% + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November, 2011 Pronounced on: 23'^'^December, 2011 130/2010, LA.APP 176/2010 & 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. 12934/201] L (cross objections), !LA.APP :Z57/2010. 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 (cross obiections) , 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, LA.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, LA.APP 576/2010, LA.APP 770/2011. LA.APP 771/2010. LA.APP 772/2010. LA.APP 773/2010. LA.APP 774/2010, LA.APP 775/2010. LA.APP 805/2010. LA.APP 822/2010. LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No.10333/2011 ('cros.s-obiectinn'* 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 Sr CM No.12952/2011 Ccross-obiections), LA.APP 1039/2010 CCM No.12875/2011& CM No.12876/2011(crossobjections) LAAPP 154/2011, LA.APP 158/2011. TA.APP 974/9011 t a app 368/2011. LA.APP 379/2011, LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.Nb.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated LA.AppNo.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 issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 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. December 23, 2011 rs LA.AppNo.608/2009 & Connected nnatters JNIL GAUR) JUDGE Page 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DEtHI AT NEW % Reservedon: S"' November.2011 Pronouncedon: 23"^December,2011_ + T.A„A?F No.608/2009 1 SHRIRAMESHKUMAR . Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Kliosia & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates. versus UNIONOF INDIA &ORS. -- Respondents _ ^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate Avith Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Karnoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. AND + LA APP.415/2011,T.A.APP 608/2009,LA.APP129/201^I^x_AP_P_ nO/2010. LA.APP 176/2010 & CM No. 12873/2011,_J,A,APP 777/201q! LA.APP 179/2010. LA.APP 184/2010, LA.APP 214/2^0, LA APP219/2010, LA.APP 229/2010, . LA.APP233/2010, LA.i^I^ 234/2010. LA.APP 9^^/9010 T.A.APP 236/2010, LA.APP 237/2m LA.APP 240/2010. LA.APP 241/2010. LA.APP 255/2010._LAAPP 256/2010 & CM No. 12934/2011(cross objections),LAAPP 257/2QliL LA.APP258/2010. 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 (cross 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. LA.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 560/203 0, 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, LA.APP 576/2010, LA.APP 770/2011, LA.APP 771/2010, LA.APP 772/2010, LA.APP 773/2010, LA.APP'774/2010,.LA.APP 775/2010, LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters ' Page 1 /• TA.APP 805/2010. T.A.APP 822/2010, LA.APP 824/2010 &_CM No.10333/2011(cross-obiection).LA.APP 864/2010,LA.APP 901/2j)10^ LA.APP Q02/9.010. LA.APP 962/2010, LA.APP 1014/2010, inis/7010, TA.APP 1016/2010, TA.APP. 1027/2010, .LA.APP ,ini7/7010.TAAPP 1035/2010.LA.APP 1037/2010,LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No.12952/2011 fcross-obiections),LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No 17875/2011 & CM No.12876/2011 (cross objections), LA.APP . 154/7011. LA.APP i^«/70ll, T.A APP 274/2011, TA.APP 368/2011, TAAPP 379/2011.TA.APP384/2011&lAAPP 411/2011 (Relating to NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L(&B/LAy5722dated 5 April, 1995 issuedunder Section'4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo. 19/97-98,Village-ShahpurGarhi,Delhi) MON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 1/0 23.12.2011 1. The above captionedappeals arise out of Award No.19/97-98 of the concernedLand AcquisitionCollectorpertainingto the agricultural land in the revenue estate of Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi, which 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 Reference sought under'•Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants/ land owners i.e. the appellants, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation "to ^8,16,720/- per acre. Not satisfied with the aforesaid enhancement of ? 15,120/- per acre for the acquired land, appellants have come up in these appeals to seek much higher compensation i.e. enhanced •compensation @ ^100/- per square 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 & Connected matters Page 2 •7. '.I -r. •. I. •• il";-'" li ,'• V / // Act,alargeareaofagriculturallandmeasuring733 bighasand 10 biswas of Village-ShahpurGarhi, Delhi was acquiredby the respondents.The factual details'disclosing as to how in pursuance to the aforesaid Notification,AwardNo. 19/97-98cameto be passedand the substanceof the evidenceled beforethe ReferenceCourtstandsnotedin the impugned judgmentand is notrequiredto be recapitulated. 4. Beforethe ReferenceCourt, assessmentofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland in questionwas soughton the basisofDDA predetermined rate ofthe year 1992-93pertainingto NarelaResidentialSchemeand on the strengthofDSIDCapprovedlandrate for allotmentofplots-inNarela IndustrialComplex,which stands negatedin the impugnedorder while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union ofIndia Vs. Ram Phool (2003) 10 see 167. On the aspectof potentialityof the acquued land in question being near the developed land. Reference Court has extensivelyreliedupon DivisionBench decisionof this Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in maintaining enhancement@11.5% from the effectivedate of governmentpoHcy of fixing minimum price of agriculturallands iri Delhi, till Notification under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct was issued.Notingthat the boundary of Village-Shahpiir Garhi touches the boundary of Village- HolambiKalan, ReferenceCourtin the impugnedjudgmenthas assessed the compensationin the instant case on the basis of the compensation, assessedby this Courtin Gajraj Singh (Supra),relatingto Notificationof 15^'^ November, 1996, under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to Village - Holainbi Kalan. 5. In these appeals, at the final hearing, the counsels present on behalf of the appellants as well as senior counsel for the respondents were heEird and with their assistance, the impugned judgment and the record was LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters ' Page 3 ' '<• . .< / i-^ / / perused. Since the submissions advanced by both the sides in these appealswere common,therefore,with the consentof learnedcounselfor 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 value though the land of the petitioner has got potential value as the land of the petitioner is suiToundedby the biggest colony of Asia namelyRohini and the land was acquired for the commercial activities; ii) that LAC has not taken into consideration that land has been acquired for commercial activities such 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. iii) 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 petitioner is between two roads including a national highway i.e. Government Karnal Road, and Delhi Narela Road, therefore, it has great potentiality for residential and commercial purposes; 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/necessitiesi.e. telephone, electric, connection,water supply, public schools and SSN College and most frequentservice of DTC buses and other private transport.' 7. In substance,aforesaidgrounds are the submissionsadvanced on behalfofthe appellantsbeforethis Courtto challengethe impugnedorder oi the ReferenceCourt.Undisputedly,the land use.ofthe acquiredland in LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page4 a'' • -X question was agricultural at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in question. The main ground to seek enhancement of compensation put forth on behalf of the appellants is.the potential value of the land in question. Though the stand of the appellants herein before the Reference Court was that the land in question is strategically located from the commercial and industrial point of 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 Industrial Area 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 Industrial Complex ^650/- per square meter in the year 1990 by DSIDC. It is also claimed by the appellants that allotment of alternate plot under the Narela Residential Scheme by DDA in the year 1992-93, was available @ ^650/- per square meter as per demand cum allotment letter (EX. PW2/I). 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 impugnedjudgment that the land ofthe villages adjoiningthe village in question,including village- Holambi Kalan, has been acquired for the development of industrialarea and Narelaresidentialarea in Narela. Concedingthat the acquiredland is in proximityofthe industrialarea developedby DSIDC, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondenthas clarifiedthat the purposeof acquisitionofthe land in questionis solelyfor the developmentoffreight complex in Narela. However, it was disputed that the acquired land in iA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters • Page5 . / •> / • h''. question is suiTounded 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 Complexor underthe NarelaResidentialSchemefloatedby DDA. In this regard reliance was placed upon the decisionof the Apex Court in Lai Chand Vs. Union of India & Anr. (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 relationto this village, pertainingto, an acquisition of land vide Notification of 16^' May, 2002, amount of compensationwas determined at ^18,65,500/-per acre while relying upon a DivisionBenchdecisionof this Courtin GajrajSingh Vs. Union ofIndia 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13. 10. Even in the impugnedjudgment,in the absence of sale instances. Reference Court has relied upon Gajraj Singh (Supra), wherein pertainingto acquisitionof the land of the adjoiningvillage-Holambi Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15^' November, 1996, the compensationdeterminedwas @?9,76,121/-per acre for A Category land and @^9,51,121/-per acre for BCategoryland. 11. ReferenceCourt has rightly concludedthat grounds of challenge laid to the Award, as noted in paragraphNo.6 herein above, againstthe Award in question,remainsunsubstantiatedby the appellants. 12. While relying upon two decisions of the Apex Court in Bhim Singh Vs. StateofHaryana (2003) 10 SCC 529 &Union ofIndia Vs. Ram Phool (2003) 10 SCC 167, claim of the appellantsto apply DDA and DSIDC rates to the land in questionstands repelledby holdingthat no willingpurchaserwould buy agriculturallandin questionat the rate on whichgovernmentis allottingdevelopedland. LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters ~ . 13. .During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants were not able to show that the aforesaid decisions are inapplicable nor any decisionto the contrarywas cited, hifact, Apex Court in its recent decision in Lai Chand Vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 has reiterated in no uncertain terms that the rates for allotment of developed land by the DDA cannotbe the basis for calculationof the marketvalue of the acquiredundevelopedlands. The pertinentobservations.made in paragraphsNo.44 & 48 in Lai-Chand(Supra), which deserves to be highlighted, are as under:- '44. One of the recognizedmethodsfor determination ofmarketvalue is with referenceto the opinionofexperts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committees,as expertevidencecan thereforeform the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevantpiece ofevidence. It will be hoM>everopen to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayflowfrom suchguidelinemarketvalue. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant . piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily . appointed Expert Committees, in accordance M'ith the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or roadwise, or areaM'ise, or villagewise) and finalized after inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it may. ' 48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there were 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 newspaper reports disclose that the price of immovableproperties in most areas of the countiy came 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 will not be of any usefor determining the market valuefor a. 1981 acquisition.' ' LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 7 •V' . i/' Vk 14. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Lai Singh (Supra), has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra), which also applies on all fours in these matters as well. 15. On the potentialityaspect,neither the map / sizra (EX. P.W3/A)nor any other evidence, establishes that apart from the DSIDC, there is any development in the vicinity of the acquired land. As already observed above, no sale instances of the nearby area are forthcoming to depict the potentiality of the area in question. It has to be kept in mind that the land in question has been acquired for development of the freight complex and not for the development of a residential area. Except the oral assertion of the appellants/ claimants that the acquired land is for the development of the Rohini Residential Area, there is no tangible evidence to establish this factual assertion. 16. Cross objections fded by the respondents'^to maintain the rate of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and not to adopt the ratio of decision in Gajraj (Supra), are found to be without substance for the reason that undisputedly Gajraj (Supra) has attained fmality and becauseit has not been shown by the respondentsas to how this decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been wrongly applied by the Reference Court to the facts of the instant cases. Rather, I fmd that the ReferenceCourthas correctlyreliedupon the decisionmGajraj(Supra), to arriveat the correctmarketvalueofthe acquiredlandin question. 17. Since the decision of the Division Bench of this case in Gajraj (Supra), has attained finality and it is the basis of.the decision of a CooidinateBenchofthis Courtin Jai Singh (Supra), and is also the basis of the impugned order, therefore,I fmd no infirmityin the impugned order, adoptingthe rate of compensationas fixed by DivisionBench of this Court in Gajraj (Supra),in the matterofadjoiningvillage-Holambi LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 8 I':? • IK- Kalan. Even the reduction of the rate of compensation assessed @11.5% compoundmterestfrom the date of Notificationof 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 conformity with the decision in Gajraj (Supra), wherein annual compounding @11.5% has been approved. 18. As neither side could find fault in the impugned judgment determining the market value of the land in question @?8,16,720/- per acre, therefore, the appeals of the claimant as well as cross-objections of the respondents are dismissed, with no order as to costs. Accordingly, all the above-mentioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 9