Full Text
LA.APP. 380/2011
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:19117 k. s.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF] DELHI AT NEW DELHI . lucfament Reserved On: 19^'' August. 2011
. ludament Delivered On: September. 2011
CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection)
RAJ SINGH Appellant
Through: Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia, Advocate and
Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate.
Vs.
UOI & ANOTHER
Through:
AND... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate
& Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathai<, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K
Kaomud Kiran, Advocates for R-1
7/2010 & CM No.15181/2011, LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP.
1036/2010 & CM No.12865/2611, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP.
6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM
No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011,' LA.APP.. 160/201]
163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 LA.APP. 298/201]
248/2011, 375/2011, 394/2011, 407/2011.
11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP.
, LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP!
, LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP.
, LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP.
, LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP.
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 &
Award No. 06/2002-2003, Village-Bhalswa Jahangir Purl)
A^ D
•LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 1 of22
88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2013 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/201
202/2011, LA.APP, 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201
(Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/200Q-2001, Vi
ORDER
1. Whether the Reporters of] local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. \.
1. I proceed vyith an apology to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time and then to a notification issued prior in poirt of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the required price to be suitab CM IMo.12871/2011, LA.APP., LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. 244/2011, LA.APP. 2^5/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APi;. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 & lage- Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) notification issued later and had y reduced pertaining to the notification which was issued earlier in point of time.
2. Land measuring 758-01 estate of village phalswa Jaha bigha situated in the revenue igir Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters Page 2 of22 > 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 17.04,2001. After the Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, ir nnarket 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 l^khs-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 Rai Singh l/s. Union ofIndia, assessed the fair market value of the acquired following the due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or ?14,56,963 per acre.
4. It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector as we!! £s 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,01.04.20C0, 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 aippreclation 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;?99/2010 & connected maters Page 3 of22 >• •5. • Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in tlie same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Lard Acquisition Act 1894, dated 30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ'Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on 04.08. process, the Land'Acquisitior destination reached is on herelnabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and by a declaration under Section 6
1998. After following the due 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 f[2],33,333 per bigha which is equivalent to ?11.20 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 l.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC [\io.l]lA/2008 titled Chandrawati Vs. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^11,46,670/- per acre. The difference; in the l-he same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. Collector 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 interregnum period,
7. The Union of India as challenged the assessment rr @ 11% per annum for the i/vell as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat ers Page 4 of22 i Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned above.
8. On behalf of the land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on the following documentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04!l999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by 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 Purl, was fixed eter or T[2],35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development c6st, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of ^1,17,96,200/- per acre. (b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705 dated 23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot transporters @ T425/- per j\t 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 be close to village Bhala at ^5830/- per square rr acre and it was urgec developed plots to the square meter and Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 5 of22 documents, learned counsel for the land owners argued that the rate stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fair marl<et value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made on account of the r undeveloped lands, fair market value would corfie to T[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 for the land owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots in V Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying land comes to ?17,19,85 that even if 50% deduct! development, costs, fc on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav pertaining to the year 2006, ^ the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metr^ in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ?23.72 lakh to ^28.[4] lakh, which according to. learned coinsel translates to a price of n[4],36,36,363, per acre and counsel urged that suitable deduction could be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land,
(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd
(Exhibit PW-15/1), where under land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ ^3 learned counsel urged th 2,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to ^56,93,163/- or ^11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat:ers Page 6 of22 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 Puri. 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 a price of ^26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon, (e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ^18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o: the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996.
9. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay. appearing on behalf of Union.} dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus.was pressed in fair 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 ?1,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum is to be given'on said value, the price as on the date of the notification under Section 4.comes to n,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed l:and for price of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 7 of22 fixing the -market value of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition CDllector has assessed the fair market value of the land at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court.
10. It may be rioted that when judgment was reserved in the 19^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition i.App.No.266/2008 titled lai Singh Vs. UO/ & 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 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 Puri has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand (//a/^a Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs Union ofIndia In which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Al<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village 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 Eiast, villages Samaipur Badii and above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA.submitted that in response counsel for the land owners 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 mat ers Page 8 of22
12. I may additionally riote that the lay out plan of the National Capital. Territory of Delhi, published by the Government of IMCT 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, Mamoor^ur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.
13. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Purl, post acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinah I/5. Union of India 1998 (V) AD fDelhi) A81, 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 Vs. UOi & Ann which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for Judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e.. North-We^t Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhl, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar and Bawana, I had noted t, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 9 of22 constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak common point, proceeding comes to ?26.75 lakhs ^63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi IMandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl'is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1.
15. In the appeals relating to the said 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 h^ve placed reliance upon as noted in sut-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, 1 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 per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable 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 deposing in Court in L/^C 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 A been held n6t to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning It was purchased by a Non Government Organization' "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated ihat the organization had to pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.
22. As heldjn the decsions reported as 1995 (1) see.717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. isti Roiiini &Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 i\^ohd. Raufuddin l/s. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the LA.Act 1894 have,not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may which have led the buye of land. An informed bt studied the market and area. 1would be failing i Union of India had relied 20.5.2002, which was 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 circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area 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 of fair marklet value of the lands in the I do not highlight that the upon the sale deed dated accepted by the learned Reference Court pertainirpg 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. fl[7],74,109/per acre as against ^th!e price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre ^or 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 Page 11 of22.r Ex.PW-l/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^e reasoning of the learned Reference'Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons In para 21 a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc ibove would be additional the 2 sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair market value of subjecjt lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition Is of such large an area, it Would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being: LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap Sinah (since deceased) thru ms Vs. UP! & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased 8 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 fjancy for the said land and 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 of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in tie instant cases the'2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Di\ islon 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, bi therein was reduced by would be the same as wo t found that if the price 1/3''^, the price arrived at jld 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 Page 12 of22 Jproduced by the Govern ^1,37,000/- per bigha from the sum of ^3,26 highlighted that in the the sale was 1993 a Section 4 of the Land the appreciation for 2 ment were giving a price of and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha af^d 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 id the notification under 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 wjords, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is notjthat the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so. 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 thi|s itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of phe 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value." •16. For the reasons therein, 1 reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.
17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the 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 n[5],70,000/-.
18. Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was n-5,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, • it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 13 of22 difficult to comprehend the Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.[4] abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is fl[8] 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, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and without being influenced by particular land, and had thus an informed willing seller and special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 iai Singh Vs, (JO! & Ann i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being wellinformed and ther^ being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be good evidence to determine 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 oh the decision of the Supreme Court reported as LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 14 of22 Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the evidence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by DDA.
21. In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 {ai Sinail Vs, UOi & Ors.. 1 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 jaiSinaii's case are extracted hereunder:-
29. Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was The, inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in the same Der which were noted by the Supreme Court in Lai Ciiand's case (supra), which render this evidence as the value of land in the s most unreliable to determine jbject cases.
30. It is- no doubt true, Reference Court, that as held even by the learned with the development of Bawana Industrial Area Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Spheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.
31. 1hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Ciiands 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 in Lai Chands 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 allotted developed plots in Sa price at which DDA sold dev reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I r village. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two vil to hold that price at which MCD ijay Gandhi Transport Nagar and eloped 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 vyhere lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.
25. From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwarp who appeared as PW-2 in LAC NO.112A/2008 it emerges that village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and Burari are separated by tihe 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 thus the fair market value, of land on a particular date in the two 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,.I had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of LA./.ppeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at ^11,60 id assessed the fair market value 1,580.82 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 C land pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification dated. 18.07.200Z' had been assessed by me at n[9],20,568/- per acre for Category A land and ^17,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. In iai Singh's case (supra), I had assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as under:- S.No. Village Narhe Dat unc 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' ?14.3728 for Category 'B'
2. Holambi Kalan 7.8. 2000 ^14.75
3. Bawana 7.8. 2000 n[4].75 for n[4].38125 for
4. Khera Khurd IIS.2000 ^4.835 for.Category 'A' ^4.46413 for I:,A.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 17 of22
5. Narela 2.5.2001 ?16.165, for ns.76087 for
6. Holambi Kalan 22 8.2001 n[6].745 for n[6].43811 for 7.. Alipur 22. 8.2001 n[6].745 for
8. Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 f 16.745 for
9. Rajapur Kalan 22. 8.2001 n[6].745 for
10. Sanoth 7.12.2001 ^7.295
11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 n[8].655
12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 ?18.655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 ^8.655
14. Alipur 23.5.2002 n[8].655
15. Sanoth 27. L.2003 ^19.435 for n[8].94.912 for n[8].47539 for Category
16. Rajapur Kalaii 27. L.2003 n[9].435, for n[8].94912 for n[8].47539 for Category 'C 27.' In lai SinaHs case fsu minimum land rates enhancec to time, arid found the same pra) I had also analyzed the by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected 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 I Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah Vs. UP! & Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOl. Ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum S/nah Vs. UP! and an unreported decision in I_A.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UP! & Prs. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on various dates between the years 1993 to 1996 and-in relation to the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the ^arious notifications issued from • time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agriciiltural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine tjhe growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As 3f 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. th[6] average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shpws that due to urbanization, between the year 199C^ and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court In Gairats case (supra), wtiich I have discussed in para 49 above.
51. I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gajrafs case. Djscussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural.land in. village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 19 of22 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annunn 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 incljuding potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCl 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.(Ijlefer 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 ^9J6[l21/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights well-factored. in when that the potentiality had been the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with Court found that as aga respect to sale transactions the inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ?10,03,364/- per acre.
52. The decision in Mahender SingUs case, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the 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 concerned, virtually no c which the Division Bench was evelopment had taken place In village Bawana and Holambl Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have 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 cecisions in Gajrafs case and LA.App.No;999/2010 connected matters Page 20 of22 Mahender Singh's' case highlight that potentiality translated itself Into a when prices rose by the date of the sale I.e. 2 reality between 1990 and 1997 about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extendejd potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and indusjtrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.
53. The empirical evicence In the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the lea'rned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fancjiful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in spme 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 ^70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price n[7],74,109/- per acre as of 0.5.2002.
28. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than tf e minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that the Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle and has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the Interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 21 of22 rli 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 & connected matters la. i:v (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 22 of22