'(l $-20 * IN THE % HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI : lst LA.APP. t028l2008 RAJ PAL .....Appellant Through: Mr.L.C.Chechi, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOl. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to RePorter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, J. For orders see LA.APP. No.59/2007 fl-i. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JUNE 07,2OLL dk Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified |N-IHEI-{|GHCOURToFDELH|ATNEWDEL[-|[ % Iuclantent Reservecl On" T-L' [une ?01] nrdontent Oetivered On" 7' lune' 20lL rA APP.NO.59/2007 '1 ,APPellant ' Thiough: Mr.B.p.Gupta, 'Mr.Deepal< l(hos'la arrd, Mr.L.C.Chechi, Mr'R'B'Singh, Mr'Satish ' l(.Verma and Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocates' \ versus ...... ResPondents Mr.Sanjay lPoddar, Standin$ Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Mr.R.C.Ra1r, Advocate i?ffi],; t(umar 'Verma, standi.e cou.sel' BED RAM uor & oRs. ' Tlr roug h: + LA.AP n-7 DDA; i' And Cros i ecti LA.AP 2007 CM 011 .60/2 LA.A 2001 LA.APP,62 PP.63 07 cM 1139 & 3i = .4,( 11 ..tlt No. 01 LA.APP. 6 007 LA.AP 2007 LA. 2007 20 LA.APP.73l200l__G 011 B1 LA.AP 007 PP.9 07 .APP.41 o.945 ot2 LA 0 LA. P .7 48/200 LA.AP CIVI 2B 2 ,APP,1 008 LA.APP.1O34 008 LA.APP.IO3l 2008 9 U _A.APP,1 009 LA.AP LA.APP 2009 P.553t20 LA.AP 009 CIVI 1. LA 2009 16 .APP. LA.APP. BI2OIO APP 20ro CM No.914 .APP.3B 10 ,APP,957 20 .APP.9 010 LA.APP.3 LA,APP 011 PP.5412 CM )n z-w & tvl .r5512071 .APP.15 1 207r LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page L of 32 vl PP,2 LA.APP.4O 2007 .4 200 ,43 t2007 , LA.APP.44 2007 2007 LAAP 008 LA.AP 0 200 4 7 PP.1105 LA,A .1.106 200 LA.APP 008 PP.647 120 PP.65 0 .APP.311 LA,AP 4 t20r0 LA.AP 20r0 LA.APP.316I2O LA,APP,3BBI2OT.O PP,699 2 .APP.930120l-0 LA.APP 10 .APP.93 PP.934 PP.1065 CM 1n 20 LA.APP o07 P.50r/20 PP.5O .1_4l-5 Ln-qppi0giZQOe,' _Ln.npp.SO+/ZOOe, . LA.APP.s6sl2008 & Clvl trto, rq.rq-rlzooa, ' LA,aPP.609/2008, LA'AP LA.AP LA.A 008 .8r7 t2008 LA.APP.B7 11 16/2008 t. t l : LA,APP.966I2OOB &CM 011 P.99212008 CIVI 28812009 .994 2008 M No.5 OO9, LA.APP. LA.APP,9 &CM :-03512009 .APP 1016/2OOB, LA.APP. 1035/2OOB, LA.APP. 1036/2OOB. ' LA,APP. 1039/2008, LA.APP. .1041/2008, LA.APP. 1102/2008, LA.APP., 1136/2008, LA,APP,1204./2008 & CM No.919/2011, LA.APP. 234t2008, LA,APP. O08, LA.APP 512008 6r '11397/2011, LA,APP,550/2009 & CM NO,967l2011-, LA.APP.551/2009 & CM No,11383/2011, LA.APP. No.576l2009 6r CM 11386/2011, LA.APP. 580/2009, LA.APP. 607/2009 & cM 89I2AII, LA.AP O1O, LA.APP. 253I2OIO, LA.APP. 263t20r0 , LA.APP . 264120L0, LA,APP . 45412010 , LA.APP .617 l20I0 6( CM 11373/2011, LA.APP.678/2010 & CM 11395/2011, LA.APP. 67912010, LA.APP.680/2010 & CM NO.958/2011, LA.APP.6B1/2010 6( CM N0.961/2011, LA.APP.682/2010 & CM 11393/2011. LA.APP. 683/2010, LA.APP,911/2010 & cM :No.11364/2011, LA.APP.9 PP, 94712 .APP.949 LA.APP. 010 APP. 0t20r1 & t P .s60 t2009 CQRAM: t-toN'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRADEEP NAMRA.IOG -,i 1. Wlretlrer the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be re'ferred to Reporter br not? Whetherl th" judgment shor,rlcl be reported in [he Digest-? i LA.AP P.59 /2007 & con nected Page 2 ol'32 2. 3. PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I. 1. Un-numberecl cross objections and civil miscellaneous applicatiorrs whiclr ?re in'the nature of cross objections, if any' lyirrg. Llnnumbered in tlre above captioned appeals may be r-runlberecl bY the RegistrY. 2. . The instant decision clecides aforenoted appeals and tross objectiorrs in such appeals where cross objections are filed' 3. The river Yamuna is not only an important feature of tlre city of Delhi, but is.also a major.source of water supply to the ':' citv. lt draws its water from tlre Yamunotri Glacier in the upper . reaclres of tlre Himalayas and on the way to tlre plains, is enriclred by the river Tons and needless to state, numerous streams and rivr-rlets enrich the river in i[s onward journey. lt travels a distance of about 4OO km in the plains before joining river Ganga at I Alla lra ba d, 4. lt enters the city of Delhi from tlre Nortlr and flows Sor-rtlrwarcl arrcl covers a ienelth of' nearly 50.lcm wlrile flowirrg througlr Dellri, of wlrich about 22 lcm is within the urban stretch ancl tlre balance 2B krn .in the rural stretclr. 5. Ovet- tlre. last century tlre quality ol= tlre water in the river lras cleterioratecl due to increased waste water discharge, not only within the cil-y of De,lhi, buI even upstrealn,'whetr flowing tlrrouglr the city of Yarnuna Nagar ancJ the city of Panipat, lcotlr in tlre State of Haryana, where rapid incJustrializatioh has resulted in ipclustrial eff'luent beirrg discharged into,.tlre river water. The eco- systenr supporting migratory avifauna ancf the ground wa.ter lras LA. AP P .59 / 2007 & con nected , eage 3 of 32 1; continLtously degraclecl, 'requiring ,imrmediate atterrtion for co nservati o n. 6. Variours plans to lrarness tlre potential of tlre river have been cliscusseci since early 19BO with reference to tlre navigational potential of the river; tlre aesthetics ol= the river'and requiremerrt of it being blenclecl witlr the city of Dellri, as is the rivet- 'Tltannes' in Englancl arrd the river'Seine' in France' 7. 8o6ies such as the 'Mjnistry of Environnrent and ForestS', 'Central Water POwer Researclr Station' and 'National Environmental Engineering Research;", Institute' have, been suggesting renredial rneasures in various r.eports submitted fronr time to tinre, proposi,ng plans fof integration of riverYamuna in the planning, for the cleve.lopment of the National Capital Region, and o.l' necessity which irrclucles the National Capital Tei-ritory ol' Delhi' B. of the various p.roposals 'made, emphasizing tlre ecological role of thg 'Floocl PlainS', abutting tlre rivet- bed of the river yamuna ancl its conservation imperatives, clranrrelization of river Yamuna lras been proposecl, lrot only for the purposes of flood control but even drainage. improvement and reductiorr in banl< eros'ion. Ol= necessity, tlre proposals envisage modiFication of tlre river.charrnel, lceeping into account tlre conventional rnethods for clrannelization, involving enlargement of the cIannel by wideningl arrd/or deeperring,'to inc[ease the channel capacity to .cariy water tlrat would have otlrerwise spread on to the flood plain g. The Noclal Aurthority for the Plarrrred Development of Dellri, tlre much maligned Delhi Development Aurtlrority, whiclr is accusecl by many of having creAted ur[an cl"laos in DelIi, had evolved tlre 'Environmental,Mana!ement Plan' for tlre stretch of LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page 4 of 32 river Yanruna in tlre National Capital Territory of Delhi, witlr the overall objective of rejuvenating the river' The plan delineates tlre requirement o'l' the .city arrd malces recommendations al'ter Initial EnvironmentalExarrrinationoftlreproposedactivitiesintlre,River Front DeveloPment Plan'.' . - 10. Briefly, the.'. rePort delineaLes .developn'rent o't river Yamuna as it flows in the nre into uuliogs stretches. guidelines for ,city of Dellri bY 11. One such stretclr is between the ITO Barrage till the ILFS-NOIDA Linl< Bridge..in tlre South and turther beyond, in tlre Soutlrern cliiection, as tfte riverl=lows past the city of Delhi and enters tlre Sta.te of Uttar Pradesh in tlre Southern,boundary of tlre citv of Dellri. 12. .The stretclr with wlrich we are concerned in the irrstant Land Acquisitiorr Appeals, is tlre stretch of the riyer as it crosses Nli-24. (at the popular bridge callecl the Nizarr-rucldin Bridge over tlre river Yamuna) and proceecls..towarcls tlre Soutlt, crossing larrds ol' village Belrlolpur l(haclar, l(ilokari, l(hizrabad, Jogabai, Ol<lrla, Jdsola ancl Madanpur l(lradar, all of which lie on tlie Western banl< of tlre river and Nangli Rajapur and Clrucl< Chilla,,which lie on the Eastern banl< of the river. Graphically reproduced the plan prepared by tlre learned Reference.Cor-rrt on inspqction cat-ried on 2I.II.2006, and to be founcl in the record of LAC No.2/1998 Etr-qpAl Sinoh l/s. UO/ & Anr. (in respect ol= village Nan'gli Rajapur) would be as uncler:- LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected ' Page 5 of 32 FI, of ,liv, sc.r 4L t-O.:. O;! l.ittt*4 v el 'vrl.d. . t liJ-:r';i. . 'l'.ilr;'.i.' I rr . 't ;.1 i il ,i t. l t: ''; r ttj/" ,l r.J,rr., ;- l-: i:.'rl ' 'l .l ']ai!i I \/t,''+rf \1t. '(.t I ri 'l' I 'I' t ";'u-" \ \ / 't \ ,,.ir iI I I I I -l I I I 4 Page 6 o'f 32 LA. APP .59 / 2007 & con nected ! 13. . ,River Bed'iS de'l'ined as the area, over which the river flows ancl denotes the area wlrich, in tlre ordirrary ol- regular course o'f nature, iS covered by the.waters o't the river' 'Flood Plain' is tlre lald adjacerrt to a river, wlriclr because of il-s level topograplry, floods when tlre river overflows' ir4. Tlre lands wlriclr are subject nratter of acquisit-ion irr tlre irrsLant. appeals, lie in the Flood Plairr. area of river Yamuna' and r-nostly in the Westertr banl< and except for a 'Few patclres' wlrere agricultural activities can be . undertalcen, the 'land is mostly grasslancl, bushy and shrub vegetation.' The aquatic vegetation is very poor in tlris stretclr due to degraded water quality o1'river YamLrna. 15. T[e lancls are comprised in the revenue estate oI village I(ilol<ari, l(lrizrabad and Nangli Rajapur' 16. Flood disclra r9e and levels, at dif Ferent 9au9 ing stations in river YamLlna, .ihdicate flooding of the area wlrenever monsoon is normal or in excess. 17. As woulcl be eVident from the plan ol'tl-re area prepared by tlre learnecl Reference court, and as extracted'hereinabove by me, tlre larrcls witlr whiclr I am concernecl is between tlre river banl< and the Forward Bund. lt has been graphically'narrated by the learned Rel=erence Court in its'repott dated 22'II.2006, relevant extract wlrereof wourld reacl as ttttder:- ,,The spot inspection lras been conducted in terms ol= order datecl 13.11.06.in tlre presence of ofFicials 'l'rom DDA (Sh. M.M. Rao, Director L.M.), Sh' S'l(' Singlr (LAC . sourlr), sh. Raj shelchar (P.c. south), sh. Atul l(ur-nar (Ex. Enginber, lrrigation & rlood Control Department) w[o are accompaniecl with other team of ofFicials from LA. APP.59 /2007 & con nected PageT of32 respecLive cleparl-r'nents. counsel tor tlre petitioners as well as responclents are also present' Tlre ofl'icials lecl to embanlcment of River Yamulra in village Nangli Rajapur via Marginal B.uncl Road through ,pantoon Road'. A rouqh slietch (i.e. Site plan bv roxi red b cia ls DDA lra s bioacl idea of the location of villaqes lras been nanoeo ffi is Annexure 1 and clearly depicts the to.i!io'-' of vi||ages -BelrIolpur l(hadar, NangIi Rajapur, l(ilol<ari, Clruck Chilla, l(lrizi^abad, ..;ogabai, Olchla, Jasola and Madanpur l(hadar. Aco site plan irrdicatin lclr no's of villa Nanqlirazapur has b handed ov officials of LAe ined at site tlrat some of the _t^ Kt-rr=1.3 rto's wflich are sub-merged or lilcely to be sub- nterged and are adjacent to water stream fias beetr de- notifiecJ while the otlrers had been acquired. Tlre same are reflectecl in difterent shades in tlre. site plan . (Anne><ure ll). Tlre officials informed tlrat'the acquired iand extended upto 500 nretres and may be more"from tlre'stream of weiter which was flowing currently. The land on both sides at the'site spot'appeared to be urrcler cultivation. However, it is pertinent to note tlrat ofticials fr riioation and Flood ntrol rtment d that as' when th ter Iev ilt nv Yamun'a crosses a mar[< 41 .2!4r-8-3., the land gets ffi, dependirrg on amount of discharge of water in the river. It was also pointed out that owitrg to aforesa id reasons no development has. been permitted from 'Marginal Bunb Road' till etnbankment of River Yamuna (As depictecl irr Anne><ure - l). lt was observed tlrat tlrere WaS'no substantial developmerrt except tlrat land appears to be utilized near the site for agricultural purPose. Tlrereafter tfie officials lecl to show the approximal-e locatiol of land of village l(ilolcari, Belrlolpur and lffizrabacJ from Rirrg. Road and D.N.D. Road. The o'l'ficials showed tlrat no activity/development on tlre ' lancJ near to the enrbanl<ment coulcl be undertalcen except for agricultural activity. -[lre spot inspection LA.APP.5g /2007 & connected Page B of 32 18. cor.nmenced at about 2.4.0 p.m. and haS been cornpleted at about 4.45 P.m. 5d- . (AtuooP l<uMAR. MEMIRATTA) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI 22.7r.2006" It may be highiightecJ that tlre Forward Bund, as the very name suggests, is the raised embankment to contain tlre flooclecl river as ancl wlren it overflows, so tlrat the city ol' Dellri is not inundatecl with water, during monsoon. lt is obvious tlrat'due to tlris, t[ere is hardly any construction activity in tlre area in questiott, for the reason most of it is low lying area and is flood prone. ln the words of the learned Re'Ference Court, the topology, nature ancl ,poLential for utilization of the subject lattds,'may tre reproduced by me. It reads as under:- "As per notification dated 23.6.89 placed on record about 3500 Flectares of land starting fronr a point 1 lcm. upstream,.wazirabad Barrage road till i,t outs the boundary of Union Territory was proposed to be acquired for clranneliza[ion of river Yamuna. Tlre purpose of tlre project itself suggests tlre lancl in tlre river bed adjacent to the existing stream of water was to be acquired. TIre acquired lancl being in river bed on forward bund as suclr can be safely irrferred to be covered durinq some parts of tlie year witlr water and may be cultivable for otlrer parts of tlre year. No evidence has been led b5r tlre petitioners to show that the land was not situated in the forwarcl bund area. Considering tlre situation oF the land in tlre river bed it may not be capable of beirrg utilized as a ndrmal agricultural lapd or building site despite tlre village being urbanized and cannot be compared with lancl other tlrarr siturated in river bed in village l(ilolcari. Tlre development may have tal<en place in and around village l(lolcari but tlre - same cannot change the lranclicaps of land situated in a forward burrd.area owitrg LA,.APP .59 /2007 &. co n nected . ousi 9 of32 20. .to its typical locatiorr and lilcelihood of flooding during the monsoons. lmay also observe that a meTe construction o1 an isolafed boundary wall or a solitary . temple witlrout inclicating tlre nature of construction canno[ lead to an infe,renie that the land could be used as a builclirrg site or could be compared to land1=alling outside the forwarcl bund area. The value of land as such needs to Ie assessecl- by this Court considering the .. a1=oresaid factors." 19. Tlre quote hereinal]ove extracted by me is trom the reference order dated 18.10 .2006 in LAC No.1/2003 titled Bed Rant Vs. UOl & Anr. By virtue of a notification dated 23.6.1989 issued ut:lder Sectiol 4 of tlre Lancl Acqurisition Act IBg4., a vast tracl< of larrd ad- nteasuring 3500 lrectares was proposecl to be acqLlired at public expense, for a public purpbse, namely, 'Channelization of Yamuna River'. Lands of various villages were covered by the said rrotification and needless to state included lands comprised in the revenue estate of village l(hizrabad, l(ilolcari and Nangli Rajapur' lt may be clariFied tflat not all agricultuial lands in the revenue estate of saicl 3 villages were notified for the proposed acquisition' Oply the lands wflich were between.the Forward Bund and the river Yamuna and.as stand graphicaliy. described by the learned Judge and as extracted hereinabove in)para l.7, were the ones whiclr were proposed to be acquired. 2L The notification in question was followed by a declaration issr-tecl under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act IBg4 on 22.06.1990 whereirr tlre area arrd the l(hasra number in each village in respect whereof the notification was issued were d eta ilecl. LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page L0 ol'32 22'.Pertairringtotherevenueestateofvillage|(lrizrabac|, subject matter of the' present ap'peals' the Land Acquisition collector annoLillcecl an Award bearing No'IBlIgg2-.93' Pertaining tovi||age|(ilo|<aritheAwardNo'14/19g2-g3WaSatrnouncedon 19.6 .Igg2 and pertairring to village Nangli Rajapur the Award No.16/19 g2-g3 was announced on 19'q'1992' 23. In all . the awarcls' thg Lancl Acquisition Collector assessecl the fair market value oF the subject lands tor all 3 villages @<27,334.|-perbighaandneed|esstostatehe|dtlrat[heland owners would be entitlecl to the interest'ancl such other statutory berrefits as welre to. be paid. on the compensation assessed as per the LancJ Acquisition Act 1894 24..Whileassessingthefairmarl<etvalueoftheIandsaSon 23.6.1989 i.e. tlre date of the notification issued under section 4 of tlre LancJ Acquisition Act 1894', tire Land Acquisition Collectot' tool< into consideration various registerecl sale deeds reflecting the statecl price and therefrom computed tlrat the average price of tlre larrd woulcl col'ne to t18,736l- per bigha' But' ttoting tlrat ":o: oFFice order.datecl 3.5.1990 the Governtnent of Delhi lrad notified tlre minimunr price of agricurltural lancl irr tlre Union Territory ot Dellri lraving 2 rates; {4,50,000/- per acre for agricul[ural lands ancl {1,50,000/- per acre.for larrd situatecl irr the river- bed' since tlre notitication under section 4-witlr wlriclr he was concerned was c|atecl23'6.19B9,depressecl,byc|iscountingthepricebyl.5%per an11L11 and cottcluded by holding that.i:lre I'air nrarlcet price as of 23.6.1989 would beT27,3441- per biglra' This price determined for tlre land in village l(ilolcari was held to be price payable for tlre acquired land in the other 2 villages as well forthe reason tlre Larrd LA.APP.59/2007 & connectecl PageLLof 32 Acquisitiotr Collector assessed.tIe connBensation on tlre minitnutrr price notifiecl lry the Governmerrt itself as on 3'5'1990 forthe lands situated in tlre .river bed' Dissatisfied with tlre assessment marle by tlre LantJ 25. 26. Acclurisit-iorr collector, the appellants lrerein souglrt reference under Sectiorr 18 ol= tlre Larrcl Acquisition Act IBg4, wlrich was referred to tlre Reterence Court as pel, Section 1B of the Act' The leat-necl Reference'Court, after frapning tlre issues i' the reference before it a'ncl after permitting the parties,to lead eviclence in support of tlreir claim, disposed of tlre references made, by aricl uncler various orders fixing the fair marlcet price at- T89,600/- per lriglra for the 'acqurired lands' 27. e rbasoning oi tlre learned Rel'erence Court is pai-i-materia in each ordbr. 28. The recorcl of the learned Reference court shows that bel'ore mailcing tfte assessment, vicle order dated 13'1I'2006' it recorcled that the Court would inspect tlre site ancl notice whereof was deerirecl to be given to. the.pbrties as per tlre order' Thereafter, in the presenCe of the le'arneci counsel for such parties who clrose to be present at the inspection ancl in tlre presence of the represenrative.of the Larrd Acquisition collecl-or- arrd DD'A the learned. Juclge macle a site visit on 22.Ii-,.2006 and prepared a spot inspection report ancl a site plqn,. both oF wlriclr lrave beetr extracted by me lrereiirabove in para.I2 and 17 above' 29. It may be no'ted that the learned Judge tool< various plrotograplrs wlrich are pla.ced irr LAC No.2/199 B bhopal Sinoh Vs' UO/ 6, Artr. apd tlre same show that the'lands are low lying lands LA.APP.59 12007 & connected Page LZ 0f 32 scribecl try the learned'Judge i'n the report which I lrave extracted in pa ra 17' lrereinabove: 30.ltisnotiridisputet|rattlre.|anc|inquestion,fa|lsinan area, wlriclr is between the. river Yamuna arrd Ring Road' since I atTt, wiUr consent of learned counsel for the parties treating LA App'No'5gl2oo]asthe|eadmatter,itwouldbere|evanttol..lote that tlre appellant thereof Bed Rant, appeared in tne witness bo>l' as PW-7 betor:e the Reference Court'. and adrnitted in lris cross- exarninatio' that e><cept for a petrol pump and the two shops' there is no abadi arourrcl the larrd. lt is ?lso admitted that there is a naala (drairr) in village l(ilolcari. He admiited that since cOnstfurction WaS trot allowed by t'lre Government' no other construction could come uP' . : 3l.VariousclocumentsWereprovedbetorethelearned Rel.erence Court by various parties lancl find a mention in the varibus orders passed by the learned Reference court' but I need not note the same [ecause, before me, while arguing tlre appeals learnecl counsel l=ol'the parl-ies pl-essecl irrto aid only one sale deed clated :_7.3,1988, Ex.PW-311 in'the reference souglrt by Bed Ram' Besicles, learned counsel reliecl upon the clecision reported as 2000 (s4) DRJ 384 (DB)' wlrereirr a Division Bench,ot this Court assessed the marlceI value l,or the larrd situate in village l(lrizrabacl acquired pursuant to a rrotification dated 10.0'5.:gl6 and assessed the compensation @ t35,O0O/- per bigha .as of '10'5 '7g76' I may highlight that land wlriclr was subject matter of consideratio.tr in Trndey's case (supra) was saline lancl (salabi) and 'was acquired fgr pur-poses of constructing a pilot cuL in tlre reaclr from Nizrnu'dding Bridge to LA.APP.5I/7007 & connectecl ', P age t3 of 32 j Ol<lrla Weir. Learnecl counsel also relied upoll tlre decision reported as Diwan Ram Swaroop & brs L/s. lJnion of lndia 1992 (48) DLT 600 perLtsal whereof shows that the lancl sit'uate in village l(rizrabacl was acquired pursuant to a notification dated 03.06.1961 and was assessed at {12,500/- per biglra I r.nay lriglrligSt tthat ithe clecision in Diwan Rant 32. 33. Swaroop's case. (supra) was the ,basis on wlriclr decision was prernisecl in Ttnde.l/s Case (supra), ln. findeV's case, tal<ing the larrd vallte at {12,500/- per bigha as oF 3'6'1961 by giving an annual increment of 12% but denying a progressive increase' the sLltTl worlced outt was {35,000/- per bigha. With re'ference to tlre decision reportecl as Bedi Rant vs..,uol & Anr.2001 (93) DLT 150 ancl h clecision datecl 4,2.2011 disposirrg of RFA No '58211994 W lcishan lGpahi vs. Uol & Anr. as a'lso a decision ol' tlre supt-eme court reporrecl as'Nand Ram vs. State of Harvana JT 1.988 (4) 5C 260, it was urged in tlre alternative, that it the price as per sale cleecl clatecl 17.3.1gBB was not to be adopted and the sale price determined in Diwan Ram Swaroop'S case was talcen to be base price, percentage irrcrease acloptecl iby 'ttre tearned Trial Judge as 12% be acloptecl br-rt tlre benefit of the pt-ogressive increase slrould be givetr ancl in respect of tlre plea I must note that learned 'counsel made a Concession tlrat aS WaS done in Bedi Ram'S CaSe, ini[ial increase coulcl be @ 6% p"r' unnum I'ollowed by IO% per annurt ancl then 12% per annum, with tlre cut ofF years being 19s9-19 65 (6%), Lg66-Ig73 (L0%) and Ig74 onwards (I2%)- Pressi;g the I'irst argument that the sa'le cJeed dated :I7.3.1988 slrould be adopteQ by this Court to determine the fair nrarlcet value as of 23.4..1989, learned counsel heavily relied upon LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page L4 of 32 tlre clecision of tlre Supr-eme Court re1:orted as G.Prema Vs' Specia/ Tehsi/clar(2010)12SCC5o2airc|thec|ecisionreportedasom prakash vs. state of lTarvana & ors. 2AII (lv) AD (5C) 383 and urged that as held therein the developmetrt around the place wlriclr lracl tailcen place over tfie years,,wheTe the subject lands were situate, had to be factored irr wlrile determining tlre fair marlcel- value of tlre acquired lands' Relying upon the testimony of Devi Ratn PW-6 in the re'l'erence pertainirrg to Bed Rarn, the Patwari of village l(lolcari, learn'ed counsel argued tlrat lre adnritted tlrat tlre lancl in question is situated in a cjeveloped area, having builcJing potentiality, inasmuclr as tlre land situated in village l(ilol<ari and l(lrizrabad were acquired for the planned development of Dellr'i ip the years 1959 and Lg61 and on whiclr acquired lands DDA hacl developed tlre residential colonies nanred 'Friends Colotty', 'l(alindi Colony' ancl 'Maharani Bag['. l[.was thus urged tl'rat tlre area in question had great potentiality; the sarle beirrg a reflection ottlre 3 colonies having corre Llp on the earlier acquired lands. Pertainirrg to t[e sale cJeed clated I].3.1988, Ex.P\A/-3l1' referred to by me hereinabove, it was arguecl that tlre vendor and vendee of the sale deecl were not tlre residents ol' the'area 'in question ancl tlrus, the sale transacted between them lrad to be tal<en bs the bapis for deterrninirrg the marl<et value of tlre acquirecl land ancl cor:ld not be ignoreQ by labeling the same as a taipted clocument ancl not to be ignored as. per the reasorring o1' the learnecl TrialJudQe, which reasoning is as under':- "lt may furtlrer be observed that, there is no evidence to reflect that there could have been an increase in prices of land as per sale deed dated 1-/-3.88 @