$-73 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 397/2011 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with I^Ir.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus YOGENDER KUMAR & ORS Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER % 19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. -T— n PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19. 2011 mm Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified f'^n , ..iJ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludqment Reserved dn: 19'^"Aunnc^f- ymi ludqment DelivemdOn- igth Sentpmber. 207 7 LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/12011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH-r, ^ Appellant Through; Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.DeefsakKhosia, Advocate and Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate. Vs. UOI & ANOTHER Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate & Mr.Sa Nawani, Kaomud njay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K i KIran, Advocates for R-1 AND ^ 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2.010 & CM 10017/2010& CM No.15181/2011 nn'-D^/ 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010 LA App' ir«SS£"'Li"A?r•IS'i rs 248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011 375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. .LA'APP. 247/2011,' U.APP.' LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15 09 2000 R, Award No, 06/2002-2003,Viliage-BhalswaJahang^ Ah D LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmattjrs Page 1 of 22 o + LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. 88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 164/2011,, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP. 1, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP. /2011, LA.APP. 323/2011, 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 244/2011, LA.APP. •245 LA.APP.346/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 &CM No.15194/2011^ LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.l LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 5182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4|14/2011. (Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 & Award No. 18/2000-2001,Village-BhalswaJahangirPuri) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PR 1. Whether the Reporters of to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporte A.DEEP NANDRAJOG local papers may be allowed r or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? j PRADEEP IMANDRAIOG.I. j i t 1. Iproceed with an apologj/to the reader by referringto a notification issued later in point of time and then to a notification issued prior in poirt of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notification which was issued earlier in point of time. ,2. Land measuring 758-01 bjgha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswajahapgirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmaders Page 2 of 22 I i'il to a notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 189^, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After the Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, r market value of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ^13.82 lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed at?13.82 lakhs per acre. 3. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the lead matter, being LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired ^14,56,963 per acre. following the due process, announced his award bearing whereby he assessed the fai <r land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or 4. it needs to be highlightei Acquisition Collector as well a i that both i.e. the learned Land s the Learned Reference Court, while assessing the fair market value of the ,acquired land, adopted the minimum price f6r agricultural land fixed by the Government as on 01.04.20C|0, notified vide Circular dated 11.09.2011. Different destina lions were reached inasmuch as the learned Land Acquisition compensation, did not grant e Collector, while assessing the ppreciation for the period from 01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the Land. Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said period of 165 days (a) 12% per annum with reference to the base date 1.4.2000and the price^3.82 lakhs per acre.' LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters ! Page 3 of 22 m j 5. Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 30.07.1998,for the same pufcjlic purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitationof by a declaration under Section 6 1998. • After following the due Collector announced an award JJ Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on 04.08. process, the Land Acquisitior •bearing No.18/2000-01 dated 12.03.2001, whereby he alue of the acquired land at equivalent to ?11.20 lakhs per assessed the fair market ^2,33,333 per bigha which is acre. 6. Dissatisfied with the ajssessment mad^ by the Land AcquisitionCollector,the land| owners sought referenceunder Section 18 of the Act. The L.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.lllA/2008 titled Chandrawati 1/9. Union ofIndia, assessedthe fpir marketvalue of the acquired land at ^1,46,670/- per. acre. The difference; in the destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and the same reason as noted notification.dated 15.9.2000 i.e. :ollector adopting the land rate with effect from 1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement @ 11% per annum for the interregnum period. 7. The Union of India as challenged the assessment m well as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmaters Page 4 of 22 • (i; ;! Court by way of the appeals above. 8. On behalf of the Ignd owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on .the following documentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified b/ the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed its intention to respect of developed properties owned by and cross objections mentioned libit PW-4/1), whereby it charge unearned increase in •esidential and commercial L&DO. Relying on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which is stated to swa Jahangir Puri, was fixed eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per that if 50% is deducted be close to village Bhala at.?5830/- per square m acre and it was urgec towards development cost, the land owners should be entitled to- enhanced compensation in sum of ^1,17,96,200/- per acre. (b) The rate charged by M.CD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanja^ terms of the Resolutior r Gandhi Transport Nagar, in No.705 dated 23.11.1987 (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby. MCD decided to allot developed plots to the square meter and Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots transporters @ T425/- per Dit PW-3/2, a copy of the 21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar @?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters Page 5 of 22 P documents, learned counsel for the land owners argued that the rate stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, • marl<et value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made.on account of the development costs, fo|r undeveloped lands, fair market value would come to ^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per •annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be ^24,76,592/- per acre (c) Learned counsel placed reliance on . the Rohini Residential Scher would evidence that fai land comes to ^17,19,85 that even if 50% deducti on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ranging between ^23.72 according to. learned col for the land owners also auction record of plots in ne in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (ExhibitsPW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, r the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square re in Jahangir Purl at a price lakh to ?28.4 lakh, which nsel translates to a price of ^"14,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged, that suitable deduction cou|ld be effected therefrom pertainingto undevelope|dagriculturalland, (d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunderland measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ t3 learned counsel urged th 2,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to, ^56,93,163/- or ?11,£6,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 connectedmat:ers Page 6 of 22 'W'. 9. t contended that this saje deed should be relied upon, after making a reas development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another. (Exhibit PW-15/2), whe bigha situated in the Mamurpur was sold to R executed by one Shri. society 'M/s.Butterfly', w aid as good evidence o- the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2; in village Bhalswa Jahangir ^1,40,000 and urged that ever is to be given-on said value, jonable deduction towards termine the fair market value ;ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated 24.03.2000 :reby land measuring 4-16 revenue estate of village adha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/-p^r acre was also relied upon, (e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a hereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996@ ?18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village BhalswaJahangirPuri and thus was pressed in Ffair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^oddar learned ;senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of 1if 12% appreciation per annum the price as on the date of the notificationunderSection4 comes to ?1,94,782per bigha, and thus It was argued that since price of similarland is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt i;he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmat):ers Page 7 of22 • I •Ill fixing tine market value of Inaving a vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and Court. . 10.. It may.be noted that vyh Bn judgment was reserved in the above captioned matters on 19'^ August, 2011, decision had been reserved for. judgment in a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.266/2008titled JaiSinah 1/5. UOL&Anr. in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response counsel for the land owners undeveloped agricultural land d counsel also argued that the Dllector has assessed. the fair price much higher than the one so has the learned Reference to the arguments of learned the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response. 11. The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the depositionofShrl TrilokChand\Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5 Union of India in which he f area while proving the Al<s Si. Jahangir Puri. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in as explained the topology of the Ta Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa /ould reveal that ;Village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situatedin tine East, villagesSamaipurBadii and. Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puri. West and villages Bharola and n the South of village jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 8 of 22 0 12. ! may additionally notfe that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory j of Delhi, published by the Government of NGT Delhi would reveal that Village Bhalswa Jahangir Purr is situated on .t-h^ eastern side of G.T.KarnalRoad i.e. NationalHighway No.l. VillagesBadii, Samaipur,Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamoorDur(Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l. 13. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of villageJahangirPuri, post acquisitionof agriculturallanjds in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to. urbanization was of a weak village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sinofi l/s. Union nf India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c 76. It has to be remembered it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had f emergency i.e. the year 1975- that the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlementofslum and J.J.Clusters. 14. The decision in LA.App.h Ann which was reserved on 0.266/2008 iai Sinah l/s. UOi & 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronouncedon IS.8.2011,when instantappealswere reserved for judgment,has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that while assessing the fair market value of the land situated in :.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-WestDelhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area • • • • !i LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatiers ; Page9of22 , I -T- constituteda 'V at the point of intersectionwinere G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtal< Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point,, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi IMandi. It needs to be iiigiiltghtedthatvillageBhalswaJahangir Purl is outsidethe 'V aforesaid and as explainedhereihabove and abuts towards the east of NH-l. 15. In the.appeals relatingto the said 10 villageswhere land were acquired pursuant to different notificationsissued from time to time I had dealt with notificationsissued in the year 2000, 2001,2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated 25.04.2001 {Exhibit PW-15/1) and the sale deed dated .24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sut -para (d) of para,8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasojis recorded in paragraphs21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:- 21. The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is predicated on the 2 sale js dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4;2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to f26,75 lakhs per acre and the latter A7P laUhc- -i-L-_ i_^ . U „ ?63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable , , . w — uo iciiauitr evidence to determine fair market ;value of agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered the sale the villages in question on sale deed . Ex.PW-1/3 was JS trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who ' deed in evidence, while No.68/2005 had'stated that to his knowledgethe land was. purchased for religiouspurposeand was being used for a religious purpose. The sale dee LA.App.No.999/2010&connectedmatters d Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise Page 10 of 22 been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated Organization" and as per jister Annie, the secretary of that the organization had to pay the price for the sai|J piece of land as. it was the only plot of the requ site size suitable for the requirement.of the organizationand is being used for destitute women circumstance, personal ! 22. As held in the dec sions reported as 1995 (1) SCC lll Land Acouisition Officer E!urn & Qrs. I/?. IstiRohini&Anr (Refetipara 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin 1/9. Land Acquisition Offirer .e. there was 0 the vendee. a special (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale,deed which are tendered in evidenceby virtue of Section 51A of the L A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as: an exemplar sale deed to determine the market v the reason there may which have led the buye alue of land in an area for be special circumstances , , . , . . - to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informedseller without being influenced by any special fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed bi studied the'market and yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topologyof the area and the prevailingprices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good indexoffair marl<ietvalue ofthe lands in the area. would be failing if 1do not highlightthat the 7n'? dated R.;. was accepted by the learned pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under.agriculturaland in village Rajapur Kalan.was sold by an agriculturistto an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. T17,74,l09/- /1the price which comes to p3 478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No;999/2010&connectedmatters Page 11 of 22 % Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other. 23. Thus, apart from t ie reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which 1 concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc bove would be additional the 2 sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land when the acquisition is of have been acquired anc such large an area, it would make all the more a ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer. , ' would be failing not to note an unreported^ counsel ^Sh.l.S.bahiya 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead eclsion cited by learned Deing. the decision dated matter being LA.App.h (since, deceased) thru L 0.193/2006 PraiaD Singh Rs ]/s. UOi & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale had purchased 8 bigha deed, therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be ice of value of land in the he Court and the price in eduction on account of the treated as a good evide area, was rejected by t question, with suitable d parcel of land being large/ was accepted by the Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th market value. The argur in the decision of the Di\- 38 wherein the Division value in the sale deed on he instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair nent ignores the reasoning isipn Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative of the market value, but found that if the price 1/3''^, the price arrived at jld be price arrived at with therein was reduced by would be the same as wo reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by.the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No..999/2010& connected matters Page 12 of 22 • O: ill produced by the Govern 3.7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ment were giving a price of and the sale deed under 2d the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was .near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, f 1/3'"'^ would be deducted ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd the notification under Acquisition Act was dated from the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that .in the the sale was 1993 a Section 4, of the Land determined fair market \ 24,7.1995 and 16,11.1995 and the Court alue as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the. basis for if ;it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that 1 have hereinbefore already noted the • inherent contradiction in the valijie of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and thi destructive evidence of fair market value.". 16. For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural Jand in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. 17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalswajahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ^8 lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ^5,70,000/-. i 18. Now, if the price., as per the own showing of the land owners was ^5,70,000/- per acre as on 01:07.2003, it is s itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deeds reflecting LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 13 of 22 difficult to comprelnend the Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ^18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzlethat in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ?=15.7 lakhs per acre! I ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the learned. Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned that the said price was for special considerationsand npt the price settled between an informed willing buyer and |an informed willing, seller and ! * . without being influenced by particular land, and had thus special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 lai 5inoh I/5. UP! & Anr i.e. "ice for a parcel of land is with /er nor the seller being well- informed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be good evidenceto determinefair 19. I have discussed this 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where ah abnormally high p evidence of neither the bu market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen land owners and concur wit of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by-me hereinabovei.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. 1reiterate the same. 20. As regards.auction rates of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, i do not find ts of the learned counsel for the h the decision of the learned ReferenceCourt contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premisedoh the decisionof thp,SupremeCourt reportedas La! LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 14 of 22 Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769.' Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by evidence relating to auction rates DDA. 21. In my decision dated 2^.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh l/s. UOi &Ors.. Ih^d extensivelydiscussedthe law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case , with reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DDA ar and