% 25.05.2006 Present S/Slid D.V. lQiatrL 5.5. GuBa P.C. Sharma SanjeeV Kumar and Mr. Roep CKnd far. appi1rm11t • Mr. Sanjay Poddar for UOL • Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. + 1AAPP N, 81!_ CM 79lliJw o€: & cm 5L00 • 82&2Ot5 & C 950/2 0 00282L2()OS & CM i7517/20O5 6Q05 32(4OO6 835/04 Un I7 7712005 0)/20058 ZQ05& CM 104/2005 i33/202O ___ & s29fru 3i9jj2U • 802/2005 _______ - 1Ii•A 'Th i1QQ'7i2Afl5 843j2005 &CM 1009/005, 47JQJk c CM 18Q87/Z9O5 86312005 & CM 18i00/2005 86512005_& ciii 18108/2005a 336.3712007 & CM - -- 1Af SJ1AA 0 C'1\ 1cAiiAA ,p1f1AA I1I) k" OJ.0 A'i 596/2OO5 6O4i2O0 605/2QQJ •6/!)5 67/20Q I1tC 1i1 rf n. ______ %.AVJ £U ii MAJ 'J!±—-'" V 178i3f2OU5_797'25_ oS & c 74LZ0i 7V.Q!L5 i05I20O5 170$6, 9 20O, &M i,8iLZ 200 - CM i7877/Z)05. 80712 O0S L.c 17$ LJ1 __ SeW2005&cm 17j7J 81Ai00& & çrniZU/05 85iW05 119f2 L&Jf - - - 2i2005 • (-'• & vL ., ,..- ,_--.-_- 179661200512905 & CM 1797012005, •837/2005 _____.s •!1 3 tiaos4auQ L2.QQ&SM LI Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:05.02.2024 15:16 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified UL2O6, 55755flLzossrnous For orders, s LAAPP No. i891t2O \ .' \:- swATANr14 KUMAMI i. S.LBHAYANA,ir My 25, 2U1 vk + % # IN THE HIGH COURT OF l)ELHI LAAPP No. 189-91/2006 & CM 4030/2006 Judgment reserved on : 17 & 18.5.2006 Judgment delivered on : May 25, 2006 Jai Singh & Others. ....Appellants through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. ii Versus Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar for UOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. $ A Union of India AND LAAPP NO. 812/2005 & CM 17905/2005 Appellants through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. VS Jai Singh & Ors. ...0Respondents through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. Bhoop Singh AND LAAPP No. 281/2006 & CM 5 117/2006 ...Appellants through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri. S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev LAAPP No.189-9 l/2006&conn.matters Page 1 of 32 Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. (0 $ A Versus Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar for UOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. Union of India AND LAAPP NO. 828/2005 & CM 17950/2005 Appellants through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. VS # Bhoop Singh ...Respondent through: SIsh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Ku:rnar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. AND LAAPP NO. 568/2005, ....Appellant through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. G'iilia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. Ranbir Singh Versus Union of India and Another. AND ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar for UOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. $ A LAAPP No.189-9 1/2006&conn.matters Page 2 of 32 LAAPP NO. 782/2005 & CM 17517/2005 Union of India kppellant through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. Vs # Ranbir Singh ....Respondent through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. AND LAAPP NO. 648/2005 # Raghbir ....Appellant through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kuinar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. Versus $ Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar for UOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. AND '4 LAAPP NO. 326/2006 # Bhoop Singh ....Appellant through: SIsh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. LAAPPNo.189-91/2006&conn.matters Page 3 of 32 $ A Versus Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar for UOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. Union of India t Bhoop Singh AND LAAPP NO. 835/2005 & CM 17977/2005 Appellants through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. Vs. ....Respondent through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kuinar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. AND LAAPP No. 609/2005 # Raghbir Singh ....Appellant through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. $ A Versus Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar for UOI. M]r. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. AND LAAPP NO. 864/2005 & CM 18104/2005 LAAPP No.189-9 1/2006&conn.matters Page 4 of 32 Union of India . Appellants through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. vs Raghbir Singh ....Respondent through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. AND LAAPP Nos. 183/2006. 184/2006. 845/2005 & CMs. 18016/2005 & 5629/2006, 31921/2006g 779-80/2005, 783/2005, 802/2005 & CM 17867/2005, 813/2005 & CM 17909/2005, 834/2005 & CM 17973/2005, 841/2005 & cm 17997/2005. 843/2005 & CM 18009/2005, 847/2005 & CM 18084/2005, 85/2005 & CM 18079/2005, 860/2005 & CM 18087/2005. 861/2005 & cm 18092/2005, 863/2005 & CM 18100/2005, 865/2005 & cm 18108/2005, 336-37/2007 & CM 692/2005 & cm 15900/95, 693/2005, 718/2005 & CM 16906/2005, 720/2005 & CM 16920/2005, 776/2005 &CM 17191/2005, 777/2005 & cm 17304/2005. 778/2005 & CM 17308/2005, 781/2005 & cm 117408/2005, 792/2005 & CM 17813/2005, 797/2005 & CM 17835/2005, 798/2005 & CM 17841/2005, 799/2005 & cm 17845/2005, 793/2005 & CM 17817/2005, 794/2005 & 17823/2005, 801/2005 & 17866/2005. 803/2005 & CM 17863/2005, 804/2005 & CM 17874/2005, 806/2005 & CM 17877/2005. 807/2005 & CM 17885/2005, 808/2005 & CM 17889/2005, 809/2005 & cm 17893/2005. 810/2005 & CM 17897/2005, 811/2005 & CM 17900/2005. 814/2005 & cm 17913/2005, 815/2005 & CM 17917/2005, 816/2005 & CM 17922/2005, 818/2005 & cm 4 17930/2005, 819/2005 & CM 17934/2005, 820/2005 & cm 17938/2005, 821/2005 848/2005 & CM 18031/2005. 849/2005 & CM 18030/2005, 850/2005 & CM 18045/2005, 851/2005 & CM 18042/2005, 852/2005 & CM 18050/2005, LAAPP No.189-91/2006&conn.matters Page 5 of 32 853/2005 & CM 18054/2005, 854/2005 & CM 18058/2005, 855/2005 & CM 18062/2005, 856/2005 & CM 18065/2005, 857/2005 & CM 18070/2005, 862/2005 & CM 18096/2005, 58/2006 & CM 1068/2006, 59/2006 & Cms.1154- 1155/2006, 279/2006 & Cms. 5108-5110/2006, 280/2006 & Cms. 5111- 5113/2006, 594/2005, 817/2005 & CM 17926/2005, 822-26/2005, 574/2005. 575/2005, 576/2005. 577/2005. 592/2005 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. L. BHAYANA 1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? SWATANTER KUMAR, J. All the above 111 Land Acquisition Appeals have been preferred either by the claimants or by the Union of India against the judgments of the Reference Court whereby it partially allowed the reference and granted compensation to the claimants @Rs.1,08,000/- per bigha with other statutory benefits and interest payable in terms of provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not necessary for us to refer to the facts of each appeal as the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all these appeals argued and referred to the pleadings and record of the following appeals :-• (a) Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India & Others (LAAPP No. 281/2006) (b) Union of India Vs. Bhoop Singh (LAAPP No. 828/2005) LAAPP No.189-9112006&conn.matters Page 6 of 32 (c) Jai Singh and Others Vs. Union of India & Othes (LAAPP 189-91/06) (d) Union of India Vs. Jai Singh and Others (LAAPP No.8 12/2005) (e) Ranbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Another (LAAPP No. 568/2005) (1) Union of India Vs. Ranbir Singh (LAAPP No. 782/2005) (g) Raghbir Vs. Union of India & Another (LAAPP NO. 649/2005) (h) Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors (LAAPP NO. 326/2006) (i) Union of India Vs. Bhoop Singh (LAAPP. No.835/2005) (j) Raghbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Anoi:her (LAAPP. No. 609/2005) (k) Union of India Vs. Raghbir Singh (LAAPP. No.864/2005) These cases were also taken as lead cases by the Reference Court and the idgments passed in these cases were relied upon in disposing of other references as well. Thus, we would be referring primarily to the facts and evidence led in the above mentioned cases as it would help in bringing the correct facts and evidence on record and would also help in determination of questions involved in the present appeals. We would dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment. All the claimants are bhumidar or owners of agricultural land fallen in the revenue estate of Village Bakarwala. This land was acquired for public purpose namely "Water Treatment Plant for Dwarka Project" vide notification dated 15th October, 1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 12th October, 1994. The appropriate Government invoked the emergency provisions under LAAPP No. l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 7 of 32 tLD Section 17(1) of the Act for dispensing with the compliance of Section 5A of the Act. After following the prescribed procedure, the Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.12/95-96 had assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4.65 lakhs per acre (Rs.96,875/- per bigha), This compensation was computed by the Collector with reference to the policy of the Government of Delhi, which came into effect from 27th April, 1990 fixing the minimum price of the agricultural land at Rs.4.65 lakhs per acre. The claimants being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector preferred references under Section 18 of the Act, which in turn were referred to the learned District Judge, Delhi. The parties led evidence. The claimants, while relying upon e sale instances, award, allotment letters issued by the DDA to various public institutions, had claimed compensation @Rs.2000/- per square yards. The Reference Court, keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, had framed all or any of the following issues :- 1. What is the effect of the Delhi Land Reforms Act on the market value of the land? 2. Whether the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute and if so, to what effect? 3. Whether the Delhi Jal Board is not a necessary party to the present proceedings as claimed by it? 4. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act? 5. To what enhancement, if any, the claimants are entitled to? LAAPP No.1 89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 8 of 32 6. Whether the claimants are entitled to the special damages as claimed for? 7. Relief. The claimants had produced four sale deeds in the case of Jai Singh Vs. Union of India, LAC No. 77/04, which as recorded by the trial Court in its judgments were exhibited as Exh.P-1 to Exh. P-4 with the consent of counsel for the parties. The respondents had produced the Government Policy dated 3rd May, 1990, which was exhibited as Exh.R-2 and two sale deeds in relation to sale of land in Village Mundaka, which were exhibited as Exh.R-3 and Exh.R-4. In this case, the parties had not led any oral evidence. However, in the case of Raghbir Singh Vs. Union of India (LAC No. 208/2004) and Ranbir Singh Vs. Union of \ndia (LAC No. 239/2004), the parties had also led oral evidence. The claimant had examined PW-1 Khem Singh, UDC from DDA in LAG No. 104/99, who had brought the summoned record and copy of letter of allotment to institution dated 8th November, 1999, Exh. PW-1/A. PW-2 Parkash Chand again a UDC from L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, had produced and proved on record Exh.PW-2/A and Exh.PW2/B, first was the letter dated 3rd March, 1993 regarding fixation of prices of Govt. land for allotment of various social, cultural, charitable and other organisations while the other was regarding schedule of market rates. PW-3 Rajeev Kumar, Halka Patwari had proved on record Exh. PW3/A being certified photocopy of ak sajra of Village Bakarwala and he had also stated that it was surrounded by Village Mundaka in North, Baprola, Dichao Kala and Tilan pur LAAPP No.189-91/2006&conn.matters Page 9 of 32 Kotla in South, Village Ranhola in East and Village Zafar pur Hiran Kudna in West. He particularly stated that the boundary of Village Mundaka and Bakarwala are adjoining. PW-4 Anar Singh still another UDC from DDA, LAB Residential, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi had proved Exh.PW4IA and Exh.PW4/B being photocopies of the letters where rates were given but they were excessive and in the lease deed they were corrected. Copy of the lease deed executed between one Virender Singh and DDA being Exh.PW4/C was also proved on record. In LAC No. 111/99 before the Reference Court, one Surender Singh Patwari was also examined as PW- 1, who had brought the DDA file to show that letter dated 8th September, 1993 was addressed to Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking by the Additional Commissioner of DDA pertaining to physical possession of the land measuring about 20 bighas 10 biswas in Village Najafgarh, which was taken from DDA on 25th October, 1994. PW-2 S.P. Dagar, Record Clerk from Sub Registrar Office of Janakpuri had proved the sale deed Exh.PW2/1 dated 23rd April, 1993. PW-4 Khem Singh, UDC from DDA was examined to prove the record of Institutional letter dated 8th November, 1993, which was exhibited as Exh.PW4/A. PW-3 Amar Singh was examined to prove ' allotment of auction plot at Pitampura. PW-5 Prakash Chand, UDC, L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi had again iroved the letter dated 3rd March, 1993 regarding fixation of prices of Govt. land for allotment of various social cultural and charitable and other organisations and copy of letter regarding schedule of LAAPP No.189-91/2006&conn.matters Page 10 of 32 market rate, which were exhibited as Exh.PW5/A and Exh.PW5/B. PW-6 Rajiv Kumar, Halka Patwari was also examined in this case. PW-7 Anar Singh, UDC, DDA, L&B Residential, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi was also examined, who proved the Exh.PW7/A and Exh.PW7/B in relation to allotment of plot in Pitampura @Rs.286.50 per square meter. All these witnesses were also examined in LAC No. 70/99 titled as Dharam Singh Vs. Union of India. Above is the entire documentary and oral evidence led by the parties in all these cases. Vide different judgments, the learned Reference Court granted uniform compensation to the claimants in all these cases. The claimants were wasded compensation @Rs. 1,08,000/- per bigha in addition to other statutory benefits and interest payable under the provisions of the Act. The Reference Court while solely relying upon Exh.R-4, which was a sale deed dated 4th March, 1994 in relation to 1 bigha of agricultural land in the revenue estate of Village Mundaka for consideration of Rs. 1 lakh and by adding the stamp value of Rs.8,000I-, had granted the compensation @Rs.1,08,000/- per bigha to the claimants. The claimants being dissatisfied from the judgment of the Reference Court have ffled 38 appeals before this Court praying for further enhancement of awarded compensation while the Union of India has preferred 73 appeals on the ground that compensation awarded by the Reference Court is excessive, unreasonable and without any evidence and pray that the award of the Collector awarding LAAPP No.189-9 1/2006&conn.matters Page 11 of 32 compensation @Rs.Rs.4.65 lakhs per acre (Rs.96,8751- per bigha) be restored. Before referring to the merits of the contentions raised by learned Counsel appearing .for the parties in all these appeals, it will be appropriate to have a glance of the various sale deeds, which were produced and proved by the parties on record in these cases. Sr.No Details of sale deeds - Village Date of Value per _____ __________________________ execution bigha 1. Rs.3,02,400/- for land measuring Tikri Kalan 23.4.1993 Rs.3,02,4CKW- 1 bigha _____ (Exh. P-i) (LAC No. 77/2004) ________ _________ ___________ 2. Rs.9,07,200/- for land measuring Tikri Kalan 23.4.1993 Rs.3,02,4001- 3 bigha _____ (Exh. P-2) (LAC No.77/2004) -_________ __________ ____________ Rs.3,02,400/- for land measuring Tikri Kalan 23.4.1993 Rs.3,02,400/- 1 bigha _____ (Exh.P-3)(LAC No.77/2004) _________ _________ ___________ 4. Rs.4,50,000I- for land measuring Tikri Kalan 28.2.1996 Rs.4,50,000/- ibigha _____ (Exh.P-4)(LAC No.77/2004) _________ _________ ___________ Sr.No Details of sale deeds Village Date of Value per _____ ___________________________ execution bigha 1. Rs. 1,25,000/- for land measuring Mundaka 27.2.1990 Rs. 1,25,000/- 1 bigha _____ (Exh. P-1/P-3) (LAC No. 111/99) ________ _________ __________ 2. Rs. 1,83,000/- for land measuring Mundaka 24.1.1992 Rs. 1,64,494/- 1 bigha 2-1/4 biswas _____ (Exh. P-3) (LAC No. 111/99) _________ __________ ___________ LAAPP No.189-91/2006&conn.matters Page 12 of 32 Sr.No Details of sale deeds Village Date of Value per -________ execution bigha 1. Rs.50,000/- for land measuring 2 Mundaka 11.3.1994 Rs.21,276/- bigha 7 biswas _____ (Exh.R-3)(LAC No.77/2004) -________ ______ ____________ 2 Rs.1,00,000/- for land measuring Mundaka 4.3.1994 Rs.1,00,000/- 1 bigha _____ (Exh. R-4)(LAC No.77/2004) -________ _______ ____________ On the basis of above sale deeds and other documentary and oral evidence produced by the claimants, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants argued that the compensation awarded to the claimants ought Jo be enhanced by this Court, inter-alia, on the following grounds :- (i) the learned Reference Court has fallen, in error of law and appreciation of evidence by discarding Exh.P-3, which is the sale deed dated 27th February, 1990 for sale of one bigha of land wherein the vendor had sold one bigha of land in the revenue estate of Village Mundaka for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- and solely relied upon a post notification sale deed in relation to the same Village while awarding the compensation (Exh.R-4). (ii)on the basis of Exh.P-3, the claimants would be entitled to get compensation @Rs. 1,35,000/- (Rs. 1,25,000/- being sale consideration +Rs. 10,000/- towards stamp duty) with further increase @15% per annum from the year 1990 to 1993, the date of issuance of notification under Section 4, which comes to Rs.2,08,406/-. (iii)the Reference Court while relying upon Exh.P-2 should have awarded compensation @Rs.3,02,400/- per bigha whereby the land measuring about 3 bigha in the revenue estate of Village Tikri Kalan was sold for a sum of Rs.9,07,200 on 23rd April, 1993 just few months prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, this was the best piece of evidence before the Reference Court for determining the fair and reasonable market value of the land. LAAPP No.1 89-9l/2006&conn.matters Page 13 of32 (iv)the Reference Court has ignored Exh.P-1, the sale deed in relation to the land situated in the Village Ghewra. (v)in terms of Government Policy Exh.R-1, the claimants were entitled to increase @12% compounding per year on the value fixed under the Policy. In terms of this policy, as of 1993, the claimants would be entitled to compensation @Rs.i,72,000I- per bigha in any case. (vi)while heavily relying upon Exh.PW1/A, the letter issued by the DDA to the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking, it was argued that the DDA, without any further development and in fact in the conditions in which the land was acquired, had allotted land to the undertaking @Rs.4,00I- per square yard. Even after making the deduction @25%, the market value of the land ought to have been determined at Rs.3,00/- per square yard i.e. 3,02,400/- per bigha. (vii)an ancillary argument to the above is that by applying the Golden Mean Rule - to all the above computation, the claimants in any case would be entitled to compensation @Rs.226/- per square yard. i.e. 2,28,848/- per bigha. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Union of India contended that it is not permissible in law to apply the principle of 15% increase as there is no rule even permitting universal increase @ 12% annually and for this purpose he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India and Another 93 (2001) DLT 150 (DB) and Amar Singh Vs. Union of India (RFA No. 494/88 decided on 7th February, 2003). He also contended that the land at the time of acquisition was simplicitor an agricultural land and the rates of the developed land whether applicable to institutional or commercial colonies cannot be taken as a guiding factor for determining the market value of the acquired land. While relying upon the LAAPP No.189-91/2006&conn.matters Page 14 of 32 judgment of Supreme Court in the case Kiran Tandon Vs. Allahabad Development Authority & Another (2004)10 SCC 745, it was also contended that even if any sale deeds are to be taken into consideration, the Court should apply at least 33% deduction for determining the fair market value of the agricultural land. On this premise, it is argued that firstly the sale deeds have not been proved in accordance with law by the claimants and even if they are to be taken into consideration, the reflected value would have to be reduced in terms of this principle of law. It is lastly submitted that the value of Exh.R-4 should have been reduced keeping in view the fact that l:he sale deed was much subsequent to the date of issuance of notification and the compensation awarded by the Collector "-iould be fair. Firstly we would deal with the contents of Exh.PW I/A. This document is heavily relied upon by the claimants and they claimed compensation @Rs.3001- per square yards after making certain deductions on account of development charges. This is a letter issued by the DDA to Delhi Water Supply & Sewerage Disposal Undertaking vide which land measuring 4.27 acre Site No.A-2, 4, 583 • acres Site No.A-3 was allotted @Rs.1560 lakhs per acre. This rate was subsequently enhanced to Rs.20 lakhs per acre + 24% ground rent per annum. A bear reading of the letter shows that it relaled to allotment of developed plot in the area of Nazafgarh Township. The land was given for the purpose of construction of Mini Sewage Treatment Plant and Sewage Pumping Station for Nazafgarh LAAPP No.189-91/2006&conn.matters Page 15 of 32 cl1 Township and adjoining areas. It has been held in different cases that the allotment by the authorities of developed areas cannot be good guide for determining the fair market value of the agr: 'icultural land, which is acquired and more particularly when the instances of sale of agricultural land of the same village are available on record. Reference in this regard can be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another AIR 2003 SC 4382. The burden of proving that the claimants are entitled to the same compensation @ Exh. PW1/A even after reasonable deduction was entirely upon the claimants. It was for them to show that acquired land had the same location and potential as the land covered under 1xh. PW1/A. As far as this document itself is concerned, it does not reflect specifically that from which part of Delhi the land was allotted much less giving the revenue estate of relevant Village. The Najafgarh Township area is a very vast area and thus, it is not possible for the Court to adopt this document as a relevant comparable piece of evidence fo:r adjudicating the controversy in issue. For this reason, we are unable to accept the contention of the claimants that they are entitled to get compensation on the strength of Exh.PW1!A. Exh.P-1 to P-4 ( in LAC 77/2004) are the sale instances of agricultural land relating to the land situated in the revenue estate of Village Tikri Kalan. Of course all these sale instances are prior to notification issued under Section 4 of the Act except Exh.P- 4, which is in fact nearly 2 years post notification and as such is not relevant for LAAPP No.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 16 of 32 nX any purpose. As far as Exh.P1 to P3 are concerned they relate to revenue estate of another Village. Exh.P-3 (in LAC No. 111/99) is a sale instance of agricultural land relating to the land situated in the revenue estate of Village Ghewra. As far as Exh.P-2 in LAC No. 77/2004 is concerned, it is a sale in favour of a public limited company where the vendor had sold nearly 3 bigha of agricultural land from the revenue estate of Village Tikrj Kalan for a total consideration of Rs.9,07,200/-. This sale at the face of it was more for a commercial purpose and related to sale of land in another village.PW6 Rajiv Kumar, Fialka Patwari in his statement no where stated that boundaries of Village Tikri Kalain and Village Ghewra were adjacent to that of Village Bakarwala and the nature, user and potential of the land of these '-Jiillages were similar,