •- I LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters 'Ipage 19 of22 ' < the Court discussed, the valuation oh 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 includi.ng potentiality,' ' in para 19,. • onwards the Court discussed the.matter with Veference.to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances fourid that.based on the 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 1.4.19,97 and thus worked, out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had'been well-factored in. when the Government issued theminimum 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 Sr lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ?10,03,364/- per acre. ' decision in Mahender Sinnh''^ case, pertaining ? v'Cap Bawana, referred to by me iri para 49 above. 11!^^ ''^f^^ence to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into, account by the Court which was projecting residential commercial and industrial future explgitation of. agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that no.twithstanding the Master Plan so projecting, and the lands theoretically, acquirinq a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reali.tv eyidenced. by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e the date of the notifiption, with which the Division Bench' was ', Goncernfed, virtually no. development had taken place in,village.Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited t^e potential. As Ihave already highlighted in para 49 above there, is a gap between what would be expected to,.be the market growth and what the marketactually, grows._ The' decisions in Gairafs caise and. 'LA.App.No.999/20r0 &connectedmatters page 20 of22; • -\>\; _ ' _. • j Mahender Singh's • case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 arid 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 w:a,s enough availability of developed land a'nd the hunger'of the market got saturated.
53. The empirical evidence 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 I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for n'ot 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 agriculturaT 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/- (^5,39,690/- +^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ?17,74,10.9/- per acre as of; the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.
28. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than the'minimum price notified by the. •Government from time to time, 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 arid the date of the notifrcatidn issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters • Page 21 of22