JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar, J.
1. These appeals pertain to land falling within the revenue estate of village of Jasola in Delhi. Through a notification issued on 6th April, 1964 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter re-
ferred to as ‘the Act’) large areas of land falling within village Jasola were sought to be acquired. The said notification under Section 4 was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 7th December, 1966. The Land Acquisition Collector made award dated 30th January, 1979 bearing No. 39/78-79 and Award No. 23/79-80 (suppl.) announced on 31st October, 1979. The market value of the land covered under Award No. 39/78-79 was
fixed by the Collector at uniform rate of Rs. 4,000/- per bigha except for the land falling in Khasra No. 91/1 for which an amount of Rs. 500/- per bigha was awarded on account of the fact that it abutted on the main Delhi-Mathura road. Under Award No. 23/79-80 (suppl.), the Collector divided the land into three blocks, namely, block “A”, “B” and “C” and fixed the market value at Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- per bigha respectively. The land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Addl. District Judges who dealt with the cases which are subject matter of the present appeals fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 11,500/- per bigha. They relied on a decision of this Court in RFA No. 396 of 1979 decided on 17th April, 1984, Anar Singh Vs. Union of India, report-ed in . In this case, this Court fixed the market value of the land in village Jasola at Rs. 10,000/- per bigha for its notifica-tion under Section 4 of the Act dated 24th October, 1961. The reference Courts took this as the bare figure and granted increase at the rate of 6% per annum over and above the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. By this method they arrived at the market value of Rs. 11,500/- per bigha as on 6th April,
1964 which is the date of notification under Section 4 in the present appeals.
2. The land owners have filed the present appeals claiming that the market value of their acquired land be fixed at Rs. per 50,000/- bigha. Originally the claim of the appellants in these appeals was lesser. Howev-er, by way of amendments, the claim has been enhanced by the appellants to Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. The amendments have already been allowed in all the appeals and the requisite court fee already stands paid.
3. Village Jasola falls on both sides of the Delhi-Mathura road. It is adjacent to village Bahapur on one side of the road and on the other side of the road also it is adjacent to village Bahapur on one side and village Okhla on the other side. Admittedly there are no sale transactions pertain-ing to village Jasola. Therefore, the market value of the land in this village has to be fixed on the basis of decisions pertaining to the same village or the adjoining village. Of course, no decision is available for the same date of Section 4 notification i.e., 6th April, 1964. We have to
go by the decisions with respect to the nearest dates of Section 4 notifi-cation. In Anar Singh (supra) which pertains to village Jasola the date of Section 4 notification being 24th October, 1961, this Court had to ulti-mately rely on the decision of this Court with respect to village Bahapur. Certain observations in Anar Singh’s case, are quite relevant and instructive. On reliance placed on decisions with respect to village Bahapur it was observed, “village Bahapur adjoins village Jasola on both sides. Howev-
er, prices of the land in village Bahapur were rising, it is not possible to say that there was no increase in the value of the land in village Jasola”. xxxx.” It was also observed that “there may not be any sale trans-action in village Jasola. The transactions of the adjoining village can be a good guide when there is no evidence available in this village. This is well-settled.”
4. On the question of potentiality of the land it was observed:-
“After all we have to take potentiality into consideration and potentiality means such uses to which land can be put in the near reasonable future. It is the duty of the valuer “to take into consideration every intrinsic quality and every intrinsic circum-stance which tends to push the value either up or down, just because it is relevant to the valuation and ought therefore to be cast into the scales of the balance before he looks to see the resultant figure on the dial at which the pointer finally rests” (per Scott. LJ in Robinson Brothers (Brewers) Ltd. Vs. Houghton
(1937) 2 KB 445 at p. 469). Potentiality of the land in question is one intrinsic quality which we must take into account. As the Privy Council has said:
“For it has been established by numerous authorities that the land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the time at which its value has to be deter-mined (that time under the Indian Act being the date of notifica-tion under S.4(1) but also by reference to the uses to which it is reasonably capable to being put in the future. No authority indeed is required for this proposition. It is self-evident.”
Narayana Gajapatiraja Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer: .
In our opinion the learned Judge assessed the value on a totally wrong basis. Potentiality is a right and proper subject for consideration in ascertaining the compensation in ascertaining the compensation to be paid on expropriation. Prospects and possibilities of future development ought to be taken into ac-count in determining the price to be paid for property compulsoi-ly acquired.”
5. After discussing various factors the Court came to a definite conclu-sion that “the acquired land had great potential whether it was situated on this side of the road or the other side of the road.”
6. The market value of the land in this case for notification under Section 4 dated 24th October, 1961 was fixed at Rs. 10,000/- because the appellant had claimed only this much. Therefore, so far as the figure of market value fixed in this case is concerned it cannot be a good guide. In Bijay Singh Vs. Union of India, (1993) 52 DLT 13, this Court again relied
on the instance of village Bahapur in order to determine the market value of land in village Jasola. Thus we have no hesitation in adopting the same principle for determining the market value of land in the present appeals specially in view of the fact that there are no sale transactions forthcom-ing with respect to the land in question. In Bijay Singh (supra) the date of notification under Section 4 is 31st December, 1976 and this Court fixed the market value of land with regard to the said date as Rs. 55,000/- per
bigha in village Jasola. In our view this decision does not serve as a good guide because it is too far beyond in point of time. We are concerned with 6th April 1964 while this decision pertains to 31st December, 1976.
7. In RFA 408/77, Union of India Vs. Amin Chand decided on 9th July, 1979 this Court fixed market value of land in village Bahapur for notification under Section 4 dated 13th November, 1959 @ Rs. 19,000/- per bigha.
8. In another case pertaining to village Bahapur for a notification under Section 4 dated 13th November, 1959 a Division Bench of this Court fixed the market value of land @ Rs. 19,000/- per bigha. This decision is report-ed as DLF United Limited Vs. Union of India, . In Lekh Raj Vs. Union of India, 1997(1) Apex Decisions (V) 33, this Court approved the rate of Rs. 19,000/- per bigha for village Jasola for notification under Section 9 dated 13th November, 1959. However, the appellant was granted compensation only at the market value of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha because he had confined value of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha because he had confined his claim in appeal to the said ate.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance on Union of India Vs. DLF Ltd., . It was a case pertain-ing to village Bahapur and the date of notification under Section 4 was 13th November, 1972. The market value of land was fixed at Rs. 65,000/-. In our view this case again does not serve as a good guide because the date of Section 4 notification is more than eight years subsequent to the date of notification under consideration in the present appeal.
10. This leaves us only with the decisions pertaining to village Bahapur with respect to Section 4 notification dated 13th November, 1959 fixing the
market value of land at R. 19,000/- per bigha and the one in Lakh Raj (supra) which pertains to village Jasola for a notification under Section 4
dated 13th November, 1959 where the rate of Rs. 19,000/- per bigha has a tacit approval. As against these determinations with respect to 13th Novem-ber, 1959 the date of notification under Section 4 in the present batch of appeals is 6th April, 1964. Thus there is a difference of about four and half years. It cannot be denied that there was a rising trend in the market
value of land during this period. This has been judicially recognised in several decisions including those Anar Singh (supra) and Prakash Chand Kashyap Vs. Union of India, AIR 1988 Delhi 316. In the latter case a Divi-sion Bench of this Court clearly ruled that “it is common knowledge that the price of land rose appreciably between 1959 and 1964 articularly after the master plan came into force with effect from 1/9/1962.”
11. In our view a fair method of fixing the market value of land in the present appeals would be to follow the principle of increase @ 12% per annum. This principle can be a good guide in view of the provisions of Section 23(1A) of the Act. This has also been recognised by this Court in Rameshwer Solanki & Ors. Vs. Union of India, . In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the view that this could be the best and most fair way to fix the market value of the acquired land of the appellants. We have the market value of land at Rs. 19,000/- per bigha for notification under Section 4 dated 13th Novem-ber, 1959. We have to arrive at the market value for a notification under Section 4 for dated 6th April, 1964. This means that the difference is about four and half years and on the basis of 12% per annum roughly we reach the figure of Rs. 28,000/- per bigha.
12. Accordingly we fix the market value of the land for the acquired land of the appellants in village Jasola at Rs. 28,000/- per bigha. The appellants will be entitled to get the compensation at the said rate. The appellants will be entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 28,000/- per bigha. Be-sides this all the appellants will get solatium @ 30% on the market value of land fixed in their respective cases. The appellants will also be enti-tled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of dispossession till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till payment on the
enhanced amount. The appellants will be entitled to proportionate costs.