Full Text
LA.APP. 247/2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay
Pathal<, Advocate for UOI.
Through: Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate.
19,09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19113 HIGH COURT OF DELHI ludament Reserved On: a uaiist ?n n :
, lodgment DeliveredOn: 19^'^ September, 2011
RAJ SINGH
CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection)
_ • . ••• Appellant
Through: Mr.B/S.Mann, Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and
Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate.
Vs.
UOi&^NOmEa Respondents
Through. Mjr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate &||vir.Sanjay Kumar Pathal<,,IVlr.Sachin
Nawani, MrSiddharth Panda and Ms.K K^omudi Kiran, Advocates fonR-1
• ! . • • ' . •
961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM.
1007/2010.& CM No.15181/2011
No-12865/2011, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP." 6/2011 & CM No.,6756/2011,. LA.APP. 38/2011- & CM , 41/2011, LA.APP. 89/2011,;LA.APP.
142/2011,. LA.APP. 160/2011, lAAPP. 161/2IIllJ LA APP^
248/2011, LA.APP, 29^/2011,M^AtAPP, 3.4JI20Ti LA'apP
386/2011, LA.APP. 387/201l' La'^Pp' 407/20n: LA.APP. 406;20lta2p^
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09'2000
Award No. 06/2002-2003, Village^Bhalswa Jahangir
& LA.App.No.999/2,010 &connected matters Page 1 of22
-J.
88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, 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, LA.APP
244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011 LA.APP,3.46/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.l5194/20ll
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 30;07 1998 &
Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village- Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)
• 1. Whetherthe Reporters of locai papers may be allowed
! to see the
ORDER
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?, ~
3. Whetherthe judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIQG. I.
1. Iproceed 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 hadrequired price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the • notification which was issued earlier in point of time.
2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated,in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatters. ' ' Page i[2] of22.~L 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 the said Act. issued on,17:04.2,001. 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,?2,87,916.6.[6] per bigha, which is equivalent to ^13.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value a's of 15.09.2000 was fixed at ^13.82 lakhs per acre.,,: ^
3. Dissatisfied with the assessm;ent made by' the Land i • ' 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.ll2A/2008 titled Rai.Sinah Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or n[4],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, 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 for the 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.999/2010 &comiected matters, ' Page 3of22
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 notification 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 5 of the Act issued on 04.08.1998. After following the due process, the Land, Acquisition Collector announced, an. award 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 bigha which is equivalent to ?li:2,0 lakhs per acre. • •
6. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The, Learned Reference Court,.in.the lead matter being lAC No.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati Vc;. 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 reason as noted hereinabove pertaining to the notification dated 1^.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 in question was issued on 30:7.1998 and'the learned Reference Court granting enhancement @ ii% per annum for the •interregnum period.; ', '
7. The Union of India.as well as. the land ovvners have challenged the assessment made by the Learned. Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected.matters', Page 4 of22 Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned above. ' • •• • • •.
8. On. behalf of the land> owners, justifying high:er compensation, reliance was, placed on the.foTlowing' 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 respect of developed residential and commercial properties owned by L&DO. Relying on, this document, it was argued that in, the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which, is stated to • be close to village Bhalaswa Jahangir Purl, was fixed at ^5830/- per, square meter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per acre and it was urged that if 50% is deducted.' towards development cost,, the land owners:should I 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.allotdeveloped plots to the transporters (a) -^425/- per. square meter and Exhibit; P.W-3/2, a copy:of thfe Resolution No.6.10 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD,;•. decided to allot the plots in Sanjay'Gandhi Transport' ' Nagar @?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying 'on these ^', LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters. • Page 5of22. ' •.document^, 'learned counsel' fcDr the land owners argued that the rate stated; Jii 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 a,ere and it was urged that'even if,50% deduction is made on account, of the •, development costs, for undeveloped lands, • fair market value would come to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per.. annum, the fair market value as of 15.9,.2000 would be ?24,7e,592/-per acre.
(c) Learned counsel for the land owners also • placed reliance on the auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying^. on the brochure of DDA pertaining, to the year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held'qua flats having plinth area of 69 square. metre to 71 square' metre in Jahangir Pun" at a price ranging between X23J[2] lakh to ^28.[4] lakh,; which according to learned counsel.translates to a price of n[4],36,36,363 per acre and dounsel urged that •.suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to ulndeveloped agricultural land. ' •,
(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera' Khurd, (.Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land meas.Oring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ?32,40:,300/- on 2,5.04,2001,. learned counsel urged that the price per acre conies,. to ?56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was ' LA-^PP-^°-559/2010 &connected matters • Page 6of22 -f- <9, I' contended that this sale deed should be relied upon,. after making,a reasonable' deduction,.towards ^development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricultural land in village •Bhalswa Jahangir Purl.- Another-sale deed.dated 24.03.2000, (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 • bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at. V 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 Ranh in favour, of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^8 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land' was in the'revenue estate of. ' village, Bhalswa Jahangir Pu'ri and thus w^s pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of lancj in the said village as of the daite of the agreement to sell -. i.e. 5.8.1996.
9. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay,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 Bhalswa. Jahangir Purl was sold at a price of n,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 matters •, Page 7of22 •J- I \\ •fixing tine market 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 the above captioned matters on 19-'' August, 2011, decision had •been reserved for judgment in a batch of land; acquisition appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.266/2008 titled 1/?. IJOl &Ann 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 Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand Patwarl) • who appeared as.P\A/-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2Q08 titled RalSinqh - lA Union ofIndia \n which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Al<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 ofvillage Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. His testimony would, reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are. situated, in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badli and Haiderpur are situated i-n,,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 8of22 •.: • '
12. 1 may additionally note that the lay; out "plan of •tl^e National Capital Territory of Delhi> published, by the Government of NCT Delhi would reveaf that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl is situated on the eastern side of:G.T;Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Baqlli, Samalpur, 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 agricultural lands in the revenue estate of saic) • village was for re-settlement of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the' character of urbanization in the area was of a'kind where • • ' potential price increased due td urbanization, was of a weak " nature. • In,the decision reported as Amar S/nah 1/9. 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- •V 76. It has to be remembered that the two subject •acquisitions ' •were also for re-settlement of slum and J.J-.CIusters. 14: The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinoh 1/s. UP! ^. Mn which was reserved oh 12.8.2011 and had yet to be • pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals, w,ere reserved J-,, for judgment has sihce been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011' !:and I would highlight that, while assessing the fair marketv value of. the land situated in 10 revenue estates,ih the same •. revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of ' villages. Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth,.Alipur, Narela, Rajiapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area' LA.App.No.999/2010 &conne'cted matters " Page9'of22:;fr v;. • ' ' '• ". '. " "... •'' A ' i •., • ' ''., ^ constituted a 'V at ftie point of intersection where G.T.Karnci,V. Road Jve. NH-1 and Rohtak Road i.e. INIIH-IO biifprcated at a ':; common point, proceeding in;,different directioVisr at Sabzi' • Mandl.,,It needs to be highlighted that village Bhaiswa jahangir Puri is pytside the. 'V aforesaid and as explainetj 'hereihabove; V' - •/' V:and abuts towards^he east of NH-1;'' ' '•.;;'IS-. In:the,appeal relating to t;he sajd lO viilages^where land'....' ' vyvere acquired pursuant.to different nptlficatipns/eissued from. • ' y ' time;;td time I had dealt, with notifications issueeS-i'n the year ^ '; V,,.;:200D, 2001, 2002 andi 2003. In those cases, ieafned dounsel -..'for the;.-1^ owners hac^ relied'upon the sale i'deed.dated, ' 25.04.2001. (Exhibit,PW-15/1) and the. sale deed dated.24.03;-20,00. (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the •same; sale deeds', on V ' •^ ^ ^hich learned" counsel for. the iWnd owners have, placed, reliance upon as,,noted in sub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove.: -.; ^ y: In the,said judgn^ent dated 23.,8..2011,.r have^:disG:areled these:. I: two sale deeds, for the reasons recorded-in para.Qraphs 21 to ' >23 which a,re:reproduced hereund'er:- ' ' /, 21; The first argument is,.predicated on;the 2 sale:.deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 whi.ch is dated 25.3.2000,:and the.; sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4:2001, As ^.: ' per tbe former, fair market value fqr the former. ' cohies to ^26.75 lakhs per acre.'-and the latter,@ • ': ^63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference./ r. Court has rejected'the 2 sale deied$ as.reliable:• evidence to deterriiine fair, rharket value: of •, agricultural lands, for ail the villages in question on, the reasoning that.the sale deed,Ex.PW-1/3 was pufcliased by a religious trusti 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: LAGyNo.68/2005' hadiistated, •::, th^t to-his knowledge the^land was purchased for religious purpose and.was being used fora religious. ' • y - purpose:, Jhe sale:deed Ex.;PW^l/2 has likewise./ ' • /,. -LA\App;Ko.999726r0;&.Gonneeted^ffl^ ' Page.10 of22 ' - • - • • • ' •• • •, •; •' ',v" • VAbeen held- hot to be reliable evidence to determine;.: fair market value: of: agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a; IHlon Government Organization "Chrigtian 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 ofthe organization and is being used. for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.
22. As hejd in the decisions reported as 1995 (1), see 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. isti Rohini&Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC • 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition QWw.^r (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 sate deed to deterhiine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyerto 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: ' ^''''^umstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land; An informed buyer would be one who has ' ' studied the market and.has apprised himself of a|l available land in •the area; has understood the topology ofthe area and the prevailing prices. If a bLiyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he • may pay a much higher price and this would not be I: a good index of fair market value of the lands in the '' area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed -dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court'pertaining to the notification dated •27.1.2003 whererUnder 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 comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex;.PW-l/2 and '^28 89. lakhs per acre.for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds; LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 11of22 / Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price.and fex^facie destroy each other. • •
23. Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, aforie-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 more so for the reason 1find that under various •awards neariy between 7,000 to 8,0.00 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 •havinq. intrinsic evidence of the tra,,nsaction being the result or a fancy bf the buyer. 1. would be failing not to note an unreported decision. cited by learned • decision™ 19.12.2008 disposing, of a batch of appeals lead.:matter being LA.App.No.1.93/2006 deceased) thru !R^ Us. uor^ w JL highlighted that the sale.deed therein by which L&T I P^^^hased,[8] bigha and 9 bilwa of agricultural land for expansion of its. factory which had. been ignored by the learned Reference Court on-the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected; therein could not be treated as ^ good.evidence of value of land in the area was rejected by the Court and the price inquestion, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale u ^^estion i.e.,Ex.pW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. Jhe argument ignores the reasoning nrthe decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to.38 wherein the Diyision 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 1/3the price arrived at wo.uld be 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 cfe comected matters Tage 12 of22 J- V-.;.. •-^ prbduced by the Government, were giving a price 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-near about the price of. ^2,15,160/- 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, - 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the. Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same, sum arrived at as aforesaid, i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantic'aily but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treatfed 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 in village Bh.alswa Jahangir Purl.
17. As regards the agreement to. sell, (Exhibit PW-6/1), the, land situated in village Bhalswa jahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of tl[8] 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 q,,wn showing,of the land owners was fl[5],70,000/- per acre;as on 01.07^2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters • ' ' Page 13'of22.: I;-. 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 m1996 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, w^hile\, 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 a's.,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 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/200.[8] lai Sinah Vs. (JO/ ^ Anr i p where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with, evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller•b.eing, wellr. • informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be good evidence to. d^tesrniine fair market value of a large part of land, being the.fanciful price-, paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have ^'''^scly been extracted by me hereihabove 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 [earned-counsel'for the land owners and. concur with the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29.and 30 which are^ /premised on the decision ofthe Supreme Court reported as La! LA.App.No.999/2010 &Gonnecte'd matters ' Page 14 of22 ' '• • •' •' ^,Chand Vs. Union of /ndia 20Q[9] {15) SCC 769. Similar is tfie reasoning pertaining to tlie evidence relating, to a,uction 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. UO! &Qrs,,,|l had extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands, 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 MLSingh;s cdiSQ 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% or 75%, we do'hot 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 ' ^sncler this evidence.as.most unreliable to 4etermine 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 development of '. Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini' Residential: Scheme • and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had ^; acquired, a building potentiality, but the question j would be what would be the value to which the,y- * building potentiality would translate itself..
31. Ihold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings,.of the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly • rejected.said 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. * ' ' r •, •. • •• LA.App.No.999/2010 &comectedmatters, ' Page 15 of22 J I
22. Highlighting that in La/ Chancfs case/.(supra) the. Supreme Court held, that such raw data was meaningless, and was too inchoate, wherefrom.fair market value, could be • crystallized. '. •
23. I.reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land..
24. 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 sahne relates to developed plots and on the.parity of ' reasoning in La! Chands case (supra), wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed a,nd discarded with reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for ' Rohini Residential Scheme,,[1] negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned witin Iarg[4] 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 Patwari) who appeared as P,W-2 in LAC •NO.112A/200.[8] it emerges that village Burari is on the east of village Bhalswa jahangir Pun. and indeed the plan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Pun" 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 &connected matters ' '. ' -Page 16 of22 ' I yo. thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable. 26, While assessing the fair marl<et 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, I had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeais, iead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled fia/ba/ &i9/-v. 1/5. Umnn dflnilia Qrs^ In.the said decision, Ihad assessed the fair marl<et value of agricultural land at ni,60,580.82 per acre for Category A land,.?10,44,522.73 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 Sinag/s case (supra), I had assessed the fair market value of land In 10 vliiages as;under:s.No: Village Name Date of Notification under Section 4
1. Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000
2.
3. Holambi Kalan Bawana 7.8.2000 7.8.2000
4. Khera. Khurd 11.9.2000,LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Fair market value (in lakhs per acre) fl[4].75 for Category 'A' ?14.372& for, Category 'B' ?=14.75,^14.75. for ^4.38125 for ?14.&35 for:.Category 'A' ^^14.46413 for ' Category.'B' ' tagel[7] of22;, >\.. '5. Narela 2.5.2,001 ?16.165 for ^15.76087 for
6. Holambi Kalan 22.8.2001 ?16.745, for Category 'A'' fl[6].43811 for Category 'B' '
7. Alipur 22.8.2001, ?16.745 for ^16.43811 for Category 'B'^ 8.. ' Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 s ? 16.745 for n[6].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. ShahpurGarhi.,23.5.2002 ?18.655
13. Holambi Kalan,23.5.2002 ?18.655
14. Alipur 23.5.2002, ?18.655
15. Sanoth 27.1.2003.^9.435 for Category 'A', f 18.94912 for Category's' i ^18.47539 for Category 'C
16. Rajapur Kalan 27.1.2003 -n[9].435. for fl[8].94912 for Category 'B' ' ^, f18.47539 for Category 'C
27. In lai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed theminimum, land Vates enhanced by the Government from time to time and found the same not to be the ipse dixit the'' LA'.App.No.999/2010 & cojinected matters. Page 18 of22 '. •' ' • • • '.. •./; • 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 Sinah l/s. um • Ml, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander l/s. UOi. Ill (2004) •• DLT 95 Hukum Sinph Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah I/?. UP! & Qrs. 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 priceVixed by the... •: Government I, had highlighted in paras 50 to,53; of the said ' • • decision as under:- • ' ' "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in. theVpreceding 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 out two very iniportant facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commehcing from the year 1990. As pf 27.4.1990 minimum price was - ' ^4.-65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 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 l.year is by 11.2% and thereafter by fof the next 2 years and 11.5% for the' next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It.shows that due to ufbanization> i. between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for'this wouldbe the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in GairaJs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.... ' • • 1 f, 51..[1] need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gajrafs case. Discussing •the. evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras'9 to 17 '.., LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters ' '.Page 19 of22 ' > iP[7] 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 (Refer 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 rninimum price notification w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to. sale transactions the Lourt found that as against the minimum price notified ^lO 'akhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ?10,03,364/- per acre. P' Sinnh'^ porfpijnjnn tg village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above • S reference 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 industriaj future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of. potentiality •had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so. projecting and the. lands theoretically acquiring a •. potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date •. of, the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned,.virtually n.o development had taken place in village Bawana.and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited t^he potential. As 1have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the. market actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs caisp and' LA,App.No;999/20r0 &connectedmatters., Page20 of22.;.;,;, • ••,,' ' Mahender. Singh's case highlight that potentiality. ' translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997when 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 iviaster Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be dWeloped, 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 evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale d.eeds relied upon by the land owners,,, in •. respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon arid 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 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 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 f70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^.6,09,850/- (?5,39,690/- + 1^70,160/-) were, spent would, yield the price n[7],74,109/- 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 thanthe minimum price notified by the - Government from time to time, 1 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 iby suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnum period between the d&tes when minimum prices were notified and the date of the. notification issued under LA.App.No.999/201.0 &connected matters •' Page 21 of22.r Section 4of the Land Acquisition Act and finding no scope to furtiier enhance the compensation, or to reduce the same i dismiss all appeals and cross objections, whether filed by the land owners orthe Union ofIndia. 29, Ileave the parties to bear their own cost -j—r (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) SEPTEIMBER 19, 2011 JUDGE mm XA.App.No.999/20I0&oomecfedmatters • Page22of22-