Full Text
LA.APP. 394/2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay
Pathak, 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:19119 ii (F o HIGH COURT OF DELHI ludament Rp'- ludament Qpih/pfed On: 19^ September. ?m i
•erved On: 19^ August Pf) 7 7
L^.APP.
CM No.6549/]2 RAJ SINGH
Through: Mr.B.S.
Mf.Deeij)
Mr.N.S.
999/2010 & Oil (Cross-Objection)
••• . Appellant lyiann, Advocate ak Khosia, Advocate and
Negi, Advocate.
Vs.
UOI& ANOTHER
Through: Mr.Sanjc & Mr.Sa Nawani;
Kaomud ... Respondents y Poddar, Senior Advocate ijay Kumar Pathal<, Mr.Sachin
Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K i Kiran, Advocates for R-1
No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 100 liA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM
7/2010 &CM No.15181/2011, 1010/2010, LA.APp! 1036/2010 & CM No.12865/ Oil, L7\.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP.'
6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C
142/2011, LA.APP. 160/201]
163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011
3J3J2QX^U^P. 386/2011 397/2011 F07/2011.
& CM 11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP.
, LA.APP. 347/2011, LAAER U.APP. 387/2011jCTAAPp!
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 &
Award No. 06/2002-2003, VilLage-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)
A^ D LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 1 of22 o o
83/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011, LA.APP. 200/201
202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201
(Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi
ORDER
1. Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporte
3. Whetherthe judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.
1. I proceed with an apolog notification issued later in notification issued prior in poir the learned counsel for the arguments with respect to the CM No.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. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 3W2011 & CM No.15194/2011, 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, UX.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 & lage- Bhalswa Jahangir Puri) local papers may be allowed r or not? / to the reader by referring to a Doint of time and then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed 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 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010 8c connected matlers Page 2 of22 ft >c ' <r 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', t his was followed,by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17,04.2001. After f9llowing the due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigh lakhs per acre i.e. fair market at ^'IB.82 lakhs per acre.
3. Dissatisfied with the a Acquisition Collector, the land the Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired a, which is equivalent to ?13.82 ^alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed ssessment made by the Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. the Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC N D.li2A/2008 titled Raj Sinah l/s. Union ofIndia, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or
4. It needs to be highlighte Acquisition Collector as well e while assessing the fair marl ^14,56,963 per acre. d that both i.e. the learned Land s the Learned Reference Court,:et value of the acquired land. adopted the minimum price f6r agricultural land fixed by the Government as on 01.04.20C 11.09.2011. Different destina' the learned Land Acquisition compensation, did not grant e 0, notified vide Circular dated:ions were reached inasmuch as 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 iskued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court gra ited appreciation for the said period of 165 days (g) 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000 and the pri:e ?13.82 lakhs per acre; LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat):ers Page 3 of22 IB m
5. Another parcel of Ian situated in the same reve i ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, Tue 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 Acquisition Collector, the land 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 ?2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalent to m.20 lakhs per acre..
6. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land, owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The liearned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.11 1A/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/9. Union ofIndia, assessed the fkir market value of the acquired land at ^11,46,670/- per cicre. The difference i 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. 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, ^ 11% per annum for the Court granting enhancement interregnum period.
7. The Union of India as challenged the assessment rr well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matj;ers Page 4 of22 Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned above.
8. On behalf of the Idnd owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on the following documentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified bj/ the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by Tibit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in residential 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 be close to village Bhal^swa jahangir Puri, was fixed eter or ?2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted towards development cdist, the land owners should be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of Tl,17,96,200/- per acre. at.^5830/- per square nacre and. it was urgec (b) The rate charged commercial plot in Sanja; terms of the Resolutlor (Exhibit PW-i3/l), where developed plbts to the square meter and Exhib Resolution No,610 dated I decided to aljot the plots Nagar @ ?4,50O/- per sqi material and^ good evid by MCD for allotment of f Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated 23.11.1987 by MCD decided to allot transporters @ t425/- per it PW-3/2, a copy of the 21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport are metre were urged to be ence. Relying on th.ese V LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters. documents, learned counsel for the land owners argued that the rate stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was Applicable for the year 1976, " market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the r undeveloped lands, fair le to ^8,59,928/- per acre in would evidence that fai land comes to ^17,19,85 development costs, fc market value would con the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market be ?24,76,592/- per acre
(c) Learned counsel placed reliance on the
Rohini Residential Scher 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/: on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav va\ue as of 15.9.2000 would for the land owners also auction record of plots in ne in the year 1997-98 and and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, " the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between T23.72 according to. learned col lakh to ^28,[4] lakh, which nsel translates to a price of ^4,36,36,363 per acrd 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 under land measuring 2-19
2,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes 6,169/- per bigha. It was (Exhibit PW-15/1), where bigha was sold (g) ?3 learned counsel urged th to ?56,93,163/- or m,£ LA.App.No.999/2010 cfe connected mat:ers Page 6 of22 •'liT'! I contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, after mal<ing a reasonable deduction towards
9. development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another. (Exhibit PW-15/2), whe bigha situated in the Mamurpur was sold to R a price of ^26,75,000/- pi (e) Learned.counsel fc upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society 'M/s.Butterfly', w village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o' the 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 ermine 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 3r acre was also relied upon, r the land owners also relied ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a hereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 (b n[8] lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was In the revenue estate of 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-Q[3] 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, notification under Section 4 co the price as on the date of the mes 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 tand for LA.App.No.999/2010 connected mati:ers P^e 7 of 22 n ifTTi m fixing the. marl<et value of having 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 wh above captidned matters on been reserved for, judgment undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the 3llector has assessed the fair price much higher than the one so has the learned Reference len judghient was reserved in the 19*^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead matter being LAlApp.No.266/2008 titled iaiSinaii 1/5. UOi.&Anr. in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senidr counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response' counsel for the land owners Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puri..to, the arguments of learned the. arguments which he had advanced on the earlier oc[:asion may be treated as his response.
11. The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Pun has come out in the deposition ofShri Trilok Chand {Ha/ga Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LA(t No.ll2A/2008 titled Raj Sinah 1/5 Union ofIndia in which he has explained the topology ofthe 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 fhe North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the Eiast, villages Samaipur Badii and West and villages Bharola and n the South of village Jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 8 of22 -V
12. I may additionally not^ that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory Government of NCT Delhi w of Delhi, published by the Duld reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Pun is situated on the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Vi Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoor: 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 Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due llages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Dur (Narela) are on the western ds 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 nature. In the decision repofted as Amar Sinah l/s. Union nf India 1998 fV) AD (Delhi) A81, 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 of,kium andJ.J.Clusters.
14. The decision in LA.App.^ Ann which was reserved on 0.266/2008 jai Sinah Vs. UOi & 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were resen/ed for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that v\ hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in;.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-WeJt Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar and Bawana, I had noted t Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela,, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatlers Page 9 of22 ft m constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.T.Karna! Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be highligiited that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-1. 0 the said 10 villages where land ifferent notifications issued from
15. In the, appeals relating t were acquired pursuant to d 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 fon: reliance upon as noted in sut the land owners have placed -para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In. the said judgment dated' 26.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced here
21. The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh per the former, fair m£ comes to ?26.75 lakhs T63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the IS recorded in paragraphs 21 to under:is predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As rket 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 that to his knowledge tfreligious purpose and wa deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had'stated e land was purchased for s being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has lil<ewjse LA.App.No.999/20I0 &connectedmatters Page 10 of22 a irs m '.iv /.sVfiviJv been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S Organization" and as per ister Annie, the secretary of pay the price for, the sal only plot of the requ the organization stated that the organization had to di piece of land as it was the site size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.
22. As held in the dec see. 717 Land Acauisiti Isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer 369 Mohd. Raufuddin sions reported as 1995 (1) on Officer Efuru & Ors. l/s. para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 1^5". Land Acquisition Officer ansactions evidenced in a dered 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 ^lue of land in an area for be special circumstances • to pay a higher price. The ich a well informed willing (Refer para 13) sale tr sale' deed which are ten determine the market v the reason there may' which have led the buye true test is the price wh buyer would pay to an Equally well informed seller without being influe circumstances or the fan of land, Ar^ informed bL studied the market and need by any special:y to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all topology of the area and buyer'has a fancy for a may pay a much higher, a good index of fair mark area. I. would be failing i 'Union of India had relied 20.5.2002, which was available land in the area; has understood the the prevailing prices. If a Darticular piece of land, he Drice and this would not be et value of the lands in the f Ido not highlight that the • upon the sale deed dated accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under Agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan.was sold agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74,109/per acre as against th ?63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre for Ex.PV LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matte e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds by an agriculturist to an ITS fiiHs H Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PWintrinsic evidence of destroy each other. 13, themselves are having fanciful price and ex-facie the
23. Thus, apart from t Reference Court, with reasons in para 21 a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec le reasoning of the learned vhich I concur, afore-noted bove would be additional the 2 sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair t 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 t)e circumspect on sale deeds having transaction being the result. I would be failing not to ecision cited by learned Deing the decision dated \ a,, batch of appeals, lead 0.193/2006 Pratap Sinoh intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya 19.12.2008 disposing 0 matter being' LA.App.^ (since deceased) thru Lrs l/y. IJO! ^ Ore it was highlighted that the sale had purchased 8 bigha land for expansion of i ignored by the learnec ground that L&T had a area, was rejected by t question, with suitable d parcel of land being la Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as tlmarket value. The argur in the decision of the Di\ 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed on deed, therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural:s factory which had been Reference Court on the ancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidefice of value of land in the he Court and the price in Bduction on account of the:ge, was accepted by the ie instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair nent ignores the reasoning ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative of the market value, bilt found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3^^ the price arrived at would be the same as would be price arrived at with reference to the averagb 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 fSi produced by the Govern ?1,37,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas iment 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 Wijs near about the price of f 1/3'"'^ would be deducted >,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of id the notification under Acquisition Act was dated ^2,15,160/- per bigha, from the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the the sale was 1993 a Section 4. of the Land 24.7.1995 and 16,11.1995 and the Court determined fair market |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 t[6] 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 I have hereinbefore - aiready^ vnoted 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 Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.
17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the a Jahangir Puri has been agreed f ?18 lakhs per acre. The land land situated in village Bhalsw to be transferred for a sum o owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ?15,70,000/-.
18. Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ?15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 13 of22 m 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 ^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 dp special considerations and n informed willing buyer and. without being influenced by particular land, and had thus
19. I have discussed this 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where ah abnormally high p ned that the said price was for Dt the price settled between an an informed willing seller and special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefr^om fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed, i issue in my decision dated 008 lai S/nah l/s. UP! & Anr. i.e. ice for a parcel of land is with evidence, of neither the buVer nor the seller being wellinformed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with good evidence to determine fair 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; 1reite •ate the same. 20, As regards. auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen Transport Nagar, I do not find ts 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 on the decision of th 2 Supreme Court reported as La! LA.App.No.999/2010 8c connected matters, m Chand I/5. Union of India 2009 (15) 5CC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by jvidence relating to auction rates DDA.
21. Jn my decision dated 23.8.2011 in lJ\.App.No.266/2008 iai Sinail Vs. UOl & Ors.. I hcd extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Ciourt in Lai Chands case, with reference to price at which ceveloped plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant obsen/ations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in laiSinah's case are extracted hereunder:-
29. Now, we do not h^ve evidence as to what was the extent of plotted lard sold by DSlDCfor DDA with reference to the Bawana industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in Lai.jesidential Scheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in the same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as the value of land in the s jbject cases. most unreliable to determine
30. It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area as held even by the learned with the development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building pctentiality, 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 observatioh and the findings of the Supreme Court in La! Chands, case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itsel" to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, tb deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the landa. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 15 of22 •p. • ® 'w-,-V, 'V • •
22. Highlighting that in La! Chands case (supra) the Supreme Court held that sucli raw data was meaningless and was too. inchoate wherefrorn 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 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 leaie-hold property under LStDO 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 ca:5e (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with where lands were acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with referenci to L&DO rates noting that Iam concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring^ 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.
25. From the topology of th(i area and as per the testimony ) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC 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 t towards Mubarka Chowk frc colony adjoining the famous: village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri he outer ring road as we travel m the Tibetan Re-settlement 3urudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters ffli thus the fair market value of two villages would be compar
26. While assessing the fair land on a particular date in the able. market value of the land situated in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to notifications dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, I notification dated 24.7.1998'. notification dated 18.07.2002 n[9],20,568/- per acre for Catepory Aland and ^7,28,512/- per lai. Singh's case {supra), I had 2003 issued under Section 4 of had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence iri my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of LAi/ippeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. I/5. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60 d assessed the fair market value
580.82 per acre for Category A land, no,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and ?9,28,464.65 per acre for Cafiegory C land pertaining to the I The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at acre for Category B land. In assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as under:- S.No. Village Name Dat unc e of Notification er Section 4; Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)
1. Pooth Khurd 7.8. 2000 ?14.75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B'
2. Holambi Kalan 7.8.2000 ^4.75
3. Bawana 7.8. ! 2000 ^14.75 for n[4].38125 for
4. Khera Khurd US.2000 m.835 for.Category 'A' n[4].46413 for EA.App.No.999/2010 & comectedmatters Page 17 of22 m flTf'.5. Narela 2.5.2001 ^16.165, for Category'A' n[5].76087 for
6. Holambi Kalan 22, 8.2001 n[6].745 for ?16.43811 for
7. Alipur 22. 8.2001 ^6.745 for ?16.43811 for
8. Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 ? 16.745 for ^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 ?18.655
12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 ^8.655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.^.2002 n[8].655
14. Alipur. 23.5.2002 T18.655
15. Sanoth •V"
27. 1.2003 n[9].435 for n[8].94912 for n[8].47539 for Category 'C
16. Rajapur Ka ah 27.;L.2003 ?19.435 for n[8].94912 for ^8.47539 for Category 'C pra) I had alsO: analyzed the by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit oi the
27. In lai Singh's case (su minimum land rates enhancec to time and found tfie same LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters 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 AC' Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah \/s. UO! & Ann, 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Rhm Chander 1/5. UOl. Ill (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah l/s. {JO/ and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah i/5. UP! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t paragraphs as also the • time to time by the Go various dates between the years;p 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 various notifications issued from /ernment of NCT Delhi notifying by me in para 7 above b minimum price for agrici|iltural lands in Delhi as tabulated ing out two very important facts 1 - — — ^ • WXX w >-i Jf I I I I I UU I I L lUULO relevant to determine tthe growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Del from the year 1990. As rise over the next 1 yea 11% for the next 2 years as of 1.4.2001. It sh between the year 199C sharply and good corrot be the decision of the Gairais case (supra), wf above. Ti over the years commencing _,, of 27.4.1990 minimum price was T[4].65 lakhs per acre which rose to no lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is/?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and th^ average price increase would be 16.436%. The price r is by 11.2% and thereafter by and 11,5% for the next year i.e. ows that due to urbanization, and, 1997 prices grows fairly orative evidence for this would Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49
51. I need to elaborate decision in Gairais ca a little more with respect to the Se. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair markeit value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010 & connectedmatters,•€!) m the Court discussed t he valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,00q/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation racilities 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 adjoinirlg village Bhorgarh where FCl Godowns had come uij) 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 (liefer para 31). The Court theh 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 well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with; Court found that as aga that the potentiality had been the Government issued the Dn w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions the inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ^10 laktis'per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the pric[2] was ?10,03,364/- per acre.
52. The decision in Mc'bender Sinoh'^ case, pertaining to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court v\ commercial and indu agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwit projecting and the la potentiality, the same h "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 nstanding the Master Plan so nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact th;it till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with; which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana and He exploited the potential. ' para 49 above there is, expected to be the mark i f * 'I Iambi Kalan and nobody had As 1 have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs caise and LA.App.No;999/20r0 & connected matters Page 20 of22 •T) (Tf Mahender Singh's • ca translated itself into a when prices rose by 5e highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 and 1997 about 16,5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to betweeh 10% per annunp to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant fairly large area came t to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a:p be developed, both residential, comrnercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.
53. The empirical evic ence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds reilied upon by the land owners, in rned Reference Court has given upon and for which 1have given 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 of agricultural lands would be n[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 ^^39,690/- and ?70,16D/- was paid as stamp duty would (?5,39,690/- + ?70,160/-) were ice ^17,74,109/- per acre as of 0.5.2002. respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in para 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 th 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 cif the notification issued under o 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 cros^ objections, whether filed by the land owners or the Union of India.
29. Ileave the parties to bekr their own cost.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 mm b-3
(PRADEEP JMANDRAJOG) JUDGE