Partly allowed

UOI v. Sunder Lal & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Jan 2012LA.APP./108/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Delhi allowed appeals by landowners of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan, and Pochanpur against the Lower Appellate Court's valuation. While rejecting high-value religious sale exemplars, the Court granted a 10% extra escalation for building potentiality based on the area's proximity to IGI Airport, fixed market rates at specific levels per bigha/acre, and treated villages at par.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; enhanced compensation fixed at Rs. 6,50,000 per bigha for Category A land and Rs. 14,69,600 per bigha for Category B land with a 10% additional increase for building potentiality.

UOI Vs Sunder Lal & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2012)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

¶4

¶5

Reserved on: November IS, 20 JI Fronounced on: Jcmuory 06, 2012

¶6

(GRID-A)

¶7

LA.APP.l 195/2008 (VILLAGE- BHARTHAL

¶8

RANBJR SHARI\4A Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan, Mr.Jai Prakash,Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and'Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates, Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates.

¶9

Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate

¶10

Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosia and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur. Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate, Mr.N.S.Negiand Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesibr respondent in appeals filed by UOI)

¶11

versus

¶12

UNION Ol' INDIA & ANR.

¶13

Ol' INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar, SeniorAdA'ocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathak,Mr.Mohitrao . JadhaN-and Ms.Nax-linSwairk Ms.K.KaumudiKiran, Advocatesfor LAC./UOI Mr.AjayVernia,Ms.BeenashawSoni. Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S,.K,.Sethi,Mr.PawanMathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocjite for DlDA

¶14

J.A.APP.4J..:/2008& CM.No,4096/2008 (Cross-Objections) f.A APP 452/''008JA.APP.4«/2008; LA.APP.688/2008.& CM,No.5990/20]0(Cross-Obiecli;ns); .I-/V.A1 P.()97,2008 &. CM,No.433,'2009(Cro.ss-Objections);LA.APP.701/2008& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-OWecl:ions); LA,APP.768/2008; LA.APP.770/2008;

¶15

l.',A;?p.[Vo, 11;J!3/.':00,H& conn,-;H;ledAppoiilsof VillnRO Bhar[h:il

¶16

I'-^Aoo. Na. /9n/7(no& ainiuin.KdAppe.-.ilsofVillage; Biiwiisdri

¶17

1A.App, iv„. 1.11,00.10&connrandAppt^aliofViilaRc:l-ochjinpur

¶18

Pasc 1 of ?.9

¶19

¶20

LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.772/2008; LA.APP.773/2008 & CM.No.3835/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.774/2008 & CM.No.611/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008; LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2Q08; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM.No.931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008; LA.APP.806/2008; LA.APP.813/2008 & CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.814/2008 & CM.No.806/2009 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008; LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008; LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CM.No.779/2011 (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; LA.APP.973/2008; LA.APP.974/2008 & CM'.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008; LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM.No.572/2009 (Cross-Obiections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008& CM.No.17340/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1031/2008 & CM.No.17335/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1032/2008 & CM.No.599/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1046/2008; LA.APP. 1047/2008;LA. APP. 1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1049/2008 & CM.No.420/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1050/2008; LA.APP. 1051/2008 & CM.No. 17262/2008 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1052/2008; LA.APP.1053/2008 & CM.No.416/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP. 1054/2008 & CM.No.1766/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008 & CM.No.752/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1059/2008 & CM.No. 17259/2008(cross-0bjection3); LA.APP. 1060/2008;LA.APP. 1062/2008 & CM.No.546/2009 (Cross-Objections); . LA.APP. 1073/2008; LA.APP. 1074/2008 & CM.No.623/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1075/2008; LA.APP.1081/200S & •CM.No.462/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1084/2008& CM.No. 17302/2008 (Cross-Obiections); LA.APP. 1086/2008 & CM.No.2448/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1087/2008& Cl\4.No.619/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008; LA.APP.l 103/2008 & CM.No.441/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA;APP.l 108/2008 & CM.No:3839/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1109/2008; LA.APP.l 110/2008 & CM.No.3828/2009 (Cross-Objections);. LA.APP.l 111/2008; LA.APP.l 112/2008 & # CM.No.3831/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 115/2008; LA.APP.l 116/2008; LA.APP.l 121/2008; LA.APIM 126/2008; LA.APP.l 129/2008 & CM.No.550/2009 (Cross-Objections); J.A.APP.1130/2008; LA.APP.l131/200?? & CM,No.566/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l133/2008; LA.APP.1135/2008& CM.No.7442/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 137/2008 & CM.No.17283/2008(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.l 140/2008; LA.APP. 1156/2008; LA.APP.l 157/2008; LA.APP.l 158/2008 & CM.No.7774/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l159/2008; LA.APP.1161/2008;LA.APP.l166/2008; LA.APP.l167/2008 & CM.No.802/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l168/2008; LA.APP.1170/2008; LA.APP.l171/2008; LA.APP.1172/2008; LA.APP.1173/2008; LA.APP.1175/2008; LA.APP.1178/2008; LA.APP.l 179/2008; L4.APP. 1181/2008' LA.APP.l182/2008; LA.APP.l183/2008& CM.No.6933/2009 (Cross-Objections); •LA.APP.1184/2008; LA.APP.l 185/2008; LA.APP.l 186/2008& CM,No.7013/2009

¶21

IA.App. No. n95/?008 & connpcted Appeals of VillagK Bharthal LA,App. No, Z94/203.0& corinGctedAppealsof Village Bijwasan LA,App, No, 1.1.1/2010&connecleclAppeal.sof VillaB" PochaiiDur'

¶22

' • • , Page2ol'29

¶23

(Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1190/2008; LA.APP.1191/2008; LA.APP.1192/2008 LA.APP.) 193/2008; LA.APP. 1194/2008; LA.APP. 1195/2008; LA.APP. 1197/2008 LA.APP. 1198/2008& CM.No.6935/2009(Cross-Objections); LA.APP. 1200/2008 LA.APP. 1202/2008; LA.APP. 1203/2008; LA.APP. 1210/2008; LA.APP. 1211/2008 LA.APP. 1212/2008; LA.APP. 1213/2008; LA.APP. 1223/2008; LA.APP. 1225/2008& CM.No.6957/2009(Cross-Obiections); LA.APP.1226/2008; LA.APP.1241/2008& CM.No.3841/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1243/2008; LA.APP.1252/2008 LA.APP. 1275/2008; LA.APP. 1276/2008; LA.APP. 1277/2008; LA.APP. 1279/2008 LA.APP.1280/2008; LA.A^.1281/2008;LA.APP.1283/2008;LA.APP.1284/2008 LA.APP.31/2009; LA/PP.33/2009; LA.APP.37/2009; LA.APP.39/2009 LA.APP.42/2009 & /cM.No.746/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.59/2009 LA.APP.73/2009 & / CM.No.7103/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.74/2009 LA.APP.7^ A.APP.95/2009 & CM.No.953/2011 (Cross-Objections) LA.APP.W20'()c A.APP. 109/2009 LA.APP. 121/2009 LA.APP.i35/2009 LA.APP. 136/2009; LA.APP. 137/2009 LA.APP.138/2009 LA.APP. 13 9/2009 l.A.APP. 140/2009; LA.APP. 143/2009 LA.APP. 144/2009 LA.APP. 145/2009 LA.APP. 162/2009; LA.APP. 187/2009 LA.APP. 190/2009 LA.APP. 191/2009 LA.APP: 197/2009; LA.APP. 198/2009 LA.APP. 199/2009 LA. APP.201/2009 LA.APP.202/2009; LA.APP.203/2009; LA.APP.208/2009 & CM.No.7027/2009 (Cross-Objcctions); LA.APP.210/2009 & CM.No.970/2011 (Cross-Objections); I.A.APP.2] 1/2009; LA.APP.220/2009; LA.APP.222/2009; LA.APP.223/2009; LA.APP.224/2009; LA.APP.227/2009; LA.APP.230/2009 & CM.No.7206/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.241/2009; LA.APP.245/2009; LA.APP.246/2009 LA.APP.249/2009; LA.APP.257/2009; LA.APP.295/2009; LA.APP.305/2009 l.A.APP.367/2009; LA.APP.437/2009; • LA.APP.447/2009; LA. APP.45 8/2009 LA.APP.459/2009; LA. APP,466/2009; LA.APP.480/2009; LA. APP.481/2009 l.A.APP.489/2009; LA.APP.490/2009; LA.APP.491/2009; LA.APP.493/2009 LA.APP.494/2009; LA.APP.495/2009; LA.APP.503/2009; LA.APP.506/2009 LA.APP.507/2009; LA.APP.508/2009; LA.APP.509/2009; LA.APP.510/2009 LA.APP.511/2009; LA.APP.512/2009; LA.APP.513/2009; LA.APP.567/2009 LA.APP.572/2009; LA.APP. 15/2010; LA.APP.45/2010; LA.APP.48/2010 LA.APP.404/2010; LA.APP. 13/2011; LA.APP. 1138/2008;. LA.APP. 1176/2008

¶24

LA.APP.l 177/2008; LA.APP,1201/2008;LA.APP.231/2009

¶25

(Relaliiig to Notification No. F.10(30)/96/L& B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 r# issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 26/2002-2003 dated 23.10.2002, Village Bharthal, Delhi)

¶26

'(GRJD-B)

¶27

¶28

Reserved on: December 08. 2011 Pronounced on: January 06. 20J2

¶29

I- LA.APP. 294/2010-(VILLAGE-BIJWASAN). •'

¶30

Appellant Through: Mr.R.S.Tomar,Mr.VirendraSingh

¶31

D15VENDERKUMAR

¶32

l.A.App. No. 119.')/Z008&conneclGcl/^pealsof Village;Bharthal !.A.App. No. 294/2010& coniifictodAppeal,?ofVillage Bijwasan LA.App No, 1,11/2010& connectedAppeaLs of Village Pochanpur

¶33

Page 3 of 29

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

versus

¶37

UOI &	ANR	Through LA.APP.	: Mr.S Mr.S Jadh for U Mr.S. Mr.B filed Mr.V & 7 Mr.B Shar for D 11/2010	R anjay Poddar, Senior anjay Kumar Pathak, av, and Ms.Navlin S OI/LAC K.Solanki and Mr.S. .K. Routray, Advoca by UOI. irendra Singh, Advo 2 in appeal filed by U ankey Bihar Sharma ma and Mr.Somer K. DA. LA.APP. 49/2010	espondent Advocate Mr.Mohi wain, Adv K.Rout a tes in app cate in R- OI , Mr.Kuna Seth, Adv LA.APP.	s with trao ocates nd eals 68,71 l ocates 51/2010
LA.APP	. 52/2010	LA.APP.	53/2010	LA.APP. 54/2010	LA.APP.	55/2010
LA.APP.	. 56./2010	LA.APP.	57/2010	LA.APP. 59/2010	LA.APP.	70/2010
.LA.APP. .	100/2010	LA.APP.	221/2010	LA.APP. 223/2010	LA.APP.	226/2010
LA.APP. .	242/2010	LA.APP.	246/2010	LA.APP. 277/2010	LA.APP	. 281/2010
LA.APP. .	282/2010	LA.APP.	283/2010	LA.APP. 284/2010	LA.APP.	285/2010
LA.APP.	287/2010	LA.APP,	288/2010	LA.APP. 289/2010	LA.APP.	294/2010
LA.APP.	295/2010	LA.APP.	296/2010	LA.APP. 313/2010	LA.APP.	345/2010
LA.APP,	346/2010	LA,APP.	347/2010	LA.APP, 348/2010	LA.APP.	349/2010
L.A.Al^P.	350/2010	LA,APP,	35],/2010	LA.APP. 352/2010	LA.APP.	353/2010
LA.APP.	354/2010	LA.APP.	356/2010	LA.APP. 357/2010	LA.APP.	358/2010
LA.APP.	365/2010	LA.APP.	742/2010	LA.APP. 760/2010	LA.APP.	359/2010
LA.APP.	360/2010	LA.APP.	361/2010	LA.APP. 362/2010	LA.APP.	363/2010
LA.APP.	405/2010	LA.APP.	406/2010	LA.APP, 407/2010	LA.APP,	408/2010
LA.APP.	409/2010	LA.APP.	438/2010	LA.APP, 588/2010	LA.APP.	722/2010
LA.APP.	723/2010	LA.APP.	724/2010	LA.APP. 725/2010	LA.APP,	726/2010
LA.APP.	727/2010	LA.APP.	729/2010	•LA,APP. 731./2010	LA.APP,	732,/2010
LA.APP.	750/2010	LA.APP,	759/2010	LA.APP 764/2010	LA.APP.	828/2010
LA.APP.	964/2010	LA.APP.	286/2010	, LAAPP. 364./2010		,
LA.APP.	77/2010	LA.APP.	80/2010'	, LA.APP. 99/2010	&
LA.APP:	75/2010 &	C.M.No.9	64/2.011(G	i •oss-objections)

¶38

(Relating to NofificationNo. F.10(30)96-L&-B/LA/13417dated 13,12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No 28/2002-2003,VillageBijwasan,Delhi) aia ino.

¶39

AND

¶40

l..A.App, No. .119,'-)/.2008& conncclndAppfialsofViliagn Bharlhal lLA.App.A.App. No. No, 294//010&& connpcU'dconri(!c:t(!dAppnalsAppoalsofof Village ViliagG Bijwasanpochanpur ' •

. l-agc 4 of 29

(GWD-C)

•%

Reserved on: December 18. 2011

¶46

Pronounced on: January 06. 2012

¶47

J.A.APP. 111/2010(VIIXAGEPOCHANPUR)

¶48

SEHAXRAM AND ORS. Appellants Through; Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatesfor appellant(in R-16, 20, 23 to 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 to 40 44 to 49, 59, 63 to 71) Mr.S.B. Kumar, Advocatefor appellantin LA.App.No.61,64, 65/2011) Mr.RajeshYadav, Advocatefor appellant in R-22)

¶49

versus

¶50

UNION OF INDI	A & ANR Through	: Mr.S Mr.S Jadh for U Mr.B Shar for D	Re anjayPoddar, Senior anjayKumar Pathak, av,andMs.NavlinSw OI/LAC ankeyBihariSharma maandMr.SomerK.S DA.	spondents Advocatewith Mr.Mohitrao ain.Advocates ,Mr.Kunal eth,Advocates
LA.APP. LA.APP. 111/2010 160/2010	LA.APP. LA.APP.	154/2010 165/2010	• LA.APP. LA.APP. 155/2010 209/2010	LA.APP. LA.APP. 156/2010 215/2010
LA.APP. 228/2010	LA.APP.	248/2010	LA.APP. 249/2010	LAAPP
LA.APP. 254/2010	LA.APP.	260/2010	LA.APP. 261/2010	.. LAAPP 250/2010
LA.APP. 292/2010	LA.APP.	293/2010	LAAPP 305/2010	.. 270/2010
LA.APP. . 307/2010	LA.APP.	317/2010	.. LA.APP 392/2010	LA.APP. LAAPP 306/2010
l.A.APP .'395/2010	LA.APP.	396/2010	LAAPP	.. 393/2010
LA.APP, 420/2010	LAAPP	432/2010	. •397/2010	LA.APP. 412/2010
LA.APP. 466/2010	.. LA.APP.	489/2010	. LA.APP. LAAPP 433/2010	LA.APP. 434/2010
LA.APP. 637/2010	LA.APP.	639/2010	.. 577/2010	LA.APP. 635/2010
LA.APP, 660/2010	LA.APP.	662/2010	LA.APP. 'LAAPP 640/2010	•LA.APP. 657/2010
LA.APP. 767/2010	LAAPP	768/2010	.. 741/2010	LA.APP. 758/2010
LA.APP. 9] 9/2010	.. LA.APP.	1052/2010	LA.APP. LAAPP 784/2010	LA.APP. 918/2010
LA.APP. 65/2011	LAAPP	116/2011	.-. 61/2011 .	LA.APP. 64/2011
LA.APP. 120/2011	.. LA.APP.	121/2011	LA.APP. 117/2011	LA.APP. 119/2011
LA.APP. 476/2011	LAAPP		LA.APP. 129/2011	LA.APP. 429/2011
LA.APP. 523/2011	.. LA.APP.	85/2011 25/2011	LA.APP. 521/2011	LA.APP. 522/2011
LA.APP. 536/2011'	5 LA.APP.	54/2011	LA.APP. LA.APP. 526/2011 591/2011	LA.APP. 535/201 1

¶51

A.App. No. 1195/2008&connoclodAppealsof VillafieBharthal IA-.App a""' No ni/?.010&^ connectedconnectedAppealsAppealsofVillaBfiPochanpurof Villaee Bijwasan

¶52

Page 5 of 29

¶53

(Relating to Notification No. F.10(30)96-L& B/LA/13417 dated .13.12.2000issued under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 30/2002-2003dated 09.12.2002,VillagePochanpur,Delhi)

¶54

.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶55

¶56

06.01„2012

¶57

Since the grounds on which enhancementof the compensationis sought by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical, thcieloic with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present at the healing of these appeals, these bunch of appeals pertaining to NoUflcation No.F.10(30)96-L&B/LA/13417dated 13.12.2000,relating to geographically contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpurare being disposedof by this common order. 2. Acquisitionprocess for planned developmentof 'Dwarka Phase//' in Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notification of 13"' December, 2000 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct. 1894.. pertaining to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block comprisingof thirteen Revenue Estates including villages in question, i.e., Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur.

¶58

Agriculturalland of the appellants herein in the aforesaid three villages stood acquired by the Respondentsvide three separateAwards, I.e., y\ward No.26/2002-2003; Award .No.28/2002-2003;andAward , No.30/2002-2003granting compensation@^13.82 lacs per acre for IBlock 'A' (level field - with top soil) and @?12.32.lacs per acre for Block'B'(without top soil). 4. Dissatisfiedwith the assessmentof market value of their acquired

¶59

LA.App. No. 119S/2008& connocledAppeals.ofVillage Bharthal. LA.Ape. No. 29'I/2010S connnctedAppealsof Village Bijwasan lA.App. No. .111/2010& connnctedAppealsofVillapoPochanpur

¶60

Page 6 of 29

¶61

¶62

agriculturallands, appellantshad sought reference under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the ReferenceCourt vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation@ ? 15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ?13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, references relating to Village Pochanpur have been dismissed. 5. In these appeals, further enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants of Villages Bharthal 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 of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Homing Board Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani MIolu Dessai vs\ State ofGoa and'Asm, (2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors ra. State ofHaryana and Asm, (2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs, Vs. Special Tehsiidar (Land Acquisition) & Ors.^ (2010) 3 SCe 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union of India AIR 2005 Se 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India & 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of JIaryana & 2010(9) SCALI'i! 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALIi 362; Avinash Dhavdji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 see 171; Atm.a Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003'titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer Anr vs. MJL Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 S(X] 714; ThakarsihhaiDevjibhaiand ors ra. ExecutiveEngineer,

¶63

l.A.App. No. .119,')/?_008a connocted Appnalsof Village liharlhai l.A.App. No. 7.9'l/ZO.lO& connocUidAppealsof VillaRG Bijwasan

¶64

iA.App. No in/?.O.lO& connc!ct(;dAppfialsof Village Pochanpur ' •

¶65

. PaBe7of2':i

¶66

Gujarat and Ann, AIR 2001 SC 2424; Ilaryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation,(2010) 11 SCC 115] RisalSingh Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Aim, 2006 (89) DRJ 527 (DB); Lai Chandvs. Union of India and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs\ Rameshhhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammaland Am vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. Fs. Union of India & Anr, 176(201 1) DLT 361; W.P.(C) No. 4284/2007titled as Surat Singh vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority & Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash (dead) by LRs and Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (2004) 10 SCC 627; Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA. APP. No.656/2008 titled as Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India, dcclded on 26.09.2011, LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Eed Ram. ra. Union of India, decided on 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. Union ofIndia, 2010 (170) DLT 371.

¶67

On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, at the very outset, it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learned',arguingcounsel for the appellants that the locationand situationof the acquiredagriculturalland has to be, first understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adjudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannotbe limitedto the near foture alone. 7. It was pointed out by Mr.R.S.Tomar,counsel for appellants that Delhi-Rewan-Jodhpurbroad gage,railway'1me of Village Biijwasan passes through the land of Village Bharthal, dividing it into two parts, I.e., on the eastern side of the railwayline is the IGI Airport,New Delhi

¶68

LA.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppeals of Village Bharihal AApp, No. .391/2010&connectedAppealsof Village iiijwasan •A.App. IMo. 1]..1/20.1,0&connectedAppealsof Village Pochanpur

¶69

Page 8 of 29

¶70

¶71

and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka SubCity Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developed Farm Houses are located on the land of Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearned counsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of Village Bharthal was first acquired for the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndian Oil Depots and thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the lands of VillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I and the lands on the western side of Villages Bamrioli and Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-Il, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawn to the aks sizraslm-d^to highlightthat the boundary ol Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶72

It was strenuouslyurged 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 illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16"^ October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agriculturar to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infact the entire land ofVillage Bharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notificationof 24^' October, 1994. 9. It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout, learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been wrongly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P,

¶73

IA.App. No, I19s/20m& connocledAppnalsofVillage Bharthal I.A;App.,No,294/2010& connuclGdAppt^alsof Village Bijwasan L^App. No. 1.11/2010& conneclcdAppealsofVillage! Pochanpur

¶74

' „Pago 9 of, 29

¶75

Redfh & Ors. vs. LandAcquisitionOfficer,Hyderabad& Ors, {\99S) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State ofHaryana& Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the developmentin the area over aperiod of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition,ifthe authoritiesdo not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no buildingpotentiality. J0. Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma.learned counsel for the appellantsupon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpurto highlight lhal the sale price reflectedtherein varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said vaiiation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegallydone by the Reference Court, because there Is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplarsare overvalued because of any special advantagesand as per settled legal proposition laid down by (he Apex Court in An/amMolt, Dessai vs. State of Goa ondAnr.,(2010) 13 SCC 710, the averageofsale exemplarsought to be taken as representingthe market price of Ute land which comes to ?57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourt upon the minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe marketvalue of the acquiredland is patentlyerroneous. II. _ Assessmentof market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara,learned counsel for the appellantson the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Govenrment for allotment of alternate . plots ,n the year 2000-2001.Keeping in view Ihe location,situationand , potent,ahtyof the acquired land, determinationof its market value is

¶76

lAApp. No. l.ia5/2008&conncctedAppealsof Vilbpc. Bharth.l PP IVC.UJ/.010&connectedAppealsof Village Pochanpur

¶77

Page 10 of 29

¶78

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-I or on the basis of the PreDetermined Rates (PDRs) as referred to above.

¶79

In the written synopsis,appellant- Impulse India Private Limited of LA. App. No. 295/2009 has assailed the impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds;-

¶80

a) "Ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent- about the Aw^ard No.26/2002-2003 dated 23. J0.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No. 19612 of 2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated 7.7.2007)

¶81

¶82

b) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffected the rales of land in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued.

¶83

c) Vahung the land on the basis of the letter dated 11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital Territory of Delhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by various decisions includingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar2010(3)see 661.

¶84

Ignores the evidence and other factors which as per establishedlaw has to be considered,beforeascertaining the value ofthe la.ndunder acquisition.

¶85

e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds prod.ucedbefore the trial Court whereas as per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Pa.til versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Apeal No.5475 'of 2007. The

¶86

, Hon'ble Supreme Covirt has specificallyheld that Sale Deed showinghigher rate shouldnot be disregardedin

¶87

• •

¶88

l-A.App. I)o, 1195/2008&conneciudAppcuilsof Village liharlhal LA.App. No. 291/2010&connGctodAppealsof Vlliap,c Hijwasan 1-A.App. No. 111/2010&connscledAppeal,';of Village Pochanpur

¶89

PapGHof29

¶90

case the average sale price is lower. Further in Anjana. Molu Dessai v^. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 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.

¶91

f) Relied, upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006 to decide the market value of the subject land while ignoring the material which indicate that the market value of the land is m.uch higher than 15 lac per acre in Block A and ^13,36,000 in Block B in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugned judgment

¶92

•refused to return an actual finding on the issue No. 1 framed on 27.2.2007.

¶93

g) '- Evaluated the land as agricidtural land although vide Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the land use of Village Dh'ool Siras and Bharthal was changed and these areas ceased to be agricultural and came now under the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The masterplan and Notifications of Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential commercial and other permissible uses. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellantlead evidencein respectof the 74"' am.endm.ent of the Constitution of India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amended and the area where the land is situated, M>as

¶94

• • deemed a municipalarea a.nd the municipalCounsellor

¶95

^ was elected from, there. No Pancha.yat elections were held in the area.

¶96

h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Suprem.e Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr v^. Union of India and refusedto considerthe fact that the developmentin the area has a direct effect on the price that a willing

¶97

purchaser wovildpay for the. subject land.

¶98

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 -had also

¶99

LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connccled Appcial.';of VillaBG Uharthal lA.App. Nf). 294/7.010& connfictedAppeals ofVillaRe Bijwasan L^.App. No. m/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Pochanpur

¶100

PapelZof29

¶101

; \

¶102

auctioned similarly situated land as commercial blocks at the rate of about ^2.6 lakh and concluded that the said land is M'hollyunderdeveloped,land.

¶103

j) The valuation of the subject land is even lower than the pre-determinedauction rates set by RespondentNo. 2 for similarly situated, land.

;

•

k) Does not take into account the possibilityof change of the use of the land although the land, was acquiredfor development purposes of Dwarka 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 came now under the urban boundaries ofDelhi State.

¶108

I) IgnoredNotificationsdated 16.10.2000and 24.10.1994 although they clearly establish the commercial potentiality of thesaid land. In Sangunthala v. Tahsildar (LA), (2010) 3 see 661 it was held, that the purposefor which land is acquired is a relevant factor. While determining value of the property acquired the fact whetherthe land has got buildingpotentialityto be used

¶109

for buildingpurposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered.

¶110

m) The presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said land being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The lands were acquiredfor purpose of putting up residential quarters.As a portion,oj the land, is being consideredas house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of beingput in betteruse as housesites in the nearfuture. "

¶111

In the brief synopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App. No. j47/2009,the factual details have been provided with a prayer that the

¶112

; appellantsof.this appeal be treated at par v\ath the co-appellantsof the other appealsin these bunch ofappeals.

¶113

^ . 14. Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behcilfofthe appellants,it was urged by Mr.AnandYadav, Advocatcthat the effectof

¶114

!.A.App. No. 1195/2008& connecledAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 794/2010&cohnectedAppsalsof Village Bljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppeaLsofVillage Pochanpur

Page 13 of 29

urbanization of the lands in the Villages in question, i.e., the change in land use has been considered in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238; Kapil Mehra (Major General) Ors, Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011) DLl^ 361 and that PreDetermined Rates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevant to determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instances relied upon by the appellants are comparable and ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the correct market value ol the acquired lands. Thus, enhancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequate market value for the acquired lands is sought in these appeals.

¶119

Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiled by the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learnedSenior Counsel urgedthat though as per Section 51-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissible evidence 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 element of special fancy of the purchaser and other factors namely, nature, situationof the property,proximity to the village etc. are also required to be considered and the sale instancesrelied upon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegally rejected by the ReferenceCourt and while placingrelianceupon the decisionsin Jai Lal vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227, Satpal & Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union of India and Anr.., (2009) 15 SCC 769; l.A. APP. No.656/2008titled as Sushil Kumar wr. Union of India, decided on 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase iji price in a short period cannot be taken to be realisticuntil reasons for such sharp increase are explained by producing in evidence the seller

¶120

LA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal IJ.App. No. 294/2010& connectedAppeal.sofVillage Bljwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur

¶121

Page 14 of 29

¶122

and the purchaseras no prudent person having laiowledgeof the usual prevalenttrend mthe marketwould pay such ahigherpay as reflectedin 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 ratcs/PreDeterminedRates cannot be countenancedin view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench of this Court in Sushi!Kumar (supra)and Raj Singh (supra).

¶123

So far as potentialityof tlie land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior coimsei for the Respondents/crossobjectorsthat the same has already been factored into, while fixing tire minimum mdicativeprice of the agi'iculturalland by the Governmentas on I Apiil, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Smhil Kumar (supra) appreciation@10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted • that there is no scope for furtherenhancementfrom the priceofacquired lands as fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand so, the impugned judgment dcsei-ves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the RetercnceCourtwhile taking into considerationdie appreeiation@12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while grmiting appreciation @ 10% per annum and (liereby allowing the crossobjectionsto the aforesaidextent. 17. After considering the rival submissions advanced by both the -ides and upon close perusalof the impugnedjudgment,the evidenceon record and the decisionscited, what emergesis that tlie true marketvalue of the comparableland is the pricepaid by willingpurchaserto awilling

¶124

1.A.APP. No, 119,/,008&conrtect^dAppealsof Villafie . IA•• Ad"' "1 &^ connectedconnectedAppealsAppalsofof Village VillagepochanpurBijwasan

¶125

Page 15 of 29

¶126

seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While 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 Court in Udho.Dass vs. State of Haiyana Ors,, 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:-

¶127

"(ij the situationof the acquired land vis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosivepopulation;

¶128

(ii) the suitabilityof the acquiredlandfor putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

¶129

(Hi) possibilityof obtainingwater and electricsupplyfor occupants of buildingsto beput up on that land;

¶130

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfor buildingpurpose;

¶131

(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of buddingplots or developedresidential extensions in the vicinityor closeproximityof the acquired land;

¶132

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which m.ay become availableto the occupiersof buildings, if built on the acquired land; and

¶133

(vii) lands around the acquiredland or the acquiredland itself being in demand, for building purposes, to specify a few. "

¶134

1he potentialityof land for the purpose,of developmentas also for buildingpurposes depends upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for

¶135

lA.App. No. 1.195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. IMo. 7..'?4/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan U.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppeal.sof Village Pochanpur

¶136

Page 16 of 29

¶137

¶138

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 Atma 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.

¶139

Aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. MJi. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714. The legal propositionwhich emergesfrom the decisionsrelied upon on behalf of the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality 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.

¶140

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, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awarded is on the claimant. For this proposition^ the decision of the Apex Court in Kiran Tandon (Supra)can be referredto with advantage, 21. Apex Court in Vailiyammal (Supra),while taking note of the feet that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges was improper. The pertinent observationsmade by the Apex Court in Anjani Molii Dessai (Supra) deserve attention, which are as under;-

¶141

lA.App, No. 11.35/2008& conncctedAppealsofVillage Bharlhal . lA.App. No. 291/2010& connectudAppealsofVillaBe BIjwasan LA.App. Mo. 11.1/2.010& conneclcdAppealsofVlllagG Cochanpur

¶142

Page 17 of 29

¶143

"The legal position is lhat: even M'here there are several exemplars Mnth reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bonafide transaction, Mnll be considered. Where however there are several sales ofsimilarlands whoseprices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the m.arketprice. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inferencethat they are yvith referenceto 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.. "

¶144

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

¶145

"It is well settled, that genuine and. bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide 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 between a. willing vendee and. the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed bet-ween reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶146

Principles to determine the market value of the acquired lands as reiterated by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Lid, (ONGC) (Supra), are as under:-

¶147

"Prim.arily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation, of the land, nature of development in. surroundingarea, availabilityof la.ndfor developmentin the a.rea, and-the dema.ndfor kind in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices'would be slow, steady and grad.ua.l, withouta.ny suddenspurtsorjumps.

¶148

lA.App, No. 1195/2008&connoctedAppnalsof Village Bhartluil LA.^pp. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillaBo Bijwa,san lA.App. No. 1]1/2010& connectedAppeals of Village Pochanpur

' '

Page 18 of 29

;

;

On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, M>here the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a. much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due i.o 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 IVo or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in u.rba.n/sem.i-urba.n areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in. market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% 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. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in. the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for a.ppl.yinga higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.

¶158

Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved, market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or accjuisition),where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where th.e_ relied-on-sale transac.tions/acquisi.tionsprecedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is uptofour to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a, neighbouring land. What may be a reliablestandardif the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unrelia.ble standard where the gap is larger. For example^for determiningthe market value of a land acquired-in 1992,. adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or

¶159

l.A.App. No. 1.195/2008&connncledAppeals of Village Bhiirtha! . l^.Apo. No. 29/;/2010&connnctedAppeals of Village! Biiwasan l-A.App No,.1U/2010&connedndAppealsof Village Pochanpur

¶160

Page a 9 of 29

¶161

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 from, the likelihood of occurrence of varyingperiods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts inprices affecting the very standard of increase. "

¶162

'Jliis Court-ismindful of the dictum, of the Apex Court in Hmymm State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation (HSIDC) (Supra), regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparative sales methods; What was said by the Apex Court in HSIDC (Supra) is as under:-

¶163

"When differentcategories of lands (or lands with different sifuational advantages) are acquiredfor the same purpose, sav for fnining 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 com.pensationshould be awarded,for all landsacquired under the sam.e notification."

¶164

Undisputedly, in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijwasan of the period in question are not availableand the solitary sale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., Radha Swami Satsang Beas ^ had puichased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price which varied from ^52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. 26. WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (.lix.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetween one set of co-owners and Radha Swami Satsang, Bea.i in respectof the compactblock of land measuring18 Bighas and 6 I3iswasSiu.atedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of Ihe land in the villagesin questionis the moot questionwhich is required to be answered, Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds

¶165

1.A.APP. No. 1195/2008 a con,' ^.^.App. No. 2.,/I/20.l0&conneclndAppuals of Village Bijwasan

¶166

•

¶167

-A.App. No. 1.1.1/2010&connnclodAppeal;of Village pochanpur

¶168

Page 20 of 29

¶169

(Hx.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatetliat its price varies from ^"52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning thereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars- Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice. It was dependentupon the nature and situationof 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 exemplarscannot be treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser of these agricultural lands in Village Pochanpur vide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW~l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had the purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplars been got examined, then it could have been elicited from him as to why he had agreed to pay such a high price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swarni Satsang, Beas who had purchased more than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in Village Mamurpurvide Sale Deed executedon 25^' March, 2000 was also subjectmatter in LA. App. No. 266/2008titled as Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia, 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 aforesaiddecisions, the sale exemplar of Village Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holding that the same cannot be treated as representativeprice for the acquiredlands. 27, In the instant matters, thougli the land use of the acquired lands was changedmuch prior to their acquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlands were being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evident that the acquired lands were not developed lands. No pnident person having knowledge of prevailing

¶170

l./.App.No. 1195/2008&connectedAppnaisof Village Bharthal l.A.App. No. 294/2010&r.onnectodAppealsof VlllagG Bijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Pochanpur

¶171

Page 21 of 29

¶172

market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds (h:x.PW-l/4 to lix.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the : Reference Court.

¶173

So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ^1,76,55,172.41per acre relating to Sale Deed of 27"' January, 2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (fix.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, 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 question.

¶174

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.

¶175

• Parametersgoverning fixation of market value of acquired lands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreported as P. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development AuthorityHyderabad and Ors., \ 995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:-

¶176

'72. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationof the marketvalue of the acqtiiredland. with, buildingpotentialityM'ith reference to the pricefetched by sale ofplots in. a well developed,layout in. the neighborhood.

¶177

LA.App. Mo. .1195/2008& connsclnd,Appcalf;of Villafie Bhnrthal t.A.App. No. 29'!/2010& connectedAppeals ofVillage Bijwa.san IA.App. No. 1.11/20.10&connectedAppealsof Village Pochanpur

¶178

^^2 of 29

¶179

¶180

or yvhetherit be the determinationof the marketvalue of the acquired land, with buildingpotentiality with reference to thepricefetched,by sale ofbuildingplots in an undeveloped layout of buildingplots in the neighborhood, it becomes inevitablefor the Court to find out what will be the price fetchedor to befetchedby the sales ofplots in the layouts, reliedupon by any oftheparties, with referenceto the price which the plots couldhavefetchedifsold on the date ofthe publication of the preliminarynotification under Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Further, where no evidenceofpricefetched by the sales of the plots in layouts of buildingplots in the neighborhood of the acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is to find out the market value of the acquired land with re.ference to the relevant date of publicationunder Section 4(1) ofthe IA Act, accordingto the actual use to which it was put and increaseits value by a small percentage having regard to the degree of its buildingpotentialityascertainedon the basis ofevidenceto be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase to be given shall not exceed l/5th of the market value of the landfound 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 buildingplots in the neighborhoodof the acquired land indicatingthat there was no immediate dem.and, as such, for buildingplots even if formed in the acquired land. "

¶181

In view pf the difficultiesin adoption of rate of land charged by the DDA after acquiringthe agriculturallands, developingthe same, and transferringperpetual leasehold rights, the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), held that it is not safe or advisableto rely upon tlie allotment ratcs/Pre-DeterminedRates in determining the market value of the • adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. Following the dictum of Lat Chand (Supra), acoordinateBench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar (Supra) has excluded the DDA rates qua the developed lands as being not relevant for assessingthe market value of

¶182

I lA.App. No.,11%/2008&connectedAppealsof Village Bharthal ' AApp. No. 2!M/2010&connecindAppeals of Village Bijwasan ILA.App. No. 1.1.1/20.1.0&connectedAppealsof Village Pochanpur

¶183

Page 23 of 29

¶184

¶185

the undeveloped acquired lands. Thus, I find that the Reference Court has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentof developedland or the DDA's Pre-DeterminedRates for alternateallotments for fixing tfie marketvalue of the acquiredagriculturallands in question.

¶186

Now what is requiredto be seen is whether progressive increase method would be relevant criteria for assessingthe market value of the land in questionwhile taking into considerationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthal and other villages for developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorthat even if the escalationat the compoundedrate of 10% per annum is taken from the year 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfoi developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,still the price fixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris more than the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶187

Aloresaidargumentdoes not hold good in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (Supra), cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressive increase method in assessment of the market value of the acquired land only when the gap is of 4-5 years and beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. What may be a icliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonly of a few years, may become unsafe and unreliablestandard where the gap is larger. In the instant case, the gap between the two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarka Phase-I and Dwarka Phase-IIis ofsixteenyears and therefore,it would be unsafe to adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate

¶188

LA.App. Mo. ]1.9;i/2008&connectedAppealsof Village Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Village Rijwasan l-A.App, No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur

¶189

Page 24 of 29

¶190

¶191

escalationoverthe marlcetvalue of the nearby land of the previousyears.

¶192

Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objector had urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinate bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been granted and so, by relying upon Sushil Kumar (Supra) escalationgranted by the Reference Court @ 12% per annum cannot be reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the niatter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed.

¶193

Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteria for determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum granted by the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixation ofthe minimum price for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f T' April, 2000 till the date of Notification in the instant appeals deserves to be further increased or not.

¶194

Adoption of Government's minimum rates of agricultural land pertaining to the Notification in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecause the acquired land had ceased to he an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"' October, 1994 declaring agricultural lands in these three villages in question to be Liiban. It is true that vide aforesaidNotificationof the year 1994 the land use ol the acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto

¶195

lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectHdAppealsof Villiigc! Bharthal ' ' ' i/.App. No. impmo &conncctcidAppealsof Village Bijwasan l-A.App. No. 11.1/2010&conne.clndAppealsof Village Pochanpur

¶196

Page 25 of 29

¶197

picsume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being consideredas developedlands. The evidence led is lacking on the vital aspect of there being any developmentin and around the acquiredlands in question. Not only this, even the sale exemplars of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas heavilyrelied upon by the appellantsdisclosethat the sale ofthe said lands was for agriculturalpurpose. '

¶198

¶199

Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, the acquired lands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been increasein price due to higher demand, on accountof potentialityof the acquiicd lands upon change of their use post the year 1994, then appellantscould have laid their hands on other sale instancesin the area in question. But, indeed appellantscannot rely upon the sale of the land in Village Pochanpurto a religiousinstitutionand anothersale instance of Village SamalWia (Ex.PW-1/11) without leading any evidence to establishthat the qualityand potentialityof the sale exemplarsofRadha Swami Satsang, Beas in Village Pochanpur and the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha(bx.PW-1/11)are comparablewith the acquiredlands and so the contiguity of the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot^ be treated to be sufficient compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale mstances. Therefore, in view of the afore-referreddictum of-the Apex Court in Haryana State Indmtria! Development Corporation (HSIDC) (Supra),uniform rate of compensationdeservesto be awarded for the lands acquired under the same Notificationin the light of the minimum price lixed by the Government for the agricultural land in Delhi, which generally factors in the rise, of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the feet that there is a gap between what

¶200

'IA.App. 1195/M08&ccnnoaodAppealsof Village Bharthal LA.App. IMo, 2J4/;,010&connpctGdAppeal,of Village Bijwa.=an lA.App. No. 1.1.1/20.10&connectedAppealsof Village Pochanpu

¶201

Page 26 of 2.9

¶202

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

¶203

¶204

This Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court in the matters pertaining to Village Bharthal 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 Court in matter of Village Bhaithal and Village Bijwtisan,of there being no evidence that the potential and the situation of the acquired lands is similar to sale exemplars is borne out from the evidenceon record. ButI find that the aspect of higherpotentialityof the acquired lands being in close vicinity of the IGI Airport,Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Depots and of Railway line passing through Village Bharthal and there being a 100 meters vide road starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti side to DwarkaSub-City,Part I and Part II, dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinity oi the acquired lands has somehow missed the attention of the ReferenceCourt. In the consideredopinion of this Court, on account of aioresaidlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly assume higher buildingpotentialitybeing in vicinityof DwarkaPhase-I. What persuadesthis Court to grant 10% increaseover and above market value of the acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on account of the higher building potentialityin the acquired lands is the

¶205

iy.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppeals ofVillage Bharthal ITV.App, Mo. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bljvi/asan l-A.App. No.-111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Pochanpur

Pago 27 of 39

settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza NamherwanKhan vs. Collector,(1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:-

¶210

When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up buddings ui the immediateor nearfuture, such conclusion would be sufficientto hold that ^he acquired land had a buildmgpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increasein price attributable to such buildingpotentiality."

¶211

¶212

¶213

Consideringthe fatt that it would be very difficult to provide a definite value qua potential,and in view of the fact that exactnesscan never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broadprobabilitiesofthe instantcases, which persuadesme to treatthem will, equivalence by uniformly applying the Government'sminimum prices for the agriculturallands for computing the fair market value of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof Village Pochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in SmhU Kumar (Supra),Iam inclinedto grant 10% increaseover and above the marketvalueofthe acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourt in ™ locational advantages providingahigherbuildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands in question.

¶214

Accordingly, these appeals ai'e partly allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increaseover and above the market value assessedby the Reference Court in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bywasan. While treatingthe appellantsof VillagePochanpurat par with the appellantsof VillageBharthal and VillageBijwasait,the appeals of

¶215

pp. NO. ,1.1.1/20.10&connectedAppealsof Village Pochanpur

¶216

•Page 28 of 29

¶217

the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicated above. Thus, the market value of the acquired lands of these three villagesin questionis determined@ 6,50,000/-perj^i^hjiorthe Category 'A' land and @?14,69,600/-per biplaa for the Category 'B' lands in question. h-i.-'

¶218

On the aloresaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutorybenefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, e.xcept for the period where there is adelay in filing the appeal, ior which periodof delay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Tiieseappellantswould be entitledto proportionatecosts. 42. The above captionedappeals and cross-objectionsare disposedof in the afoi-esaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount, ifany, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar General ol this Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decree sheets be accordinglyprepared.

¶219

(SUNIL GAUR)

¶220

January 06, 2012 pkb , 1_,„ f,. i-r; n'o • •'-] 11 f 0 / (y"i I' '' "'

¶221

l-A.App, Mo. 1195/2008&connnctodAppealsof Village Bharthal !.A.App. No. 291/2010&connectedAppeaLsof Village Bijwasan IA.App. IMo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VliiaBe Pochanpur

¶222

Page 29 of 29

¶223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶224

LA. APP. 1195/2008

¶225

RANBIR SliARMA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, MrJai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitm 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. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D. Sharma, Mr.S.K.Solanki and Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocates

¶226

versus

¶227

OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathalc, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.S.K.Sethi, Ms. Amita Singh, Mr.Banlcey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Kunal Sharaia and Mi-.Somer K.Seth, Advocates for DDA.

¶228

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

¶229

CORAM:

¶230

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶231

¶232

ORDER 12.0L2012

¶233

C.M. AppL No. 752/2012 TFor correction).

¶234

,1 his is an applicationfor seeking typographicalcorrectionin Order of 6"' January,2012.

¶235

Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave accepted the notice

LA.App.No.1195/2008

•'"l; 5;?:'

of the apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen given to remainingcounselfor the appellants.

¶240

The typographicalerror pointed out by the respondentin tlie decision of 6 Januaiy, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the afmesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessed is 'per bigha", whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants:Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthat the referenceto 'perbigha' in paragraph no: 40 of LA.App,No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessaiy corrections be Garried,out

¶241

In viemi o! the aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof

¶242

12, 2012 pkb

¶243

-U.App.No.1195/2008

¶244

Page 2

UOI v. Sunder Lal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

UOI v. Sunder Lal & Ors.

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.

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