Partly allowed

Amar Singh Decd Thr Lrs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Jan 2012LA.APP./1052/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of multiple appeals and cross-objections regarding land acquisition compensation for contiguous villages. The court affirmed that Government minimum agricultural rates are a valid benchmark but enhanced compensation by 10% due to location advantages near an airport and oil depots.

What did the court decide?

10% increase over the market value assessed by the Reference Court awarded; statutory benefits granted; appeals partly allowed.

Amar Singh Decd Thr Lrs & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2012)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

IN THE H1GII CODRT OF DELHI AT NICV\t' OELIH

¶3

().' .'(j

¶4

llt}~fll'Ved_Q!Ll'!QY!i,-nb.eLLS,.~i!ll. '. Pronounced __ , _____ . ____ . ________ .• 017: , .• . ____ Januarv • ___ .-" ____ 06 .. :..1. ,.,'. 2012_ ..•. __ _

¶5

(GRlD-A)

¶6

LA.APP.1195/2008 (VILLAGE- BHARTHAL)

¶7

RANBJR SHARl\1A ..... Appellant

¶8

Through: Mr,B.S.J\1aan, Mr,Amit Maan, MrJai Prakash, l\1s,SmiLa Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates lV1r.Anand Yadav ancllYts.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Robtas, Adyocate. . Mr.Raghl.lvinder Gouara, Advocate Mr.N .S,Negi and lV1r,Jd.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S,K.Rout and Mr.B.K, Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates,

¶9

l\1r.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate 1Vlr.R(jesb YnC3V, tv1.r.Dcepak Khosla, MLSamit Khosla and lVlrDl-mnm\iay fAchlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.P:aUleL:, P,dvocate

¶10

Mr.I.S.DahiyJ, Ad\ ocate

¶11

Mr.Sandecp Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi Aovocate. M.r.N.S.Negi and )\1r.H,S.Ramela, (,\dvocates fur respondent in appi~aIs filed by tlOl)

¶12

versus

¶13

UNION OF INDIA & ANR,

¶14

....... P .t ' " "1"" .. Jd" r,,-lC··'lY·': -''L. , ,.1..,

¶15

'J'hruugh: Mr.SanjElY Poddar. :~;I;:nil,)r Advoca;:e. YViiti ;Vir ,Sil;iu.) Patbak, M.r.Moh.ltr2lc ::d(Jh<l' and M~;.N2:')in ~>',\ain, MS.K.Kaul1ludi Kinw. i".dv(\cate~~ fi)l-l ,/I ... C/U()I 1\ IV. '11" A'I a·v . \·'el·ll· ... ( <l ... ,Vi::;,. ~ d ··I'{·'''''Jl j",. (l:: ~ ,":1'1"·" CL', <;" ,Y· f)!··j· .. i, I,!j" Vl1, 1.1'lll,·,< ' .. \C..,I .. ·'l Kumar, Mr ~U(,")ethi, l\i[r.Pcl\V<Jl1 lVlathuL \/!r.KunaJ Sharma, AdvocCln;kr DDA

¶16

1./.1\ PPA 1::/2008 & CM.No.A(;06i:200S (Cross .. Objections). LA .. /'PF.·:152/:~OOg; L.'.APP.453!21)OS; LA.APP.S88!2¹ )08 /<;:., C;\1. lih';. 5990i20 10 (Cross· Objcciion::;); 1,;.APp,()n/2008 & CM,No.·'.].33/2u(n (C'l),-;s-·Objcctioi1:.i); 1..f.APP.701i?OCS & Cr'1.l\b 51 O/.20()9 (Cross-Oi::<j (cli')i1s: ! .. \i\PP 76g:20Cii,::, (':.APf',T/O/2U()N:, !

¶17

I/,./I:cp. ;(;. 11(J:)r'oo & COPllccld I.pp(:<ils (If /ill;lgl! Bhanh,;/ r .'.i\Oq. Nt). 19f1~//OJ.(' &. connert,cd I-\PPc::JI.'i of Villr:lf,{; [3ijvVa~.:Hl 1 i.Ilpp. i~ .... }...I :;!:J[)10 & (onnf'cv:d /Ippc:a's of \liliag(, "ocr.anpur

¶18

LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.77412008 & CrvLNo.611/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.775/2008; LAAPP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LAAPP.784/2008; LA:APP./·B5/2008; LAAPP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LAAPP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009· (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LAAPP.820/2008; LAAPP.829/2008; LAAPP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.83312008; LA.APP.844/2008; LAAPP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/20:11 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.892/2008 & CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008; LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/2008 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections): LA.APP.959/2008; LAAPP.973/2008.; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM.No.519!2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.97:5/2008; LAAPP.976/2008; LAAPP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.993!2.008;LA.APP.l 029/2008& eM.No. J 7340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I03112008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I032/2008 & CM.No.S99/20U9 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1046/2008; LA .. APP.l047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I049/2008 & CM.No.420;'2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I050!2008; LA.APP.l 051/2008 & CM.No.17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.1052/2008; LA.APP.I053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LAAPP.105412008 & CM.No:l766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.105SI2008;LAAPP.I057!2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.I059!2008 & CM.No.17259/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1060/2008;LA.APP.I062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1 073/2008; LAAPP.I074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I075/2008; LAAPP.I08112008 & 'CM.No.,462!2009(Cross-Objections): LA.APP.108412008& CM.Nb.17302/200R (Cross-,Objections); LA.APP.1086^l 200B '~ CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.API'.I08712008& CM.No,619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.I093./2008; A.ApP.; 094/2008; LAAPP.I09:51200g; LA.APP.II03/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections):LA.APP.l10812008 .& CM.No.3839!2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.J\PP.II09/2008; LAAPP.1110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. J 11112008; LAAPP.l I 12/2008 & CM.No.383] 12009 (Cross-Objections): LA .A.PP.1113/2008 & CM.No.3lQ6i2009 (Cross-Objections); LAAPP.1115!2008; TA.APP.l1 16/2008; LA.APP.1121!2008; LA.APP.1126/2008; LA.APP.1129!2()Ox & Ctv'U"fo.550/2009 (Crqss-ObjcCl[011::); : ,A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.113U2008 8;;' Cl!.1~o.566/2009(Cross-Obiections), . LA.APP.1133/2008; LA.APP.1135/2008.8l: eM.No.7442/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008 (Cross-Objections); L!.APP. J 140/2008; LAAPP.1l56/2008; LA.APP.1I57/2008; LA.APP.l158/2008 & Cl\1.No.7774^l 2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.] 159/2008; LA.:\PP.116112008; LA.APP.1166i200R; LA.APP.116712008 & CM.No.802/2009 (Cross-Objections): LAAPP.I168i2008; LA.APP.1170/2008; LAAPP. J ] 7112008; LAAPP.1172/2008; LA.APP.117J/2008; LA.APP.1175!2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; LA .. A.PP.1179!2008; LA.APP.1181/2008; LA./\PP. [182/2008; LA.APP.II83/?'-008& CIVl.No.6933^l 2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. J 184/2008; LA.APP.1185^/ 2008; LA.APP.1186/2008& CM.No.7013!200c)

¶19

I i.I\pp. No. J 19,i/2008 f, collr.r.ctc!d !',rpeals of Village Bharth'll 1./\ /\pP. No, 1.9^1l /2.010& cori;1ected ,'I,ppeals of Village [Jijwas,Jn U.I\pp, r'Jo. 111/2()1O& conn(~ct"CI/\ppeai5 oTVillage PochaIlPur"

Page:l. of 29

:; I- I

(Cross-Objections); LAAPP.]193/2008;	LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1194/2008;	LA.APP.1191/2008; LAAPP.1195/2008;	LA.APP.1192/2008: LAAPP.1197/2008;
LA.APP.1198/20Q8	& CM.No.6935/2009(	Cross~Objections);	LAAPP.1200/2008;
LAAPP.1202/2008;	LA.APP.120312008;	l:A..APP.121012008;	LA.APP.121112008;
LAAPP.1212/2008;	LAAPP.1213/2008;	LAAPP.122312008;	LAAPP.1225/2008&
.CM.No.6957/2009(C	ross-Objections);L	A.APP.1226/2008;	LA.APP.1241/2008&
CM.No.384112009	(Cross-Objections);	LAAPP.1243/2008;	LA.APP.1252/2008;
L/.APP.1275/2008;	LAAPP.1276/2008;	LAAPP.1277/2008;	LA.APP.']279/2008;
LA.APP.1280/2008;	LAAPP.1281/2008;	LA.APP.1283/2008;	LAAPP.1284/2008;
LA.APP.3112009;	LA.APP.33/2009;	LA.APP.3712009;	LA.APP.3912009;
LA.APP.42/2009 &	CM.No.746/201	1 (Cross-Objections)	; LA.APP.59/2009;
LAAPP.73/2009&	CM.No.7l 03/200	9 (Cross-Objections)	; LA.APP.7412009;
LAAPP.79/2009;	LAAPP.95/2009&	CM.No.953/2011	(Cross-Objections);
LA.APP.108/2009;	LAAPP.I09!2009:	LA.APP.12112009;	LAAPlP.135/2009;
I_A.APP.136/2009;	LAAPP.137/2009;	LA.APP.13812009;	LAAPlP.139/2009;
I ,A.APP_.140/2009;_	LA.APP_.143/2009;_	LA.APP_.144/2009;_	LAAP1P .145/2009;
LA.APP.162/2009;	LA.APP.187/2009:	LA..APP.190/2009;	LAAPP.191/2009;
LA.APP:197/2009;	LAAPP.198/2009;	LA.APP.199/2009;	LA.APP.20112009;
LAAPP.202/2009;	LAAPP.203/2009:	LA.APP.2!J8/2009&	CM.No.702:7/2009
(Cross-Objections);	LAAPP.210/200^L)	& CM.No.970/2011	(Cross-Objections);
LA.APP.2J112009;	LAAPP.22012009;	LAAPP.222l2009;	LAAPlP.223/2009;
LAAPP.224^l2009;	LAAPP.227/2009:,	LA.APP.230/2009&	CM.No.7206/2009
(Cross-Obj cctions);	LA.APP .24112009;	LA.APP .245/2009;	LAAPP_.246/2009;_
LA.APP.249/2009;	LAAPP.257/2009;	LA.APP.29512009;	LA..APP.30S12009:.
LA.APP.367/2009;	LA..APP.437/2009;	LAAP?,447/2009;	LA.APP.458/2009;·
LA.APP.459/2009;	LA..APP.466/2009:	LA.APP.480!2009;	LAAPP.481/2.009;
LA.APP.489/2009;	. LA..APP.490/2.009;	LA,APP.49112009;	LA.APP.49312009;
LJ.APP.494/2009;	LAAPP.495/2Q09;	1.,A..APP.503/2009;	LA.APP.50612009;
LA.APP.507/2009;	LAAPP.508!2009;	LA.APP.509!2009:	LA.APP.SJ 0/2009;
U.APP.Sll/2009;	LA..APP.S12/2009:	LA..APP.51312009:	.LA.l\PP.567/2009;
LA.APP.57212009;	LA.APP.15/20J 0;	LA.APP.4512010;	LA.APP.48/2010;
I.A.APP.40412010;	LA.APP .13/2011:	LA.A.PP.1138!2008:	LAAPP.117(./2008;
!J.APP_117712008;_	LAAPP.1201/2008:	L/..APP.23Ii2009

¶25

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LAIl3417 dated 13.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village BharthaI, Delhi)

¶26

(GRID-B)

¶27

Jt?:.§.§rved on: Dece!J1be!_Q~~ 20 Ll p[QflC!unced QJ1:J..anu(JLl!..JlQJj)J 2

¶28

LlLAPP. 294/2010 (VILLAGE.- BUWABANV'

¶29

¶30

DEY. END. ER KUMAR

¶31

..... Appellant 'l'h rougn: 1 . ·l\I,f l.:- ... [) \ .. <;: U'. T I 0111ar, 1'1 IV r. V' lrencra i ~ c)1l1g.1 . I

¶32

IAflpp.lliO 1195//008 & connected /\ppeals of Villge Bharthal IJU\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Vii!agc Bi.iwasan L/./\pp No. 111/2.010 & connected ;\ppcals of Village Pocbanpu

¶33

P<lge 3 of 29

¶34

Advocates Mr.S.K.So1a11ki and Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K. Routray, Advocates for appellant (in R~2:-14, 38,41-46,49,50-69,73,75,76)

c.... I

~-I

versus

.UOI&ANR	Through:	Mr.Sa Mr.Sa Jadha' forll Mr.S. JVJr.B filed Mr.V & 72 Mr.R Sharm forD	. . .... Re njayPoddar,Senior niav Kumar Pathak, i',andMS.Navlin Sw OI/LAC K.SolankiandMr.S. .K.Routray,Advocat bylIOl. ircndraSingh,Advoc in appeal filed byU ankeyBiharSharma, aandMr.SomerK..S DA.	spondents Advocatewith Mr.Mohitrao ain,Advocates K.Routand esinappeals ateinR-68,·7] Ol IVIr.Kunal eth,Advocates
	LA.APP.	1J/2010	LA-APP.49/2010	LAAPP.51/2010
I_A.APP.52/2010	LA.APP.	53/2010	LA.APP.54/2010	LA-APP.55¹2010
LA.APP.5612010	LA.APP.	57/2010	LA.APP.59/2010	LAAPP.70/2010
L.A.APP.100/2010 .	LA.APP.	_221/20J_0	LA-APP.223/2010	LA-APP.226/2010
LA.APP.242/2010	LAAPP.	246/:2010	LA.APP.277/2010	LA.APP.28112010
LA.APP.282/2010	LAAPP.	283/2010	LA.APP.284/2010	LA.APP. 28512010
LA.APP.287/2010	LAAPP.	288/2010	LA:'\PP.289/2010	LAAPP.294/2010'
LA.APP.295/2010	LAAPP.	296/201()	LA.APP. 313/2010	LA-APP.345/2010
L_A.APP.346/2010	LA.APP.	347/2010	LAAPP.348/2010	LAAPP.34912010
I./.APP.350/2010	LAAPP.	35J/20 1 0	LAAPP.352/2010	LA.APP._353/20_I 0
LA.APP.354/2010	LA.APP.	_356/20_j0	L'.APP.357/2010	LAAPP._3Sg/201_0
LA.APP.365/2010	LAAPP.	742/2010	LA.APP. 760/2010	LAA.PP.359/2,010
LA.APP.360/2010	LAAPP.	361/20JO	L:'.APP.362/201O	LAA.PP.363/2010
LA.APP.405/2010	LA.APP	.406/2010	·LA.APP. 407/2.010	LAAPP. 408/20J 0
LA.APP.409/2010	LA.APP.	438/2.01O	LA:APP.588/2010	LA..APP.72:::/2010
LAAPP.723/2010	LAAPP.	724/2.010	U·.APP.725/2010	LA..APP.726/20]O
LA-APP.727/2010	LA.APP.	729/2010	LA.APP.73112010	LA.APP. Tl2/201 0
LA-APP.750/201O	LAAPP.	759/201O	LA.APP.764/2010	LAAPP.828/2010
LA.AP?964/2010	LAAPP.	286/201O	LA..APP.364/2010
LA-APP.77/2010	LAAPP.	80/2010	LA.APr.99/2010	&
LAAPP.75/2010&	C.M.No.9	64/2011(C	ross-objections)

¶40

(Relating to Notification No. F.IO(30)96-L&B/LAI13417 dated 13.12 . 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, ] 894 & Award No. 28/2002-2003, Village Bijwasan, Delhi)

¶41

AND

¶42

IJ.l\pp. No 119S/2008 & connected ,ppeals of Village 8harth,,1 t/./\pP. No. 2'Ji/.Ol0 & conn(:cterjf\ppea!s· of Village. Bijwasilll '.I.l\pjJ. No. 111/:<01.0 & connec(('d (,ppeals of Village 1,·()cha~iJur

PiJge 4 of 29

i' !

(GRID-C)

.'. ,_ 1 • · () / ()

Reserved on: December 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, :?J) 12

¶48

]JA.APP. 11112010 (VILLAGE POCHANPUR)

¶49

SEHAJRAMAND versus	ORS. Through:	lVIr.B. l\1r.S. R-16, to49, Mr.S.B LA.Ap Mr.Ra inR-2	..... D. Sharma, K.Rout,Ad 20,23to2 59,63to7 . Kumar, p.No.61,6 jesh Yadav 2)	Appellants l\1r.S.K.So vocatesfor 6, 29,30,3 1) Advocatef 4,65/201 ,Advocate	'lanki and appellant 3,36to4 or appella 1) for appel	(in 0,44 ntin lant
UNIONOFINDIA	&ANR Through:	Mr.Sa MrSa Jadhav forUO .Mr.Ba Sharm forDD	njay Podda njayKuma ,and 1\1s. ULAC nkcy Bihar aandMr.S i.	..... Res r, SeniorA rPathak, M NavlinSwa i Sharma, omerK.Se	pondents dvocatew r.l'v1ohitr in..Advoc l'v1r.Kunal th,A..dvoc	ith ao ates ates
LAAPP.111/2010	LA.APP.	_154/20_10	LA.APP.	155/2010	LAAPP.	156/2010
LA.APP.160/2010	LA.APP.	165/2010	LA.APP.	209/2010	LA.APP.	21512010
LA.APP.228/201.o	LAAPP.	248/2010	LAAPP.	249/2010	LA.APP.	~~501201 0
LA.APP. 254/2010	LAAPP.	_260/20_10	LA.APP.	26112010	LAAPP.	270/2010
LAAPP.292/2010	LAAPP.2	93/201O	LA.APP.	305/2010	LAAPP.	306/2010
LA/\PP._307/20]_0	LAAPP.	317/2010	LA.APP.	392/2010	LA.APP.	393/2010
LA.APP.395/2010	LAAPP.3	96/201O	LA.APP.	397/2010	LAAPP.	412/2010
LI\APP.420/2010	LAAPP.4	3212010	LA.APP.	433/2010	LAAPP.	434/2010
LA.APP.466/2010	LA-APP.	_489/2U_1 0	LA.APP.	57⁷/2010	LAAPP.	635 ⁱ2010
LA.APP.637/2010·	LAAPP.6	39/201O	f_A'!\PP.	640/2010	LA.APP.	657/2010
LA.APP.660/2010	LA.APP.	662!20 1 0	LAAPP.	741/2010 .	LAAPP.	758/2010
LA.APP.767/2010	LA.APP.	768/2010	L!.APP.	784/2010	I.A.APP.	918/:2010
LAAPP.91912010	LA.APP.	10.2/201()	LA.APP.	6112011	LA.APP.	64i2011
LA.APP.65/2011	LA.APP.	116/2011	LAAPP.	117/2011	LA.APP.	119/2011
L/./\PP.120/2011	LAAPP.	_121/201_J	LA.APP.	129/2011	LA.APP.	429/2011
L/.APP.476/2011	LAAPP.	485/2011	LAAPP.	52112011	LA.APP.	522/2011
Ll.APP._523/20_11	LAAPP.	525/20JI	LA.APP.	_526/201_I	LA.APP.	_53_5/2UI1
LA.APP.53612011	LA.APP.	554/2011	LA.APF.	591/2011

¶50

I.A./\pp. No. J.J.9S/?008 & connected Appeols of ViI/age J3harthal L/'/\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of ViJiage J3ijwasan

¶51

I./.I\pp No 111/2010 & connected /.ppeals of Village PochanpL'r

¶52

PJge 5 of 29

¶53

J7>

¶54

(Relating to Notification No. F.l O(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated .13" 12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003 dated 09.12.2002, Village Pochanpur, Delhi)

¶55

CORAM:

¶56

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶57

ORDER 06.01.2012

¶58

Since the grounds on which enhancement of the compensation is sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals arc identical, therefore v.:ith the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the hearing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to Notification No.l<.10(30)96-L& BIlA/13417 dated 13.12.2000, relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, BUwasan and Pochanpur are being disposed of by this common order.

¶59

Acquisition process for planned development of 'Dvvarka Phasefl' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Not{fication of Fl' Decelnber, 2000 under Section 4 of Ihe Land Acquisition Act~ 1894, pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprising of thirteen Revenue Estates induding villages in questi()l1, i.e., Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur.

¶60

Agricultural Jand of the appellants hcr:ein m the afl1rcsaid three villages stood acquired by the RcsIJol1dcnts vide three separate Awards, i.e., Award No.26/2002-2003; Award No.28/2002-2003;and Award No.30/2002-2003 granting compensation @. 13 .82 lacs per acre for Block' A' (level field ---. with top soil) and @ <'12.32 lacs per acrc:. for Block 'B' (\vithout top soil).

¶61

Dissatisfied with the assessment of market value of their ~lcqlJired

¶62

IAApp. No. 119S/2008 & connected 'Appeals of Village Bharthal. lJu\pp. No. 29<1/:'010 81 connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan IAApp. No. llc./2010 g, cor.ner.t"d Appeals of Village Poch~npllr

¶63

Page 6 ()( 29

¶64

1 I

¶65

agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of . the Land Acquisition Act, J 894 and the Reference COUli vide impugned judgment. had enhanced compensation @ ~15.00 lacs per acre fror the , appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ~13.36 laos per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed.

¶66

In these appeals, further cnharicement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bhmihal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape or decisions in Executive Engineer, f(arnatakaHousing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officery Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 sec 246; An;ani 1110lu Dessai vs. State of Goa and AnT'.? (2010) 13 sec 710; Subh Rarl1 andOrs vs. State ofHm:vana and Alnr. y (2.010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. 5Jpecial Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors" (2010) 3 sec 661; Ranvir Singh and AnI', vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Faliira Pati! (D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalglwn, 2011(2) SCALE 321; fai Lal ),'S. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) thfough LRs vs. Union ofbulia & .jnr'9 2002 (65) DIU 1 (DB); Udho Dass 'S. State of11aryafuu & Ors. 9 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas 1'8. St.cde of Punjab & Ors. y 2011 (9) SCALE 362; Avinash Dhavlji N{ljli. .'~~ . . S'tate of Mahiara.§'htra, (2009) 11 sec 171; Atma Singh (Dead) tfIl1rough LRs and Ors liS. State ql //aryana & AnI', (2008) 2 sec 568; vV.P,(C) No. 4143/200] titled .as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sllbha& Ors} decided on 26.Cl3 .20 1 0; Special Land Acquisition Of/icer & AnI" vs. M.l(. Rafiq Saheb, (201]) 7 sec 714; Thakarsibhai De:iibhai and on vs. Executive Engineer,

¶67

lA.l\pp. No, :I1"J '/008 & connectf>d Appeals of VillaB Sh"rtha: :.AApp. ~J(). :C'JrI/?OlO &. connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan , /.App. ~o 1J 1/1..010 & conn(~cted Appeals of Viilage POCtld"pUr

Page 7 of 29

I"· I', '

: ' ,

Gl~;llrat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 11 sec 175; Risal Singh & Drs. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (89) DR] 527 (DB); Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 sec 769; General l~lanagerJ' Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd V,5. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 see 745; Valliyamma! and Anr vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr .. AIR 2011 SC 2937;J'(iran Tandon vs .. Allahabad Development Authoritv, (2004) 10 sec 745; Nlahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of filaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (M{~ior General) & Drs. Vs. Union of lndia & An¥'9 176(2011) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 428.:1./2007 titled as Sural Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anf'., decided on 24.04.2008; OnE Prakash (dead) by LRs and Drs vs. Union o.lIndia, (2004) 10 sec 627; Satpal & Drs vs. Union of India, (1997) ] 1 sec 42.3; I"A. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushi! Kumar vs. Union of .India, decided on 26.09.2011; LA. APP. No.59!2007 titled as Bed Rain vs. Union (,~l india, decided on 07.06.2011; and lBhule Ram vs. Union ,afIndia, 2010 (170)DLT37I.

¶73

On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, itt was urged by l\1r.B.S.Maan: learned' arguing counsel for the appellants that the location and situation of the acquired agricultural land has to be first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudged keeping in view the development i~ the area ovcr a period of time and the same cannot be limited to ihe near future alone.

¶74

7, [t was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar, counsel for appellants that Dclhi-Rcwari-Jodhpur broadgagc rai.hvaY line of Village 13iijwasan' passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, , i.e., onthe eastern side ofthc railway line is the tGI Airport, New Delhi

¶75

i-l\J\Pp, No. E'lS/20GB & connected /\ppeals of Village Bhanh<Ji I/I./\pp, No, 29~/2010 & connected I\ppeals of Village Bijwasan i A/\pp. I~o. llV20lG & connpcted /\ppeals of ViIiT" Pochanpu'

¶76

Page 8 ;)f Z9

¶77

¶78

and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide st8.liing from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka SubCity P8.li-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) Squth Eastern side, where developed Fann Houses are located on the .land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalkha. It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solanki learned counsel for the appellants that northeln p8.li of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of lGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishing Indian Oil Depots and thereafter in the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleum and the lands of Village Bharthal and Village Pochanpur were aJso acquired in the year 1984 for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the -lands on the western side of Villages ~ .. Bamnoli and Dhoo1 Siras were: also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attention was drawn to the aks sizras/map to highlight that the boundary of Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras arc contiguous.

¶79

It was strenuously urged by Mr.B.S.Maan, learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land in the light of its location and has i Ucgally treated the acquired· land 10 be agricultural in spite of Notification of 16^th October, ·2000 VIde which land use of the three: vil!ages iIi. question was changed . hom agricultural' to residential!' commercial/industrial, etc. and infact the entire land of Village Bharthal had ceased to be rural in vievv' of the Notincation of 24(i1 October, 1994. 9. It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout J learned counsc~l for the appellants that the aforesaid TWO Notifications have been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama

¶80

. lAl\pp. No. 1:,95/2008 & connected Al3pcals of Village I3harthal

¶81

!./\ I\pP .. No. 29tljl.OlO & connected 1~:peaI5 of VHlage l3ijwasan L,.l\pp. f() . .1.11/201.0 & connected I\ppeals of VillagePochanpur

¶82

Page 9 of Zg

¶83

---.--~~~--.-." - -.-------" .. -.' --'-----"-,-- .----~ ... - ... -----.---~- .. ------- ---. __ .. - --.----

¶84

¶85

Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Drs, (1995) 2 sec 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision'in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana & Drs .. , 20] 0(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquir~d land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same dmnot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶86

Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants,upon the seven Sale Deeds of Vinage Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein 'aried from ~52 lacs to ~62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is 110 basis to conclude that these sale exemplars arc overvalued b.:xausc of any special advantages and 'as pcr settled lcgal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in A!~j'cvni jq,{o/u Dessai vs. State of (i'O{l llnd Anr., (2010) 13 sec 710, the average ofsale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to ~57 lacs per acre and since the sale cxemplars relied upon by the appeHants are the c'omparable' sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the: Reference Ccmrt upon the minimum rates/circle rates for detennining the market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

¶87

Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by l\lr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the apl)ella~ts on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre, , determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001. Keeping in v lew the location, situation and potentiality of the acquired land, detcnnination of its mark,ct value: is

¶88

IAApp, No. 1195/2008 & col1n(cted I\ppea!s of Village Bharthal LA.App, No. 7.94/701.0 & connected Appeal 01 Village Bijwasan IAApp 1\10. j'lJ!2Cl10 & connncted Appeals of Village Pochanpur

¶89

Page 10 or 29

¶90

sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and Village Samalkha or alternatively on the basis of the L& DO rates of the developed lands in Dwarka Phase.., lor Oy. the basis of the PreDetermined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶91

J 2. In the written synopsis, appellant -' Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:-

¶92

a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the A'ward No.26/2002-2003 dated 23. J U2002 . being flawed 111 the course of the proceedings Civil TVrit petition No. 190 12 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examination of appellam dated 7. 7.2007)

¶93

b) Does not account for the fo:cl that the Public Notice dated 18. 9.1987 adversely aflected the rates of land in the area .lor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land lJcquisition Act, 1894 was issued.

¶94

c) Valuing the land on the hasis of the letter dated 11.9.2001 issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid dovm by various decisions including in one (f the more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In Sangunthala versus nTh'ildar, 2010(3) sec 661.

¶95

d) Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per established law has to be cOl1siciered bf.lore ascertaining the value of the land undel'acquisition.

¶96

e) Does not deal with disparity in 1/olue of the Sale Deeds pi-oduced before the trial Court whereas as .per the law established by the Hon'ble .Supreme Court in the recent case l Chinda Fakira Pati! versus· Special r-a.71d. A cquis ition Officer, Civil ,,1peu! No.5 475 of 2007. lI'1e lIon'ble. Supreme Court hasspec?/ically held that Sale Deed showing higher rat shovld no! be disregarded in

¶97

II./\pp. No. J 19';/2008 & cOl1necl:ed /\ppeals of Village 8harthal U,/\pp. No. ':;'<)4/2.010 & connl'ct~d Appeals of Village 8ijwasan lAt,pp. No. llli;1010 & connected /\ppeals of Village Pochanollr

¶98

Page 11 of 29

¶99

¶100

case the average sale price is lower. l-{uither in Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) see 710~ the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sales transactions should be considered while adjudicating upon compensation upon a certan land.

¶101

f) Relied upon judgment ·dated 3.3.2008 in LA C NO.97A12006 to decide the m.arket value of the suject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is much higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ~ 13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the lavv laid down by the lIon 'hIe Supreme Court including in Subh Ranl VS'. State of I-Iaryana 2010(1) sec 444. As a consequence, th impugned judgment

¶102

. refi{sed to return an actuaL finding on the issue No.1 jl"amed on 27.2.2007.

¶103

g) Evaluated the land as agricultural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban houndaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Not{lkaticins qf Government fcw land use change shO'rv that in fitture land can be sujected to residential, cOlnmercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant lead evidence in respect c:lthe 74th arnendment qf the Constitution clindta.w.ej." .1.6.1993 IX /I, by virtue of which the Alunicipal COrporation Act was amended and the area 'Vvhere the land is situated, vvc;rs deemed a municipal area and the municipal Counsellor was elected .fiom there. No Panchayat elections were held in the area.

¶104

h) Refu_sed to apply the lmv laid dOH)J1 ill AIR S'upreme Court 347, RanvirSingh and' Anr vs. Union of India and rfilsed to consider the fact thaI the development in the area has a direct effect :Jtl the price thai a willi17g purchaser wouldpay/ol" the subjeCT ./cu-zd.

¶105

¶106

i) Ignored the jact th~:lt Resl70ndenl . NO'. 2 had also

¶107

I.i./\pp. No. 119~f2'J()H & connected AppE'als of Village Bharthal I.II.App. N.D. 2!:J4!7.010 & connected Appeals of Village Bi!wasan L/.!,pp. No. 111/2010 & connectf!d Appeals of Village Pochanpur

Page 12 (If 29

~. i

~ I

auctioned similarly situated lqrzd as commercial blocks at the rate of about ~2. 6 ldkh and concluded that the said land is wholly underdeveloped land.

¶112

j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determined auction rates set by Respondent No. 2 for similarly situated land.

¶113

k) Does nor take into account the possibility of change ()f the use bf the land although the land was acquired for development purposes of Dlvarka Phase II. It is reiterated that the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and CGlne novv under the urban boundaries of Delhi State.

¶114

l) Ignored Notifications dated J 6.1 0.2000 and 24.10.1994 although they clearZv establish the commercial potentiality of the said land. In Sangunthala v. Tahs Udar (LA), (2010) 3 sec 661 it was heLd that the purpose fbr which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentialiO/ to be used

¶115

for building purposes in iml11ediate or ·in near jilture needs to be considered.

¶116

111) The presence of a number q/ buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The land') were acquired for purpose qf putting up residential quarters. As aportion of the land is l~eing considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better u.se as house sites in the nearfitture. "

¶117

In the brief synopsis by \fed Pal and others of LA. App. No. 347/2009, the factual details have bel~n pro"vided with a prayer that the appellants of this appeal be treated at par with the co-appellants of the other appeals in these bunch of appeals.

¶118

Supplementing the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, it was urged by Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate that the effect of

¶119

~A(\Pp. r.lo . .1195/2.008 & connc'cted Appeals of Village Bharthal ll./\pp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwas"n" iAtlpp. No. 111/2010 & connected Il.ppeals cif Villagp. Pochanpur

, c __ , __ ,

Page 13 of 29

urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in Jand use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar l'S. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 223P/;1({lpilMehra (M{~ior General) & Drs. Vs. Union of India & AnI', 176(2011) DLT 361 and that PreDetermined Rates, Reserved Auction Ratesl of the arca arc relevant to determine the market value of the acquire a. lands and intact the sale instances relied upon by the appellant.s are comparable and ought to have bcen relied upon by the Reference COUl1 to assess the correct market valuc of thc acquired lands. Thw:\cnhancement of compcnsation reflecting just, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶124

Arguing the cross-objections filed by the Respondents, l\1r. Sarjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel urged that though as per Section 51···A of iAJnd Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissiblc cvidence but the same cannot be taken as relevant evidence for determination of the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the .land in question and clement of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors narnely, nature, situation of the property, proximity to the village elC. arc also required to be considered and the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents disclosing correct market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the Reference Court and while placing reliance upon the decisions in Jrlli La! }'. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Drs vs. Union If India, (1997) 11 sec 423; Lal Chand liS. Union of India and .. 4m~., (2009) .15 sec 769; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushill{umar VS', Union of In dia, decided on 26.09.20111 it was urged that sharp increase J in price in a short period CaJ1Dot be taken to be realistic until reasons for m..ich sharp increase are explained by producing in (~vidence the seller

¶125

LA./\pp No. lElS/2.00R & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal

¶126

LA.App. No. 7.9^/ 1/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan

¶127

l./.App. No.1 11/;>'010 & c()nnect,~d Appeals of Village Pochanpur

¶128

i'age' 14 of 29

¶129

---~

¶130

-~- -----^{----------------------}

¶131

;" ,. ~I.,,""'· - ~':... __ - __

¶132

----'...-------_.--------- ---~.

¶133

¶134

': :', i .

¶135

and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as ret1ected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but~ for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/PreDetermined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decis:ion of Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra) which has been followed by a , , coordinate Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶136

] 6. So far as potentiality of 1.he land is concerned, it vv-as urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/crossobjectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minImum indicative price of the agric.ultural land by the Government as on 1 sl /\pril, 2000 and by granting appreciation thereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference COUli:1 as in SU'5hil Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, i.t is submitted that there is no scope for further enhancement from the price of acquired . lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified I..ideting the enhancement by the I{eferenee COUl1: while taking into l'onsiclration the appreciation (??! 12% per annum and the same deserves Lobe bi"ought in line while grantine appreciation @y 10% per annum and thereby allo\ving the cross-· objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶137

. 0-ftei~ ,considering the rival subm issions advanced by both the sides and UP011 close perusal of the impugned judgment, the evideJ1cc on record and the decisions cited, ",hat emerges is that the true market va.lue of the comparable land is the price iJaid by willing purchaser to a willing

¶138

I./Ulpp. No. 119"./1.008 & connected Appeals of Village I3harth'JI !.!I.llpp. No. 29~/201O & connected !\ppeals of Village l3ijwasan

¶139

1J.IIPr:,,'rJo. Ul/2CIO& connecH'dAppeals of lIiliage Pochar,pur

¶140

Page 15 d 2.9

¶141

seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. '~(hile dealing with the question of potential value of the acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex COUli in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana .& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these wotds:-

¶142

"(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village 1,vhich had been growing in size beca'use of its commercial! industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population,-

¶143

(if) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the bz.lildings, be they residential, conzmercial or industrial, as the case may be,-

¶144

(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply fiJI" occupants ~f buildings to be put up on that land,'

¶145

(iv) absence of statutory impediments'or the like for using the acquired/andfor building purpose,·

¶146

(v) existence ~f highways, puNic roads, laJ'outs of building plots or develc.'ped residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity qfthe acquired land,'

¶147

(vi) benefits or advantages a/educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrouryding areas ~f the acqUired land which lnay become available to the occupiers oj' buildings, if built on the acquired land: and

¶148

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itse?! being in dei1'land }~jJ" building purposes, to spec ffy a fevv. "

¶149

The potentiality of land for the PUI1')OSC (.If development as also for building purposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have 1.0 bear in mind the purpose for

¶150

1/I.App. No. 1195/7.008 & connected Appeals of V:llageBh<Jrthal L/',/\pp. No 2.94/2010 & connec(~d Appe<lls of Village Bijwas3n L,.lIpp. No. 1.11/2010 & connected Appeals ofVillap,e Pochanpur

¶151

Pap,e 16 of 2.9

¶152

]I)

¶153

which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash (supra). While reiterating the relevant factors for determination of compensation for acquired lands, it has been held by the Apex Court in Alma Singh (supra) that the. exemplars of small pieces of land relied upon by the appellants could not be a ground to' discard them especially when exemplars of large pieces of land were not available.

¶154

Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.lL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 sec 714. The legal proposition which emerges from the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialilY of the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensation on the ground of distance between similarly situated lands and the acquired land.

¶155

It is a well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the State who has acquired the' agricultural land for a particular purpose. But, lit is equally trU(~ that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition, the decision of the !\ pex Coun in lOran Tandon (Supra) can be referred to \vith advantage, 21. Apex Court in Valliyammal (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals, et.c., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was jnl-proper. 'The pertinent observations made by the Apex COUIi in AI1:iani ~Wolu Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:-

¶156

!i.i\pp. No. J lS5/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharth31 1/I.App, l~o. 294/20JO & conn('cted I\PPE!ais of Vil!age Bijwasan tiUlpp. No. 111/J.OIO & connect'ed Il.ppr.ais of Village> ~ochanpur

P<lge 17 of 2.9

----I I

"" I

cC I

"The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to s il11.ilar lands, usually the highest of the exeinplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered Where however there are several sales ofsimilar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of tvvo sales are markedly d(fferent, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of under-valuation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently averaging cannot be resorted to. "

¶164

It would be worthwhile to take note of the clinching observations pertaining to determination of fair market rate of acquired lands made by the Apex Court in Chindlw Frddra Patil (Supra), which are as follows:-

¶165

"It is well settled that· genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place benveen a:willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, .as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market c:onditions are the recti basis to determine the market value. "

¶166

Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as

¶167

reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC)- (Supra), are as under:-

¶168

''Prim.arily, the increase in Land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for lavzd in the area. In rural areas unless there is any pro·spect of developm.ent in the. vicini(v, increase in price·s· wo:uld be slow, steady and gradual, without any.sudden spurts orjumps.

¶169

I/.t,pp. No. J E15/2008 & connected /\ppp.als of Viilage BharUIJI

¶170

,-,,./\pp r,o. 294/2010 & connected .',ppeals of Village Bijwasan

¶171

l./.f,pp. No. 1) 1/20lC) 8, connected Appeals of Village Pochanpu,

¶172

Page 18 of 29

¶173

-----.-.-- ----'---.-------.. -----.. -.- .. ---------- -------- ----- "._.-----... ---,-----'T-i'---

¶174

On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and 'where thr:!re is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price .is .. at a much higher rate, as compared to .rural areas. Tn some pockets in big cities, due to c rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. T71ere is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of' 01 lands in urban/sel1'zi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase m market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to ],5% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it; that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. 7Y1is rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties. to be adopted in the absence. of clear (:md specific evidence relating to increase in prices. fVhere there are special reasons for app~ving a higher rate of increase. or any specific evidence reiatii'!g to the actual increase in price,)', then the increase to be applied would depend upon the saine.

¶175

Normally, recourse is taken to the {node of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value 0./ nearby la.nds in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisifion), where there is no evidence of an}' contemporW1eous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. Ihe said method is reasonably sale where the rehed-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject aC(J74sition by only a few years, that is .upto ./(]UT to five years. Beyond that it rnay be unsafe, even (/ it relatfs to a l1eighl"H?uring land. What Inay be a reliabiesfandard if the g-ap i,\ ,onZF a feH.l years, may become ltnsafe and unreliable standard }vhere the gap is larger. p'or example. for determining the market value of a land ac'quireel in 1992, adoptihg the annual increase method l'l~ith ,v·f:/f.?rence to a sale or

¶176

1..' . .Ilpp. "0. 1.1'.l!;r?OOP' 8.. c0rlnected Appeals of Village Bh,lrtha! !Al\po. No 2,)11/7..010 & connr.ctr.d Appeals of Village l3i.iwclsan !AflfJP r,o. lllj:!.OlO& connected App,~ai5 of Village F·ochanp'.:r

P~ge Jl9 of 2.9

~ I

~ I

I I '

acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart .fi~om the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecti71g the very standard of increase."

¶182

This COUliis mindful of the dictum of the Apex Court in I-Iaryana State Industrial Development Corporation (lIS/DC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for, the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods; What was said by the Apex COUli in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:-.

¶183

"When d(fferent categories of lands (or lands with different s ilUational advantages) areocquiredfor the same purpose, sal' fr)r forming of a residential layout. courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value 'with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notification."

¶184

Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars 111 and around acquired Jand of Village BharthaL Village Bijwasan ()f the period in question are not available and the solitary salt? exemplar strongly relied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seyen Sale Deeds vide which religious institution, i.e., Radha S-vI'ami Satsang, Beas had purchased the agricultural land inViJ1age P'ochanpur at a pric,~ which varied from ~52 lacs to 62 lacs pr acre.

¶185

Whether aforesaid Sale Deeds (Ex.P\V-1I4 to Ex.P\V-1I1 0) ;>,rhich arc basically between one set of CO"(Jwners and Radha Swami Satsang; Beas in respect of the compact bloek of land measuring 18 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated in Village Pochanpur reflect the coneet market value of the land in the villages in question is the moot question \vhich is reqUired to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e" Sale Deeds

¶186

IA/\pp. No, 1.195/2008 & conlll,cted ll.ppeals of Village 8harthal L!\J\pp, No. 294i2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan

¶187

L!.!\pp. No. U 1/2010 & connQctcd /\ppeiJls of Village'Pocha!lpur

¶188

Page 20 of 29

¶189

-.---.--.-.-----.-----.-'---'--.--.~'----.-'---- '--'----'-'--

¶190

(Ex.PW-l/4 to Ex.PW-1I10) indicate that its price varies from ~52 lacs to 62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, ·the entire land of the sale exemplars -- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1I4 to E.PW-lI1O) did not command the same market price. It was dependent pon the nature and situation of the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land in question, is lacking. Therefore, these sale exemplars cannot be treated as disclosing representative price for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1I4 to Ex.PW-IIlO) has not been brought out as the purchaserlvendqe of these agricultural land has not been got examined by the appellants. Had the purchaserlvendee of the aforesaid sale exemplars been golexamined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he hd agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Svvami Sa tsang, Beas who had purchased 'more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurput vide Sale Deed executed on 25^th lVlarch, 2000 was also subject matter in LA. App. No. 266/2008 titled as Jai Singh vs. l1nion of India, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 19.9.2011 and in the aforesaid decisions, the sale exemplar of Village Mamurpur was discarded while holding that the same cannot be treated as representative price for the acquired lands.

¶191

27. In the instant matters, though the land use of the acquired lands was changed much prior to their acquisition, but it has come. in evidence that the acquired lands were bing lysed for agricultural purpose tiLl their. acquisition. Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands We:l(~ nDt developed lands. No prudent person having knowledge of prevailing

¶192

LA,App. No. 1195/2008 & connected {'ppeals of Village Bharthal ' " LA-App, No, 294/2010 & r.onnected Appeals o(Viliage Bijwasan

¶193

lAApp, No. ill/20lO & connected Appeals of Village Pochanpur

¶194

Page n of 29

¶195

¶196

market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special c:Jnsideration and so, in the considereq opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (Ex.P\V-1I4 to Ex.PW-lll 0) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶197

So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-llll) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of .1,76,5S,172.41 per acre relating to Sale Deed of2ih January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW -] Ill) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1I11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, :fitting, tlxture, lane, by-lane etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in queslion.

¶198

')9 Left with no sale exemplars disclosing realistic price of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre~Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in question.

¶199

Parameters governing fixation of market value of acquired lands highlighted by Apex Court in iTS decision reported as Po Ram Redd.v and Ors. v. La.nd Acquisitio,n Officer f(vderabad Urban Developl'nent Authori~)i H)Jderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) sec 305 are as undcr:-

¶200

"/2. Uowever, in either (?l the said cases whether it be the determination a/the Inarket value (~lthe acquired land with building potentiality vvith re/erence to the price fetched by sale (~lplots in a welL deve/oped layout in the lzeighborhood

¶201

I /./\pp. No. :ll')~i!2008 & conner.tc,d.l\ppeals of Village Bharthal lJ.App. No. 29^1l j;W1.0 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan ' lA.t,pp, No. 111/2010 8, connected Appeals of Village Por.hanpur

¶202

Page 22 r;f 29

¶203

¶204

or whether it be the determination of the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with r(;:ference to the price fetched by sale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighborhood, it becOlnes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched 'or to be fetched by the sales of plots in the layouts, relied upon by any of the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetched tfsold on the date of the publication of the preliminary nc:ttfication under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence of price fetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of building plots in the neighborhood of t~,e acquired lands becomes available, then vvhat could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date of publication under Section 4(1) q/the LA Act, according to the actual use to which it 11/(1S put and increase its vahle by a small percentage having' regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis ~f evidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed 115th of the market value of the land found out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no evidence of sales of building plots in the neighborhood of the acquired land indicating that there was no ilmnediate demand, as such, for building plots even if/armed in the acquired land"

¶205

3 1. In view of the difficulties in adoption of rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiring the agricultural lands, developing the same, and transferring perpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lal Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/Pre-Determined Rates in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lal Chand (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this .Court in Jui Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessing the market value of

¶206

I ,~.lIpp. No.,119!i/2008 & connected IIppeaLI of Village Bharthal i./_lIpp. NO. 29'1/20JO & connected /\ppeals of Village Bijwasan IA/IPP_ No. 111/2010 & connf'cted IIppeals of Village Pochanpur

¶207

Page Z3 of 29

¶208

-,- ---. ,-- ------.---.'-----,.----------_.

¶209

~) '

¶210

I r ,

¶211

thc undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Refcrence Court has rightly not adopted the DDA rates for allotment of developed land or the DDA's Pre-Determined Rates for 'alternate allotments for fixing the market value of the acquired agricultural lands in question.

¶212

'Now what is required to be seen is whether progressive increase mcthod would be relevant criteria for assessing the market value of the land in question while taking into consideration the earlier acquisition of the year 1984 in Village Bharthal and other villages for development of Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector that even if the escalatioi1 at the compounded rate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 tilt the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-II, still the price fixed by the I Jand Acquisition Co~lector is more than the aforesaid escalated price and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Refcrence Court is unjustified.

¶213

Aforesaid argument does not nold good in view of the dictum of thc Apex Court in Lal Chand (Supra), cautioning the Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land' only when the gap is or 4-5 yc~ars and beyond that it rnay bc unsafc, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard, if the gap is of only of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap betwecn the two Notifications, i.e., of Dwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-II is of sixteen years and therefore, it would be unsafc to adopt thc mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate

¶214

IAllpp, Nc;, .119:;/2008 & connected /\ppeals of Village Bharthal i.1I,lIpp, No, 2.94/2.010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan 1./I.lIpp, No, 1ll/2CllO & connf'ct,~d Appeals of Village Pochanplir

Page 2'1 of 29

Lc I

,. I

escalation over the market value of the nearby land of the previous years.

¶220

Ml'.Sanjay Poddar, learned semor counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference COUli has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwananted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushi! Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @} 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushi! ](umar (Supra), I firid that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acqvired land over and above the market value .. determined by the Reference Court has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushi! Kumar (Supra) escalation granted by the Reference Court @), 12% per annum cannot be reduced to 1 O~,'O per annum. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections of {he respondent are dismissed.

¶221

"Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimum price of the agricultural Jand in Delhi, by the Reference COUli is reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land and as to whether the escalation of 12% per annum granted by the Reference Court from the date of :fixation of the minimum price for the . agricultural land by the Government \v.e.f. 1^st April, 2000 tlll the date of Notj:fication in the instant appeals deserve~ to be further increased or not.

¶222

Adoption of Government's 1TIll11mUm rates of agriculluraI land pertainihg to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellants because the acquired land had ceased to be an agricultural land by viline of Notification of 241h October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question 10 be urban. It is true that vide afore~aid Notification of the year 1994 The land LIse of the acquired land had changed btil that by itself is not sufficil.:~nt to

¶223

11I.lIpp. No. ] 195/2008 & conn('ctl!d Appeals of Village Bharth,lI i.1I/\pp. No. L')t!/2010 &. conncctp.d {,ppeals of Village 8ijwasan

¶224

.I;II:IIPP. No. J lli;W.1.'J & cor.n<~ct[~d IIppeals of Village Pochanpur Page 25 of 29

¶225

~ I

¶226

presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being considered as developed lands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any development in and around the acquired lands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha S'wami Satsang, Beas heavily relied upon b):' the appellants disclose that the sale of the said lands was for agricultural purpose.

¶227

Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notification ung.er Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculmral use. Had there been increase in price due to higher dem.and: on account of potentiality of the acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellants could have laid their hands on othel~ sale instances in the area . in question. But, indeed appellants cannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpur to a religious institution and anotber sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-I111) without leading any evidence to establish that the quality and potentiality of the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of , . Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-Illl) are comparable with the acquired lands and so the contiguity of the acquired hind with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-ll1 J)cannot be treated to be suf11cienl ground to grant higher compensation '},!hiJc relying upon the aforesaid sale instances. Therefore, in viev! of the afore-referred dictum of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development C'orpof'ation. (1ISID'C) (Supra), uniform rate of cornpcnsatioil deserves to be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notification in the light of tbe minimum price fixed by the Government for the agricultural land in DeIhi, which generally factors in the rise of price due to higher potentiality. Taking note of the fact that there is a gap between what

¶228

\ i,/,\pp, No, 1195/2008 & connected I\ppeals of Village Bh;Jrthal lfu\pp. No. 2~4/~010 & conneC(d Appeal: of Village Bijwasan l.J.l\pp, No. 11.1/20.10 & connC':ct!,d I\ppeais of Village Pochanpur

<J)

'~::C

would be expected to be the market growth and what the market had actually grown, Government's minimum agricultural price has been he.ld to be reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired lands in Jai Singh (Supra) as well as in Sushi! Kumar (Supra) and I find no reason to take a different view than the one which had been taken by coordinate Bench of this COUli in the aforesaid cases of Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushi! Kumar (Supra).

¶233

This Court is of the considered view that the Reference COUli in the matters pertaining to Village Bhaithal and Village Bijwasan has rightly relied upon the Government's minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi to fix the market value of the acquired lands in question. Finding of the Reference COUli in matter of Village BhaIihal and Village Bij wasan, of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out ii-om the evidence on record. But I find that the aspect of higher potentiality of the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI AirpOJi" Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway Erie passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 mekrs vide road starUng fromNH-8 Cram Sbiv MUlii side -to Dwarka Sub-City, Part 1 and Part II, dividing the acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity of the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the Reference COUl-t.· In the considered opinion of this Court, on account of afol-csaid l,ocational advanta'ges, the acquired lands in question, celiainly assume highcr building potentiality being In vicinity of DVlarka Phasc':L What persuades this Court to grant 10%, increase ovel~ and above market value of the acquired lands· as assesscd by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentiality in the acquiJ;ed lands is the

¶234

if, /\pp. No. 1195/2008 8< connected Appeals of Village ilh"rthiJl ·IJUlpp. No. 294/2010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasan iI./qJP· Nil: 111/2010 & connected IIppe,Jis of Village Pochanpur

¶235

Page Zi' of 29

¶236

.---- --- .' "- ... ---".'

¶237

, ~ I

¶238

settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in .Mb7.a Nausherwan Khan vs. Col/ector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:-

¶239

"When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be s~fffzcient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed lO determine its market value taking into account the increase: in price attributable to such building potentiality. " '

¶240

Considering the fact that it would be very difficult to provide a I definite valLle qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactneS!3 can never be achieved in the matters of assessh).g fair compensation, i.t is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them v"ith equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agricultural lands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differently and so, appellants of Village Pochanpur are treated at par with their counter-paris, i.c.~ appellants of Village 13hartha1 and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil I(rumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant. 10% increase over and above the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Heference Coun in these matters on account of the aforesaid locations! advantages providing a higher building potentiality in the a·cquired lands in question.

¶241

Accordingly, these appeals arc partly allowed to the exten1. of awarding 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court in matters peliaining to Village Bhmihal and Village Bijwasan. While treating the appellants ofViUagc Pochanpur at par with the appellants of Village Bhm1hal and Village Bijwasan:. the appeals of

¶242

lII.l\pp No. 11.'35/7.008 & connected /\ppeals of Village Bha,'th<J1 1.~.'/\pp. No. 29'1/;>010 & connected Appeals of Village Bijwasiln 1J.,\pp. No . .l.J.l/20lC & connr.cted /\ppeals of Village Pochanpur

¶243

Page 23 of 29

¶244

----------------.-.-.. -.---.--------- . --.-.---.----.-.-------==== -.- _.- . - . -

¶245

the appellants of Village 'Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these dLt2.... ..... • three vWages in question is determined @ ,16,5?,?001- per)li-gbaE?'E ;I,:f1 . a.. . .:: ... ,U;:<-.... iJ. Category 'A' land and @ Z14,69,6001- per b,iha for the Category 'B' lands in question.L~~~f~· \ ,,-._, .

¶246

4 J • On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgrnent reported in. Slll1der VS. VOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in :filing the appeaL, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs. 42. The above c':lPtioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of .in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar (jeneral or this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared.

¶247

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶248

January 06,2012 pkb

¶249

I"" - .. > "-'~:r ,,; '.:i "" ",

¶250

1.1.IlpP. No. 1195/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal 1.I,l\pp. No. 2~)4i2010 & connected !\ppeals of Village Bijw<lsan ill·llpp· No. 11.1/2010 & connected IIppeals of Village Pochanpur

¶251

Page 29 of Z9

¶252

¶253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI .ATNEW D]~LHI

¶254

+. LA.APP. 1195/2008

¶255

RANBIR SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S;Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocate. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr .Raghuvinder Godana, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates. J\1r.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) IVlr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr. S .K.Rout, Advocates

¶256

. versus

¶257

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .. ... Respondents Throtlgh: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak., Mr.Mohitrao ladhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi IGran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Shanna and Mr.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA.

¶258

CORAM:

¶259

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶260

PRDE~

¶261

12.01.2012

¶262

C.M. Appl. No. 752/2012 (For corredion).

¶263

This is an application for seeking typographical correction in

¶264

Order of61h January, 2012.

¶265

Counsel appearing for the appellants have accepted the notice

LAApp.No.1195/2008

Page 1

I:i',' i

,~ I

of the application. Advance copy of this application has already been given to remaining counsel for the appellants.

¶271

The typographical error poirited out by the respondent in the decision of 6^th January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaid judgment the rate of compensation assessed is ~per bigha', \vhereas it should be 'per acre'. This is 'not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is ordered, that the reference to 'per bigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be oarriedout forthwith.

¶272

In vievv of the afOl'esaid, this application stands disposed of.

¶273

--':fgl¥'L"~~UR) JUDGE

¶274

JANUARY 12,2012 pkb

¶275

LAApp.No.1195/2008

¶276

Page 2:

Amar Singh Decd Thr Lrs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh Decd Thr Lrs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhim Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Daya Nand Decd Thr Lrs Vs Union of India & Anr.

Suraj Bhan Vs Union of India & Anr.

Kanwal Singh Vs UOI & Anr.

Ajit Singh & Ors. Vs UOI & Anr.

UOI Vs Sunder Lal & Ors.