& clvi .179582005. 831/20.05 005 & CMI 1 & CMJI % 25.05.2006 Preseait S/ShrI D.V. Khatrl, S.S. Gulla, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr Roep CKand for Mr. SanjayPoddar for UOL Mr. GauravSarifl for DDA. [4! + 1 72/2005 & CM 17517/ZOQ 1 00J3512005 & ci . 177t0Q5. /2QO $64/2Q05 (MJiO4L2OOS. 42 u4 S C s. &u9 uO 779-8012005. 783/2005. 802/2005 &iicM 17867/2005. 813/2005 & CM 17909/2005. 834/24)05 & CM i7973/2QiS. 84iJ2O0 $ n 797L.O05 843/2005 & CM 18009/2005. 84712005 & 5. & 209 I 9 863/2OP,. & CM 18100/2095., 865/200 & cm I !)812t)05 336-37/2007&CM 66(4/2006. 858/2005 & CM 2J 5. 604L2Q05 605/2(/2Q0 607120tk5, L2W)ii2/2005 035I 6201209 05. 647/20S5, O09 i. L 9'. '. 1 1L) I 0),. 778J2Q05 & CM 17308/2O0, 72j)0 ,& 1781312005. 797/2005 & M 17835L05 798/2005 & 799/2005 & cm 17845/2005. 79312005 &CM 17S7Li. 79412005 & - - - rii I /flfl R)4I2005 & & CM 1 cm 8 .79 -.------=--.z---------- 15/2005&CM i7917/ZO0. 1793012Q05 819/2005 &cM &crn l793/2220U5 ------------ Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:05.02.2024 15:40 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 [8062/2005 S56/2005 & CM 18065/25 857F2t)5 s5vaoo&. For orders, s LMPP No. 1991/21W swA1'ANr KUMAK 3. BHAYANJt Ir Mwy 25,2t vk IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI + LAAPP No. 189-91/2006 & CM 4030/2006 Judgment reserved on : 17 & 18.5.2006 % Judgment delivered on : May 25, 2006 Jai Singh & Others. ....Appellants througl.i: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. Versus Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar for UOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. $ A 'Sr Union of India AND LAAPP NO. 812/2005 & CM 17905/2005 Appellants through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. VS Jai Singh & Ors. ....Respondents through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Culia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. Bhoop Singh AND LAAPP No. 281/2006 & CM 5117/2006 ....Appellants through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri. S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev LAAPP No. 189-91/2006&conn.matters Page 1 of 32 V $ A # I # I $ A Versus Kumar and Mr. Roop Chahd, Advocates. Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar forUOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. Union of India Bhoop Singh Ranbir Singh Versus AND LAAPP NO; 828/2005 & CM 17950/2005 ...... Appellants through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. . VS AND ..;.Respondent through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. LAAPP NO. 568/2005 ....Appellant through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. - Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. Union of India and Another. Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar forUOL Mr. Giaurav Sarih for DDA. AND LAAPP No. 189-9l/2006&conn.matters Page 2 of 32 Union of India # Ranbir Singh t, # I Raghbir Versus LAAPP NO. 782/2005 & CM 17517/2005 Appellant through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. VS AND Respondent through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeey Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. LAAPP NO. 648/2005 «•••Appellant through: S/sh.D,V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C, Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. $ Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr, Sanjay Poddar forUOL Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. AND LAAPP NO. 326/2006 # Bhoop Singh LAAPP No.l89-91/2006&eonn,mattefs Appellant through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. Page 3 of 32 O Versus $ Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar forUOI. Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. Union of India # Bhoop Singh # Raghbir Singh Versus AND LAAPP NO. 835/2005 & CM 17977/2005 Appellants through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. VS • AND Respondent through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. LAAPP No. 609/2005 Appellant . through: S/sh.D.V. Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Roop Chand, Advocates. $ A Union of India and Another. ....Respondents through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar forUOL Mr. Gaurav Sarin for DDA. AND LAAPP NO. 864/2005 & CM 18104/2005 LAAPP No. 189-9 l/2006&conn.matters Page 4 of 32 Union of India Appellants through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. • • VS # RaghbirSingh ....Respondent ! through: S/sh.D.V.Khatri, S.S. Gulia, P.C. Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Rodp Chand, Advocates. AND TAAPP Nos. 183/2006.1B4/2006. 845/2005 & CMs. 18016/2005 & 5629/2006. 319-21/2006. 779-80/2005. 783/2005. 802/2005 & CM 17867/2005. 813/2005 & CM 17909/2005. 834/2005 & CM 17973/2005. 841/2005 & cm 17997/2005. 843/2005 & CM 18009/2005. 847/2005 & CM 18084/2005. 859/2005 & CM 18079/2005. 860/2005 & CM 18087/2005. 861/2005 & cm 18092/2005. 863/2005 & CM 18100/2005. 865/2005 & cm 18108/2005. 336-37/2007 & CM 6664/2006. 858/2005 & CM 18074/2005. 836/2005 17981/2005. 595/2005. 596/2005. 604/2005. 605/2005. 606/2005. 607/2005. 608/2005. 617/2005. 618/2005. 620/2005. 621/2005. 647/2005. 649/2005. 650/2005. 685/2005. 692/2005 & cm 15900/95. 693/2005. 718/2005 & CM 16906/2005. 720/2005 & CM 16920/2005. 776/2005 & CM 17191/2005. 777/2005 & cm 17304/2005. T 778/2005 & CM 17308/2005. 781/2005 & cm 17408/2005. 792/2005 & CM 17813/2005. 797/2005 & CM 17835/2005. 798/2005 & CM 17841/2005. 799/2005 & cm 17845/2005. 793/2005 & CM 17817/2005. 794/2005 & 17823/2005. 801/2005 & 17866/2005. 803/2005 & CM 17863/2005. 804/2005 & CM 17874/2005. 806/2005 & CM 17877/2005. 807/2005 & CM 17885/2005. 808/2005 & CM 17889/2005. 809/2005 & cm 17893/2005. 810/2005 & CM 17897/2005. 811/2005 & CM 17900/2005. 814/2005 & cm 17913/2005. 815/2005 & CM 17917/2005. 816/2005 & CM 17922/2005. 818/2005 & cm 17930/2005.819/2005 & CM 17934/2005.820/2005 & cm 17938/2005.821/2005 & CM 17942/2005. 827/2005 & CM 17946/2005. 829/2005 & CM 17954/2005. 830/2005 & CM 17958/2005. 831/2005 & CM 17962/2005. 832/2005 & CM 17966/2005. 833/2005 & CM 17970/2005. 837/2005 & CM 17985/2005. 838/2005 & CM 18001/2005. 840/2005 & CM 17993/2005. 842/2005 & CM 18005/2005. 844/2005 & CM 18013/2005. 846/2005 & CM 18020/2005. i. 848/2005 & CM 18031/2005. 849/2005 & CM 18030/2005. 850/2005 & CM 18045/2005. 851/2005 & CM 18042/2005. 852/2005 & CM 18050/2005. LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conii.matters Page5 of 32 853/2005 & CM 18054/2005. 854/2005 & CM 18058/2005. 855/2005 & CM 18062/2005. 856/2005 & CM 18065/2005. 857/2005 & CM 18070/2005, 862/2005 & CM 18096/2005. 58/2006 & CM 1068/2006. 59/2006 & Cms.1154- 1155/2006. 279/2006 & Cms. 5108-5110/2006. 280/2006 & Cms. 5111- 5113/2006. 594/2005. 817/2005 & CM 17926/2005. 822-26/2005. 574/2005. 575/2005.576/2005.577/2005.592/2005 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. L. BHAYANA 1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see thejudgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? ' SWATANTER KUMAR. J. .All the above 111 Land AcquisitionAppealshave been preferredeitherby the claimants or by the Union of India against the judgments of the Reference Court whereby it partially allowed the reference and granted compensation to the ,4 • claimants @Rs.l,08,000/- per bigha with other statutory benefits and interest payable in terms of provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not necessary for us to refer to the facts of each appeal as the learned counselappearingfor the appellantsin all these appealsarguedand referredto the pleadings and record of the following appeals (a) Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India & Others (LAAPP No. 281/2006) (b) Union of India Vs. Bhoop Singh (LAAPP No. 828/2005) . LAAPPNo.189-91/2006&conn.matters Page6 of 32 k (c) JaiSinghandOthersYs.UnionofIndia& Othes(LAAPP189-91/06) (d) Union of India Vs. Jai Singh and Others (LAAPP No.812/2005) (e) Ranbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Another (LAAPP No. 568/2005) (f) Union of India Vs. Ranbir Singh (LAAPP No. 782/2005) (g) Raghbir Vs. Union of India & Another (LAAPP NO. 649/2005) (h) Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors (LAAPP NO. 326/2006) (i) Union of India Vs. Bhoop Singh (LAAPP. No.835/2005) (j) Raghbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Another (LAAPP. No. 609/2005) (k) Union of India Vs. Raghbir Singh (LAAPP. No.864/2005) These cases were also taken as lead cases by the Reference Court and the judgments passed in these cases were relied upon in disposing of other references as well. Thus, we would be referring primarily to the facts and evidence led in the above mentioned cases as it would help in bringing the correct facts and evidence on record and would also help in determination of questions involved in the present appeals. We would dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment. All the claimants are bhumidar or owners of agricultural land fallen in the revenue estate of Village Bakarwala. This land was acquired for public purpose namely "Water Treatment Plant for Dwarka Project" vide notification dated 15th October, 1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Declaration under Section 6 was issued on r2th October, 1994. The appropriate Government invoked the emergency provisions under LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page7 of32 Section17(1) of the Act for dispensingwith the complianceof Section5A of the Act. After following the prescribedprocedure,the Land AcquisitionCollector vide award No.12/95-96 had assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4.65lakhsper acre (Rs.96,875/-per bigha). This compensationwas computed by the Collectorwith referenceto the policy of the GovernmentofDelhi, which came into effect from 27th April, 1990 fixing the minimum price of the agricultural.landat Rs.4.65lakhsper acre. The claimantsbeing dissatisfiedwith the award of the Collectorpreferred referencesunder Section 18 of the Act, which in turn were referred to the learned DistrictJudge,Delhi. The partiesled evidence.The claimants,whilerelyingupon the sale instances,award, allotmentletters issued by the DDA to various public institutions, had claimed compensation @Rs,2000/- per square yards. The ReferenceCourt, keepingin view the pleadingsof the parties,had framed all or anyof the followingissues 1. What is the effect of the Delhi Land Reforms Act on the market value of the land? 2. Whetherthe Delhi Land ReformsAct is applicableto the land in disputeand if so, to what effect? 3. Whetherthe Delhi Jal Boardis not a necessaryparty to the presentproceedings as claimed by it? 4. Whatwas the marketvalueof the acquiredlandon the date of notificationunder Section 4 of the LA Act? 5. To what enhancement,if any, the claimantsare entitled to? LAAPP No.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 8 of 32 6. Whethertheclaimantsareentitledto thespecialdamagesas claimedfor? 7. Relief. The claimantshad producedfour sale deeds in the case of Jai Singh Vs. Union of India, LAC No. 77/04, which as recorded by the trial Court in its judgmentswere exhibitedas Exh.P-1 to Exh. P-4 with theconsentof counselfor thepai'ties. The respondentshad producedtheGovernmentPolicydated3rdMay, 1990, which was exhibited as Exh.R-2 and two sale deeds in relation to sale of land in VillageMundaka,which were exhibitedas Exh.R-3 and Exh.R-4. In this case, the partieshad not led any oral evidence. However,in the case of Raghbir Singh Vs. Union of India (LAC No. 208/2004)and Ranbir Singh Vs. Union of India (LAC No, 239/2004), the parties had also led oral evidence. The claimant hadexaminedPW-1 Khem Singh, UDC from DDAin LAC No. 104/99,who had broughtthe summonedrecord and copy of letterof allotmentto institutiondated 8th November, 1999, Exh. PW-l/A. PW-2 Parkash Chand again a UDC from L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, had produced and proved on record Exh.PW-2/Aand Exh.PW2/B, first was the letter dated 3rd March, 1993 regarding fixationof pricesof Govt. land for allotmentof varioussocial,cultural,charitable and other organisationswhile the other was regardingscheduleof market rates. PW-3 Rajeev Kumar, Halka Patwari had proved on record Exh. PW3/A being certifiedphotocopyof aksajraof VillageBakarwalaand hehad also statedthat it was surroundedby VillageMundakainNorth,Baprola,DichaoKalaand Tilanpur LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 9 of 32 J Kotla in South, Village Ranholain East and Village Zafar pur Hiran Kudna in West. He particularlystatedthat the boundaryofVillageMundakaand Bakarwala are adjoining. PW-4 Anar Singh still anotherUDC from DDA, LAB Residential, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi had proved Exh.PW4/A and Exh.PW4/B being photocopiesof the letterswhere rates were given but they were excessiveand in the lease deed they were corrected. Copy of the lease deed executed between one VirenderSingh and DDA being Exh.PW4/C was also proved on record. In LAC No. 111/99 before the Reference Court, one Surender Singh Patwari was also examined as PW-1, who had brought the DDA file to show that letter dated 8th September, 1993 was addressed to Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking by the Additional Commissioner of DDA pertaining to physicalpossession of the land measuring about 20 bighas 10 biswas in Village Najafgarh, which was taken from DDA on 25th October, 1994. PW-2 S.P. Dagar, Record Clerk from Sub Registrar Office of Janakpuri had proved the sale deed Exh.PW2/l dated 23rd April, 1993. PW-4 Khem Singh, UDC from DDA was examined to prove the record of Institutional letter dated 8th November, 1993, which was exhibited as Exh.PW4/A. PW-3 Amar Singh was examined to prove allotment of auction plot at Pitampura. PW-5 Prakash Chand, UDC, L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi had again proved the letter dated 3rd March, 1993 regarding fixation of prices of Govt. land for allotment of various social cultural and charitable and other organisationsand copy of letter regarding schedule of LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 10 of32 I - -J marketrate, which were exhibitedas Exh.PW5/Aand Exh.PW5/B. PW-6 Rajiv Kumar,Halka Patwariwas also examinedin this case. PW-7 Anar Singh, UDC, DDA, L&B Residential,Vikas Sadan,New Delhiwas also examined,who proved the Exh.PW7/A and Exh.PW7/B in relation to allotment of plot in Pitampura @Rs.286.50 per square meter. All these witnesses were also examined in LAC No. 70/99 titled as Dharam Singh Vs. Union of India. Above is the entiredocumentaryand oral evidenceled by the partiesin all these cases. Vide differentjudgments, the learned Reference Court granted uniform compensationto the claimantsin all these cases. The claimants were awarded compensation@Rs.1,08,000/-per bigha in addition to other statutory benefitsand interestpayableunderthe provisionsofthe Act. The ReferenceCourt while solelyrelyingupon Exh,R-4,which was asale deed dated 4th March, 1994 in relationto 1bighaofagriculturallandin the revenueestateofVillageMundaka for considerationof Rs.l lakh and by adding the stamp value of Rs.8,000/-,had granted the compensation @Rs.l,08,000/-per bigha to the claimants. The claimantsbeing dissatisfiedfrom the judgmentof the ReferenceCourt have filed 38 appeals before this Court praying for further enhancement of awarded compensationwhiledie UnionofIndiahas preferred73 appealson the groundthat compensationawarded by the Reference Court is excessive, unreasonableand without any evidence and pray that the award of the Collector awarding LAAPP No.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 11 of 32 V compensation@Rs.Rs.4.65lakhsper acre(Rs.96,875/-perbigha)be restored. Beforereferringto the merits of the contentionsraisedby learnedCounsel appearingfor the partiesin all theseappeals,it will beappropriatetohave aglance of the various sale deeds, which were produced and proved by the parties on record in these cases. Sr.No Details ofsale deeds Village Date of execution Value per bigha 1. Rs.3,02,400/- for land measuring 1 bigha (Exh. P-1) (LAC No. 77/2004) Tikri Kalan 23.4.1993 Rs.3,02,400/- 2. Rs.9,07,200/- for land measuring 3 bigha (Exh. P-2) (LAC No.77/2004) Tikri Kalan 23.4.1993 Rs.3,02,400/- 3. Rs.3,02,400/- for land measuring 1 bigha (Exh.P-3)(LAC No.77/2004) Tikri Kalan 23.4.1993 Rs.3,02,400/- 4. Rs.4,50,000/- for land measuring 1 bigha (Exh.P-4)(LAC No.77/2004) Tikri Kalan 28.2.1996 Rs.4,50,000/- Sr.No Details of sale deeds Village Date of execution Value per bigha 1. Rs.1,25,000/- for land measuring 1 bigha (Exh. P-l/P-3) (LAC No. 111/99) Mundaka 27.2.1990 Rs. 1,25,000/- 2. Rs.1,83,000/- for land measuring 1 bigha 2-1/4 biswas (Exh. P-3) (LAC No. 111/99) Mundaka 24.1.1992 Rs. 1,64,494/- LAAPP No.189-91/2006&conn.matters Page 12 of 32 a Sr.No Details ofsale deeds Village Date of execution Value per bigha 1. Rs.50,000/- for land measuring 2 bigha 7 biswas (Exh.R-3)(LAC No.77/2004) Mundaka 11.3.1994 Rs.21,276/- 2 Rs.1,00,000/- for land measuring 1 bigha (Exh. R-4)(LAC No.77/2004) Mundaka 4.3.1994 Rs. 1,00,000/- On the basis of above sale deeds and other documentary and oral evidence produced by the claimants, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellantsarguedthatthe compensationawardedto the claimantsought to be enhancedby this Court,inter-alia,on the followinggrounds (i)the learned Reference Court has fallen in error of law and appreciation of evidence by discarding Exh.P-3, which is the sale deed dated 27th February, ]990 for sale of one bigha of land wherein the vendor had sold one bigha of land in the revenue estate ofVillage Mundaka for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and solely relied upon a post notificationsale deed in relationto the same Village while awarding the compensation(Exh.R-4), (ii)on the basis of Exh.P-3,the claimantswould be entitled to get compensation @Rs.l,35,000/- (Rs.1,25,000/- being sale consideration +Rs.l0,000/- towards stampduty) withfurtherincrease@15% per annumfrom the year 1990to 1993, the date of issuance of notification under Section 4, which comes to Rs.2,08,406/-. (iii)the Reference Court while relying upon Exh.P-2 should have awarded compensation @Rs.3,02,400/- per bigha whereby the land measuring about 3 bigha in the revenue estate of Village Tikri Kalan was sold for a sum of Rs.9,07,200 on 23rd April, 1993 just few months prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, this was the best piece of evidence before the Reference Court for determining the fair and reasonable market value of the land. LAAPP No. 189-9 l/2006&conn,matters Page 13 of 32 o (iv)the Reference Court has ignored Exh,P-l, the sale deed in relation to the land situated in the Village Ghewra. (v)in terms of Government Policy Exh.R-1, the claimants were entitled to increase @12% compounding per year on the value fixed under the Policy. In terms of this policy, as of 1993, the claimants would be entitled to compensation @Rs.1,72,000/- per bigha in any case. (vi)whileheavily relying upon Exh.PWl/A, the letter issued by the DDA to the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking, it was argued that the DDA, without any further development and in fact in the conditions in which the land was acquired, had allotted land to the undertaking @Rs.4,00/- per square yard. Even after making the deduction @25%, the market value of the land ought to have been determined at Rs.3,00/- per square yard i.e. 3,02,400/- per bigha. (vii)an ancillary argument to the above is that by applying the Golden Mean Rule to all the above computation, the claimants in any case would be entitled to compensation @Rs.226/-per square yard i.e. 2,28,848/- per bigha. On the other hand, the learnedcounselappearingfor the respondsnt/Union of India contended that it is not permissiblein law to apply the principle of 15% increase as there is no rule even permitting universal increase @12% annually and for this purpose he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India and Another 93 (2001) DLT 150 (DB) and Amar Singh Vs. Union of India (RFA No. 494/88 decidedon 7th February,2003). He also contended that the land at the time of acquisition was simplicitor an agricultural land and the rates of the developed land whether applicable to institutional or commercial colonies cannot be taken as a guiding factor for determining the market value of the acquired land. While relying upon the LAAPP No.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 14 of 32 2 judgment of Supreme Court in the case Kiran Tandon Vs. Allahabad Development Authority & Another (2004)10 SCC 745, it was also contended that even if any sale deeds are to be taken into consideration, the Court should apply at least 33% deduction for determining the fair market value of the agricultural land. On this premise, it is argued that firstly the sale deeds have not been proved in accordance with law by the claimants and even if they are to be taken into consideration, the reflected value would have to be reduced in terms of this principle of law. It is lastly submitted that the value of Exh.R-4 should have been reduced keeping in view the fact that the sale deed was much subsequent to the date of issuance of notification and the compensation awarded by the Collector would be fair. Firstly we would deal with the contents of Exh.PWl/A. This document is heavily relied upon by the claimants and they claimed compensation @Rs.300/- per square yards after making certain deductions on account of development charges. This is a letter issued by the DDA to Delhi Water Supply & Sewerage Disposal Undertaking vide which land measuring 4.27 acre Site No.A-2, 4, 583 acres Site No.A-3 was allotted @Rs.l5.60 lakhs per acre. This rate was subsequently enhanced to Rs.20 lakhs per acre + 24% ground rent per annum. A bear reading of the letter shows that it related to allotment of developed plot in the area of Nazafgarh Township. The land was given for the purpose of construction of Mini Sewage Treatment Plant and Sewage Pumping Station for Nazafgarh LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 15 of 32 \ Township and adjoining areas. It has been held in different cases that the allotment by the authorities of developed areas cannot be good guide for determining the fair market value of the agricultural land, which is acquired and more partic.ularlywhen the instances of sale of agricultural land of the same village are available on record. Reference in this regard can be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh and Others Vs. State of Harvana and Another AIR 2003 SC 4382. The burden of proving that the claimants are entitled to the same compensation @ Exh. PWl/A even after reasonable deduction was entirely upon the claimants. It was for them to show that acquired land had the same location and potential as the land covered under Exh. PWl/A. As far as this document itself is concerned, it does not reflect specifically that from which part of Delhi the land was allotted much less giving the revenue estate of relevant Village. The Najafgarh Township area is a very vast area and thus, it is not possible for the Court to adopt this document as a relevant comparable piece of evidence for adjudicating the controversy in issue. For this reason, we are unable to accept the contention of the claimants that they are entitled to get compensation on the strength of Exh.PWl/A. Exh.P-1 to P-4 ( in LAC 77/2004) are the sale instances of agricultural land relating to the land situated in the revenue estate of Village Tikri Kalan. Of course all these sale instances are prior to notification issued under Section 4 of the Act except Exh.P- 4, which is in fact nearly 2 years post notification and as such is not relevant for LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 16 of 32 any purpose. As far as Exh.Pl to P3 are concernedthey relateto revenueestateof another Village. Exh.P-3 (in LAC No. 111/99) is a sale instanceof agricultural landrelatingtotheland situatedinthe revenueestateofVillageGhewra. As faras 1 Exh.P-2 in LAC No. 77/2004 is concerned, it is a sale in favour of a public limited company where the vendorhad sold nearly3 bighaof agriculturallandfrom the revenue estate of Village Tikri Kalan for a total considerationof Rs.9,07,200/-. This sale at the face of it was more for a commercialpurpose and related to sale of land in anothervillage.PW6Rajiv Kumar,HalkaPatwari in his statementno where stated that boundaries of Village Tikri Kalan and Village Ghewra were adjacent to that of Village Bakarwalaand the nature, user and potential of the land of these villages were similar, if not identical. In the absence of any such specific evidence, the Court would not take into consideration Exh.Pl to P4 in LAC tV ^ No.77/2004and Exh.P-3 in LAC No. 111/99in determiningthe fair marketvalue of the land in question. As far as R-3 in LAC No. 77/2004 is concerned,it is a sale deed producedby the respondent vide which land measuring about 2 bigha and 7 biswas in Village Mundaka was sold for a sum of Rs,50,000/- on 11th March, 1994 i.e. subsequent to the date of notification in the present case. As per Exh.R- 3, the value of the land would be Rs.21,276/- per bigha while the Collector himself has awarded a sum of Rs.96,875/- per bigha. Thus, Exh. R-3 is also an irrelevant document for determining the market value of the land in question. Having discarded the above documentary evidence now we are left with LAAPPNo.l89-91/2006&conn.matters Page 17of 32 Exh.R-1, Exh.R-4 and Exh.P-3 and the oral evidence led by the parties to substantiate their respective claims. Exh.R-4 relates to sale of 1 bigha of land in the revenue estate of Village Mundaka, which was sold for a total consideration of Rs.l lakh as on 4th March, 1994. This sale instance is nearly 6 months subsequent to the date of notification issued by the authorities under Section 4 of the Act. Exh.P3 in LAC NO. 111/99relatesto the sale of one bigha of land in the revenue estate of Village Mundaka for a considerationof Rs.1,25,000/- on 27th Februar>', 1990 i.e. nearly 2-1/2 years prior to issuance of notification in question. Exh.R-2 is the Government policy dated 3rd May, 1990 vide which the Government had fixed the minimum price of agricultural land