o $-57 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 298/2011 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANR Appellants : Through: None. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents; Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER % 19.09.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.999/2010. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 nrinri Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified ft IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ludament Judgment DeliverRciOn: igti Spni-f^mber.20 77 'erved On: August. 2ml + LA.APP. 999/2010 & CM No.6549/2011(Cross-Objection) RAJ SINGH u ••• Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Mann,Advocate Mr.Deepak Khosia,Advocate and Mr.N.S.IMegi,Advocate. /s. UOI & ANOTHER Respondents -ru^ t ^ . "• lUfcJflLb Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate & Mr.Sa Nawani, Kaomudi njay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K Kiran, Advocates for R-1 AND t ^ 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2010 & lm LA^ipP CM No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2C 142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2013 163/2011 LA.APP. 246/7nTl 248/2011,(^.APP.^98/2011 375/2011, DOSPP. J86/2011 394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011 407/2011. 1036/2010&CM~No:i286572^0n,LAApSoII L^APP 6/2011.&CM NO.6756/2011, LA APP Sli^ « 11, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP. LA.A^. 161/2011, LA.APP. PP. 247/2011, LA.APP. •APP. 3.47/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/S, Award No, 06/2002-2003, Villaec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 & ge-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)' A^ D LA.App.No.999/2010&cpmectedmatte|i-s Page 1 of 22 I •, iftn, • liin + LA.APP. 57/2011 & 83/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011 164/2011,. LA.APP. 200/201 202/2011, LA.APP. 216/201 241/2011, LA.APP. 242/201 244/2011, LA.APP. 245 LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 4 (Relating to Notification u Award No. 18/2000-2001, Vi COMM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG 1. Wiiether the Reporters of to see the judgment? CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP. , LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP. 1, 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, LA.APP.346/2011,LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011, LA.APP.349/2011& CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011, 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011, 393/2011,, LA.APP. 398/2011, 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011, 14/2011. 'Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998: iage- Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri) local papers may be allowed 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment sh Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. ould be reported Jn the I proceed with an apolog/to the reader by referringto a notification issued, later in notification issued prior in poir the learned counsel for the arguments with respect to the required price to be sui^tab Doint of time and then to a t of time; but the reason is that land owners had addressed notification issued later and had y reduced pertaining to the notificationwhich was issued earlier in point of time. 2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village BhalswajahafigirPuri was acquired pursuant LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 2 of22 .(fill r to a notification dated 15.09 2000 issued under Sect-f the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, for a public purpose, namely, 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. T tIs was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following the due process, announced his award bearing the. Land Acquisition Collector No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at ?2,87,916.66 per bigh lal<hs per acre i.e. fair marl<et at ?13.82 lakhs per acre. 3. Dissatisfied with the a Acquisition Collector, the land a, which is equivalent to n3.82 i/alue as of 15.09.2000 was fixed land at ^3,03,534 per bigha or ssessment made by 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 1/9. Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired ^14,56,963 per acre. 4. It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land Acquisition'Collector as well c while assessing the fair marl s the Learned. Reference Court, :et value of the acquired land. adopted the minimum price for agriculturalland fixed by the Government as on 01.04.20C 0, notified .vide Circular dated 11.09.2011. Different destinations 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 ithe Land Acquisition Act wa,s issued on 15.09.2000, but the .learned Reference Court gra nted appreciation for the said period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to.the base date 1.4.2000, and the price ?13,82 lakhs per acre; LA.App.No!999/201.0& connected mat:ers Page 3 of 22 /il 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 public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of jj Cluster'. This was followed of the Act issued on. 04.08. process, the Land Acquisition by a declaration under Section 6 1998. After following the due Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated 12.03.2001,' whereby he assessed the fair market v ^2,33,333 per bigha which is acre. 6, Dissatisfied with the a Acquisition Collector, the land alue of the acquired land at equivalent to m.20 lakhs .per destination reached is on hereinabove pertaining to the .the learned Land Acquisition notified by the Government circular dated 25.7.1997 and ssessment made by the Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The l.earned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.inA/2008 titled Chandrawati I/?. Union of India, assessed the fair marketvalue of the acquired land at ?11,46,670/- per acre. The difference i in the the same reason as noted notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. lollector adopting the land rate, with effect from, 1.4.1997 vide ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference Court granting enhancement interregnum period. 7. The Union of India as challenged the assessment m LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedniat:ers 5 11% per annum for the iA^ell as the land owners have ade by the Learned Reference Page 4 of22 • -ft i\, !! y Court by way of tlie appeals above. 8. On behalf of the land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance we s placed on the following documentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification and cross objections mentioned dated 16.04.1999 (Ex disclosed, its intention to respect of developed properties owned by 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 3swa Jahangir Puri, was fixed ' eter or ^2,35,92,400.92 per acre and it was urged that if 50% is deducted towards development cost, the land owners should . be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of , fl,17,96,200/- per acre. (b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolution No.705 dated 23.11.1987 . (Exhibit PW-3/1), wherebyMCD decided to allot transporters (S •?425/- per 3it PW-3/2, a copy of the 21.02.2005, whereby MCD in Sanjay Gandhi Transport ' are metre were urged to be be close to village Bhala at.^5830/- per square m developed plots to the square meter and Exhi Resolution No.610 dated decided to allot the plots Nagar @ ?4,500/- per sqi material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters • Page 5 of22 documents, learned ,cc argued that the rate unsel for the land owners stated in the . resolutions aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976, market value of developed 7/- per acre and it was urged on is made on account of the r undeveloped Jands, fair market value would corfie to .^8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and increasingthe same by 12% per. •annum, the fair market value, as of 15.9.2000 would be f24,76,592/-per acre, (c) Learned counsel for the land owners also placed reliance on the auction record of plots iri Rohini ResidentialScheme in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/: on the brochure of DDA it was argued that as pe were held qua flats hav metre to 71 square met ranging between ?23.7:^ would evidence that fai land comes to ?17,19,85 that even if 50% deducti development costs, fo bigha was sold @ ?3 learned counsel urged th and PW-8/3). While relying pertaining to the year 2006, "the advertisement auctions ng plinth area of 69 square •e in Jahangir Purl at a price lakh to T28.4 lakh, which according to. learned coinsel translates to a price of ?14,36,36,363. per acre: and counsel urged, that Id be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land, (d) Relying on a sale, deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19^ 2,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes to ?56,93,163/- or ?11,86,169/- per bigha. It was LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected niat:ers Page 6 of 22 9. contended that this sale after making a reas development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri., Another. deed should be relied upon, onable deduction towards ermine the fair market value ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (E)<;hibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the Mamurpur was sold to R upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri society .'M/s.Butterfly', w village Bhalswa Jahangir 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 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 fc r the land owners also relied iell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a 'hereund.er land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ns lakhs per acre. It was •urged that, the land was in the revenue estate of Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^pddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed , whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of ^1,40,000and urged that even if 12% appreciationper annum is to be given-on said value. the price as on the date of: the notificationunderSection.4 comes to ?1,94,782per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price,ofsimilar land is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoiningvillage or to adopt ihe price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected raat;ers Page 7 of 22 -llf fixing tine marl<et value of tnaving a vast area. Learne learned Land Acquisition C market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and 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 Court. - 10. It may be noted that whsn judghient was reserved in the 19'^'' August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition above captioned matters on been reserved for, judgment appeals, lead matter being LA submitted , that in response^ counsel for the land owners advanced on the earlier oc response. 11. The topography of villcige Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the depositionof Shh Thlok Chand {HalqaPatwari) Who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled7?g/5//7a/7 Vs UnionofIndiain which he has explainedthe topologyof the area while proving the A!<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa jahangirPuh. His testimonyvyould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated,in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burahare situatedin the East, villagesSamaipurBadli and Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Puh. .App.No.266/2008 titled Jai Sinah l/s. UOL&Anr. in which similararguments as Were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned seniiDr counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to the arguments of learned the arguments, which he had :asion may be treated as his West and villages Bharola and n the South of village Jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matti:ers Page 8 of22 12., I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by • the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purr is situated on.the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NationalHighwayNo.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 acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in •potential price increased due :is 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 nature. In the decision reported as Amar Sihoh I/5. Union nf India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 46'i, resettlement colony called Jah it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period cf emergencyi.e.,the year 1975- 76. It has to be rememberedthat the two subjectacquisitions were also for re-settlement of,;5lumand J.J.Clusters. 14. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008lai Sinah V.^. um ^ MjI which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronouncedon 19.8.2011, whein instant appeals were reserved for judgment,has since been pronouncedby me on 23.8.2011 arid I. would highlight that v\ hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in !.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar and Bawana, I had noted t t Delhi being revenue estate of Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, , Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd Tat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 9 of22 ..constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.f.Karnai .Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtai< Road i.e. NH-IO.bifurcated at a common point,, proceeding in different directions, at Sa.bzi iviandi. It needs to be highlightedthatvillageBhalswaJahahgir L-Puri is outsidethe 'V aforesciidand 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 notifications,issued from time to time 1had dealt with notificationsissued in the year In those cases, learned counsel Biied upon the sale deed dated ^1) and the sale deed dated 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. for the land owners had re 25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/ .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 sub-para (d) of para^8 hereinabove. In the said judgmentdated 23.8.2011,I have discardedthese IS recorded in,paragraphs 21 to under:- two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced here 21. The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh per the former, fair ma comes to ?26.75 lakhs ^63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the evidence to determine fair market value agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Badha Swami Sats5;ng' had tendered the sale ... d'eposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005Ta^d'stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religiouspurpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale dee is predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As rket value for the former per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable of 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 d Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matt{!rs Page 10 of 22 been held not to be reli 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 pay the price for, the sai^ only plot of the requ requirement,of the orga for destitute women circumstance, personal t 22. As held in the dec Organization" and as per ster Annie, the secretary of :hat the organization had to :i piece of land as it was the site size suitable for, the nization and is being used .e. there was a special 0 the vendee. sions reported as 1995 (1) SCZJin land AcquisitionOfficerEtum Ore; 1/5. I y-* Ai /»-» / C A .J — isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer, 369 jVIohd. Raufuddin L para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 's. Land Acquisition Off!rpr ansactions evidenced in a • ilered in evidence by virtue A.Act 1894 have not to be (Refer para 13) sale :tr sale, deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L. 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 . - T to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informedseller \A/fhh/^i i-f- I , need by any special cy to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all without being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bi studied the'market and 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 index offair market value ofthe lands in the area. Iwould be failing if Ido not highlightthat the 9n'? deed dated 20 5.2002, which was accepted by the learned O? f'"'fnn?Court pertainingto the notificationdated 27.1.2003,where-underagriculturalland in village Rajapur Kalan .was. sold by , an agriculturist to an agriculturistfor a much lesserprice i.e. ^17,74,109/- the price which comes to T63.478 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 intrinsic evidence of the destroy eacli otiier. o, themselves are having fanciful price and ex-facie 23. Tilus, apart from t ie reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 a rea.sons to , hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec Jbove would be additional the 2 sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair , :t 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 have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make.all the more a . reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsicevidenceof the transactionbeing the result of a fancy of the buyer, I would be failing not to note an unreported. decision cited by learned counsel Sh.I.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (snipe, deceased) thru LRs Vs. IJOf & Qrs. It was highlightedthat the sale deed,therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha 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 treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in tie instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as tl'e basis to determine fair marketvalue. The argumentignoresthe reasoning in the decisionof the Division Bench in paras 37 to .38 wherein the Division,Bench;, did not accept the value in the sale deed-bn its own logicas indicative of the market value, but found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3^^ the price arrived at would be the same as wo jld be price arrived at with 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&connectedmatt©ii-s Page 12 of 22 ,01 ifTTfi produced by the Govern ^1,3,7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas iment were giving a price of and the sale deed under ;2d the land gave the price f3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of . ^2,15,160/- per bigha, f 1/3would be deducted from the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the the sale was. 1993 a Section 4. of the Land ,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd the notification under Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11,1995 and the Court determinedfair marketjalueas of the saiddates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ?2,15,160/-. In other v\ Division Bench is not t meaningfully. It is not sale deed in question a the appreciation for 2 ords, the reasoning of the ) be read pedantically but that the Court treated the 5 the basis for if it was so, years had required to be hereinbefore already contradiction in the vah the 2 sale deeds and th given. I would highlight once again, that I have noted the • inherent le of the land price as per s itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value." ,16. For,the reasons therein, I rejecfthese two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to i . • , determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. 17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the a Jahangir Puri has been agreed f ?18 lakhs per acre". The land land situated in village Bhalsvv to be transferred for a sum c owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16;bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at n5,70,000/-. 18. Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^15,70,000/- per acre as on 01^07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 13 of 22 difficult to comprehend the Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8;4 abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ns 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 ...special considerations and n informed willing buyer and , without being influenced by particular land, and had thus informed and there being a s have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with ned that the said price was for 3t the price settled between an an informed willing seller and 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 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008/a/5/77(7/7 1/9. IJOI ^ Anr i.e. where ah abnormally high p[ice for a parcel of land is with evidence, of neither the buyer nor the seller being well- pecial feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair 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. 1reite 20. As regards. auction rat situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argymen land owners and concur wit "ate the same. es 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 containedin paragraphs29 and 30 which are premisedoh the decisionof th-B.SupremeCourt reportedas Lai LA.App.No.999/2010& connectedmatters Page 14 of 22 , j- Cfiand ys. Union of India 20 reasoning: pertaining to tlie e ofTesidential plots or flats by 21. In my decision dated 2 iai Sinaii Vs. UOi & Ors.. I he