Dhanno Devi v. Union of India & Anr.

27. I note tlrat the rbasoning of tlre learned Reference Courrt is pari-rnateria in each order. The recorcJ oF the learned Re'l'erelrce Court shows tlratbetore malcing the assessment, vide ord.er dated 13'II'2006, it recordecl tlrat the Cour-t would inspect tlre site arrcl notice wlrereof was deenred to be giverr to. the p'brties as per tlre order' Tlrereafter, itl tlre preseltce of the le'arrred counsel for such parLies wlro cSose Lo be present at tlre inspectiotr alrd irr tlre pl-esellce ol' tlre represelttative of' the LancJ Acquisition Collector- arrd DDA the learnecj Judge nracle a site visit on 22.7,J..2006 ancl prepat-ecj a spotinspecLion report ancJ a site plan,. botlr of wlricl-r lrave beetr extracted by me hereiiratrove in para.I[2] and 17 above.

29. It may be trotecl that the learned Jucige tool< various plrol-ograplrs Wlriclr are placecl irr' LAC No.2/199 B bhopal Sinqlt VS' UOl 6( Artr, and the salle slrow tlrat the larrds are low lying lands LA.APP.59 /7007. & connected Page 1"2 0f 37 ancl are, as describecJ by the learnecl'Judge in tlre report which I lrave exl-racted in pa ra 17 hereinabove:

30. Itisnotificlisputetlratt|re.Iarrc|irrquestion,faIlsinan area, which is between tlre river Yamuna arrd Fling Road' sirrce I atTt, witlr consent of learned counsel for- tlre parties treatirrg LA App.No'5gl2ooTastlreIeaclmatter,itwou|dbe,re|evanttotrote tlrat tlre appellant thereof Bed Rant, a'ppeared in the witness box as PW-7 before the Reference CourL'' atrcl adtnitted in lris cl-ossexamination that excepl- for a petrol pump arrd the two sltops' theie is no abacli arourrcl the lancl. It is glso adrnitted ttrat there is a naa/a (drairr) irr village l(ilolcari' He adnitted that since constfuction WaS llot allowed by tire Governrtlent' no otlrer constructiorr could cotne uP.:.. 31'\lariousdocutnentsweieprovec|beforetlreIearned ReFeretrce Court by various parties:arrd find a rnention in'tlre vat-ious orders passed try tlre learnecl Rel=erence CouTt' but I need not note tlre same because, bel'ore me, wlrile argUing tlre appeals learnecl counsel for the parties pressed i;rto aicj only olre sale deed cJated l_7.3.1988, Ex.PW-3/1 in the rqference souglrt by Bed Ram' Besicles, learned counsel reliecl upbn tlre clecisiorr,"poit"d as Trndev & Ors Vs. Unlon of lndia & Anr, 2000 (54) DRJ 384 (DB)' wlrerein a Division Benclr,of tlris court assessecl tlre marlcet value for tlre land situate in village l(hizrabacl acqurired pursuant to a rrotification dated 10.05.Lg76 and assessed tlre conrpensation @ t35,000/-perbigha.asof1O.5.7g76'Imayhigh|iglrttlrat|arrd wlriclr was subject matter of consicleratio.n in Trncle/s case (supra) was saline larrd (salabD arrd 'wai aiquirecl l=br pul-poses of constrLtctitl.g a pilot cut in tlre reacir fronr Nizrrru'dding Bridge to LA.APP -5g/2007 & connec[ed ol<lrla weir. Learnecl cot-ttrsel also l-elied upoll the decision reportecJ as Diwan Rant Swaroop 6t brs lrs' Urtion of lndia'1992 (48) DLT 600 perusal wlrereof shows that tlre larrcj sit'uate in village l(lrizrabacl was acquired pursuant to a rrotil'ication dated 03.06.1961 ancl was assessecl at {12,500/- per biglra' 32, I rna5r lriglrliglrt tlrat 'tlre clecision in Diwan Rant Swaroop's case (supra) was tfte '.basis olr wlriclr decision was prenrisecl in Tlndey's case (supra), |t. TlndeV's case, tal<ing tlre lancl value at T12,500/- per biglra as of 3'6'196,[7] by givitrg an annual increment of J.2% but denying a progressive increase' tlre surt't worlced out was t35,000/- pe; biglra. With rel'erence to tlre clecision repo;ted as Bedi Rant Vs..L/O/ & Artr' 2001 (93) DLf 150 arrtl a clecision datecj 4. 2 z.fu 1 disposing ol' RFA No.5 B2/.Igg[4] EA/ lcis/tan Kapahl vs. Uol & Anr. as a'lso a decision of tlre supt-erne Corrrt reported as'Nand Rant Vs. St'ate of Harvana.JT 19BB (4) 5C 260, it was urgecl in tlre alternative, that if tlre price as per sale deed dated 17.3,1988 was not to be adopted and tlre sale price deternrinecl in Diwan Ram Swaroop's case was talcen to be base price, percentage increase acloptecl 'by'tlre learned Trial Judge as IZ% be acJoptecl but the benelit of the progiessive increasej slrould tre given and i,', respect of tlre plea I must nol-e tlraI learrred coutrsel made a Concession tlrat aS WaS done in Bedi Rant'S CaSe, irritial irrcr-ease coulcl be @ 6% p"r' ullllum followed l-ry lrOo/u per annurn ancJ then 12% per allnum, with tlre cut ol'F years being 1959-1965 (6%), 1966-1973 (I0%) and I974 onwards (I2%). Pressing tlre first argunlent tlrat tlre sale cleed dated 33. 17.3.1988 slrould be adopted by tlris Court to deterrnine'the 'tair nrarlcet value as ol' 23.4.1989, learned Counsel heavily relied upon LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page t[4] of 32 the decisiorr of tlre supretle court reported as G'Pren'ta vs' Specia/ Tehsildar (2010) L[2] SCC 502 alrd the clecision reported as ont prakash vs. State of Harvana & ors. 2OII (lv) AD (sc) 3B[3] and ur-gecl tlrat as lreld t[erein t[e developrnetrt aroutrd the place wlriclr lrad taken place over tlre years,,wheTe tlre subject lands were situate, lracl to be factorecl irr wlrile determininq l-he fair nrarlcet value of tlre acquirecl la.nds' Relying upon the [estinrony ot Devi Ram PW-6 in the reference pertainirrg, to Bed Ram, the Patwari of village l(lolcaTi, lea;ne'd counsel argued tlrat lre adnritted tlrat tlre larrd irr questiorr is situated irr a developed area' lraving builclirrg potentiality, inasnruclr as the lancl situated in village l(ilolcari arrd l(rizrabad were acquirecl for tlre plantred developlnent of Delhi irr tlre years 1959 ancl 1961 arrcl on wlriclr acquired land:; DDA lrad developed tlre r-esiderrtial colonies natned 'Friends Colotry', 'l(alirrdi Colony' and 'Maharani Baglr'' lt.was tlrus urged tlrat tlre area in qr-rest-ion had great poterrtiality; tl-re salTle being a reFlection ol=tlre 3 colonies lraving come up on tlre earlier acquired land[3]. Pertaining to tlre sale deed clated l-7.3'1988, E>('P\Al-31l-' referrecl to by me hereinabove, it was ar-guecJ tlrat tlre vendor and vendee of the sale deecl wel-e not the residenLs ol' tlre'area irr question ancl thus, the sa.le Lransactecl between ilre|n lrad to be taken as the basis for deternrinirrg t.he rnarl(et value o'f tlre acquired land ancl could rrot be ignored by labeling the same as a tairrtecl clocument ancl not to be igrrorecl as. per tlre reasorrirrg ol' the learned Trialjud$e, wIiclr reasoning is a.s under:- "lI ntay furtlrer be observed tlraL, tlrere is no evidence to reflect tlrat ther-e could lrave'beetr an increase in prices of land as per sale deed dated 17.3.88 @ Rs' 2,07,500 per biglra relied by petitioner wlre,n compared LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page L[5],o1'32 34.. WithEx'R[1].(Rs.43,2ool-'perbiglra)orn.ritr.price-.Fjxed w.e.f'. 27.4..g0 u, p"r polity witliirr a slrot-t sparr o'l'time' It is a lcnowtr fact that the scneme of acquisition is lcrrown.to tlre vil'lages arrd resiclents mucl-t be1ore the actual rrotification uls + is issued as numerous surveys aie rnaoe prior to any acqu'isitlon pr-oceedirrgs. As suclr ihu "n".ution o[1] sale deed'ati errlranced Tates to clainr increasecl compensation cannot be rulecl out. For 'tlre aforesaid reasorrs sale cleed datecl 17.3.88 relied by petitioner cloes not apllear to be reliable to assess [he value of laltd." l lrave extr-actecj tlre quote lrerein above 'l'rot.n the Pertainirrg to village I(ilol<ari, an additional argument o Anr,'

35. cornpensation assessecl was tlrus urged tlrat iL decisiorr datecl 25.g.2006 in LAC No'1/,j003 'Becl Rant vs' UOI 8r was advancecl wlriclr was preclicatecl on tlre decision dated 10.10.1984 irr RFA l\o'II7lI974 Sntt'Artooori Devi vs' UOl 6r Ors' wherein perl-airririg Lo a pbtificatiorr clatecl 13.11.1-959 fair rnarlcet value assessecl by tlris court for'lancls itr village l(ilolcari was <26,OOol-perbig|raaSagainst{12,5001-perbighaforthe|andin village l(hizrabad wlrerein in Diwa,n Rant Swarup's case (supra) as of tlre cl'ate 3.6-1961 was TI[2],5001-' lt was apparent [l-rat larrcl in village l(ilolcari was fftore valuable tharr tlre rest a'ird for wlriclr it was ur-ged tfrat l(ilolcari neecls to be dealt- with on a better footing.

36. Per contra, Slrri Sanjay Pocldar, Starrcling Counsel I'or tlre l-apcl Acquisition Collector urged tlrat tlre l-rial Cou'rt lrad visited tfie spot ancl lrad acquired spot knowledge about tfte land apd its topograplry, ancl has recordbcl a categorical fincling of [act, to the ef"fect tlrat the acqutirecl lands are i.n tlre iiver- bed on Fot-war-d Bund apcl as such, carr sa'tely be inferrecl to be covet-ecl dur-ing sonre part LA.APP.5I/2007 & connecl.ecl Page 16 oi 32 o of tlre year with watet- and nlay be cultivable [or o[lrer- parts ol'tlre year. Since t|re Ia.nds falI irr t|re river becl, t|rey may not be ca[1]:abIe of beirrg utilizecl aS a normal agriculltural lar-rd and in any case are unsuitable to be built upon. The developnlent may have taken irt and arouncl village l(ilolcari and village l(hizrabacl' but tlre sarne was olr the lands on tlre western side ol= Rirrg Roatd, irrstarrt larrds ar-ej orr the eastern sicle of Ring Road; tlre eat-lier acquired larrds were not low lying lands. They were just lilce arry ol-lrer- ordinary agricultural larrcls., counsel statecl tlrat tlre situational disadvantage of tlre instant lancls was writ apparent arrd tlrat nrere isolatecl construction of a petrol pump and 2 unautlrorized slrops tcr wlriclr Slr,Becl 'Ram lrad referrecl to in,fis testinrony were of tr0 sigrrificarrce. Learnecl counSel Sighlightbcl tlrat tlre wittresses lrad adnritted that- no cons'Lructiotr was perrnissible on the larrd and ilrus urgecl tlrat rnerely because 3 colonies: Malrarani Baglr, l(alindi Colorry ancl New l=riends Colony lrad come up on the acquired lands mainly of village l(ilolcari ancj partly of village l(lrizrabad coltld not irnpact the potentiality ol'the instant lands wlriclr ryere qualitatively disacJvantageously situated, being on tlre eastern side ol' Ring Iload ancl' across the Forwarcl BuncJ spanning tlre area betweetr the Forwarcl Bund and tlre river Yannuna.

37. Learnecl counsel clarifiecl tl'rat even if it be held that the learrred Trial judge lras ilradverterrtly referred to as the 'subject lalds as forming the River Bed ratlrertlrarr tlre Flood Plain latrd, but hasten to add tlrat this does not irnpact tfte reasoning ol= t[e learned TrialJudge inaslnucl-r,as tlre land beirrg the Flood Plain land was prone to water-logging arrd indeed tlris was the t-eason wlr5r lrar-clly any crop was grown on tlre lan,cls and tire fact tlrat the LA. Al,P.59 /2007 & co n nected PageLT ol37 i natut-al vegetation orr tlre larrcl beil$ grass land, buslry and shrub veoetation. lrrreplytot.lreargLlrnentspertairrirrgtot|reprogressivc 38.

39. increase to be efl'ectecl wlrile clel-ermining tlre fair nrarlcet value OF tlre land,5lrr-i Sanjay Podclar relied uporr tlre latest juclgtrtent ol= tlre Supreme Court rePortecJ Corp-oratiotl +td Vs. RameshbhAl livanbhal Patel 6( Anr' 2008 (14') scc 74.[5] arrd higlrliglrted paragraphs 13 and.14 tlrere.of' Learnecj counsel lriglrlighl-ecl tlrat tlre solitary sale deed reliecl upol-l i.e. tlre. sale cleecl clated:-7-03'1988 executed by Shri Rarrjit singlr s/o Slrri Badlu Ram in favour o1'Slrri virrod l(urnar 5la Slrri l(edar Natlr, wlrereby a partel oF land acl-measurirrg l biglra 1 biswa w'as sold for a sum of <2,O[7],500/-; the recitals oF tlre same woulcl show that t4'0,000/- was paid in acJvalrce and balarrce i'e' TI,67,500/-wastobepaicJatthetimeofregistrqtiorro.Ft|resale deed. Ttre sale cleecl did not nral<e it.clear as to wlrat was tlre nrode of payment of balance sale consideratiorr. cot-ttrsel lriglrliglrtecl tlrat the sale deed was exbcuted a few months prior t0 tlre clate of tlre rrotification in question and justified tlre reasoning of tlre learrred Trial Judge wlrich was questioned by the learned counsel, wlrich reasoning I have e><tracted in para 33 above' Learriecl counsel ]'urtfter urged that except I'or this solil-ary sale cleed, no otlrer evidence in tlre shape gf voluntary sale transactiotr lras lteen placed on record by tlre'appeliarrts/land-owners. Counsel lriglrlightecJ that in rebuttal, the Union of India submitted 4 sale deeds, Ex.R-l to Ex.R-4 wlriclr were also cotrsidered at tlre tirr-re of anltourrcing tfte awarcls which showed tlrat tlre average sale price. was tl[8],736/- per bigira. Counsel lrighliglrted l-hat 2 sale deeds out- LA.APP.5T/2007 & connectecl of.tlrese[4].wereexecuteclbythelancl-owners/cla.intattts'natlely' Snrt'AngooriDevi.Counse|u'rgedthatthepaucityol.saledeeds slrowed paucity ol= sale transac[ions arrd tlrus tlrere was no dematrcl for tlre larrd ip quesl-ion arrd tlrus conclucled that the larrd' did not have any potentiality.to coll'lll.lancl higlrer- value as clainred by l-lre appellants. Learneci counsel contended L[at the learned Rel'erence Court lras rightly rejected t[e solitary sale-cleed reliecl upon Lry tne appellants. Leat-necl counsel higlrlighted tlrat suclr'types of cJocunretrts are created rrot orrly for tlre purposes ol' inflating"tlre price, but also to SeCUre alternative plots inaslTluclr as tlre Large scale Accluisition Policy'l'or Agricultur-al Larrds in Dellri requir-es tlrat tlre irrclividual, whos[6] land is accluidbd, trrust lrave rnore than )' bigha lancJ to be entitled to 'a residential plot in a developed colony. Learnecj counsel lriglrlightecl tlre decision of tlre Supretr1e Officerzoog (14.) $CC 367, wftereirr it wa,s observecj as under:- "I[2]. In Shaii l(uriakose v. lndian oi/ corpn' Ltd. this court l-rad observed as uncler: (Scc 1tp. 652-53, para

3)

LA.APP.59 /2007 & connecLed Page L[9] of 32 Court reported as Mohamntad Raofuddin marlcet value ol' the acquirecj latrcl is not always' conc|usive.T|rerearecertain'tactorswlriclrare. requirec|tobe.ful,filledarrdo,rr|'ulfiImentofthose factors ' the compensation can be ' awarded' u..orJing to tlre value of tlre land reflected in the sales. ir",i.factors laicl down inter alia are: (-z) l-lre salenrustbeagenuinetransaction,(2)tlrat-.tlre sale cleecl must lrave been executed at the time proxinrutl to tlre clate of issue oF not-iFication uncler sectiorr 4-of tlre Act, (3) tlrat tlre larrd.ouur"J by the sale nrust be in tlre vicirrity ol'the acquir-eo-tlno, (4) that [he lancl covered by tlre saIesmustbesimilarto,tlreacqu.ired|'atrd,and (5J that itie size of plot of the land cover-ed by tlre sales;".;;puruble t_o tl-re larrd acquired.. lf all tlrese.factorsaresatistied,t|retlt|rere!''lo ' reason *f-,V tlre sale value of tlre land covered by tlresaIesbenotgivenfot.tlreacqr-tiredland. However, iF tlrere i; a clissimilarity in regard to locality, sltape, site or nature oI larrd between lancl iovered by sales and land acquired' it,is open to the court to p'ropoiti.onately reduce th.e compensation for acquired larrd,. tlran whaI is ref|ectec|irrtlresalesdeperrdirrg.upo|lthe. clisadvantages attaclr-ecl witlr the acquired land'".

40. lt was argued. by Mr.Sarrjay Poclclar arrd 'l=or vvlrich lear-ned counsel relied uPon [lre cJecision of the Suprenre Court reported as /(anwar Sino/t & Ors' vs. Union of lndia 1998 (B) SCC 136, that tlre lancls situatecl in var-ior,rs villages acquired througlr tlre sante rroti'l'ical-ion cannot be giverr the sarne nrarlcet value' unless ancl until it is proved that tlre situation. and potentiality ot tlre larrcl in z clifterent villages are the; same. -[o this efl'ect, lre poirrted out that even in Nand Rant's case (supra), relied upon by tlre appellants, it was Ireld that tl-re sirrlilar-ly situatecl land in a village is to be giventhe same price arrd not all' -T-lrus, it was arouecl that urrless arrd until tlre poterrtiality. and situation ol' tlre LA.AP P.59 I 2007 & co n nected Page 7-O of 32 larrcl souglrt to be acquired are sitnilar to the larrcj souglrL to be cot.npared, a uni'form rate cannot be awarded- -l-lris argument oF learnec, counsel I am noting was in [esponse to,the subrtrission nrade tl-rat the solitary sale deecl pertairrirrg to village l(ilolcari be treatecl as reflective oF the nnarkeL value of lands in village l(rizrabacl arrcl village Nangli Razapur-. Mr.Sanjay Poddar further arguecJ that wlrile 'assessing the.marl<et value of tlre acquirecl' larrds, tlre principie, as laid down.in Mohantmacl Raol'ttddirt's caSe sullra is to tre followecl; namely,' (i) t-lre court is dul-y bound to epsure tfiat tlre compensation deternrirrecl is just anci I'air not only to tlre ipdividual wlrose property is acquired, but also to the public wlriclr has to pay for it; apd (ii) tlre land situated,otr tlre I'rontage lravirrg special advantages cannot be treated at par with tlre land situatecl irr tlre interior undeveloped area' Further, tlre court is requirecl to act as a willing and informed buyer and seller' nreatring tftereby, suclr a $uyer and seller must be urrafl'ectecl by tlre special needs of a particr-rlar purclrase ancl rnust have the inFormatiorr required by a prudent person relating, to the land sought to be acquired. Counsel higlrliglrtecJ that thei ledrnecl Trial Court' whicit lracl visited the site, lras actecl as arl inForrned buyel- arrd seller wlrile recot-cling tlre firrc.ling about. the nature o'l= tlre larrd' which finclirrg cannot be disturrbecl withourt any cogent evidence' Mr'AjayVerma,learn'eclcounseIforDDAwlriIeadopting 47. tlre at-guments advancecl by Mr.Sarrjay Podclar, adcled tlrat the land acquired for residerrtial cblonies Was not tiie purpose utrcJer the oTesenl- rrotil'ication arrcl that as lrelcl ir:r Llre decisiorr reported as LA.APP.59 /2007 ti connected PageZL ol 32 'xecutlve Dl vs, Sharat Cba-nltp-EApt 20oo (6) SCC 326',O lands can tlrere-frotn

42. bec|assil.iec|assituatecjneal.ariveroratadistatrce i.e. wil-lrin a villag.e belting can be resorted to' ln rejoinder, learned" counsel '[or tl"re appellatrts' subrnitti ng rej oi ndei subtnissions' throu g h M r' B' P' G upta' /-\dvoca te relied uporl tlre decision of this, court reportecl as Baldev Slnqlt Dhillon & ors. vs. union of lnclia & ors 2OO[5] (l.2l-) DLT 606, and witlr reference to paragr-aplrs 23 arrcl 70 [lrereol' contendecl that irr flre said decision, pertaining to the instant lands, where the challenge to.tlre acquisitiorr was that there was no ground to involce ilre urgency clause i.e.secti ort 17 (1) and 17(4) of t-lre Land Acquisition Act l-,Bg[4] thereby denying't[e riglrt oF hearirrg to the larrd-owners affecLecj under sectiorr 5(A) of tlre Acl-, the respondetrts lrad cited tlre loonning tlrreat ol= unautlrorized colonizatior-r as the reason to derry suclr riglrt arrd tlrere1'r-otn counsel souglrt to irrfer tlrat tlre larrds lrad a potentiality for clevelopment ancJ colonization. Mr.L.C.Clreclri, Ieartrecl counsel supplemettted, with re'Ference to a notification dat-ed 25'L'1995 issued urnder Section 4B(2) of the Land Acquisition Act l8gzl read witlr arr orcler dated 5.11.ZOOq., botlr of wlrich were rrot [iled before the learnecl Reference CourL,.. but Wel-e talcert on. record aS aclciitiorral evidence pursuant to an applicatiorr I'iled under Order 41 Rule 27 of tlre cocje of Civil Procedure, and urged tlrat the potification and tlre orcler prove tlrat tlre lancls wfrich were.irrde,' tlre River Bed were de-rrotifiecl from acqr-risil.ion as tlrey were held lot required for tfte purpose l:of wlrich tlre acquisit-iolr was tnade, ancl therefrom coutlsel urged that it was apllarerrI that tlre remaining lands were not.'River: Bed'' LA.APP.59/2007 & connected Page 22 ol3'I c

43. |-|avirrgconsideredtlresubmissiolrsurgedklyIearrrecj counsel for tlre parties I propose to deal witlr Lhe sarne after rroting the cjecision oI tlre supreme court reportecl as (2008) 14 SCC 745 Rantesltbh.ai " ^'\' -' Pate-l & Anr'

44. The nratter reaclrecl the bupreme Court, on tlre I'acts flrat alt area ad-measuring 13 lrectares ancl I[7] ares' in village ljapurra within District Melrsana, Gujarat was acquired for arr oNGC installatiorr, for wlriclr the 'otificatiorr ulrder Secti ort 4 of tlre Land iss'ued on 15'9' 1992' Tlre Land Acquisitiorr Act IB94' was lss'ueo url Acquisitiop Collector cletermiped the I'air marlcet yal'ue of the land as of 15.9;1gg[2] at t[2].10 per squarb rleter. On a reference sought' the Reference court enhancecl the comperrsatiotr by deterrnining tlre fair marlcet value at{17.1=0 per square meter' The reasonirrg of tlre Reference court was tlrat in the absence of a.ny sale deeds in the village in question, the only nnat-erial was Ex'15, being an awarcl pertaining to a notification datecl 6'I'1987 wlrereuirder land in a rreiglrtrouring village nanre.b Satltlral was aSSeSSed to a [air cot-t-lpensation at tlre"rate of T10 per SqUare meter, as also Ex'16' wlriLh relatecl to anotlrer land near the village ljapura i'e. land itr village Chalsana, of wIich fair compe.nsatioll waS also assessed a[- {10 per square meter pertaining to a notil'ication clatecl 31'7 '1986' -flrus, talcirrg {10 per square nreter to be Fair mat-lcet valure I'or- the years 1986 ancl IgB[7], since no.Lil'ic.ation beirrg considered was ' clatecl 15.9.Igg[2], the Rel'erence Court increased tlre value' curnulatively at tlre late of loo/r.pef annum and'tlrer-eal't-el- reducecl *Z per square metet- on account of distance'Factor between village' LA.AP P.59 /2007 & co trnected Prrge 23 cil 32 ljapurr-a and otlrer 2 villages, thereby'art-ivirrg at t'lre I'igure of t17'10 per sclLlare rneter. Tlre lliglr court- dismissed the appeal against tlre clecision of tlre Re-ference court' This is. ltow tlre tnat[er reaclred the SuPrelne Couit' TlresupremeCourtopinec|,ollt|refactsoftlresaid 45. case, tlrat ilr.the absence of any.eviclence t'elating to sale transactions irr village ljapurc atrcl lraving regard to the proxinrity ol. village Santlral witlr tlre acquirecl lands of village ljapura, it woulcl be reasonable to cleterinine tlre nrarlcet value ol'larrds irr village ljapur-a with reference totlre value of land in village santhal and villa.ge clralsana, Thus, tlre Supr-eme Court held tlrat it would lre reasotrable to lrold that in tlre year 1987, value of larrd in village ljapL1'a was the same aS in village Santlral and tlris would nreatr tlrat as of the year 7987, value ol'lancl in village ljapura was {10 per square rneter. -fhe supreme court ther-eafl-er considered tlre second quesl-ion, aS 'to wlrat shoulcJ be tlre percentage increaSe to be given per annulTl ancl tlre further q.ues[iorr wlretfter tlre salTle slroulcl lre cLilTlulative i.e. progressive or sirnple' \ /itlr reference to tlre clecisions reported as (Igg[2]) 4' SCC 659 Raniit Sinoh Vs' UT of ertEflIigiXJ, (2004') 2 SCC 283 Krislti -Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs' (2005)gSCC5g4LeindAcqulsltionofficerand Reve | /r; wlret-e Courts had acceptecl escalation irr marlcet value oF lancl 'at the relevanI titne fr-om percentages ranging between IO% to. L,oh per allnum, tlte suprenre court helcj that one lras to be'carefr"tl with respect tct: whether tlre larrd was colTlprised itl an urban, senli-urban or a rura;l LA.APP.59 /2007 & con ttected Page24 of 32 al-ea. ln pal-a 13 and 14 of its opitriotr, the suprerne court observed as under':-,, l[3],PrimariIy,tlreincreaseidIandprices.dependsotrfour factol-s: situation of the. la.trcl, nature o1' developrnetrt itr surrouncli;;;r"r, avaif ufiilit, oi Irrr.d for development in the area, unJ itre Oelnarrd for llncl in tlre area'. ln. rural areas, unless there is any prospect oF developrrrent irr-the vicinity' increase i;-.l;,^i;"; would be slow, steady and gradual, without anysucJdenspurtsor^jUmpS.orrtlreotherhand,inurbanor serni_urban ar-eas, wher-e ilre developmenL is '[aster, where tlre demancl for larrd is higlr and wlrere there is cotrstruction activity urr around, tlre "l.ulation in marlcet price is at a muclrhiglrer[ate,aSCompareclto'rUraIareas'ItrSorne poclcets in big cities, cJue io rapicl clevelopmen[ and higlr demand for la-ncJ, the escalations irr prices have touched everl 30%to5Oo/oormoreperyear,duringnineties':- 4.. On the otlrer extrenre, in rennote rural area where there was no clrance of any developtnent and hardly and buyers;' tlre prices stagrrated I'or year-s or rose rnargirrally at a nominal rate of I% or2o/o per annLl.lTln' Tlrere is thus a significarit difference in itrcreases in mai-l<et value ol' lands in ur-ban/semi-urban a[eas and increases irr nrarlce:t iralue ol' lands ir[1] tlre rural areas. TheretoTe, if tlre increase in rrrarlcet value in urban/semi-urban areas is about I0% or 15% per annunrn, the correspondirig increases in. rural_?f",tt'rrvould at best be only aToLlnd l-,ulf of it, that is, about 5% to 7'5o/o per annLtrr. Tlris rule ol'tlrutnb re'ters to tlre gelleral trerrd in tlre ninetites, to be acloptecl irr tlre abselrce of clear arrd specif ic evidence r-elating to increase in prices. \/Vlrere [here are ' special reasons for applying a lriglrer rate of increase, or any specific evidence reiatihg,to the actual increase itr prices;, tlren tlre increase to be applied w'ould deperrd upol-l tfte same. 't Tlrereafter, the - Suprelle Court poted that tlre 46, acquisition in Raniit 'in(1h's case (supra), pertairred to lands'on wlriclr Sector 41 in the city of CharrcJigarlr was cleveloped'i.'e. tlre Iand was abutting the urban city of Charrdigarh' 'Tlre larrd in'Eipin LA.APP.59 /7007 & connected Kurnals case (supra) was adjoini'ng tlre Baclaun - Dellri Fliglrway ancj was in a serni-urban area and tlre land whiclr was subject rnatter of consicleration in RantaJLlultls case (supra) pertairred to tlre 3'd plrase cleveloptlent of the existing 'orrd establislred irrdustrial estate in the urban area' lt was irr this context tlrat the SupremeCourtexpressedanopinioninparail3andl-4.ofits decision, as extracted lrereinal:ove' Tlre observations in para 14 of tlre decision pertaining to remote rural areas are eqLlally applicable wherd tl"re larrd is such tlrat there is hardly any cIance ol'any developnrent arrd lrardly any buyer to purchase tlre land; and lrence prices stagnating' Needless to state, the situration of tlre land and its 4.7.

4.8. surrrouncling areas, irrcluding.availability ol'larrd in the area and clenrancl tlrereof are tlre factor-s wlrich lower prices irr rural areas and tlrese would eclually be the factors wlriclr would clept-ess pt-ice rise even if t-lre lancl is in an urban area, but is so placed in the city, that its potential for developrnent is meager'

49. Marslry lands alotrg river banlcs, lands i[1] Flood Plaitr, prone to I'looding, would be irr tlris category, evell i'l= it is in an urban or a semi-urban area'

50. Revertirrg 5acl< to tlre decision oF tire Suprerle Cout't in Rantesh Bhai's case (supra), lrighliglrting thal-, for lands wlrere 1:oterrtiality was established, a safe thumb rr-rle lreld ap!licable try tlre cour-t, cou.lcl be to increase the marlcet value by loo/o to l5o/o per annum, but tlris thumb rule was expressly rnade subject to a variation; wlrere peculiar features were available in tlre [orm oI eviqlence 'to increase t|e growth up to even 30% per alrnull or cJepress tlre same to lralf i.e. 5oh to 7,5% per anrlum. LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page 26 ol'32

51. Applying tlre aforesaicl prirrciples' it was observecl tlrat sirrce the subject- |arrds Were in a, ruraI area and l-|rere WaS no clevelopment' activity in tlre area for a long period of tirte' appropriateescaIatiorrperannumslroulc|be[7].5%andnofflore.

52. Stating tlrat the escalatiorrs slrould be at a cumulative rate i.e, progressively ancj not at a flaI rate, the Supreme cour[' itr para 20 and 21 ol'its opinion, lrelcl tl'rat cofflmencirrg witlr t-l're rate of T10/- per square lnetet- in the year ITBT ancl accorcling benel'it oI cumulative rate pt ipcrease to be 1.5% per ye.ar, the price would rise to t14.35 per square tneter irr tlre year'L997' and as against clecJucti 1g TZI- on accourrt of distance factor as clgne by tlre Court of Reference and as uplreld by the l-ligh Court, sitrce tlre Supreme court was applying a lower percentage cumulative rate of escalation, tlre cJecluction eFfected was {1.35 per square meter and accordirrgly the fair nrarlcet valu'e determinecl was t13/- per square nreter. 53." with respect to the sale deecl dated 17'3.1988 it has to be lrighlightec[1] tirat apart from the reasoning given by the leartrec[1] Trial Judge there are good further reasoning to ignore the same ancl'l lrave lriglrlightecl tlre same while noting'tite argutnent oF sh,sanjay Podclar Advocate in.para 39 above and sitrce I anr accepting l-lre entire reasonirrg of the argunrent I need not t-e-state tlre saffle as my reasons, but lest lafft accused of beirrg a copy cat ancl trot eviclencirrg that I have indeperrdently applied rrry rnind to tlre argum.ent lrecord tlrat a solitary sale transactiott would be an unsafe measure since a solitary swallow does not meajn tlre onSeI of Sprirrg and'that a solitary tree is l'lo irrdical-ion'tlrat one has reaclrecl tlre woods. I neecl not pen down the catena of judgments LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page77 of32 penned in tlris Court by learnecl Judges..wlrerein a little in excess of.1, biglra ol'agricultural lancl was acquirecl a few days prior or a l'ew nrontlrs prior to a proposecJ- acqr-risitiolr to avail the lrenel'it o'f an alLernative residential plot in a cleveloped area at a concessional price as per the Large, Scale Acquisition Policy [-or Agr"icurll-ural Lancls ip Dellri. lt assumes importance tlrat under tlre sale deed 1 biglra ancl l biswa of land was transacted on 17'tr 1988. As I have Sighliglrted het-ein above, issue of re-cleveloprnent ol= the river yamLtna was being consiclered for a lorrg periocl ol= tirrre and tlrere,a- -t- \r:.-^-l l/.,^-,- L-^i,^^. rr.nrt-l- m ts every posstbility o'f'Slr.Vinod l(lrmar being a slnaTt man wno lcnew somebocly in tlre corriclors o'F power and got wind oF tlre. proposed acquisitiorr., I wonder wlrat mearring['ul agricultural activity can be carriecl on by a person on l biglra and l biswa land? That apart, as obser-vecl by th,e Suprerre Couit in tlre decisiorr reportecj as.Union-of lndia vs. Rant Phal 2003 (1,0) SCC 166, wlrile assessiltg tlre value of a large tract of land si'tuated in various villages a solitary sale trarrsaction 01'a small parcel ol'land sl-rould be ignorecl as it would be unsate to assess the rnarlcel- value o'l'a large tract ol= larrcl based thereon. Tlre law relatirrg to sampling tells us tlrat'for a sanrple to be representative ol'the whole il- mus;t be a fair percentage of the wlrole ancl not a' tr-ifle. I reiterate lry reasoning in lraras 47 and 48 above. 54.. The question woulcl be whether tlre percentage irrcreased worked. out by tlre learrred Trial JuQge i.e. 12% per annLln'l on a flat rate witlr rel'erence to the land price {35,000/- per biglra as cletermined itr findeV's'CaSe (supra), wlriclr I note t:er-tainecJ to a noti1-ication clatecl:10.5.I97 6 fot'' lands irr village l(hizrabad (land being salabi and tlrLrs a guidance to me of beirrg in LA.APP.59 /2007 & cortnecled PageZB rsf 37 tlre flood plairr of tlre river) is correct arrd whetlrer tlre samre has to be appliecl pr-ogressively and trot at the I'lat rate' '55. I have already held herein above tlrat tlre itrstatrt lands are on tlre Flood Plain, not on the river becj as held by tlre learned Reference Court, but the same would malce no dil=[erence inasnruclr as being on the flood plain of the river, the land is low lyin[9], sSallow, mostly grassland, br-rshy arrcl witlr shrub vegetatiorr. Tl-re aquatic vegetatiorr is very poor and tlre area gets tlooded whenever tlre monsoon is normal or irr eXCeSS' The learned Reference Court has lrigIligtrtecl the topology pf tlre land with reference to a personal visit arrd laccept tlre satne. The instant lancls are situatiorrally clisadvantaged and are qualitatively different, being inferior, to other lands irr the l-evellue esta[e of village l(lolcar-i ancl l(hizrabacl which were acquired ear'lier on, ott wlriclr tlre colonies oF Mahar-ani Baglr, l(alirrdi Colorry atrd New Friends Colony were colonized. lt is for this reason tlre decision in RFA No.ttl/tg74 ]mt. Anooori Devi vs. UOl wlretlein pertainirrg to a rrotil'icaL.ion clatecl 13.11.1959, for larrd in village l(iloicari tair marlcet value assessed was {26,000/- per biglra catrnot be tlre basis for fixing the fair marlcet value of tlre subject lancls. I higlrliglrt that perLaining to"village l(lrizrabacl, for similar lattcl, pertaining to a notification dated 10.5.I976, itr findev's cas.e (supra) fair marl<et value assessed as ol' said date was {35,0001per biglra. The argLtment of Sh.L.C.Clrecfri Advocate, noted in pat-agraplr 42 above (last portiorr), needs to be dealt witlr here. The notification releasing lands are tlre'River Bed'and tlre'Flood Plain'.' lt is apparerrt tlrat, tlre authorities as als.o l-lre Re[erence Court lrave usecl the expression 'River Becl' ancl 'l=lood Plain' as LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected l'age7'9 o! 32 irrterclrangeable, not rea lizittg tlrat the two are clil'fererrt; arrd as; explained in para 13 above. Tlre subject larrds are 'Flood Plain' ancl not,River Bed,arrcl as lreld by me.in paras 4-/ arrd 4'B above' tlre consequence ol't[e lands beirrg 'Floocl Plairr' have to follow' 56'.ontlreprincip|eofpercentageincreatseaSperBedi Rant's case (supra), reliecl upon by learrred counsel l=or tlre landowners, wherein progressive increase fot- variouts stretclres ol=years was applied at60/o,:0% and I2o/o per annum, su'ffice would it be tcr state tlrat tlre saffle was on tlre basis of eviclence ol= such al-l increase. I a'm guidecl on the issue by tlre clecision ol'the Supreme Court in Rantesh Bhai's case (supra) wherein tlre Suprenre Cour[ cautioned tlre courts 'tlrat while applying the tfrumlo rule of percentage increase in the'price of lands, ol-le tnust- not be oblivious of positive evidence-to show a greater price rise or lacl< o1' apy evidence of sales, meaning tlrereby prices beirrg St-agtranI o.r increasing marginally by 1o/o or 2o/o per annutn and itr suclr cases pertaiping to rural areas tlre thumb rule being to take tlre price increase between 5%o to 7.5%-pel' annLlm. I have already lreld herein above that the peculiar feati:res, wlriclr are Iregative in character, for tlre'instarrt lands woulcl require'the thumb rule required to be aclopted for rural areas as applicable to tlre instant (supra). I may lriglrlight that tlre decisiolr ol= a learned Single Jucige of tltis Court in Baldev Sinoh Qhi//on's case (supra), wlriclr was reliecl upon by leat-ned coutrsel for tlre appellants, in para 7:J tlre;eof, brings out tlrat tlrere is do development potential in tlre larrcl save ancl except to cJevelop it as a green area al'ter clranrrelizing the t^iver Yamuna ancl use tlre same for people to LA.APP.5\/2007 & connected I']age 3o ol'32 str-oll arouncl a1d enjoy tlre cool breeze after toiling hard in the hot SUlt'l'ner; not lnore than 15% of t-lre area is capable ol'a meaningful USC.

57. [3ut, I hasten to add tlrat, a1'ter- acquisition would not be a basis wlrich is the mandate of Sectiorr 24 TBg[4]., 58, Wlra[ever be the percentage increase per annLlm in the value of tlre land, as pertlre decision in RanteshbllAis case (supra) tlre same lras to be appliecl in progression. 59, 1-alcipg into account all the factors lre;eitr above noted, of faCt ancl of law, in my olrirrion tlre fair rnarl(et value oF tlre instatrt surbject larrcls require the same to be l=i><ed with reference [o the clecision in Tinde-V's case (supra) by talcing tlre land value at T35,000/- per bigha as of 10.5.!97 6 and applyirrg tlre percen[age increase not at J,2% per antrum 'but at 7.5% per annum and applying the same progressively for a period ol' 13 years, since the notification with which I am concerned is dated 23.6.1989,[1] reaclr tlre figure in sum ol=t89,6L[4].37 per biglra.

60. Tlre learrred Reference Court lras determirred the compensaLion at tB g,600l- per bigha b1r adopting t-he arrnual price rise to be72o/o but applyirrg tlre same at a flat rate l-o the base ral-e of {35, OO0l: per biglra.

61. But, I have worlcecl: out the I'igure to reach tlre sum o[ {89,614..37 by commencing fronr tlre lrase date 10.5.I976 and applying the sarre for a period of 13 years whiclr will talce nre to tlre date 10.5.1989, I arrr conscious of tlre fac.t that tlre notil'icatiorr r-equires rre to proceed alread by another 43 days and [het-el'ore LA.AP P.59 /2007 & con nectecl Page 3L o1'32 the I'uturistic use of' a larrd to infer a I'air marlcet value, of tlre l-and Acquisil-ion Act logically recluiring tcl f'urther elrhance tlre sul'n, but troting tlrat rl.,athematical precisior-r is not to be achievecl wl'r'ile assessi'g I'air colxpensation atrcl tlraI if diFl'eretrce 'betweetr dates is rregligible' the sar.l1e lras to be igrrored arrd thr-rs I bring the curtains down lry accorcling my irrrprinratuT to tlre price cjete;rnipecl by t-he learned Re'terence Cout-t'

62. pertairrirrg to the cross objections Filecl by tlre Urrion o'l' lndia, I note tlrat the clrallenge was to tlre ledr-rred Trial Judge lrolcling tlrat land value appr-eciatecl by 12% per annulrl' Tlre challenge was on the grouncl tlrat the poor qLlality, locatiorral arrd ot-lrbrwise, ol't[e lancl did not warfant saicl pi'esuntp[iorr to br: r-aised.

63. lu view of rny reasotrirrg lrereinabove dealirrg witlr tlre rival contentions. pertaining to the ap;:eals t'iteo by tlre larrd owners, attcl the conclusions arrived at, tlre inevitable conseqUence lras to be, tlre clismissal of all tlre cross appeals atrd CroSs objectiotrs I'iled by tl're Union of lndia. Tht_rs, all appeals as also tlre cross objections are 64.. clisrnissecl, leaving the parties to bear tlreil' owlr co'sts'.;',nO-1"' --.--'t'-''--'T\ (\ ' \l...\ '' ( PIT,AD E EP t{Al\ D !XA.|OG).luDGE JUNE 07,20LT mm / dl( LA.AP P.59 /2007 & co n necled Page 32 ol 37