Full Text
LA.APP. 397/2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with I^Ir.Sanjay
Pathak, Advocate for UOI.
Through: None.
19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010.
-T— n
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm 2011:DHC:19114 f'^n , ..iJ
HIGH COURT OF DELHI ludqment Reserved dn: 19'^" Aunnc^f- ymi ludqment DelivemdOn- igth Sentpmber. 207 7
LA.APP. 999/2010 &
CM No.6549/12011 (Cross-Objection)
RAJ SINGH
-r, ^ Appellant
Through; Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mr.Deefsak Khosia, Advocate and
Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate.
Vs.
UOI & ANOTHER Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate & Mr.Sa
Nawani, Kaomud njay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K i KIran, Advocates for R-1
^ 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2.010 & CM 10017/2010 &CM No.15181/2011 nn'-D^ / 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010 LA App' ir«SS£"'Li"A?r•IS'i rs
248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011
394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011.
.LA'APP. 247/2011,' U.APP.'
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15 09 2000 R, Award No, 06/2002-2003, Viliage-Bhalswa Jahang^
Ah D LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected mattjrs Page 1 of22 o
88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP.
164/2011,, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP.
1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP.
1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP.
/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201
241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201
244/2011, LA.APP. •245
5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4|14/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 &
Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village- Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)
ORDER
1. Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporte A.DEEP NANDRAJOG local papers may be allowed r or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? j PRADEEP IMANDRAIOG. I. j i t
1. Iproceed with an apologj/ to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time and then to a notification issued prior in poir t 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 of time.,2. Land measuring 758-01 bjgha situated in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa jahapgir Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected maders I i'il to a notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 189^, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After the Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r 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.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5. Union ofIndia, assessed the fair market value of the acquired ^14,56,963 per acre. following the due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai <r land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or
4. it needs to be highlightei Acquisition Collector as well a i that both i.e. the learned Land s the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the,acquired land, adopted the minimum price f6r agricultural land fixed by the Government as on 01.04.20C|0, notified vide Circular dated 11.09.2011. Different destina lions were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition compensation, did not grant e Collector, while assessing the ppreciation 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 ^3.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters ! m j
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 pufcjlic purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of by a declaration under Section 6
1998. • After following the due Collector announced an award JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on 04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior •bearing No.18/2000-01 dated 12.03.2001, whereby he alue of the acquired land at equivalent to ?11.20 lakhs per assessed the fair market ^2,33,333 per bigha which is acre.
6. Dissatisfied with the ajssessment mad^ by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land| owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The L.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/9. Union ofIndia, assessed the fpir market value of the acquired land at ^1,46,670/- per. acre. The difference; in the destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and the same reason as noted notification.dated 15.9.2000 i.e.:ollector adopting the land rate with effect from 1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement @ 11% per annum for the interregnum period.
7. The Union of India as challenged the assessment m well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters • (i;;! Court by way of the appeals above.
8. On behalf of the Ignd owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on.the following documentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified b/ the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by and cross objections mentioned libit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in •esidential and commercial 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 swa Jahangir Puri, was fixed eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted be close to village Bhala at.?5830/- per square m acre and it was urgec 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 M.CD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanja^ terms of the Resolutior r Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated 23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby. MCD decided to allot developed plots to the square meter and Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots transporters @ T425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the 21.02.2005, whereby MCD 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 maters P documents, learned counsel for the land owners argued that the rate stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, • marl<et value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made.on account of the development costs, fo|r 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 ^24,76,592/- per acre
(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on. the
Rohini Residential Scher would evidence that fai land comes to ^17,19,85 that even if 50% deducti on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ranging between ^23.72 according to. learned col for the land owners also auction record of plots in ne in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, r the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square re in Jahangir Purl at a price lakh to ?28.[4] lakh, which nsel translates to a price of ^"14,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged, that suitable deduction cou|ld be effected therefrom pertaining to undevelope|d agricultural land,
(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd
(Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ t[3] learned counsel urged th 2,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to, ^56,93,163/- or ?11,£ 6,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 connected mat:ers 'W'.
9. t contended that this saje deed should be relied upon, after making a reas development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another. (Exhibit PW-15/2), whe bigha situated in the Mamurpur was sold to R executed by one Shri. society 'M/s.Butterfly', w aid as good evidence othe said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2; in village Bhalswa Jahangir ^1,40,000 and urged that ever is to be given-on said value, jonable deduction towards termine the fair market value;ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated 24.03.2000:reby land measuring 4-16 revenue estate of village adha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- p^r 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 Khushi Ram in favour of a hereunder 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 village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in Ffair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^oddar learned;senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed, whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of 1if 12% appreciation per annum the price as on the date of the notification under Section 4comes to ?1,94,782 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 i;he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat):ers Page 7 of22 •Ill fixing tine market value of Inaving a vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and Court.. 10.. It may. be noted that vyh Bn 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 JaiSinah 1/5. UOL&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 counsel for the land owners undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the Dllector has assessed. the fair price much higher than the one so has the learned Reference to the arguments of learned the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.
11. The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the deposition ofShrl Trilok Chand\Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5 Union ofIndia in which he f area while proving the Al<s Si. Jahangir Puri. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in as explained the topology of the Ta Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa /ould reveal that;Village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in tine East, villages Samaipur Badii and. Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puri. West and villages Bharola and n the South of village jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 8 of22
12. ! may additionally notfe that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory j of Delhi, published by the Government of NGT Delhi would reveal that Village Bhalswa Jahangir Purr is situated on.t-h^ eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamoorDur (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 lanjds in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to. urbanization was of a weak village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinofi l/s. Union nf India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c
76. It has to be remembered it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had f emergency i.e. the year 1975that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement ofslum and J.J.Clusters.
14. The decision in LA.App.h Ann which was reserved on 0.266/2008 iai Sinah l/s. UOi & 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on IS.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:.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela,, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area • • • • ! i LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatiers; Page 9of22 constituted a 'V at the point of intersection winere G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point,, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi IMandi. It needs to be iiigiiltghted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl is outside the 'V aforesa id and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-l.
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 sut -para (d) of para, 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasojis recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-
21. The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is predicated on the 2 sale js 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 f26,75 lakhs per acre and the latter A7P laUhc- -i-L-_ i_^. U „ ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable,,. w — uo iciiauitr evidence to determine fair market;value of agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered the sale the villages in question on sale deed. Ex.PW-1/3 was JS trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who ' deed in evidence, while 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 dee LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters d Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated Organization" and as per jister Annie, the secretary of that the organization had to pay the price for the sai|J piece of land as. it was the only plot of the requ site size suitable for the requirement.of the organization and is being used for destitute women circumstance, personal !
22. As held in the dec sions reported as 1995 (1) SCC lll Land Acouisition Officer E!urn & Qrs. I/?. IstiRohini &Anr (Refeti para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin 1/9. Land Acquisition Offirer.e. there was 0 the vendee. a special (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 v the reason there may which have led the buye alue of land in an area for be special circumstances,,.,.. - 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 fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed bi studied the'market and yer would be one who has 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 may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index offair marl<iet value ofthe lands in the area. would be failing if 1do not highlight that the 7n'? dated R.;. was accepted by the learned 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. T17,74,l09/- / 1 t h e price which comes to p[3] 478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No;999/2010 &connected matters Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.
23. Thus, apart from t ie reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which 1 concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc bove would be additional the 2 sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land when the acquisition is of have been acquired anc such large an area, it would make all the more a ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer., ' would be failing not to note an unreported^ eclsion cited by learned O: ill produced by the Govern 3.7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ment were giving a price of and the sale deed under 2d the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was.near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, f 1/3'"'^ would be deducted,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd the notification under Acquisition Act was dated from the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that.in the the sale was 1993 a Section 4, of the Land determined fair market \ 24,7.1995 and 16,11.1995 and the Court alue 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 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 valijie of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and thi destructive evidence of 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 Jand in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.
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 ^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/-. i
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 s itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deeds reflecting difficult to comprelnend the Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.[4] abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ^18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ?=15.[7] lakhs per acre! I ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the learned. Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned that the said price was for special considerations and npt the price settled between an informed willing buyer and |an informed willing, seller and ! *. without being influenced by particular land, and had thus special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 lai 5inoh I/5. UP! & Anr i.e. "ice for a parcel of land is with /er 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 determine fair
19. I have discussed this 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where ah abnormally high p evidence of neither the bu market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen land owners and concur wit of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by-me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. 1reiterate the same.
20. As regards. auction rates of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, i do not find ts of the learned counsel for the h the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised oh the decision of thp,Supreme Court reported as La! Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769.' Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by evidence relating to auction rates DDA.
21. In my decision dated 2^.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh l/s. UOi &Ors.. Ih^d extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case, with reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DDA ar and findings in para 29 to 31 are extracted hereunder:-
29. Now, we do not hpe evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed esidential Schem:e developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in the same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which by DSIDC and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in render this evidence as the value of land in thes
30. It is no doubt true, Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area, and Narela Residential S acquired a building po would be what would building potentiality would translate itself.
31. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping m view the observation and the findings of the in case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence is reliable. On the Issue of potentiality^relating Itself to the value, I promise the shaM®h decision, tb deal with the same while I hal be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. eveloped plots were allotted by d DSIDC. Relevant observations 3f the decision in jaiSinah's case most unreliable to determine jbject cases. as held even by the learned with the development of ^ Rohini Residential Scheme:heme, the subject lands had tentiality, but the question be the value to which the LA.App.No.999/2010 &comected matte'rs 'V
22. Highlighting that in La! Chancfs case (supra) the Supreme Court held that sucli raw data was meaningless and was too. inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be crystallized.
23. 1reiterate 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 marl<et 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 La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I n to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that Iam concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.
25. From the topology of th(? area and as per the testimony ) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi Iages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha' village. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil and Burari are separated by ijhe outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the. Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous i.urudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.
26. While assessing the fair jmarket value ofthe land situated acquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of had considered the material on my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of.LA.Appeals, lead matter being LA. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Rsibd! & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60 •in village Burari, which was a dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I record i.e. the evidence in d assessed the fair market value,580.82 per acre for Category A land, tl0,44,522.73 per, acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464..65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at ^19,20,568/- per acre for Category Aland, and ?17,28,512/- per acre for Category B land.\ In iai. Sinail's ca.sp [supra), I had assessed the fair market value S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section 4 Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)
1. Pooth Khurd 7.8. 2000 n[4].75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B'
2. Holambi Kalan 7.8. 2000 ^4.75 3, Bawana 7.8. 2000 i ?14.75 for ?14.38125 for
4. Khera Khurd 11.c i ! o o o fM.^14.835 for •Category 'A';^14.46413 for EA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters /'! h E'f)
5. Narela 2.5.2001 i
1. ' n[6].165, for ^15.76087 for
6. Holambi Kalan 22. 8.2001 ^16.745 for ?16.43811 for 7.. Alipur 22. 8.2001 ^6.745 for n[6].43811 for
8. Holambi Khurd 22. 8.2001 i ^ 16.745 for ?16.43811 for
9. Rajapur Kalan 22.|8.2001 n[6].745 for ne.43811 for -10. Sanoth 7.[1] 2.2001 n[7].295
11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 ^8.655
12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 ?18.655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 ?18.655
14. Alipur. 23.5.2002 n[8].655
15. Sanoth 27. 1.2003 n[9].435 for n[8].94:912 for n[8].47539 for Category 'C 1-6. Rajapur Kalan 27.1L.2003 ^19.435 for ^18.94912 for ^8.47539 for Category 'C 27- In Jai Sinqh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time to time,and found the same not to be the ipse dixit oi the LA.App.No.999/2010 &co;Qnectedmattdrs p^ge isof22 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 Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah l/s. UP! & Court reported as 2006 IV AC AJ2L_, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander 1/5-. um. in (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinph Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 W.3/7e/7o^g/-5/77^/7 Vs. UQ! & Qrs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence various dates between the years;o 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 tabulated by me in para 7 above bing out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of anriri ill-i irni. land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t agricultural land in Del from the year 1990. As T[4].65 lakhs per acre whi of 1.4.1997 i.e. the incre hi over the years commencing of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ch rose to ^10 lakhs per acre as _-. ^ase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price ^ y^sr 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. sh|bws that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly Sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would DG tnG dGCision of thG nivi^inn R(:inr-h o-F -hhirbe the decision of the Gajrafs case (supra), wh above.
51. ^ Ineed 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 Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 19 of22.'f the_ Court discussed the valuation oh the basis of agricultural yield and foL per annum was ^95,00C und that the gross return per acre 3/- for multiple cropped land and haying 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 th^ 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 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76!l21/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as ag to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court w commercial and indu agricultural, land in Delhi had noted that notwit projecting: and the la potentiality, the same h that the potentiality had been the Government issued the 3n w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions the ^ inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at no lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the pries was ^10,03,364/- per acre.
52. The decision in Mchender Sinoh's c'ase, pertaining -ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, strial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding the. Master Plan so. nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality of the notification with concerned, virtually no c evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which the Division Bench was evelopment had taken place in,, • ^ — iiuvj uuixcii i^iauc III Village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had ovr>of-f-/^W r a_ • i. exploited the potential, para 49 above there is As 1 have already highlighted in. - a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the. market actually grows. The decisions in Gairaj's caise and i. - ' LA.App.No;999/2010 & connected matters Mahender Sinah's - highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between,1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a Dbe developed, both residential, trial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated!. Gould be that pursuant fairly large area came t commercial and Indus
53. The empirical evic ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras relying upon, being fane market value, we have v by the learned Land jrned Reference Court has given upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not iful sale deeds, to determine fair iwith us the sale deed relied upon 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 a[9],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 {^5,39,690/- ^70,160/-) were ice ^"17,74,109/- per acre as of:0.5.2002. mean that ^6,09,850/spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2
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, 1" hold that the Learned Refeience Court has rightly acdopted 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 and the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters Page 21 of22 % % Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections, whether filed by the •land owners or the Union of India.
29. I leave the parties to bear their own cost.. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010 & coiinected matte:xs d (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 22 of22