Devinder Gupta, J.— A common judgment is being delivered in these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) since common questions arise for consideration as regards lands situate within the same revenue estate which were acquired by successive notifications issued within a short span.

2. Revenue Estate of Rithala had its own importance and was a very large revenue estate surrounded by eight villages, namely, Pooth Kalan, Pansali, Shah-bad-Daulatpur, Samepur, Badli, Naharpur, Mangolpur-Kalan and Mangolpur-Khurd. Towards South being Samepur, Badli and Naharpur, towards East Being Pooth-Kalan and Pansali being towards West.

3. A portion of land situate within the revenue estate Rithala was acquired for public purpose at public expense, namely, Planned Development of Delhi through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 24.10.1961 Alongwith the land situate ia revenue estate Rithala some lands situate in Badli and Naharpur were also acquired under the same notification. The ultimate purpose for acquisition being to set up the famous colony of Rohini. The left out land of Rithala was thereafter subjected to consolidation under the provisions of the Act. The entire land was marked into rectangles and squares. During this consolidation of holding proceedings every chak was provided with a rasta (path). There were seven pucca roads within this revenue estate in addition to every chak having a rasta and it is not a disputed fact that it was a semi- developed area, keeping in view its topographical location. It was brought to our notice that after development of the land, which had been acquired though notification dated 24.10.1961, the colony of Rohini was set up by Delhi Development Authority. In the brochure issued by Delhi Development Authority it was stated that “Rohini is a project on 2497 ha. of land in North West Delhi, within a distance of 15 Km. from Connaught Place, in continuation of Shalimar Bagh and Pitampura residential schemes. The area is situated along the outer Ring Road, between the two major traffic corridors - the G.T Road with railway line to Karnal and Rohtak Road with Railway line to Rohtak”. In the Brochure Rohini was described as a predominantly residential area to house approximately eight lac fifty thousand population. This brochure was issued by DDA on 9.2.1981 inviting applications from general public for allotment of various categories of plots. Last date of receipt of application was 31.3.1981

4. After having developed the area, already acquired by notification dated 24.10.1961 naturally pressure increased on the adjoining lands. Within a span of 28 days three successive notifications were published on 13.2.81, 20.2.81 and 13.3.81 Notification issued on 13.2.81 under Section 4 of the Act notified the land for being acquired for public purpose, namely, for construction of supplementary drain; on 20.2.81 and other notifications under Section 4 of the Act was issued notifying some other land for being acquired for construction of Water Sewage Treatment Plant and lastly on 13.3.81 a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued notifying land required for Remodelling of Nangloi Drain. Emergency provisions were invoked and simultaneously on the respective three dates notifications under Section 6 and 17 were also issued.

5. For the lands covered by notification issued on 13.2.81 the Collector, Land Acquisition made his award No. 4/1985-1986. For the lands covered by notification issued on 20.2.1981 award No. 20/82-83 was made by the Collector, Land Acquisition on 11.6.82 and for the land acquired through notification dated 13.3.81 award No. 1/83-84 was announced on 28.4.1983 The land was classified in two Blocks ‘A’ & ‘B’. Under the first two awards the Collector offered compensation @ Rs. 3,800/- per bigha for land falling in Block A, which was classified as irrigated and for the remaining land falling in Block B compensation was offered @ Rs. 2,600/- per bigha. Under the third award, for which land was acquired through notification dated 13.3.1981, compensation was offered by the Collector at a flat rate of Rs. 6,500/- per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the claimants sought references. The Reference Courts answered the references by different awards determining different market rates. Still feeling dissatisfied the claimants filed appeals to this Court seeking further enhancement in compensation whereas few appeals have been filed by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation.

6. Incidentally it may be noticed at this stage that while land was firstly acquired in this revenue estate through notification dated 24.10.1961 subsequently three acquisitions took place on 13.2.81, 20.2.81 and 13.3.81 But the reference petitions of the claimants under the first acquisition dated 24.10.1961 were still pending before the Reference Courts. Decisions rendered by the reference courts in some of the cases did influence the Collector in offering higher market rate for the land which was acquired through notification dated 13.3.1981

7. The potentiality of the land was predominantly taken as agricultural use as on 24.10.1961 and accordingly the market value had been assessed taking the said potential value in consideration. This Court in RFA 200/83 Bhoop Singh v. Union of India decided on 12.12.1984 determined the fair market value of land situate at village Rithala at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha for superior quality of land and @ Rs. 5,000/- per bigha for land having pits.

8. For the land situate in village Naharpur acquired through notification dated 24.10.1961 this Court in Tek Chand v. Union of India, 89 (2001) DLT 18 : 2001 (57) DRJ 6 assessed the fair market value as on 24.10.1961 at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha irrespective of the classification of land as per the revenue record. Market value of lands determined for Naharpur was discarded by this Court while assessing the amount of compensation for lands situate in village Mangolpur, in Mange Ram v. Union of India, 85(2000) DLT 257, acquired through the same notification dated 24.10.1961 on the ground that Naharpur enjoyed better advantageous position as compared to Mangolpur. For village Badli also the land acquired through the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 24.10.1961 the compensation admittedly was fixed at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha.

9. In the aforementioned background the claimants in these appeals have prayed for compensation at varying rates. Mostly the claim is for allowing compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 1,01,000/- per bigha on the ground that as on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act there has been lot of development activities adjacent to the acquired land. Because of coming of Rohini Complex within the land of this revenue estate which had been acquired through notification dated 24.10.1961 the remaining land of this revenue estate had attained great potential for being utilised for raising construction for commercial and residential purposes. It is also the case of the claimants that the entire land of this village, as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was free hold whereas in the brochure issued by DDA in the month of February, 1981 provisional rates of land for plots measuring 26 sq. mts. were notified at Rs. 100/- per sq. mt. and for plot of 90 sq. mts. rate was fixed at Rs. 200/- per sq. mt. being lease hold plots. Such evidence was produced before the Reference Court urging that bigger plots were offered by the DDA at a higher price whereas smaller plots were offered at a lesser price and since Rithala was already in a semi-developed state with facilities of almost every nature available including pucca roads, rastas and developed colony being adjacent to it and there being a lot of pressure of construction activity in and around the area, even if average market value of developed plots is taken at Rs. 150/- per sq. mt. for lease hold plots of DDA, for the free hold land like the one acquired through three notifications, the market value would at least be Rs. 225/- per sq. mt. Even allowing maximum deduction towards development charges the claimants would be entitled to the amount of compensation as claimed in the appeals.

10. In addition to the three notifications issued successfully within a period of 28 days, the remaining portions of the land situate at village Rithala was acquired through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act about nine months thereafter on 31.12.1981 for Planned Development of Delhi. Declaration was made on 16.4.1984 The Collector, Land Acquisition made his award No. 16/1985-1986 on 10.9.85 offering compensation for Block A land at Rs. 10,840/- per bigha, for Block B land at Rs. 9,000/- per bigha and for Block C land at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha. On reference being made the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation holding Rs. 21,000/- per bigha to be the fair market value as on 31.12.1981 Appeals have also been preferred to this Court for further enhancement in the amount of compensation by the claimants and for reduction of the amount by the Union of India which were also heard with this batch of appeals and are being decided by this common judgment.

11. As the claimant/appellants have been deprived of their land by legal process there is no manner of doubt that the claimants have a legal and legitimate right to a fair and reasonable amount of compensation for the land. It was urged on behalf of some of the claimants that as the claimants had been deprived of their land by virtue of notification which had been issued almost 20 years ago in the year 1981 and the compensation was being assessed in the appeals in 2001 the claimants will have to be recompensated for rehabilitation so as to enable them to purchase similar lands elsewhere. Rupee value had declined considerably during the last twenty years. Therefore, it will be the reinstatement value which should be the guiding factor in determining the amount of compensation.

12. We have duly considered the submission but find no force in this submission. The doctrine of reinstatement value cannot be applied in determining the market value under Section 23(1) of the Act. The reason is obvious and was given by Supreme Court in K. Posayya and others v. Special Tahsildar, AIR 1995 SC 1641 that there will always be gap between the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the date of payment. To recompensate the loss, payment of interest under Section 28 of the Act, solatium under sub-section (2) of Section 23 and in appropriate cases, after the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 came into force, additional amount of 12% per annum under Section 23(1A) is provided. Therefore, it will be illegal and unrealistic to apply the doctrine of reinstatement of value in determining the compensation of value under Section 23(1) of the Act.

13. In determining the market value the Court has to eschew arbitrary fixation keeping in view the settled principles of law in evaluating market value-in compulsory acquisition on the hypothesis of a willing vendor and a willing vendee. Therefore, it will be necessary for us to consider the principles on which compensation may be assessed in these appeals.

14. Market value is to be determined either on the basis of prevailing prices of sale and purchase between willing vendor and willing vendee or in case it has agricultural potential, the value of crops realised applying suitable multiplier. In cases like urban properties expert valuer's opinion may also be taken into consideration. Market value cannot be fixed with mathematical precision but must be based on sound discretion. Determination of compensation for compulsory acquisition involves consideration of price which a hypothetical willing purchaser can be expected to pay for the lands in the existing use as well as relatable potentialities. The acid test has been that the Court in determining the compensation should sit in the armed chair of a willing vendee and determine whether by taking all relevant prevailing conditions of the normal market keeping in view, the location, suitability of the purpose, existing potentialities and likely use etc. he would be willing to offer the rates which the Court proposes to determine as a prudent purchaser. It has been now judicially noticed that in case of acquisition of large tracts of lands for projects situated in several villages, stray sale deeds of small extent here and there would not form the basis to determine the compensation. The courts in determining the compensation should be circumspect, pragmatic and careful in analysing the evidence and arriving at just and fair market value of the land under acquisition, which could be fetched on the date of the notification. In fixing the market value on the basis of its potentiality for us for building purposes, as on the date of preliminary notification it is necessary to establish by evidence, existence of constructed houses or ongoing construction activity in similar other lands in the locality as on the date of the acquisition which would prima facie indicate that there is possibility of minimum user of land and is a reasonable possibility to infer that the acquired land also possessed potential value. In other words the Court must consider the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings for residential, commercial or industrial buildings which have already come up in the neighbourhood and also the possibility to obtain amenities like water, drainage, electricity supply etc. Absence of statutory impediments like obtaining sanction for layout would be yet another relevant circumstance. On taking all material and relevant facts into consideration, the Court would consider whether the willing vendee would offer the price at which the Court proposes to determine. The determination of the compensation under those circumstances must be just and adequate.

15. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant wanted to place reliance on a few instances of sales alleged to have been affected. But it is important to note that neither the vendor nor vendees were produced. No doubt it is true that Section 51 (A) of the Act which was inserted by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 enables the courts to admit certified copies of Sale Deed in evidence and it is open to the Court to act on the document regarding the transaction recorded in such document, but it is still open for the Courts, whether to rely upon such sale deed or not, in the absence of vendor or vendee being produced in order to show that it is a bona fide transaction. Reference be made in this regard to a recent decision of Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah, 2001 (3) SCC 530. In any case mere production of certified copies, in the absence of further evidence as regards comparison of the land with the land acquired, for which amount of compensation is to be assessed, may not be sufficient. In the absence of such evidence in the instant cases there is other material on record which would enable us to arrive at a fair market value of the land as on the date of notifications, viz. the offer of the DDA inviting applications for leasehold plots of the sizes of 26, 32, 48, 60 and 90 sq. mts. @ Rs. 100/-, Rs. 125, Rs. 150, Rs. 200 and Rs. 200/- per sq. mt. respectively in adjacent Rohini Complex. These plots were offered on perpetual leasehold, rights basis in Rohini Scheme with a restriction that the lessees will not be entitled to transfer the plot before or after the erection of the building, without the prior permission of the lessor. Such permission will not be given for a period of ten years from the commencement of the lease unless, in the opinion of the lessor, exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of such permission.

16. It is admitted position that part of the land of village Rithala which had already been acquired in 1961 for the purpose of establishing Rohini stood developed prior to issuance of notifications in question. The Rohini Scheme had also become operational in February, 1981, when brochures were issued by Delhi Development Authority. As such it would not be unreasonable to infer that as on the dates of notification, which are subject matter of these appeals issued under Section 4 of the Act, there was a tremendous potential for the remaining land of village Rithala for being used for purposes of raising residential and commercial constructions. Considering this potentiality, the acquired land has to be valued not on the basis that it had already been built up but considering the possibility of it being used for building purposes, which possibility admittedly existed as on the date of the relevant notifications. Instances for the marKet value being the market value at which developed leasehold plots, though smaller in size were offered by Delhi Development Authority.

17. When offer is made for bigger chunks of land it has to be taken into consideration that no prudent purchaser would take hazards to purchase such large extent of land at a rate at which small extent of land were being offered by DDA. In Hansanali Khanbhai & Sons and others v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (5) SCC 422 it was held that it would not be safe to adopt the same price for bigger chunk of land, as are offered for small plots of land.

18. In P. Ram Reddy and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others, 1995 (2) SCC 305 it was held that where the court may have to inevitably fix the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality on the basis of the prices got in the sale transaction relating to the building plots in a developed or an undeveloped layout, relied upon by the owners of the land, if such transactions are found to be genuine, a simple method, therefore, is evolved by courts in determining the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the retail price to be fetched by sale of plots in a fully developed layout as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. When it becomes inevitable for the court to fix the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality on the basis of the price fetched by sale of a building plot in a developed layout of building plots in the vicinity, it must, fix the wholesale market value of the acquired land with building potentiality at one-third to one-half of the retail price got by genuine sale of plots in a developed layout in the vicinity, by deducting two-thirds to one-half out of the retail prices of plots, as losses or expenses involved in having made the land where the plots are formed as developed, according to the degree of development. Such deduction in various decisions of Supreme Court has varied between 20% to 53%. Reference in this regard be made to the decisions of Supreme Court Kani Ram and another v. Smt. Kazani and others, AIR 1972 SC 1427, Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha etc. v. Amritsar Improvement Trust and others, AIR 1982 SC 940, Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943, P.S Krishna and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Deputy Collector) Hyderabad, AIR 1992 SC 421 and Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, AIR 1992 SC 2298.

19. There are also decisions where considering that plots are semi developed it has been held that there ought not to have been any deduction at all. Reference in this regard be made to the decision in Bhagwathula Samanna's case (supra).

20. We need not multiply decisions in this regard. At this stage we may also make a reference to another piece of evidence which was produced before the Reference Court, namely, notification dated 21.10,1981 issued by Lands Division of Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing issued to the Land Development Officer, New Delhi and Delhi Development Authority notifying schedule of market rates of land in different lands in Delhi. Narela and other outlying have been shown in group 8. For residential and commercial plots rate has been fixed at Rs. 400/- and Rs. 800/- sq. yard respectively for the purpose of calculating and recovering the lessor's share of unearned increase, while granting sale permissions in respect of the residential leases measuring 100 sq. yards. Notification also states that for any locality not covered by the notification the schedule rates for comparable area be applied. The minimum rates in the schedule is mentioned as Rs. 400/- and Rs. 800/- per sq. yards respectively for residential and commercial plots.

21. In case before issuance of notifications under Section 4 of the Act developed plots in the vicinity could be applied for before DDA on leasehold basis for price between Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- per sq. meter and in case the market rate for realisation of unearned increase prevalent as on the date of notification was Rs. 400/- for residential plots, we are of the view that in a developed colony the average market value can easily be taken for leasehold plots at Rs. 150/- per sq. meter and for freehold plots the market value would in any case be almost double of the same. Therefore, we may take the mean figure at Rs. 200/- per sq. meter as wholesale price of freehold plots in a developed condition. After allowing a reasonable deduction towards costs of development and considering the large extent of land to the extent even beyond maximum 60%, the retail market value would work out at Rs. 80/- per sq, mt. or in other words at Rs. 95.67 per sq. yard. We will take this figure to be Rs. 95/- per sq. yard which in our opinion would be the fair market value for such of the lands which were acquired through notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act between 20.2.1981 to 13:3.1981 In order to fix market value as on 31.12.1981 an increase of 12% p.a would be reasonable one. Thus as on 31.12.1981 the fair market value would be Rs. 87/- per sq. mt. or in other words at Rs. 104.05 per sq. yard. We will take this figure to be Rs.-104/- per sq. yard.

22. Consequently while allowing appeals of the claimants with proportionate costs we hold the claimants entitled to compensation @ Rs. 95/- per sq. yard for such of the lands which were acquired through the three notifications dated 13.2.81, 20.2.81 and 13.3.81 and @ RS. 104/- per sq. yard as on 31.12.81 Over and above this market amount the claimants will also be paid solatium @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation, interest @ 9% p.a for a period of one year from the date of the Collector taking possession and thereafter @ 15% p.a till payment of compensation and an additional amount @ 12% on the market value for the period commencing on or from the date of publication of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. It is also directed that in case interest is ultimately held payable on solatium by the Supreme Court in a pending reference made to the Larger Bench by order dated 10.8.1998 in Kapur Chand Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1991 5C 3470 claimants will also be paid interest accordingly. Decree sheets will be drawn limited to the amount of court fee paid unless deficiency in court fee is made good within four weeks from to-day.

23. The appeals filed by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation are dismissed.