% + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 8"" 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. 12934/2011 fcross objections). LA.APP 257/2010, LA. APP. 258/2010. LA. APP 259 /2010. LA.APP 271/2010. LA.APP 413/2010, LA.APP 414/2010. LA.APP 415/2010, LA.APP 416/2010, LA.APP 417/2010 & CM No.3584/2011 (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 560/2010. 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 (cross-obiection). LA.APP 864/2010, LA.APP 901/2010. LA.APP 902/2010. LA.APP 962/2010. LA.APP 1014/2010. LA.APP 1015/2010, LA.APP 1016/2010, LA.APP 1027/2010. LA.APP 1032/2010. LA.APP 1035/2010, LA.APP 1037/2010. LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No. 12952/2011 (cross-objections), LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No.12875/2011 & CM No.12876/2011 (cross objections). r,A.APP 154/2011. LA.APP 158/2011. LA.APP 274/2011, LA.APP 368/2011, LA.APP 379/2011, LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.No.l l(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 1 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified V 5"^ April, 1995 issuedunderSection4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) Present: Mr. Deepak Khosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates for appellants. Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kamoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 2 t if + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW % Reservedon: 8^'^ November,2011 Pronouncedon: 23''"'December,2011 LA.APP No.608/2009 SHRl RAMESHKUMAR Appellant Through; Mr. Deepak ICliosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates. versus UNIONOF INDIA & ORS. Respondents llirough: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate Avith Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kamoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. AND + LA APP.415/2011.LA.APP 608/2009,LA.APP129/2Q10,lA^P 130/2010, LA.APP 176/2010 & CM No. 12873/^1L-LA^^ 177/2010, CXAPrT7972(^ LA.APP 184/2010, LAAPP__214/2Q1^ LA.APP219/2mxr~rA.APP 229/2010. LA.APP233/2010, LA.APP_ 234/2010. LA.APP 235/2010. LA.APP 236/2010. LA.APP 237/2010, LA.APP 240/2010. LA.APP 241/2010. LA.APP 255/2010, LA.APP 256/2010& CM No. 12934/2011(cross obiectionsVLA.APP 257/2010, 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 416iMA LA APP 417/2010 & CM No.3584/2011 (cross objections), LA.APP 419/2010. LA.APP 425/2010. LA.APP 453/2010. LA.APP 546/2m LA APP 547/2010, LA.APP 548/2010, LA.APP 549/2010, LA.A^ 550/2010. LA.APP 551/2010. LA.APP 552/2010. LA.APP 553/_mO. LA.APP 554/2010. LA.APP 555/2010. LA.APP 556/2010, LAMR 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, LAJ^ 564/2010, LA.APP 565/2010. LA.APP 567/2010, LA.APP 568/2^ LA.APP 569/2010. LA.APP 570/2010, LA.APP 571/2010, LyjAPP 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.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page1 if LA.APP 805/2010, LA.APP 822/2010, LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No.10333/2011rcross-obiection).LA.APP 864/2010,LA.APP 901/2010, LA.APP 902/2010. LA.APP 962/2010, J.A APP 1014/2010. LA.APP 1015/2010, LA.APP 1016/2010, LA.APP. 1027/2010, LA.APP 1032/2010.LA.APP 1035/2010.LA.APP 1037/2010.LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No.12952/2011 rcross-obiections), LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No.12875/2011 & CM No.12876/2011 (cross obiections). LA.APP 154/2011, LA.APP 158/2011, LA.APP 274/2011. LAAPP 368/2011, T,A.APP 379/2011, LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 th (Relating to NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L«&B/LA/5722dated 5 April, 1995 issuedunder Section'4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98,Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) COl^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ^ , ORDER 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 AcquisitionActj 1894. The market price of the acquired land in question was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector@^8,01,600/-peracre 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 enliancedthe compensationto ?8,16,720/- per acre. Not satisfied with the aforesaid enhancement of ?15,120/- per acre for the acquired land, appellantshave come up in these appeals to seek much higher compensationi.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 i: "11 Act, alargeareaofagriculturallandmeasuring733 bighasand 10 biswas of Village-ShahpurGarhi, Delhi was acquiredby the respondents.The factual details disclosing aa to how in pursuance to the aforesaid Notification,AwardNo. 19/97-98cameto be passedand the substanceof the evidenceled beforethe ReferenceCourtstandsnotedin the impugned judgmentand is not requiredto be recapitulated. 4. Beforethe ReferenceCourt, assessmentofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland in questionwas soughton the basisofDDA predetermined rate of the year 1992-93pertainingto NarelaResidentialSchemeand on the strengthofDSIDC approvedlandrate for allotmentofplotsin Narela IndustrialComplex,which stands negated in 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 acquired land in question being near the developed land, Reference Court has extensivelyreliedupon DivisionBench decisionof this Court in Gajraj Singh Ks. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in maintaining enhancement@11.5% from the effectivedate of governmentpolicy of fixing minimum price of agriculturallands in Delhi, till Notification under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct was issued.Notingthat the boundary of Village-Shahpur Garhi touches the boundaryof Village- IlolambiKalan,ReferenceCourtin the impugnedjudgmenthas assessed the compensationin the instant case on the basis ofthe compensation, assessedby this Courtin GajrajSingh (Supra)relatingto Notificationof 15"' November, 1996, under Section 4 of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertainingtoVillage—HolambiKalan. 5. In theseappeals,at the finalhearing,the counselspresenton behalf ofthe appellantsas well as seniorcounselfor the respondentswere heard and with their assistance,the impugnedjudgment and the record was LA.App No.608/2009 &Connectedmatters Page 3 € 4 perused. Since the submissions advanced by both the sides in these appealswere common,therefore,with the consent of learned counselfor the parties, these appeals and cross- objections.are 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 sun'ounded by the biggest colony of Asia namely Rohini 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 ]-esidential 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. Govermnent Karnal Road, and Delhi Narela Road, therefore, it has great potentiality for residential and commercial puiposes; that palatial farm house has been constructed in the same revenue estate in which land of the petitioner has been situated; v) that land of the petitioner is fully developed and has all the modern facilities/ necessities i.e. telephone, electric, connection, water supply, public schools and SSN College and most frequent service of DTC buses and other private transport.' 7. In substance, aforesaid grounds are the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants before this Court to challenge the impugned order of the Reference Court. IJndisputedly, the land use of the acquired land in LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 4 4 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 commercialand industrial point of view, as it is just two kilometres away from Narela •Green Mandi and three kilometresaway from DSIDC IndustrialComplex and that it has a great marketvalue and potentiality,as it has been acquiredfor the development of Rohini Residential Scheme. 8. Appellants claim that acquired land is in close proximity of hidustrialArea developedbyDSIDC and residentialcolonydevelopedby DDA, and they rely upon Letterof Allotment(EX. PW-l/A) of a plot in NarelaIndustrialComplex@?650/-per squaremeterin the year 1990 by DSIDC. It is also claimed by the appellantsthat allotmentof alternate plot under the Narela ResidentialScheme by DDA in the year 1992-93, was available @ ^650/- per square meter as per demand cum allotment letter (EX. PW2/1). Thus, seeking parity with aforesaid rates of developed lands, enhancement in compensation is sought by the appellants. 9. On the factual aspect, it stands noted in the impugned judgment that the land of the villages adjoining-the village in question,including village- Holainbi Kalan, has been acquired for the development of industrial area and Narela residential area in Narela. Conceding that the acquired land is in proximity of the industrial area developed by DSIDC, learned senior counsel for the respondenthas clarified that the purpose of acquisition of the land in question is solely for the development of freight complex in Narela. Llowever, it was disputed that the acquired land in LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 5 6 , •• 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 reliancewas 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 266/2008Jai Singh Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. , renderedon 23 August, 2011, wherein in relation to 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 r\ Lipon a DivisionBenchdecisionofthis Courtin GajrajSingh Vs. Union ofIndia 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13. 10. Even in the impugnedjudgment,in the absence of sale instances, Refeience 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 ofthe appellantsto apply DDA and DSIDC rates to the land in questionstands repelledby holdingthat no willingpurchaserwould buy agriculturalland in.questionatthe rate on whichgovernmentisallottingdevelopedland. LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 6 IM k// • 13. During tlie course of liearing, 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 cannot be the basis for calculationof the marketvalue of the acquired undevelopedlands. The pertinent observationsmade in paragraphs No.44 & 48 m Lai-Chand (Supra), which deserves to be highlighted, are as under '44. One of the recognized methodsfor determination ofmarket value is with reference to the opinion ofexperts. The estimation of market vahie by such statutorily constituted Expert Committees,as expert evidencecan thereforeform the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece ofevidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayfloM>from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily . appointed Expert Committees, in . accordance yvith the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or roadM'ise, 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 P/vo 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 bepossible 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 immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40%) to 50%ofrom, the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price Mnth 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 value for a 1981 acquisition.' LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 7, 0 ir-. 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 potentiality aspect, neither the map / sizra (EX. PW3/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 abpve, 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 acquiredfor developmentof the freight complexand 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 filed 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 substaiice for the reason that undisputedly Gajraj (Supra) has attained finality and becauseit has not been shown by the re^ondentsas 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 find that the Reference Court has correctlyrelied upon the decision in Gajraj (Supra), to arrive at the correct market value of the acquired land in 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 Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra), and is also the basis of the impugned order, therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, adopting the rate of compensation as fixed by Division Bench of this Court in Gajraj (Supra), in the matter of adjoining village- Holambi LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 8 J3/ .7 4 Kalan. Even the reduction of the rate of compensationassessed @11.5% " compoundinterestfrom the date of Notificationof 15^'^ November, 1996 in Gqjraj (Supra) to date of Notificationof 5"' April, 1995 in the instant case is concerned, I find the same to be in conformity with the decision in Gqjraj (Supra), wherein annual compounding @11.5% has been approved. 18. As neither side could find fault in the impugned judgment determiningthe market value of the land in question @?8,16,720/-per acre, therefore,the appealsof the claimantas well as cross-objectionsof the respondentsare dismissed,with no order as to costs. Accordingly,all the above-mentionedappeals and cross-objectionsare 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 1\S LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected nnatters Page 9