% IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: S"" November,2011 Pronounced on: 23''''December, 2011 + LA APP.415/2011, LA.APP 608/2009. LA.APP 129/2010. LA.APP 130/2010. LA.APP 176/2010 Sl CM No. 12873/2011. LA.APP 177/2010. LA.APP 179/2010. LA.APP 184/2010. LA.APP 214/2010. LA.APP219/2010. LA.APP 229/2010. LA.APP233/2010. LA.APP 234/2010. LA.APP 235/2010. LA.APP 236/2010. LA.APP 237/2010. LA.APP 240/2010. LA.APP 241/2010. LA.APP 255/2010. LA.APP 256/2010 & CM No. 12934/2011 fcross objections). LA.APP 257/2010. LA. APP. 258/2010, LA. APP 259 /2010. LA.APP 271/2010. LA.APP 413/2010, LA.APP 414/2010. LA.APP 415/2010. LA.APP 416/2010. LA.APP 417/2010 & CM No.3584/2011 rcross objections), LA.APP 419/2010. LA.APP 425/2010. . LA.APP 453/2010, LA.APP 546/2010. LA.APP 547/2010. LA.APP 548/2010. LA.APP 549/2010. LA.APP 550/2010. T.A.APP 551/2010. LA.APP 552/2010. LA.APP 553/2010. LA.APP 554/2010. LA.APP 555/2010. LA.APP 556/2010. LA.APP 557/2010. LA.APP 558/2010. LA.APP 559/2010. LA.APP 560/2010, LA.APP 561/2010, LA.APP 562/2010, LA.APP 563/2010, LA.APP 564/2010, LA.APP 565/2010, LA.APP 567/2010, LA.APP 568/2010, LA.APP 569/2010, LA.APP 570/2010, LA.APP 571/2010. LA.APP 572/2010. LA.APP 573/2010. LA.APP 574/2010. LA.APP 575/2010. T.A.APP 576/2010, LA.APP 770/2011. LA.APP 771/2010. LA.APP 772/2010. LA.APP 773/2010. LA.APP 774/2010. T-A.APP 775/2010, LA.APP 805/2010, LA.APP 822/2010. LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No.10333/2011 Ccross-objection). LA.APP 864/2010. LA.APP 901/2010. LA.APP 902/2010. LA.APP 962/2010. LA.APP 1014/2010. LA.APP 1015/2010. LA.APP 1016/2010, LA.APP 1027/2010. LA.APP 1032/2010. LA.APP 1035/2010, LA.APP 1037/2010, LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No.12952/2011 fcross-objections), LA.APP 1039/2010 rCM No.12875/2011& CM No.12876/2011fcross objections),LA.APP 154/2011. LA.APP 158/2011. LA.APP 274/2011. T,AAPP 368/2011, LA.APP 379/2011. LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated . LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 1 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA 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 5^*^ April, 1995 issuedunderSection4 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) Present: Mr. Deepak Khosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates for appellants. Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kamoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. LA.AppNo.608/2009 & Connected matters [L GAUR) JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs Page 2 R' n¥ (y Reservedon: 8''^^November,2011, ^ Prn,nmmcpAon: 23'^DecembeL_2Qll -1- LA. SHRII^MESHKUMAR Mr''''vr Kmia Through: Mr. Deepak Kliosla- & Mi. V.i. J-ma, Advocates. versus UNIONOF INDIA &ORS. Respondents Through; -Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Ml-.Samay Kumar Pathak. Ms: K.Kamoudi Kii-aii, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. NavUn Swam, Advocates. (S) A r A ATJ-D i7r^/9mo fe CM T,A.APP 240/2010^^1AAPP_241/2010, APP^^ffOlF amo^cMMsa^^ ^nnnin IAAPP LA.APP 552/2010. LAAJ3L-.5j2j-iJj.^ LA.APP^2i)l()U.4AP£ ^^7/9010 TAAPP 558/2010,_LAAPP_^59Zm^^AM£^^ j,AAP^_563/2M0a_i£.'/--VA 7" ATDO ^,^0/9010 T,A APP 570/2010,,_JAiU2P_JII/2M0 TA APP 576/2010 LA.APP 770/20 7molOAAPPl773/2m3^ LA.AppNo.608/2^9&Connectedmatters LA.APP 805/2010. LA.APP 822/2010, TA.APP 824/2010 & CM No.10333/2011fcross-obiection').LA.APP 864/2010.LA.APP 901/2010, LA.APP 902/2010. LA.APP 962/2010,.LA.APP 1014/2010, LA.APP 1015/2010, LA.APP 1016/2010. LA.APP 1027/2010, LA.A,PP 1032/2010.LA.APP 1035/2010,LA.APP 1037/2010,LA.APP lQ38/2Qi0 & CM No.12952/2011 fcross-obiectionsl LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No 12875/2011 & CM No.12876/20.11 (cross obiections), LA.APP 154/2011. LA.APP 158/2011- TA.APP 274/2011,'LA.APP 368/2011, LA.APP 379/2011. LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 ih (Relating to NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated 5 April, 1995 issuedunder Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) CORAM: .eON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 23.12.2011 1. The above captionedappeals arise out of Award No.19/97-98 ol the concernedLand AcquisitionCollectorpertainingto the agricultural land in the revenue estate of Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi, Avhich was acquired by the respondentvide Notificationof 5^'' April, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894. The market price of the acquired land in question•was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector@?8,01,600/-per acre or @?1,67,000/-per bigha. 2. In the Referencesoughtunder Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants/ land owners i.e. the appellants, the ReferenceCourt has enhancedthe compensationto ?8,16,720/-per acre. Not satisfied with the aforesaid enliancement of ^15,120/- per acre for the acquired land, appellantshave,come up in these appeals to seek much higher compensationi.e. enhanced compensation .?100/--persquare yard. 3. For development of Freight Complex in Narela Project, vide Notificationof 5"' April, 1995, under Section4 of the Land Acquisition LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters. Page ^ (9 V;v r,".;. .-: V) ;•-:..{ • •'V.'-.-Vi; !i I'm r;;f: i,;- :iXi t! •'ii Act, a large area of agriculturallandmeasuring733 bighas and 10 biswas ol Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi was acquiredby the respondents.The [actual details disclosing as to how in pursuance to the aforesaid Notification,AwardNo. 19/97-98came to be passedandthe substanceof the evidenceled beforethe ReferenceCourtstandsnotedin the impugned judgmentand isnot requiredto be recapitulated. 4. Beiore the Reference Court, assessment of the market value of the acquiredland in questionwas soughton the basis ofDDA predetermined rate of the year 1992-93 pertaining to Narela Residential Scheme and on the strengthofDSIDC approvedland rate for allotmentofplots in Narela IndustrialComplex, which stands negated in the impugnedorder while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Fs. Ram Phool (2003) 10 see 167. On the aspect of potentialityof the acquired land in question being near the developed land, Reference Court has extensivelyrehed upon DivisionBench decisionof this Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in mcLintaining enhancement@11.5% from the effectivedate of governmentpolicy of fixing minimum price of agricultural lands in Delhi, till Notification under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct was issued. Notingthat the boundary of Village- Shahpur Garhi touches the boundary of Village- HolainbiKalan,ReferenceCourtin the impugnedjudgmenthas assessed the compensationin the instant case on the basis of the compensation,, assessedby this Courtin GajrajSingh (Supra.)relatingto Notificalionof 15"' November, 1996,: under Section 4 of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to Village - Holamhi Kalan. 5. In these appeals,at the final hearing,the counselspresenton behalf ofthe appellantsas well as seniorcounselfor the respondentswere heard and with their assistance,the impugnedjudgment and the record was LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Pape 3 •;:x-:^r-y . v^ T- IS;"'' • perused. Since tlie submissions advanced by botli tlie sides in these appealswere common,therefore,with the consentoflearnedcounselfor the parties,these appeals and cross- objectionsare being decidedby this common order. 6. The grounds of challenge to the Award of Land Acquisition Collector before the Reference Court, are being noticed herein, for the reason that the same very grounds have been urged in these appeals on behalf of the appellants. These are:- 'i) That LAC has given very low rate of market valuethoughthe land of the petitionerhas got potential value as the land of the petitioner is surrounded by the biggestcolony of Asia namelyRohini and the land was acquired for the commercial activities; ii) that LAC has not taken into considerationthat land has been acquiredfor commercialactivitiessuch as for setting of freight complex, therefore, market value of the land should •be fixed at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per sq.meter. ; ~hi) that his land is situated quite close to the residential area of Narela.and DSIDC Complex due to which his land has more potential value; iv) that land of the petitioneris betweentwo roads including a national highway i.e. GovernmentKarnal Road, and Delhi Narela Road, therefore, it has great potentialityfor residentialand commercialpurposes; that palatial farm house has been constructed in the same revenue estate in which land of the petitioner has been situated; v) that land ofthe petitioneris fully developedand has all the modern facilities/ necessities i.e. telephone, electric, connection,water supply, public schools and SSN College and most frequent service of DTC buses and other private transport.' 7. hi substance, aforesaid grounds are the submissions advanced on behalfofthe appellantsbeforethis Courtto challengethe impugnedorder of the ReferenceCourt. Undisputedly,the landuse of the acquiredland in LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 4 quesUon was agriculturalat the time of issuance of Notificationunder Section4 of Land AcquisitionAct in question.The main groundto seek enhancementof compensationput forth on behalf of the appellantsis the potentialvalue of the land in question.Thoughthe stand of the appellants herein before the Reference Court was- that the land in question is strategically located from the commercialand industrial point ot view, as it is just two kilometres away from Narela Green Mandi and three kilometres away from DSIDC Industrial Complex and that it has a great market value and potentiality, as it has been acquired for the development of Rohini Residential Scheme. 8. Appellants claim that acquired land is in close proximity of IndustrialArea developed by DSIDC and residential colony developed by DDA, and they rely upon Letter of Allotment(EX. PW-l/A) of a plot in Narela IndustrialComplex@ ^650/- per squaremeter in the year 1990 by DSIDC. It is also claimed by the appellants that allotment of alternate plot under the NarelaResidentialScheme by DDA in the year 1992-93, was availclble@ ^650/- per square meter as per demand cum allotment letter (EX. PW2/1). Thus, seeking parity with aforesaid rates of developed lands, enhancement in compensation is sought by the appellants. 9. On the factual aspect, it stands noted in the impugned judgmeiit that the land of the villages adjoiningthe village in question, including ,village- Holambi Kalan, has been acquired for the development of industrial area and Narela residential area in Narela. Conceding that the acquiredland is in proximityofthe industrialarea developedby DSIDC, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondenthas clarifiedthatthe purposeof ^acquisitionofthe land in questionis solelyfor the developmentoffreight complex in Narela. However, it was disputed that the acquired land in LA.AppNo.608/2009&. Connectedmatters /. i. Page 5 question is surrounded by any developed -colony and thus, it was contended that the appellants cannot claim enhancement of the compensation by relying upon the rate of land in Narela Industrial Complex or under the Narela Residential Scheme floated by DDA. In this regard reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Lai Chand Vs, Union of India & Ann (2009) 15 SCC 769. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LA.APP 266/2008 Jai Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr, , rendered on 23'^' August, 2011, wherein in relation to this village, pertainingto an acquisition of land vide Notification of 16^'' May, 2002, amount of compensation was determined at ^18,65,500/- per acre while relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. Union ofIndia 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13. 10. Even in the impugned judgment, in the absence of sale instances. Reference Court • has relied upon Gajraj Singh (Supra), wherein pertaining to acquisition of the land of the adjoining village- Holambi Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15^'^ November, 1996, the compensation determined was @ ^9,76,121/- per acre for A Category land and @^9,51,121/- per acre for B Category land. 11. ' Reference Court has rightly concluded that grounds of challenge laid to the Award, as noted in paragraph No.6 herein above, against the Award in question, remains unsubstantiated by the appellants. 12. While relying upon two decisions of the Apex Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State ofHaryana (2003) 10 SCC 529 & Uiiion of India Vs. 'Ram Phool (2003) 10-SCC 167, claim of the appellants to apply DDA and DSIDC rates to the land in question stands repelled by holding that no willing purchaser would buy agricultural land in question at the rate on which government is allotting developed land. LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters • Page 6 13. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants were not able to show that the aforesaid decisions are inapplicable nor any decision to the contrary was cited. Infact, Apex Court' in its recent decision in Lai Chand Fs'. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 has reiterated in no uncertain terms that the rates for allotment of developed land by the DDA cannot be the basis for calculation of the market value of the acquired undeveloped lands. The pertinent observations made in paragraphs No.44 & 48 in Lai Chand (Supra), which deserves to be highlighted, are as under:- '44. One of the recognized methods for determination ofmarket value is with reference to the opinion ofexperts. The estimation of market value hy such statutorily constituted^ Expert Committees,as expert evidence can thereforeform, the basis for determining the market value in land, acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayfloM!from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline m.a.rketvalue can be a. relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in. accordance with the prescribed assessm.ent procedure (either streetM'ise, or roadwise, or areayuise, or villagewi.se) and finalized cfter inviting objections and.published in. the gazette. Be that as it may. 48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only t.M'o to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there yvere no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of the year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the neM'spaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country cam.e down, by more than 40% to 50% from, the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award, made. in. regard to a 1961 acquisition Mnll not be of any use for determining the market value for a. 1981 acquisition.' LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters • Page 7 iffcv Ipi t'rK. 14. The aforesaiddecisionoftlieApex Courtin LaiSingh (Supra),has been followedby aCoordinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra), whichalso applieson all fours in thesemattersas well. 15. On the potentialityaspect,neitherthe map / sizra(EX. PW3/A)nor any other evidence,establishesthat apart from the DSIDC, there is any developmentin the vicinity of the acquired land. As already observed above, no sale instancesofthe nearbyarea are forthcomingto depictthe potentialityofthe area in question.Ifhas to be kept in mind that the land ui questionhas beenacquiredfor developmentofthe fl-eightcomplexand not for the developmentofaresidentialarea. Exceptthe oral assertionof the appellants/claimantsthat the acquiredland is for the developmentof the RohiniResidentialArea,thereis no tangibleevidenceto establishthis tactual assertion. 16. Cross objectionsfiled by the respondentsto maintain the rate of compensationfixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand not to adopt the ratio ofdecisionin Gajraj(Supra), are found to be withoutsubstance foi the reason that undisputedlyGajraj (Supra) has attainedfinalityand becauseit has not been shown by the respondentsas to how this decision of the DivisionBench of this Court has been wrongly applied by the ReferenceCourt to the facts of the instantcases. Rather, I find that the ReferenceCourthas correctlyreliedupon the decisionin:Gajraj(Supra), to arriveat the correctmarketvalueofthe acquiredlandih question, 17. Since the decision of the DivisionBench of this case in Gajmj (Supra), has attained.fmahty and it is the basis'of.the decision of a CoordinateBenchofthis CourtmJaiSingh (Supra), and is also the basis of the impugned order, therefore,I find no infirmityin the impugned order, adoptingthe rate of compensationas fixed by DivisionBendi of this Court in Gajraj (Supra),in the matterof adjoiningvillage-Holambi LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters " Kalan. Even the reductionof the rate ofcompensationassessed@11.5% compoundmterestfrom the date ofNotificationof 15^'^ November, 1996 in Gajraj (Supra) to date ofNotificationof 5^'^ April, 1995 in the instant case IS concerned,I find the same to be in conformitywith the decisionin Gajraj (Supra), wherein annual compounding @11.5% has been approved. I 18. As neitlier side could find fault in tlie: impugned judgment deteimining the marketvalue of tiie land in question@?8,16,720/-per acre, therefore,the appealsofthe claimantas well as cross-objectionsof (he respondentsare dismissed,witlino orderas to costs.Accordingly,all the above-mentionedappeals and eross-objectionsare disposed of with dn-ection to the Registiy to remit the compensationamount, if any, depositedby eidierside with the RegistrarGeneralof this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. .OeccHiiber23, 2011 LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 9