Full Text
LA.APP. 248/2011
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.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19112 - .-'i W' w.
V.. ; h-'
• +•
HIGH COURT OF DELHI ludqment Reservpd On: AHaust 20 n ,'
,
ORDER
CM No.6549/201i (GrossrOt^ectio^)
Through: Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate ^ ^ , Mr;Deepal< Khosla, Advocate and
Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate.
• '• ., • 'Vs.. , UOI&anc™er; • 'v.S Respond.nts^^ :^
, Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, SeniorAdvocate &MnSanjay Kumar Pathak, ilvilnSachin
Nawani, Mr.Siddh^rth Panda and Ms.K Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates fonR-1
AND '
- ^1/2010, . LA.APP, 1001/2010 :& CM;
IAADDItA.APP. 1007/201Q &CM I\lo.l5181/2011 LA.APP; 1010/2010, 'LA.APP'
^ '^°-12865/2011, ]^.APP^5/2oil LAAPP^ ^2011^& CM- No.6756/2:011, :lA.APP.
41/2011, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP.
142/2011v LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2^^)11 tA APp'
,163/2011 LA:APP. 246/2(311, L^APP; iISiMkIaPP?
2^^2011, LA.APP. 298/2011, LA.APP. 347/2011' LA APP
375/201,1, LA.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP 3^7ybbll'^LA:%Pp"
^elatin^ Notification U/Seci 4idated 15.09.2000 Si ^
Award N;0. 06/2002-200p,yiliagfBhalswaJahangirjbfcij^ ;.
AND
LA.App.No.999/20l0 connected matters i' • '
^~L.: ju ^ + ; LA.APP. .57/2011-& ;CM No.12871^011, LA.APP.
88/2011 LA.APP. 136/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP.
,164/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.APP. .201/2011, LA.APP.
202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP.
,, 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, IA.APP.
244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2P11& CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, -
, LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP, 376/2011, LA.APP. :380/201i;
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated :30.07.1998 &
Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village- Bhalswa'|ah^ngir Puri) i :
•1. Whether the; Reporters of locaT papers may'be allowed • • to see the judgment? : '
'• 2.-To be referred to Reporter or.not? ^ > ,? . "*
3. Whether the.judgment should be reported in.t'h'e. • Digest?-.' " PRADEEP NANDRAIQG. 1:v 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 point of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for.the land owners had addressed; arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be. suitably reduced pertaining to the; notification which was issued earlier in point oftime. •
2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue, pstate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl was- acquired, pursuant, LA.App:No'.999/2010 &connected-matters '.Page[2];df22 ' • to a notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a iDublic purpose, nameiy,. 'Rehabilitation of JJ.Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration • under Section 6 of the 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 20.04.2002, 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 15.09.2000 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 Reference.Court,, in the lead: matter, being LAC No.112A/2008 titled Raj Sinoh 1/5.: assessed the fair market value' of thfe acquired, land at ?3,03,534 per bigha or m,56,963 per acre.. ' 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, nptified 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 for the said period of 165 days (a) 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the price ?13.82 lakhs per acre.'. • / tA.App.No.999/2010 &connected-matters,. • • Page 3 of2i V, •'<>-. ^
5. Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05;bi^ha, situated in tlie/same revenue estate ^of village Bhal^a;, • jahangirPuri was acquired, pursuant:to,a ribtification issued': under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition..Act 1894, dated,. 30.07.1998; for the^same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitatian of.. JJ Cluster'. This, was followed by. a declaration' under Section 6 of the Act issued on, 04.08.1998. ' After.fallowing the due. process, the, Land Acquisition Cbllector announced: an award bearing; No.18/2000-01 dated 12..03,2X)0i! ' whereby:he assessed the fair market, value of the acquired land at ^2,33,333 p^r bigha which is equivalent ta fll.20 lakhs per. • • • • acre.,,,; V •
6. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Larici, Acquisition Gollector, the land owners sought reference under Sectian 1.[8] of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, rn,the lead matter being LAC Nq.111A/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/^ Umon ofIndia, hssQssQ^ the fair r^arket value,af the acquired • land at m,46.;670/-.per acre: The difference;in thedestination reached is on - the-, same, reason as noted hereinabove pertaining to the notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector adapting the land rate- •notified 'by the Government with,.effect from' 1.4.1997 vide;... circular dated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notificatian in question was issued on 3^.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court.granting ^^hancement (a) 11% per annum for the. interregnum perio,d... '. • 7.,. The Union of India as- well as the land owners have challenged the assessment madevby the; Learned ^Reference:. •LA.App.No.9,99/2010'& connectedmatters • Page 4,of22 ', t • Court by way of,the appeals and crosk objections^mentioned ' above.' ' • ' -
8. On behalf of the; land ^owners, 'justifying higher compensation,, reliance was placed on the following docunnentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it disclosed its jntentibn 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 J iV rate of residential land in Azadpur, which is stated to.; be" close to village Bhalaswa Jahangir Purl, was fixed. at ?5830/- per square meter or ^2,35,92,400.92, per acre.^nd it.was urged th^t 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 Gandhj Transport Nagar, in terms of.the Resolution No'705 dated:,23.?lli.lp[7], ' • (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD.'decided to aliot • developed' plots to/the. transporters- (a) t425/- per square meter and'Exhibit PW-3/2,, a copy of the Resolution i\lq.6l0 dated 21.02.2005,, Whereby MCD'. • decided to allot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport >Nagar (a) ?4,5,0b/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidenced Relying, on- these LA,App.No.999/2O10 &connected matters ' Page 5of22 document^, learned counsel for the lalrid owners argued that the rate stated:ln the resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable' for the year; 1976,; would evidence that fair market value of developed land comes to ^17,19,857/-per acre and it was. urged that even if 50% deduction is hnade on accountof the. development costs, for undeveloped lands, - fair. • V market value would come to t[8],59,928/- per acre in • the; year. 1976 and increasing the same.by 12% per •a.nnum,:the fair market value as of 15.9.200,0 'would,, be.^24,.76,592/-peracre.. _. (c) • Learned counsel, for the land owners,.also, placed reliahce -on the auction record of plots In Rohini Residential Scheme'in the year 19.97-98.and" ••. 1998-99 (Exhibits PVV-8/2. and; PW-8/3). While relying ' ® on the brochure of DDA pertaining to'the yearf:2006,:; it vyas argued.that as. per the advertisement auctions. were held qua flats having plinth area of.69 sg&are • metre.to. 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri. at.a price '. ranging between ^23.72 lakh to ^28.[4] lakh,.which ' ' according to learned counsel translates to a price of. f14,36,36,363 per acre and counser urged that; ' suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land.
(d) Relying on a sale deed.t>f village Khera iKhtird ^
(Exhibit PW-is/l), whereunder land measuring 2-19 -j bigha was sold (a) ?32,40,3!00/- on - 25.04.2001,; learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to. ?56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It. was LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected,matters. ',• Page 6of22 / \,, contended that this sale deeel should be.relied upon, after m|l<ing a reasonable deductipn. towards • •development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agriculturariand in village:Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. Andther^sale deed dated 24.03.2000 ' (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby larid measuring 4-16 •, bigha situated in the revenue estate of village \ Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swa'mi 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 Agreenlent to Sell (Exhibit P.W-6/a) 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 (g) ?18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the • revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in • aid as good evidence of 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,5anjay Poddar learned senior counsel •.appearing on behalf of Union of India relied on a Sale Deed dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2), whereunder 1-03 bigha of land in village BhaJswa Jahangir Purl 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 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 viljage or to adopt the price of developed land for LA.App'.No.999/2010 &connectedmatters • '• Page 7of22- • • \\ fixing^ the market; value of undeveioped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned cotinsei also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Qollector has assessed:the fair rriari<et value b.t 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, 2011, decision had, been reserved for judgnnent in a batch of land.acquisition. appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No-266/2008 titled JaiSinqh 1/^7. IJO! &Ann \n which.similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upoa in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel' Sh.Sanjay Pdddar 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 Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand [Halqa Patwan) who appeared as:PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled RaiSinqh lA Union ofIndia in,which he has explained the topology ofthe area while proving the Ai<5 5/Z/-5 Ex.PW-2/1 of. village Bhalswa ' Jahangir Pur!. His testimonyywould reVeal that village Kadipur ' and Libaspur are situated, in the North,;villages Mukhmelpur ' and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badli and Haiderpur are situated in. the West; and villages Bharola and •Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of village Jahangir • Purl. ' •'. LAApp.No.999/2010 &coi-mectedmatters;.,, Page 8of22
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 Puri is situated on the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the westerrv 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 V acquisition of agricultural lands in. the revenue estate of said village was for re-settlement of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the" character of urbanization in the area was of a kind wherepotential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah Vs. 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 iai Sinaii l/s. UO! & Ml. which was reserved on,12.8.2011 and had' yet to be pronounced on 19.8.-2011, when instant appeals were reserved forjudgment, 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 Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters • Page 9of22 constituted a,'V' at tine point of intersection where G.T.Karnai.Road i.e., NH-l and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a - common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi IMandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangiir Puri 'is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihaboye 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, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed, dated, 25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-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 hereinaboye. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011,. I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasons recorded'in paragraphs 21 to, 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-
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 la'khs per acre. The learned Reference.Court has.rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable. ! evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for ail the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed' Ex.PW-1/3 was '. 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.68/2005 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; •, 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 p.rganization" and as per. the testimony of PW-? Sister Annie, the secretary of ' the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price for the.;said piete of land as it Was the,'; ^,. only.plot of the: requisite size'.suitabje for. the ' f ^cjuirement 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 1,995 (1). see 111 Land Acouisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. ~; Isti Rohini &Ann (Refer para 6) and 200.[9] (14) SGC, Mohd. Raufuddfn Vs. Land Acquisition, (Refer para-13) sale transactions evidenced in a.. sale deed which are tendered in evidence by> virtue j • of Section 5lA of the LA.Act 1894 have not to'be i'pso facto treated as an.exemplar sale deed' to, ' • determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there rnay be special circumstances ^, which have led the buyerto pay a higher price. The true test is the price, which a well informed willing byyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special ^.: circumstances orthe fancy to buy a particularpidce 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. lUli.buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he •_ • •'^ay pay a much higher price and this would not be.: •. ^ a good index of fair'market value of the lands in the area., I woutd be failing if 1'do not highlight that the '.. • Union of India had relied upori the sale deed dated, 20.5.2002,. which was accepted by the learned, Reference. Court pertaining to the notification dated 27^.2003 where-^under agricultural land, in village.. Rajapur Kalan. was sold by,an agriculturist to an • •... agriculturist for a much lesser price i<e. n[7],.74,109/- • - • /. • per.acre as against the 'price which corries to >• •,..,.?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28 89.. „. iakhs per toe.fqr:Ex;PW-l/3. The 2 sale deeds ' -,; LAApp.No.PPP/^OlO &coiinected.matters.• Page 11 of22. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves,are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ^x-facie destroy each other.
23. Thus, apart fronh the reasoning of the learned Referenc^ Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additional 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 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 dated ' 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of'appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao ^innh (since, deceased) thru LRs I/?. UPj & prg it was highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased S 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 account of the ' • parcel. oMand 'being large, was accepted by the • • 5°^? in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in.question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2^ and Ex.PW-1/3' to determine fair ' market value. The argument ignores the reasoning n the decision of the Division'Bench in paras.,37 to., 38 wherein 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 iDrice: • the price arrived at would t)e the same 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 &connected matters ' Page12 of22;\V> produced by the Government were giving a plrice of. ?1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T'had purchased the land gave the price ' ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to.^2,31,800/- which was n^ar about the price of. ^2,15,1.60/- per bigha, if 1/3,!"'' would be deducted. ' from the; sum of ^3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in-the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993, and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.r995.and. 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market vaiue 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 pedaMically 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 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.Hand in' village. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. 17... As regards the agreenient to. selT (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 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at. '.. ', ^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 Ol.07.2003, •it is... LA.App.No.999/2010 &• connected matters -... Page 13 of22 • difficult to comprehend the abnormally,high' value as per Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is ns lakhs per acre. It is indeed,a' puzzle that in 1996 the price, 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, whileexamining 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: 1 have, discussed this issue in my deci:Sion •date^ 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah l/s. UO! & Anr. 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 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 counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised ori the decision of the Supreme Court reported Lai LA.App.N,o.999/2010 &comiected,matters Page 14 of22 ',^1 V Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is tine 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 jai Singh Vs. UOi.& Ors.. I had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands, 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 ofthe decision in iaiSingh'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 20%'pr 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 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 R^fsrence Court, that with the development of.. Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had „ /•-N, ^CQuired a building potentiality,, but the question;. would be what would.be the value to which the' building potentiality would translate itself.
31. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the. ' •,, Suprerne Court in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, 1 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 &connected matters. Page 15 of22,,22'. highlighting, that m Lai Chancts case (supra) the Suprenne Court held that such raw data.was meaningless and. was too inchoate wherefroiti fdir market yali^e could be /.. ' 'Crystallized'.,, • ' 23., 1reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which IVICID:;• 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 lease-hold property under L&DO is, transferred by;the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to.state. that the same relates to developed: plots and on the parity of, •: reasoning in Lai. Chands case (supra) wherein this "kind of - evidence was specifically discussed. and discarded with;. '"efefence to village Rithala where lands were atquired for'; Rohini Residential Scherne, I negate the plea fbr compensation, '; - •; to be enhanced with^ reference to LSfDO rates noting that Iarh;: • • • ' concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^. 758.01., " ' ^. 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 l=',W-2 in LAC '. No.ll2A/2qp[8] it emerges that village B.urari is. on;t:he east.of'. village Bhalswa jahangir i^uri 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 iviajnu Ka;;Tila. The.. two,are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and, • • LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters; ' Page 16 of22 thus the fair market value of land on a-particular date in the tiwo villages would be comparable.
26. While assessing the.fair market value of the land situated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to. notifications.dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1had 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 Raibal & Or^. Vs. Union nf 'lnrii^ Qr^ In the said decision, Ihad assessed the fair market value of agricultural land at.m,60,580.82 per acre fof Category A land, ^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. In jai Singh's case {supra),.[1] had S.No. Village Name Date of Notification under Section 4 Fair market value (in iakhs per acre)
1. Pooth Khurd. 7.8.2000 ^14.75 for Category 'A' <•7* • ^14.3728 for Cateaorv 'B' j ' 2. Holambi Kalan 7.8.2000' n[4].75 3. j\ Bawana 7.8.2000,. ^14.75 for ^14.,38125 for' Cateqorv 'B' >.4. Khera Khurd 11.9.2000,m.835 for.Category 'A' fl[4],46413 for Category'B' LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters.Page 17 of22
5. Narela 2.5.2001 ^6.165, for Category 'A' • ?i[5].76087 for Category 'B': 6., Holambi Kalan 22.8.2001 ^6.745 for n[6].43811 fqr Category 'B' 7., • Alipur 22.8.2001, n[6].745 for n 6.43811 for
8. Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 16.745 for ^6.43811. for
9. Raja pur Kalan 22.8.2001 ^16.745 for Cat;eg6ry 'A' ?I[6].43811 for
10. Sanoth 7.12.2001 n[7].295
11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 ?18.655
12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 ^8.655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 ?I[8].655
14. Alipur 23.5.2002 ^8.655 15.,.Sanoth 27.1.2003.^19.435 for Category 'A'; ?18.94:912 for ?18.47539 for Category 'C,
16. Rajapur Kalan • 27.1.2003, ?19.435 for Categor:y 'A' ^8.94912 for ^18.47539 for Category 'C Singh's case (supra), 1 had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from tirne to time and found the same not to be th^ ipse dixitof the LA.App.No.999/2010 & co^mected matters: Page 18 of22 1 TX -1/; •.Government officers and had found,not only, rati^onale but a /, reflection, of urbanization impacting such, increase; With. preference to the; decisions of.four Division Benches of this, Court reported as.2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gdirai Sinoh Vs. UP! & 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOL 111 (2'004) DLT Qb Hukum Singh Vs. UOJ and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinoh Vs. UOr & Ors. decided '; - on,11.5.2006 wherein based, on sale deeds and pother evidence, land price was deterrhined on various dates between the yearis 1993 to 1996 and in relation to the minimum price fixed by. the v Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 ^of th,e said,,w ' decision as under;- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding,, P^fagfaphs as also the various notifications issued from, ' time to time by the Government of NGT Delhi nbtifying: minimum price for agricultural 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 > y^a'" 1990. As.of 27.4.1990 rnihimum 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' • years 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% forthe next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e.,,. as of 1.4.2001; It shows that due to ur^banization, • between the year 1990 and 1997'prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would!,: bejthe decision of the Division Bench of this Court ih ' V Gajrafs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 " above.
51. I need to elaborate a little more with, respect to the. decision in GajraJs case. Discussing..the v,evidence: pertaining to fair market value of agriciijitural land in village Hblambi Kalan as of 15,11.1996, in paras'9 to 17, ",L-A.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters.. ' Page 19 of22 ' •'