* IN THE fflGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DateofDecision:T**" December.,2006 + LA.APP. 481/2006 * RANDHIR SINGH Appellant ! Through : Mr. S.S. Gulia, Advocate. versus $ UOI & ANR. ..... Respondent ^ Through ; Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. CORAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.P. SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see thejudgment. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * Muktil Mudgal, J. This is an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order, judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge in respect of the land acquired in village Bakkarwala. Section 4 notification was issued on 15.10.1993 for public purpose namely for "water treatment plant of Dwarka Project". The Land Acquisition Collector made the award bearing No. 12/95-96 @ Rs.96,875/- per bigha. Upon reference under Section 18 of the Act the same was enhanced to Rs.1,08,000/- per bigha by the learned Additional District Judge. The assessment for the compensation has been challenged by both the land owners and the Land Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:08.02.2024 16:36 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 AcquisitionCollector. It is admitted that this court in the case of LA.APP. No.189/2006 titled Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI decided on 25.5.2006 fixed the market value of the land acquiredby the same award at Rs.1,32,000/-per bigha. The appellant is thus entitled to the same relief and the compensation in the present case. The decree of the learned Additional District Judge is accordingly modified and the appeal of the land owner is allowed in terms of the decision of Jai Singh (supra), subject to the condition that they will not be entitled to the interest for the period of delay. The appeal stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms. MUKUL MUDGAL, J DECEMBER 07,2006 mb % # 1 $ A # t INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHI T.AAPP No. 189-Q1 & CM 4030/2006 Judgmentreservedon : 17 &18.5.2006 Judgmentdeliveredon :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. Versus Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through:Mr.SanjayPoddar forUOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. Union of India Jai Singh & Ors. AND TAAPP NO. 812/2005 & CM 17905/2005 Appellants throughMr. SanjayPoddar, Advocate. VS AND ....Respondents through: S/sh.D.V.Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. # BhoopSingh LAAPP No. 281/2006 & CM 5117/2006 ....Appellants through:S/sh.D.V.Khatri,S.S. Gulia,P.C.Sharma,Sanjeev LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 1 of 32 r~) Versus $ UnionofIndia and Another. A Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. ....Respondents through:Mr.SanjayPoddar forUOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. Union of India AND T,AAFP NO. Simm & CM 17950/2005 Appellants throughMr. SanjayPoddar, Advocate. VS. # Bhoop Singh AND ....Respondent through:S/sh.D.V.Khatri,S.S. Gulia,P.O.Sharma,Sanjeev Kumairand Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. TAAPPNO. 568/2005 # ! Ranbir Singh Versus $ Union of India and Another. A AND LAAPP No.l89-91/2006&conn.matters ....Appellant through:S/sh.D.V.Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates, ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar forUOI. IVfr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. Page2 of 32 'sJ Union of India # Ranbir Singh # Raghbir Versus T.AAPP NO. 7S2/2()05& CM 17517/2005 Appellant throughMr. SanjayPoddar, Advocate. VS AND ....Respondent through:S/sh.D.V.Khatri,S.S. Gulia,P.C.Sharma,Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. TAAPPNO. 648/2005 ....Appellant through;S/sh.D,V.Khatri,S.S. Gulia,P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. $ Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar forUOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. # Bhoop Singh AND LAAPP NO. 326/2006 T- ....Appellant through: S/sh.D.V.Khatri, S.S. Gulia,P.CiSharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. LAAPP No.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 3 of 32 r? V Versus $ UnionofIndia andAnother. ....Respondents through;Mr. SanjayPoddar forUOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. Union of India # Bhoop Singh # ! Raghbir Singh Versus AND T.AAPP NO. 835/m'^ & CM 17977/2005 Appellants throughMr.SanjayPoddar, Advocate. VS AND ....Respondent through:S/sLd.V.Khatri,S.S. Gulia,P.C.Sharma,Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. LAAPP No. 609/2005 ....Appellant through:S/sh.D.V.Khatri,S.S. Gulia,P.C.Sharma,Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. $ Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr. SanjayPoddar forUOL Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. AND LAAPP NO. 864/2005 & CM 18104/2005 LAAPP No.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page4 of 32 c -\J Union of India throughMr. SanjayPoddar, Advocate. VS # RaghbirSingh ....Respondent j through:S/sh.D.V.Khatri,S.S. Gulia,P.C.Sharma,Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. RoopChand, Advocates. AND TAAPP Nos. 183/2006.1S4/2006.845/2005&CMs. 18016/2005&5629/2006, 319-21/2006.779-80/2005.783/2005.802/2005&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 18084/2005.859/2005 & 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 6664/2006. 858/2005 & CM 18074/2005. 836/2005 17981/2005. 595/2005. 596/2005. 604/2005. 605/2005. 606/2005. 607/2005..608/2005. ^7/ #005. 620/2005. ^21/2005. 647/2005. 649/200& 650/2005,Vd85/200i 1)05 & cm 15900/95W3/200^ 718/2005& CM 16906/2005.720/2005 & 17191/2005.777/2005 & an 17304/2005. 778/2005 & CM 17308/2005.781/2005 & cm 17408/2005. 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 1786.3/2005.804/2005 & 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 17930/2005.819/2005 & CM 17934/2005.820/2005 & cm 17938/2005.821/2005 & CM 17942/2005. 827/2005 & CM 17946/2005. 829/2005 & CM 17954/2005. 830/2005 & CM 17958/2005. 831/2005-& CM 17962/2005. 832/2005 & CM 17966/2005. 833/2005 & CM 17970/2005. 837/2005 & CM 17985/2005. 838/2005 & CM 18001/2005. 840/2005 & CM 17993/2005. 842/2005 & CM 18005/2005. 844/2005 & CM 18013/2005. 846/2005 & CM 18020/2005. 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, LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn,matters Page5 of32 8.^3/2005 & CM 18054/2005,854/2005 & CM 18058/2005.855/2005 & CM & 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'RT.K MR. TUSTTCE SWATANTER KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. L. BHAYANA 1. Whetherreportersoflocalpapermay be allowedto see thejudgment? 2. Tobereferredto thereporterornot? . 3. Whetherthejudgmentshouldbereferredin theDigest? . SWATANTER KUMAR. .T. All the above 111 Land AcquisitionAppealshave been preferredeitherby. ^ the claimantsor by the Union of India againstthe judgmentsof the Reference Court wherebyitpartiallyallowedthe referenceand grantedcompensationto the claimants @Rs.1,08,000/- per bigha with other statutory benefits and interest payablein termsofprovisionsofSection23 (1-A)oftheLandAcquisitionAct. It is not necessaryfor us to referto the facts of each appeal as the learned counselappearingfor the appellantsinall theseappealsarguedand referredto the pleadingsand recordof thefollowingappeals (a) BhoopSinghVs. UnionofIndia&Others(LAAPPNo. 281/2006) (b) Unionof India Vs. BhoopSingh (LAAPPNo. 828/2005) A.; LAAPPNo,189-91/2006&conn.matters Page6of32 (c) Jai Singhand OthersVs. UnionofIndia&Othes(LAAPP189-91/06) .p (d) UnionofIndiaVs. Jai Singhand Others(LAAPPNo.812/2005) \ (e) RanbirSinghVs. UnionofIndia&Another(LAAPPNo. 568/2005) (f) UnionofIndiaVs. RanbirSingh(LAAPPNo. 782/2005) (g) RaghbirVs. UnionofIndia&Another(LAAPPNO. 649/2005) (h) BhoopSinghVs. UnionofIndia&Ors (LAAPPNO. 326/2006) (i) UnionofIndiaVs. BhoopSingh(LAAPP.No.835/2005) (j) RaghbirSinghVs. UnionofIndia&Another(LAAPP.No. 609/2005) (k) UnionofIndiaVs. RaghbirSingh(LAAPP.No.864/2005) These cases were also taken as lead cases by the ReferenceCourt and the judgmentspassedin thesecases were reliedupon in disposingof otherreferences as well. Thus, we wouldbereferringprimarilyto the facts and evidenceledinthe above mentionedcases as it wouldhelp in bringingthe correctfacts and evidence on record and would also help in determinationof questions involved in the presentappeals. Wewoulddisposeofalltheseappealsbythiscommonjudgment. All the claimantsare bhumidaror owners of agriculturalland fallen in the revenueestateof VillageBakarwala. This land was acquiredfor public purpose namely "WaterTreatmentPlantfor DwarkaProject" vide notificationdated 15th October, 1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct (hereinafter referredto as the Act). Declarationunder Section6 was issuedon Tlth October, 1994. The appropriate Government invoked the emergency provisions under LAAPPNo.189-91/2006&conn.matters Page7of32 'V Section17(1)of the Act for dispensingwith the complianceof Section5A of the Act. After followingthe prescribedprocedure,the Land AcquisitionCollector vide award No.12/95-96had assessedthe market value of the acquiredland at Rs.4.65lakhsper acre (Rs.96,875/-perbigha). Thiscompensationwas computed by the Collectorwith referenceto the policyof the Governmentof Delhi, which came into effect from 27th April, 1990 fixing the minimum price of the agriculturallandatRs.4.65lakhsper acre. The claimantsbeing dissatisfiedwith the award of the Collectorpreferred referencesunderSection 18 of the Act, whichin turn were referredto the learned DistrictJudge,Delhi. The partiesled evidence.The claimants,whilerelyingupon the sale instances,award, allotmentletters issuedby the DDA to various public institutions, had claimed compensation @Rs.2000/- per square yards. The ReferenceCourt, keepingin view the pleadingsof the parties,had framed all or any of thefollowingissues 1. What is the effectof the Delhi Land Reforms Act on the market value of the land? 2. Whetherthe Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicableto the land in disputeand if so, to what effect? 3. Whetherthe Delhi Jal Boardis not a necessaryparty to the presentproceedings as claimed by it? 4. Whatwas themarketvalueof the acquiredlandon the date of notificationunder Section 4 of the LA Act? 5. Towhatenhancement,if any, theclaimantsareentitledto? LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page8of32 6. Whetherthe claimantsare entitledto the specialdamagesas claimedfor? ^ 7. Relief. The claimantshad producedfour 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 judgmentswere exhibitedas Exh.P-1 to Exh. P-4 with the consentof counselfor theparties. Therespondentshad producedthe GovernmentPolicydated3rdMay, 1990, which was exhibitedas Exh.R-2 and two sale deeds in relationto sale of land in VillageMundaka,which were exhibitedas Exh.R-3 and Exh.R-4. In this case, the partieshad 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 India (LAC No. 239/2004),the parties had also led oral evidence.The claimant had examinedPW-1 Khem Singh,UDC from DDA in LAC No. 104/99,who had broughtthe summonedrecord and copy of letterof allotmentto institutiondated 8th November, 1999, Exh. PW-l/A. PW-2 Parkash Chand again a UDC from L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, had produced and proved on record Exh.PW-2/Aand Exh.PW2/B,firstwas the letterdated3rdM^ch, 1993regarding fixationof pricesof Govt. land for allotmentof varioussocial,cultural,charitable and other organisationswhile the other was regardingscheduleof market rates. PW-3 Rajeev Kumar, Halka Patwari had proved on record Exh. PW3/A being certifiedphotocopyof ak sajraof VillageBakarwalaand he had also statedthat it was surroundedby VillageMundakain North,Baprola,DichaoKalaand Tilanpur LAAPPNo.189-91/2006&conn.matters Page9 of32 AJ Kotla in South, VillageRanholain East and VillageZafar pur Hiran Kudna in West. He particularlystatedthattheboundaryofVillageMundakaandBakarwala jy are adjoining. PW-4 Anar SinghstillanotherUDC from DDA, LAB Residential, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi had proved Exh.PW4/A and Exh.PW4/B being photocopiesof the letterswhererates were givenbut they were excessiveand in the leasedeed they were corrected. Copy of the leasedeed executedbetweenone VirenderSinghand DDAbeingExh.PW4/Cwas alsoprovedon record. In LAC No. 111/99 before the Reference Court, one Surender Singh Patwariwas also examinedas PW-1, who had broughtthe DDA file to show that letter dated 8th September, 1993 was addressed to Delhi Water Supply and SewageDisposalUndertakingby the AdditionalCommissionerofDDA pertaining to physicalpossessionofthe landmeasuringabout20 bighas10 biswasin Village Najafgarh,whichwas takenfromDDA on 25thOctober,1994. PW-2 S.P, Dagar, Record Clerk from Sub RegistrarOffice of Janakpurihad provedthe sale deed Exh.PW2/l dated 23rd April, 1993. PW-4 Khem Singh, UDC from DDA was examinedto prove the record of Institutionalletter dated 8th November, 1993, which was exhibitedas Exh.PW4/A. PW-3 Amar Singh was examinedto prove allotment of auction plot at Pitampura. PW-5 Prakash Chand, UDC, L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi had again proved the letter dated 3rd March, 1993 regardingfixationof pricesof Govt. land for allotmentof varioussocial cultural and charitableand other organisationsand copy of letter regardingscheduleof LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 10of32 marketrate, which were exhibitedas Exh.PW5/Aand Exh.PW5/B. PW-6 Rajiv ^ Kumar,HalkaPatwariwas also examinedin this case. PW-7 Anar Smgh,UDC, I DDA,L&B Residential,VikasSadan,New Delhiwas also examined,who proved the Exh.PW7/A and Exh.PW7/B in relation to allotmentof plot in Pitampura @Rs.286.50per squaremeter. All thesewitnesseswere also examinedin LAC No. 70/99titledas Dharam Singh Vs. Union of India. Above is the entiredocumentaryand oral evidenceled by the partiesin all these cases. Vide different judgments, the learned Reference Court granted uniform compensationto the claimantsin all these cases. The claimantswere awarded compensation@Rs.1,08,000/-per bigha in addition to other statutory ^ benefitsandinterestpayableundertheprovisionsofthe Act. TheReferenceCourt whilesolelyrelyingupon Exh.R-4,whichwas asale deeddated4th March, 1994 in relationto 1bighaofagriculturallandin the revenueestateofVillageMundaka for considerationofRs.l lakh and by adding the stamp value ofRs.8,000/-,had granted the compensation @Rs.1,08,000/- per bigha to the claimants. The claimantsbeing dissatisfiedfrom the judgmentof the ReferenceCourthave filed 38 appeals before this Court praying for further enhancement of awarded compensationwhilethe Unionof Indiahas preferred73 appealson thegroundthat compensationawarded by the Reference Court is excessive, unreasonableand without any evidence and pray that the award of the Collector awarding -V LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters . Page11 of32 \ /• compensation@Rs.Rs.4.65lakhsperacre(Rs.96,875/-perbigha)berestored. ^ Beforereferringto the meritsofthe contentionsraisedby learnedCounsel appearingfor the partiesin all theseappeals,it willbe appropriateto haveaglance of the various sale deeds, which were produced and proved by the parties on record in these cases. Sr.No Detailsofsaledeeds Village Date of execution Valueper bigha 1. Rs.3,02,400/-for land measuring 1bigha (Exh.P-l)(LACNo.77/2004) Tikri Kalan 23.4.1993 Rs.3,02,400/- 2. Rs.9,07,200/-for land measuring 3 bigha (Exh.P-2) (LACNo.77/2004) Tikri Kalan 23.4.1993 Rs.3,02,400/- 3. Rs.3,02,400/-for land measuring 1bigha • (Exh.P-3)(LACNo.77/2004) Tikri Kalan 23.4.1993 Rs.3,02,400/- 4. Rs.4,50,000/-for land measuring 1bigha (Exh.P-4)(LACNo.77/2004) Tikri Kalan 28.2.1996 Rs.4,50,000/- Sr.No Detailsofsaledeeds Village Date of execution Valueper bigha 1. Rs.l,25,000/-for land measuring 1bigha (Exh.P-l/P-3)(LAC No. 111/99) Mundaka 27.2.1990 Rs.1,25,000/- 2. Rs.l,83,000/-for land measuring 1bigha2-1/4biswas (Exh. P-3) (LAC No. 111/99) Mundalca 24.1.1992 Rs.1,64,494/- LAAPP No.l89-91/2006&conn.inatters Page12of32 Sr.No Detailsofsaledeeds Village Date of execution Valueper bigha 1. Rs.50,000/-for land measuring2 bigha7 biswas (Exh.R-3XLACNo.77/2004) Mundaka 11.3.1994 Rs.21,276/- 2 Rs.1,00,000/-for land measuring 1bigha (Exh.R-4)(LACNo.77/2004) Mundaka 4.3.1994 Rs.1,00,000/- On the basis of above saledeeds and other documentaryand oral evidence produced by the claimants, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellantsarguedthat the compensationawardedto the claimantsought to be enhancedby this Court,inter-alia,on thefollowinggrounds (i)the learned Reference Court has fallen in error of law and appreciationof evidenceby discardingExh.P-3,which is the sale deed dated 27th February, 1990 for sale of one bigha of land wherein the vendorhad sold one bigha of land in the revenueestateof VillageMundakafor a sum ofRs.1,25,000/-and solelyrelied upon apost notificationsale deed in relationto the same Village whileawardingthe compensation(Exh.R-4). (ii)on the basis ofExh.P-3,the claimantswould be entitledto get compensation @Rs.1,35,000/-(Rs.1,25,000/-being sale consideration+Rs.10,000/- towards stampduty)withfurtherincrease@15% per annumfrom the year1990 to 1993, the date of issuance of notification under Section 4, which comes to Rs.2,08,406/-. (iii)tiie Reference Court while relying upon Exh.P-2 should have awarded compensation@Rs.3,02,400/-per bigha whereby the land measuringabout 3 bigha in the revenue estate of Village Tikri Kalan was sold for a sum of Rs.9,07,200on 23rd April, 1993 just few months prior to the issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 of the Act. Thus, this was the best piece of evidencebefore the ReferenceCourt for determiningtiie fair and reasonable market'value of the land. LAAPP No.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 13of 32 • (iv)theReferenceCourthas ignoredExhP-l,the saledeed in relationto the land situatedin theVillageGhewra. • (v)intermsof GovernmentPolicyExh.R-1.the claimants ^ @12% compoundingper year on the valuefixed underthe Pohcy. In termsof this policy, as of 1993, the claimants would be entitled to compensation @Rs.l,72,000/-perbighainany case. (vi)whileheavily relyingupon Exh.PWl/A,the letterissuedby the DelhiWater Supply and SewageDisposalUndertaking,it was arguedthat the DDA, withoutany furtherdevelopmentand in fact in the conditionsin which the land was acquired, had allotted land to the undertaking @Rs.4,00/-per squareyard. Even aftermakingthe deduction@25%, the marketv^ue of me landoughtto havebeen determinedat Rs.3,00/-per squareyard i.e. 3,02,40U/- perbigha. (vii)anancillaryargumentto the aboveis thatby applyingthe GoldenMeanRule to all the above computation,the claimantsin any case would be entitledto compensation@Rs.226/-persquareyardi.e.2,28,848/-perbigha. On the otherhand, the learnedcounselappearingfor the respondent/Union of Indiacontendedthatit is not permissiblein law to apply the principleof 15% increaseas thereis no ruleeven permittinguniversalincrease@12% annually and for this purposehe placedrelianceupon the judgmentof this Courtin the caseof BediRam Vs. Unionof India and Another 93 (2001)DLT 150 (DB) and Amar Singh Vs. Union of India(RFA No. 494/88decidedon 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 institutionalor commercial colonies cannot be taken as a guiding factor for determiningthe market value of the acquired land. While -relying upon the LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page14of32 \(h judgment of Supreme Court in the case Kiran Tandon Vs. Allahabad, ^DevelopmentAuthority&Another (2004)10SCC 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 agriculturalland. On this premise,it is arguedthatfirstlythe sale deedshave not been provedin accordancewith law by the claimantsand even if they are to be takeninto consideration,the reflectedvaluewouldhave to be,reducedin termsof this principleof law. It is lastlysubmittedthat the valueof Exh.R-4shouldhave been reducedkeepingin view the fact that the sale deed was much subsequentto the dateofissuanceofnotificationand the compensationawardedbythe Collector would be fair. Firstlywe would deal with the contentsof Exh.PWl/A. This documentis heavily relied upon by the claimantsand they claimedcompensation@Rs.300/- per square yards after making certain deductions on account of development charges. This is a letter issuedby the DDA to Delhi Water Supply & Sewerage DisposalUndertakingvide which land measuring4.27 acre Site No.A-2, 4, 583 acres Site No.A-3 was allotted @Rs.l5.60 lakhs per acre. This rate was subsequentlyenhancedto Rs,20 lakhs per acre + 24% groundrent per annum. A bearreadingofthe lettershows thatitrelatedto allotmentofdevelopedplotin the area ofNazafgarhTownship. The land was givenfor the purposeofconstruction of Mini Sewage Treatment Plant and Sewage Pumping Station for Nazafgarh LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 15 of 32 Township and adjoining areas. It has been held in different cases that tlie ^ allotment by the authorities of developed areas cannot be good guide for determiningthe fair marketvalue of the agriculturalland, which is acquiredand more particularlywhen the instances of sale of agriculturalland of the same village are available on record. Reference in this regard can be made to a judgmentof the SupremeCourtin the caseof BhimSinghand OthersVs. State nfHnrvana and Another AIR 2003 SC 4382. The burdenof provingthat the claimants are entitled to the same compensation @Exh. PWl/A even after reasonabledeductionwas entirelyupon the claimants. It was for them to show that acquiredland had the same locationand potentialas the land coveredunder Exh. PWl/A. As far as this documentitself is concerned,it does not reflect ^ specificallythatfrom which part of Delhi the land was allotted,muchless giving the revenueestate of relevantVillage. The NajafgarhTownship area is a very vast area and thus, it is not possiblefor the Court to adopt this documentas a relevantcomparablepiece of evidencefor adjudicatingthe controversyin issue. For this reason,we are unable to acceptthe contentionof the claimantsthat they are entitledto get compensationon the strengthof Exh.PWl/A. Exh.P-1 to P-4 ( in LAC 77/2004) are the sale instancesof agriculturalland relating to. the land situatedin the revenue estate of Village Tikri Kalan. Of course all these sale instancesare prior to notificationissuedunderSection4 ofthe Act exceptExh.P- 4, which is in fact nearly 2 years post notificationand as sucli.is not relevantfor LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 16of32 •V anypurpose. As far as Exh.Plto P3 areconcernedtheyrelateto revenueestateof anotherVillage.Exh.P-3 (in LAC No. 111/99)is asale instanceof agricultural landrelatingto thelandsituatedin the revenueestateofVillageGhewra. As taras Exh.P-2in LAC No. 77/2004is concerned,it is asalein favourofapubliclimited company wherethe vendorhad soldnearly3bighaof agriculturallandfrom the revenue estate of VillageTikri Kalan for atotal considerationof Rs.9,07,200/-. This saleat the face ofit was moreforacommercialpurposeand relatedto saleof landin anothervillage.PW6RajivKumar,HalkaPatwariin his statementno where statedthatboundariesof VillageTikriKalan and VillageGhewrawere adjacentto that of VillageBakarwalaand the nature, user and potentialof the land of these villages were similar, if not identical. In the absence of any such specific ^ evidence, the Court would not take into considerationExh.Pl to P4 in LAC No.77/2004and Exh.P-3 in LAC No. 111/99in determiningthe fair marketvalue ofthe landin question. As far as R-3 in LAC No. 77/2004is concerned,it is asale deed producedby the respondentvide which landmeasuringabout2bighaand 7 biswas in Village Mundaka was sold for a sum of Rs.50,000/-on 11th March, 1994 i.e. subsequentto the date of notificationin the presentcase. As per Exh.R- 3, the valueofthe land wouldbeRs.21,276/-perbighawhilethe Collectorhimself has awardeda sum of Rs.96,875/-per bigha. Thus, Exh. R-3 is also an irrelevant documentfor determiningthemarketvalueofthe landin question. Having discardedthe above documentaryevidencenow we are left with LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters- Pagel7of32 V Exh.R-1, Exh.R-4 and Exh.P-3 and the oral evidence led by the parties to substantiatetheirrespectiveclaims. Exh.R-4relatesto sale of 1bighaof land in the revenueestateof VillageMundaka,whichwas soldfor atotalconsiderationof Rs.l lakh as on 4th March, 1994. This saleinstanceis nearly6monthssubsequent to the date of notificationissued by the authoritiesunder Section4 of the Act. Exh.P3 in LAC NO. 111/99relatesto the sale ofone bighaoflandin the revenue estateof VillageMundakafor aconsiderationof Rs.l,25,000/-on 27th February, 1990 i.e. nearly2-1/2years priorto issuanceof notificationin question. Exh.R-2 is the Governmentpolicy dated 3rd May, 1990 vide which the Governmenthad fixed the minimum price of agriculturalland in the Union Territory of Delhi @Rs.4.65lakhsper acrein additionto otherbenefits. Learned Reference Court has noticed the Government policy Exh.R-2 fixingthe minimumpriceofall the agriculturallandby the Governmentat Rs.4.65 lakhsper acrebut has declinedto considerthe samefor awardingcompensationto the claimantsby stating"An increaseat 12% per annumfeatingthe base valueat Rs.4.65lacs per acre on 27.4.90as perpolicyEx.R2cannotbe grantedas specific evidence as to the prevailingprice as per Ex.R4 is availableon record which pertainsto saleof agriculturallandin the vicinity." Whilemakingthe aboveobservations,the learnedReferenceCourtgranted compensation@Rs.1,08,000/-per bigha on the basis of Exh.R-4. However,the ReferenceCourtrejectedand treatedExh.P-3as not agenuinetransaction.Exh.P3 LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page18of 32 is asaleinstancerelatingto saleofland inthe revenueestateof VillageMundaka. There does not appear to be any plausible reason, much less a logical differentiationin the reasoningfor rejectingP-3 and entirelyrelyingupon Ex.R-4. In relation to Ex.P3, it has been stated that respondentshave challengedthe correctnessof Exh.P3 as no evidencehas been led by the petitionersto show that the land in VillageBakarwalahad the same potentialas that of the plot of land sold as per Exh.Pl/P3 in Village Mundaka. Exh.Pl to P3 were tendered in evidenceand were duly acceptedby the Court in presenceof the counselfor the • parties.As is clearfrom the orderofthe referenceCourtdated 13thMay, 2004,the documents were filed, they were taken on record and then were tendered in evidenceon behalfof the claimantsand as there was no objectionto exhibitthe documentsand read them in evidencein accordancewith law, they were exhibited r by asubsequentorderpassedon the samedate. Oncethe respondentshavewaived objection,if any, in regard to exhibitionand admissibilityof the documentthen they could not even be heard to question the correctnessof the said document particularlywhen they themselvesled no oralevidenceand only tenderedExh.R-1 to R4 in evidencein terms of orderof the ReferenceCourtdated 20thApril, 2005. The partiesoptedto only tenderthe documentin evidenceand arguedthe caseson the strengthof such document. It may also be noticedthat certifiedcopiesof the sale instances have been filed in some cases while photocopies of the sale instanceswere filed still in some othercases. The copiesof both Exh.Pl and R4, LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 19of32 I r V thus were admitted in evidence and treated as relevant evidenceby the Court. >^Rejectionofone andacceptanceofotheratasubsequentstage,cannotbe saidto be just and proper. We must also notice at this stage that the parties had participatedin the entiretrialofdifferentcaseswithoutraisingany objectionwith regardto exhibitionand admissibilityofthesedocuments. Objectionin regardto exhibitionand admissibilityin evidenceof an documentis awaivableobjection and aparty by expression or conduct can waive such an objection. Having participatedin the entiretrial, none of them can be heard to objectto exhibition and admissibilityofthe samedocuments. Equally without merit is the other reason given by the learnedreference Court for rejectingP-3. It has been recordedby the ReferenceCourt that the petitionershave failed to lead any evidenceto show thatland situatedin Village Mundakahas the samepotentialas thatofVillageBakarwala. Firstly,thisfinding is not supportedfrom the record. As per the statementof PW-6, the land of Village Mundaka was adjacent to Village Bakarwalatowards north. He also provedon recordExh.PW6/A,whichshowsthatboundaryofboththesevillagesis adjacent. Even the claimantshave so statedbeforethe Court. If this reasonis to be taken as correct,in that event,the ReferenceCourtcouldnot have reliedupon Exh.R-4as such in arrivingat the conclusionin the judgmentunder appeal. The respondenthad admittedlyled no oral evidence and has only placed on record Exh.R-1to R-4. Noneof thesedocumentsshowsthatpotentialof the landofboth LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page20 of 32 villagesare identicalor similar. On the same analogy,learnedReferenceCourt ^shouldhaverejectedExh.R-4. Thereis apparentanomalyin the reasoninggiven by the learnedReferenceCourt. Learnedcounselappearingfor the claimantsalso reliedupon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt Omwati Vs.Union of Tndia and Another (L.A.APPL.No.94/2006decided on 27th April, 2006) and argued that the same compensationcouldbe awardedto the claimantswith such reasonablededuction as may be permissiblein law. For this purpose,he againrelieduponthe statement of PW-6 Rajiv Kumar, Halka Patwari to say that there is aboundaryof village Ranhola in the east of the acquiredland. It is also contendedon behalfof the claimantsthat while assessingthe marketvalue of the acquiredland, it must be takeninto considerationthatwhatuse the land is capableofbeingputto in future and the Court should consider the possibilitiesof the land and not its realized possibilities while determiningsuch matters. Reliancein this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Privy Council the case of Vyricherla Naravana Gaiapatiraiu Vs. Revenup-DivisionalOfficer.VizagapatnamAIR 1939 Privy Council 98. It is true that this Court had consideredat some length these aspects of acquisitionproceedingswith particularreferenceto the landin the revenueestaet . of VillageRanhola. Notonly the potential/futurepotentialof thelandbut also the valueofthe land is tobe determinedwith referenceto the minimumpriceof land LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page21 of32 mentionedby the Governmentin its own letterwas consideredand the Courtheld as under I "15 They are documentspreparedby the governmentafterdue verificationand surveys,but ^e documentsitselfdoes not refer to any distinct piece of evidence which was considered by the government for determining the minimum price payable for acquisitionof agriculturalland. At the same time, this policy decisionof the governmentcannotbe treatedto be eitherentirely inadmissible