Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 552/2011
INDERJEETBAJAJTHRULRS&ANR ....Appellants
Through: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Adv.
UOI/LAC.
Mr. S.K. Seti, Adv. for DDA.
13.10.2011 The appellants have filed the present appeal against the
ORDER
No.33/2003-04 made on 31.03.2004 pursuant to notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 22.08.2001.
Counsels for the parties jointly state that the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment dated 23.08.2011 of a co-ordinate
Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LAA No.266/2008 entitled 'Jai Singh vs. Union of India
& Anr.' Learned counsels particularly draw the attention of this Court to the operative paras 74-77 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant
LA.APP. 55212011 .
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Through:
2011:DHC:15753 portions of which are reproduced herein below:-
"Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001
With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is Z15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated
25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to Z 17,74,109/-, rounded off to Z 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by
2.5% the price comes to Z18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for, Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan comes to
16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.
Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is !16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.
All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed.
All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village
Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated
22.8.2001 in sum of!16,74,500/- per acre and for Category
'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.
LA.APP. 55212011 .
2011:DHC:15753
77. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost."
3. Accordingly, following the aforesaid decision dated 23.08.2011 in the case of Jai Sincih (supra), the present appeal is disposed of along with the pending application, by granting similar relief to the appellants herein as granted to similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid judgment. HIMA KOHLI,J OCTOBER 13, 2011 'anb' to LA.APP. 55212011. 2011:DHC:15753.[2] * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On: 12thug, 2011 Judgment Delivered On: 23rd August. 2011 + LA.APP. 266/2008 '.................... JAI SNGH Appeflant Through:. Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.M.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana, Mr.Raj Singh, Mr.Uday Ram, MrD.R..Tomar, Mri.S.Dahiya, Mr.N.S.Dalaf, •. Mr.S.M.Bhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta. Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.S.S.Rana, Mr.Suni Dalal, • Mr.D.S.Khatri and • •. Mr.T.P.S.Kang, Advocates Vs. UOI & ANR.......... Respondents Through:. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K.Kaornudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1. Ms.Anusuya Saiwan, Advocate, for DSDC. Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan MathUr, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun BirbaL Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi and. Ms.Beenashaw Soni Advocatesior DDA. AND__ (GRID-A). 11A.App.No266/2008 & connected matcrs Pageiof74 2011:DHC:15753 •. c _jv 280t 1/20 (Cross LA.APP. • 286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP. 28.9/20'OB,.LAAPP: 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP..• 292/2008, LA.APP. • 293/2008, L cPP.294/29&8& CM APPL 121&t2OTh[1] - eross--- Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP: 296/2008, LA.APP. 299/2008, LA.APP. 301/2008, 3G3/2008 MAPP. 304/2008,..APP.'3fl7Z00S, LA.APP 337/2008,. LAAPP. 339/2008, LA.APP. 35712008, 'tA.APP 39412008, LA.APP'. 401/2008, LA.APP. 413/2008, LA,.APP 44312008, LA.APP. 472/2008[1] A.APP 483/2008, LkAPP-..... 487/2008, LA.APR. 492/2008, LA.APP 493/2008, LAAPP. 495/2008, LA.APP. 496/2008, LA.APP 526/2008, LA AP P 527/2008, LA.APP. • 535/2008, LA.APP 537/2008, LA.APP. 541/2008, LAAPP. 545/2008, r LA.APP 546/2008, LA.APP' 548/2008, LA.APP; 554/2008, LA.APP 563/2008, LA.APP. 566/2008, LA.APP. 621/2008, LA.APP. 623/2008, LA.APP. 627/2008, LA.APP. 628/2008, LA.APP. r 635/2008, LA.APP. 648/2008, LAAPP. 649/2008, LA.APP. 662/2008, LA.APP. • 7,241200.8. & CM APPL. 535.3/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 756/2008, LA.APP. 846/2008,LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP. 861/2008, LA.'APP. 875/2008, LA.APP; 879/2008, LA.APP. • 880/2008, LA.APP. 888/2008, LA.APP.. 894/2008,.IAPP. 895/2008, ' LA.APP.. 905/2008, LA.APP..' 906/2008, LA.APP. 907/2008, LAAPP. 910/2008[1] LA.APP. 911/2008, LA.APP. 925/2008, LA.APP. 926/2008, LA.APP. 927/2008, LA.APP. • 931/2008, LA.APP. 932/2008,LAAPP.:933/2008, LA.APP. 934/2008, LA.APP. 936/2008, LA.APP. 939/20.08, ' LA.APP. 941/2008, LA.APP. 942/2008, LA.APP. 944/2008, LA.APP•. • • • 946/2008, LA.APP. 955/2008, LAAPP. 958/2008, LA.APP 999/2008 & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.' • • 1014/2008, LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP.:1023/2008, LA.APP. 1026/2008; LA.APP. 1064/2008, 'LA.APP. 1071/2008, LA.APP..1244/2008, LA.APP. • 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, L.APP. • • 1268/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008, CM APPL. 2377/2009, (Cross • • • • • Objections) LA.'APP. 86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 9712009, • • LA.APP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP. • 111/2009 LA.APP.. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, LA.APP. • 25112009, LA..AFP..... •252/20.09,: LA.APP. 265/2009, 'LA.APP. 266/2009-&CM-AppL' No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), '1kAPP. • 267/2009, •LA.APP.' 268/2009,. 'LA.APP. 269/2009, LA.APP. • 27012009, LA..APP. 2-71/2009T-LA.APP. 272/2009, LAAPP 273/2009, LA.APP. 300/2009, LA.APP.'. 306/2009, LA.APP., • • 454/2009, 'LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 521/2009, LA.APP. • • 532/2009, LA.APP. 535/200.9' & CM APPL. 12886/2011 (Cross •. Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009' & CM APPL. 129 17/2011 (Cross Objtions), LA APP --54-3/2009-----LA APP 54412 - LAAPP LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • 566/2009., LA..APP. 570/2009 & CM APPL1873/2011,ApFI. 589/2009,............94/2009,....LA.A 634/2.O0c., LA.APP.. 635/20.09, LA.A•PP. 636/2009, LA.APP................ 637/2009 LA.APP. 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 & CM APPL.13878/2011 1 LA.APP; 112010, LA.APP. 29/2010, LA.APP.. 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP, 107/2010[1]. LA.APP. 108/2010, LA.APP.:109/2010,. LA.APP. 168/2010, LA.APP. 169/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LAAPP. 171/2010, LAAPP. 20/2010,.LA.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, LA.APP. '430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/201.[1] (Cross Objections), LA.APP............ 520/2010 CM APPL.13968/2011, LAAPP. 521/2010, CM APPL 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 522/2010, LA.APP. 52.3/2010, LA.APP. 524/2010 & CM APPL. 12914/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010,.LA.APP. 527/201.0, LA.APP. 528/2010, LA.APP. 529/2010., LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL. 229/2011 (Cross Objections), 'LA.APP. 531/2010, LA.APP. 532/2010 &CM APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 533/2010 & CM APPL. 12898/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 534/2 107'.*PP. 535/2010 &.CM APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross.... Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 & CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 53.7/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010& CM APPL. 1297212011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPL. 1290012011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP. 541/2010,. LA.APP. 542/2010 & CM AP:PL. 1.9857/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. 12903/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 544/2010, CM APPL. 12888/2011 (Cross Objections),.LA.APP. 545/2010,. LA.APP. 566/2010, LA.APP 581/2010, LA.APP. 592/2010 & CM APPL. 22,7/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 593/2010 & CM APPL. 12969/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 594/2010, LAAPP. 595/2010 & CM APPL. 226/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 5.96/2010, LA.APP'.. 597/2010 & CM APPL.. 228/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 598/2010 & CM APPL. 487/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 600/2010 & 'CM APPL. 12897/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 601/2010, LA.APP. 602/2010, LA.APP. 603/2010 & CM APPL. 12881/2011.(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP. 663/2010 & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections, LA.APP..: 666/2010 & CM' APPL. 6748/2011 (Cross Objections'), LA'.APP. 675/2010'& CM A.PPL. 9988/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 761/2010, LA.APP. 792/2010 & CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 793/2010 & CM APPL; 12899/2011 (Cross' Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. 795/2010, LA.APP. 40/2011, LA.APP. 19512011 & CM APPL. 12892/2011 (Cross, Objections), LA.APP. 215/2011, LA.APP. 22812011, LA.APP. 229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011, LA.APP. 231/2011, LA.APP. 232/2011, LA.APP. 233/2011, ' LA.APP. 389/2011,. LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008'& connected matters. ' 392/2011, LA.APP. 420/2011 - 425/2011: (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No.. 19/2002-03, VilIage-Pooth Khurd) AND • ______ ____ ____ (GrnD-B) + 'LA.APP. 972/2008 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 1122/2008 & CM 2099/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1150/2008 & CM 12216/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1151/2008 & CM 2345/2009, (Cross Objections), LA.APP..[1] 152/2008 &. CM 2102/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 1153/2008 & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1154/2008, LAAPP..1187/2008, LA.APP.. 1188/2008, LA.APP. 1189/2008, LA.APP. 121812008,, LA.APP. 15/2009, LA.APP. 82/2009, LA.APP. • 113/2009, 100/2009, LA,APP'. 102/2009•,.LA.APP. LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP, 622/2009, LA.APP. • 214/2011. '(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award NO. 11/2001-02, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRDC) + LA.APP. 359/2007, LA.APP. 202/2007, LA.APP. 382/2007, LA.APP. 383/2007,LA.APP. 269/2008, LA.APP. 811/2008,' LA.APP.J 928/2008, LA.APP, 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/2009, LA.APP. 99/2010,.. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award NO. 08/2001-02, Viflage-Bawana) AND (GRD-D) + ' LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2011 & CM 12911/2011 (CrossObjethons), LA.APP; 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections),.............' ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters AND (G RID-E) + LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA APP. 621/2009, LA.APP. 646/2009, 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2-010, LA.APP. 191/2010 & CM NO. 22402/2010 (Cross Objections), 'LA.APP. 192/2010, LA.APP.. 193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, LA.APP. 196/2010, LA;APP.:197/2010s LA.APP 297/2010,. LkAPP. 299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, LA.APP 309/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 &. CM No 3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 37312010, LA.APP., S. 493/2010, ' LA,APP. '494/2010, LA.APP. 495/2010, LA.APP. 496/2010, LA.APP. 497/2010 & CM No. 22728/2010'. (Cross. Objections), 'LA.APP. 498/2010, LA.APP. 499/2010, LA.'APP. 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& CM No. 23186/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010.& CM No. 10382/2011. (Cross Objections) LA.APP.. 503/2010, LA.APP. 504/2010, LA.APP 505/2010, LA APP. 506/2010, LA.APP 507/2010, LA.APPII 508/2010,.LA.APP 509/2010, LA.APP. 51012010,. LAAPP. 511/20.10,, LA.APP. 512/2010, •.LA.APP. 513/2010, LA.APP'. 514/2010, LA.APP. 515/2010, LA.APP. ' 516/2010,. LA.APP. 517/2010 & CM No. '7702/2011. (Cross. Objections), •LA.APP•. 518/2010,. LA.APP. 519/2010, LA.APP. 610/2010, LA.APP..611/2010, LA.APP. 612/2010, LA.APP. 613/2010, L.A.APP. 61812010, LA.APP. 619/2010, LA.APP. 620/2010,. LA.APP. 621/2010b LA.APP. 622/2010, ' LA.APP. 623/2010, LA.APP'. 628/2010, LA.APP. 647/2010 & CM No. 3847/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM NO. 3560/2011 (Cross Objections), 'LA.APP. 652/2010, ' LA.APP. • 841/20.10, LA.APP 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 '(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM NO. 103?&t2ttetssUbiections),' APP 855/2010, LA.APP. 856/2010 &.M No. 961012011(çross Objections), LAAPP. 857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010. & CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross jection's, LA:APP.....10OW.-/2011 (Cross IA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP. 79/2011, APP8O/2O1LtA;APP 82: LA.APP 21PP. 81/2011, LA;APP. 82/2011, 8512011, LA.APP. 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/201.1k LA-APP. 324/2011 & CM APPL.15110/2011, LA.APP. 38512011.' LAAppNo.266/2008 & connected matters ' Page 5 of. 74 2011:DHC:15753. AND (GR!D-F) + LkAPP. 497/2008, LA.APP. 141/2009 & CM 5302/2010 (Cross Objections). (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No... 18/200304, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRD-G) + LA.APP. 777/2.010 & CM APPL.3808/2011, LA.APP. 778/2010 • &• CM •2686/201 I (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 779/2010 & CM • 12966/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 213/2011, LA.APP. 261/2011, LA.APP. 326/2011, LA.APP. 327/2011, LA.APP. 328/2011, LA.APP. 330/2011. L&APP. 331/2011, LA.APP: 332/2011, L&APP, 333/2011, LA.APP. 33412011, LA.APP. 335/2011, LA.APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, LA.APP. 341/2011, LA.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP. 350/2011,. LA.APP. 351/2011, LA.APP. 365/2011, LA.APP.377/2011, LA.APP.388/2011... (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award NO. 33/2003-04., Village-Holambi Kalan) • AND (GRDH). + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011. LA.APP. 409/2011. -........................... (Retattngto Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award NO. 15/2003-04, Village-All Pur) ± LA.APP. 481/2010 AND (GRD-fl Li No. AND • (GRD-J) + LA.APP. 780/2010 & CM No.2661/2011 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM N0.3833/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 900/2010 & CM N0.3541/2011 (Cross: Objections), LA.APP. 970/2010, LA.APP. 97112010 &CM No.3805/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.AP. 972/2010 & CM No2667/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Crbss. Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 & CM No.14333/2011(Cross • Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011, (Cross Objections), LA.APP.• 977/2010, LA.APP. 978/2010, LA.APP. 979/2010.. & CM No.9990/2.011, LA.APP. 980/2.010 & CM N0.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP.. 982/2010.& CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections)?' LA!APP. g8472UITh&". CM' Jo.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 986/2010, •LA.APP. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/201.[1] (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP, 990/201.0, L.A.APP. 991/2010 & CM No.99.84/2011, (Cross Objections), LA.A'PP. 1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/20 10 & CM No.9970/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1018/2010, LA.APP. 1020/2010[1] & CM No.12939/2. (Cross Objections)011, LA.APP 1024/2010 & CM No.6771/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1/2011 ' & CM No.12964/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 2/2011 & CM No6752/20i[1] (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 25/2011, L.APP. 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, LA.APP. 53/2011 & CM No.6766/2011: (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 73/2011 & CM NO.12922/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM No.6775/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.APP. 110/2011, LA.'APP. 111/2011, 1 LA.APP. 112/2011 &. CM. No.10050/2011 ('Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP... 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011' (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.20/2003-04, ViUage-Rajapur Kalan) ' • AND (GRfl LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected niattets S + LA.APP. 488f208tAAPP 49Dj70U8tA.APP.. 491/2008, LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 75512008 LA.APP. 8872008& CM No.10393/2009 (cross ObjectiOns), LA.APP 896/2M & CM &97/00&, L&APP. 1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP.: • 34/2010 & CM No.7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 488/2010, LA.APP. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 2361201.1, • LA.APP. 421/2011 (Relating t(5 Notification u/s 4 dated 07.12.2001 & Award No.17/2003-04, ViDage-Sanoth) AND (GRD-L).. + •.APP 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, LA.APP... 352/2.00.8., LA.APP. 364/2008, LA.APP. 385/2008, LA.APP. • •. • 387/200.8, LA.APP.. 445/2008, LA.APP.. 454/2008,. LA.APP: 464/2008& CM No.11333/2008 (Cross. Objections), LA.APP. 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008,. LA.APP.. 468/2008& CM No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP 470/2008,, LA.APP. 471/2008, LA.APP. 560/2008, LA.APP.561/2008, LA.APP: 611/2008, LA.APP. 663/2008, • LA.APP. 676/2008.[1] LA.APP. 678/2008, LA.APP. 679/2008, A.APP. 681/2008,' LA.APP. 682/2008, LA.APP. 683/2008, LA.APP. 722/2008, LA.APP. 731/2008, LA.APP.. 754/2008, LA.APP. 786/2008, LA.APP; 825/2008, LA.APP. 826/2008,. LA.APP. 842/2008, LA.APP.. 850/2008, LA.APP. 853/2008[1].LA.APP..883/2008, LA.APP. 903/2008, LA.APP. 904/2008,, LA.APP..924/2008, LA.APP. 935/2008 LA.APP. 937/2008, LA.APP. • 938/2008, • LA.APP. '940/2008, LA.APP. 943/2008, LA.APP. 945/2008, LA.APP. 956/2008, LA.APP. 957/2008, LA.APP. 99812008, LA.APP. • 1001/2008, LA.APP. 1004/2008, LA.APP. 1007/2008, LA.APP 1065/2008, 'LA.APP.. 1077/2008, LA.AP. • 1079/2008, • LA.APP.. 106/2009, LA.APP. 172/2009, LA.APP. •. 309/2009, LA.APP. 374/2009, LA.APP. 464/2009, LA.AP.P 465/2009, LA.APP. 468/2009, LA.APP.. 539/2009 LA.APP. • 546/2009, LA.APP. • 547/2009, LA.APP. • 565/2008, LA.APP. •. 624/2009, LA.APP. 628/2009,.LA.A•PP. 630/2.009; LA..AP'P.. • • 23/2010, LA.APP 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010,.LA.APP. 35/2010, • LA.AP'P. 37/2010, LA.APP 41/2010.. • • •' (Rel3tin-g to ttotiftcation u/s 4 dated 16052002 '& Award NO. 9/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) • •. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' AND (GRID-M) • + LA.APP. 338/2008, LA.APP. 343/2008, LAAPP356/20O[8] •LA.APP. 366/2008, LA.APP. 367/2008; LA.APP. 368/2008, LA.APP.•. 369/2008,. LA.APP. 370/2008, LA.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP • 384/2008, LAAPP.. 386/2008, LA.APP. 388/2008, LA•.APP. 389/2008, LA.APP. 434/2008,.. LA.APP. 435/2008, LA.APP. 436/2008, LA.APP. 444/2008,_ LA.AP 456/2008& CM No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. 562/2008, LA.APP. 680/2008, LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. 716/2008, LA.APP. 720/2008, LA.APP. 723/2008,. LA.APP. 757/2008, LA.APP. 760/2008 1 LA.APP. 767/2008, LA.APP. 793/2008, LA.APP. 823/2008, LA.APP. 824/2008, LA.APP. 837/2008, LA.APP. • 908/2008, LA.AP.P. 909/2.008, LA.APP. 952/2008, LA..APP..1022/2008, LA.APP. 1024/2008, LA.APP. 1025/2008, LAAPP..1063/2008, LA.APP. 173/2009, LA.APP. 307/2009,. LA.APP. 308/2009 LA.APP. 311/2009, LA.APP. 384/2009, U.APP., 385/2009, LA.APP. 463/2009, LA.APP. 467/2009, LA.APP. 540/2009, LA.APP. 542/2009, LA.APP.. 548/2009, LA.APP 627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/20 10, LA.APP.• 30/20.10. (•Reating to Notification u/s 4 dated. 23.05.200.[2] & Award. No.22/2003-04, Viflage-Shahpur Garhi) AND (GRID-N) • + LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2008 • (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 3.04/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. S •. 12/2011 • •..(R&ating to Notification U/S 4 dated 23.052002 & Award No. • 16/2003-04, ViUage-Hoambi K&an) -.--.......................................••••...... AND.............................-•--•-•., (GRDO) + LA.APP.379/2008, LA.APP. 381/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, LA.APP. 499/2008, LA.APP. 530/208, LA.APP. • 836/2008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 310/2009 & CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 782/2010, LA.APP. &
1. S (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated. 23.05.2002 & Award No. - 17/2004-05, Village- All P.ur).. (GRID-P) +.. LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP. 674/2008 & CM No.7818/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008,. LA.APP. 706/2008,.LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 & CM NO. 7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008,. LA.APP. 882/2008, LAAPP. 885/2008, LA.APP. 891/2008 LA.APP. 898/2008 & CM No.2355/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 902/2008, LA.APP. 922/2008, LA.APP. 923/2008,. LA.APP. 929/2008 & çNo.2351/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 930/2008 &CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 960/2008, LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2008 &' CM No.1261/2009 (Cross Objections, LA APP 982/2008, LA PP 98312008 & CN No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 & CM No.839/2010 " (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2008, LA.APP.: 997/2008 0.LA.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008, LA.APP.' 1027/2008, LA.APP; 1078/2008 & ' CM No.2 24712009 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. 1127/2008 & CM No.2111/2009 (CrossObjections), LA.APP. 1196/2008, 'LA.APP. 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1257/2008, LA.APP 1258/2008 & 'CM No;7791/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 13/2009 & CM No.2151/2009,(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 22/2009, LA.APP. 83/2009, LA.APP. 99/2009,:L.A.App.. 103/2009, LA.APP. 104/2009, LA.APP. 107/2009, LA.APP. 11512009 & CM No.6482/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 122/2009 & CM No.14321/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, LA.APP. 174/2-00-9, ••LA.APP. 250/2009, ' LA.APP. 260/2009, LA.APP' 26iJ20QL IA.APP 262720O[9], 1JAAPP -264/2 009 LA APP 293/2009, LA.APP.. 299/2009, LA.APP.' 301/2009, LA.APP. 302/2009, LA.APP. 303/2009, LA.APP 365/2009...APP._______ 43312009, LA APP -, 449/2009, LA APP 461/2009, LA APP 471/2009, LA.APP. 487/2009, LA.APP. 501/2009, LA.APP'. 517009, "LA.APP. 527/2009, L&APP. 530/2009, U. APP. 531/2009, LA.APP. 533/2009, LA'.APP. 537/2009, LA.APP. LA.App.NO.266/2008 & connected matters... 2011:DHC:15753.. a 5 3 APP. 4 5/2 O Og, APP. 555/2009, LA.APP. 588/2009, LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP.,. 625/2009, LA.APP; 626/2009, LA APP 629/2009, LA APP 649/2009, LA APP 38/2010, LA.APP. 43/2010, LA.APP 131/2010, LA.APP. 202/2.010, LA.APP.. 203/2010, LA.APP. 204t2010, LAAPp.225/2O1O.. LA.APP: 227/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010,. LA.APP. 303/2010, LA.APP. 372/2010,.LA.APP. 410/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010, LA.APP. 479/2010, LA.APP. 480/2010,. LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP.•. 483/20 10, LA.APP. 484/2010,. LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP. 486/2010, LA.APP. 487/201.0, LA.APP. 604/2010, LA.APP. 606/2010 & CM No.19878/2010 (Cross Objections),.LA.APP. 607/2.010, LA.APP.. 608/2010, LA.AP.P 609/2.01.0, LA.APP.. 614/2010, LAAPP 615/2010, LAAPP 671/2010, LAAPP 695/2010 LA.APP. 705/2010, LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.APP. 785/2010. & CM No.12968/20 11 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 786/2010 & CM No.12967/20 11 (Cross Objections), LA.AP. 787/2010, LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP..789/2010, LA.AP. 790/2010; LA.APP. 820/2010 & CM No.12880/2011 (Crós.s,ctions)LA APP. 821/2010, LA.APP 915/2010, LA.APP 916/2010 & CM No.6773/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP..26/2011:& CM No.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 55/2011 & CM No.12894/2.011 (Cross Objections), LA.A.P.P. 59/2011, L&APP. 6312011, LA.APP, 69/2011, LA.APP. 70/2O1L..LA.APP. 72/20.11.& CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP... 76/2011. & CM No:12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 & CM No.12869/2011. (Cross Objections)., LA.APP. 135/2011,.. LA.APP. 136/2011 & CM No.12971/2 (Cross Objections)011, LA.APP.. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 143/2011;. LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APP. 203/2011 &. cM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 273/2011. & CM No.13289/2011 (Cross ObjecUôns), LA.APP.' 338/2011...... (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003. & Aárd No.11/2004-05, Viflage-Sanoth). 1 AND (GRD-Q)... + LkAPP. 336/2010 & CM APPL.14845/2011, LAPP. 624/2010,. LA..APP. 625/2010', LA.APP. 626/2010, LA..APP. 627/2010 &. C.M. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections), L.A.PP.. 629/2010, ' L.APP'.. 630/2010, LA.APP. 642/2010, LA.APP. 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA.APP. 645/2010 & C.M. LA.App..No.266/2008 & connected matters..... • No 3587/2011 (Cross Objections), LA APP 646/2010, LA APP 664/2010, LAAPP 665/2010, LAAPP 667/2010, LAAPP V 668/2010, LA APP 669/2010 & C M No 6769J201]. (Cross (Cross Objections), LA.APP. '672/2010, LA'APP. 673/2010 & C.M. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, LA.APP. 701/2010 & G.M. No.3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 702/2010, LA.APP. 703/2010 & C.M No.9941/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 & •C.M. No.12878/2011 L (CrOss 0. Qn LAPp. 735/2010, LkAPF..736/2010, L&APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP. 739/2010 &.C..M. NO.3569/2011. (Cross Objections),. LA.APP.. 740/2010.& CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP •. '800/2010..& C.M. No.3217/2011., LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP. 802/2010, LA.APP. 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010, •LA.APP. 8091 010, LA.APP. 810/2010, LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP. 812/2010, LA.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010,. LA.APP.. • 815/010, 'LA APP. 16/2010 & C.M. 'No.3862/2011 (Crbss Objections), LAAPP 817/2010, LAAPP 838/2010, LAAPP.. 839/2010 &. C.M. No.10335/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 870/2010 &. C.M No.9946/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.' • 917/2010, LA.APP 922/2010, LA.APP. 923/2010, LA.APP 924/2010, LA.APP. 925/2010, LA.APP. 945/20.10.& C.M. No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP..975/2.010 &. C.M. No2664/201.[1] (CrOss Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP 56/20 11 & C.M. No.9939/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/201]., LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP. 98/2011, LA.APP. '99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011,LA.APP. 104/2011, 1 LA.APP. 105/2011, LA.APP. 106/2011, LA.APP..107/2011, LA.APP. 108/2011, LA.APP. 109/20.11, LA.AP. 113/2011, LA.APP. 165/2011', LA.APP.329/201]... (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003 & Award N[6].10/2004-05, Viflage-Rajapur Kälan) • •. •• • CORAM:... • •. V HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG.•. 'Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.. •.................................... To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?... LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.., PRADEEP NANDRAIOGI I. 10 villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, All Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue District (North-West) and if we seethe map of the city of Delhi —we-wou4d--find-that-these vifiages he-m-the-NorthWestern part of Delhi. They lie within an area between the 'V' formed by Rohtak. Road i.e. NH-10 and GJ.Karnal Road i.e. NH-i. The Delhi-. Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-i. Whereas villages Narela and ShahpurGarhL are in between therallway line and NH-I, the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line. Narela and Shahpur Gärhi:are, towards the east of the railway Iine. The urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has been developedon the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is situated in the land within the aforesaid VZ. Bawana industri.ai Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid 'V'. Historically, except for viflage Narela, all villages have been treated as equivalent with respect to their location. The instant decision decides the issue as to what should • be the fair market value of agricultural lands in the said viRages as of the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2003 7:12.2001, 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003.. Needless to •.. state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time[1] on resa Under Section 4 of the... Land Acquisition Act: 94 t• t?áäS dfTänd in said 10ViiiW acquired and save d except landsjn the Revenue Estate of vitiaqe..Nareia where the purpose of acquisitio.n was partly residential and,. partv ndustnai, n trte other 'fflages, acqwston was for the purpose of estabiishing an industrial estate or laying down a • L.A,N.Appo266/7MO[8] & connected matters • FOàd or freight campex The reasw wny such large tracts ôf - - • lands were needed was to set up an industrial estate pursuant • to a decision taken to shift aH industries operating in nonconforming areas within Delhi to confo.rmin.g.arè.as...•.
3 J must highlfght.,that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in as also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union oflndia. Save and except pertaining, to village Narela, where an additional argument was advanced; being that, the township.ofNarela had existed since pre-partition days and thus !ands in viflage Narela
5. A perusal of all the awards announced from time to ti Acquisition Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from..........time tb time notifying the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi and wherever ft was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. S q to.o, tne tana va'ue has this is to be found in a few awa dswherei nhv.e been put in 2 or 3 categories............Ca..tegory 'A', Category IBM: and Category e. 'C'.
6. A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by, the Reference Court in:various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the learned Reference Court has deterrrined fair market value on different principles and for purposes of clarity 1 may note the basis on which the learned L a nd Acquisition Collector and the learned. Reference Court have:.. determined the conpensation payable. The same would be as Under:-........ Pertainingto the notification dated 7.8.2000 isued tnder5eeti&n 4of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 puruant whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village P00th Khurd, for the' purpose of shifting industrial units,: as against 13,.82 lacs per acre, for CategOry 'A'. lands and 71226 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned ILand. Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the. potiy.for minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. T13.82 lacs. per acre and"has granted increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000 till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Sctio.n '4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fair. market value of land in village Pooth. Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and has ignored that there was Category 'B' land for whch he had to makenecessary adjustment...... Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 pursuant whereto 211.14 bigha land was aquired in villge. Holambi Kalan, the Land Acquisition Collector treated the land as of same character and determined fair market value with reference to the policy for minimum rates in sum of fl[3].82 lacs: LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. Page 15 o74 per acre which has been enhanced by the team-ed Reference Court to U[4],12,995/- per acre by relying upon a declslon...Qf a GaLrai Vs. UOI wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market value determined was 9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and treating the said date and the said price as the base, giving 12%.....[8] months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been determined Pertaining to the same notification dated 7 8 2000 pursuant whereto agncultural lands in village Bawana were acquired, the Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value for Category 'A' lands, with reference to the poUcy and d. fixed the same atfl[3].82 lacs per acre for Category'A' lands and
12.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. 'The learned Reference Court maintained the same Pertaining, to the notifIcation dated 11.9.2000 pursuant wheretoagricultural lands in village Khéra KhUrd were acquired for shifting industrial units, the Land Acquisition Collector has, for Category 'A' lands determined fair market value, with reference to the. policy effective from 1.4.2000 in sum of M.82 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands hasfixed the same at fl[2] 62 lacs per acre The learned Reference Court has adopted the policy wherein minimum price fixed as of 1.4.2000. was T13.82 lacs per acre and for 128.days i.e, the number of days..between.1.4.2000 till. 11.9.2000,appreciatiflg the same by 12% has determined fair market value at fl[4],40,157/- and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands... Pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 pursuant whereto, 1140.5.[8] bigha land was acquired in Narela for development of sectors ito 4, Phase I, Naréla, with respect to the policy of minimum price with effect. from 1.4.2001 the LA.App.Nb266/2008 & connected matters. '.. 2011:DHC:15753... a..... learned Land Acquisition Collector determihed fair market value -- in sum of Z15.[7] lács per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category 'B' lands. determined the same at 14 lacs peratre The learned Reference.Court adopted the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001 and gave appreciation for a period •. of I month for the reason the notification under Section 4 of the dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced the compensation to 715,85,700/- per acre which has. uniformly •.... awrdd;.... Pertaining to the notification dated 22 8 2001 whereunder 512.16 bigha land in village Hoiambt Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned,. Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2.001 i.e..15.[7] lacs per acr,e which has been held to be the fair market valu.e for Category 'A' lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determine.d •. at fl[4] lacs per acre.. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e.. 715.7, lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum... for 143 days anç the price so fixed is T16,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded... Pertaining to same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 512.16 bigha land was acquired in village. Alipur, onthe same re..fling which has been adopted for village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same compensation as determined for village Holambi Kalan has been worked out by the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also by the learned !Reference Court who has done away with categor+zatiOft-- • Pertaining to the same notification dated 2.8.2001 pursuant whereto.192.15 bigha of land was acquired in village Holambi Khurd, the reasoning of the LAC and the learned Reference Court and the price determined is thesame as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in the same uniform category. Pertaining to the same notification, dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Rajapur. Kalan Were acquired the reasoning. and the fair market value determined; by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan; Holambi Khurd and Aiipur save and except in this villagethe acquired land was. of untform category. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.12.2001 pursuant whereto 222.05 bigha land was acquired in village Sanoth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has, assessed compensation uniformly in sum of fl[5].[7] lacs per acre which is, the same as per the policy, for minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the 'learned Reference Court has adopted the same price. and given' appreciation for 250 days at t h e rate. of 12% per annum to reach the figure of 16,99,042/- per acre, ' Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural' lands in village Shahpur Garhi were • acquired the learned Land, Acquisition Collector has determined compensation in sum of I5itacsper, 'acre'"whch is the. 'minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.42001. The learhed Reference Court has simply held that the land owners would be entitled to enhance compensation at the rate of 115% per annum compounded., I may highlight that the learned Reference Court has not worked out the compensation and has left it to the Executing Court to. do so, however I fi.n.d that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be LA.App.No.2.66/2008 & connected matters, '.. Page 1$ of 74. • •: 17;75,359.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as 420U[1] adteapjceat 15.71äTôfTyear ahd 45 days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the • rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned Additional Sessions judge •Peainingto the hoficationdated. 23.5.2002. pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpr Garhi were acquired the learned. LAC and the learned Reference CoUrt have determined same compensation as per the reasoning pertaining to the same village for the notification dated. 16.5.2002 andi find that sincethere is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision of the Reference Court comes to fl[7],79,781.78 per acre.. Pettaining--to-the same notification -&ated--23.5.2002 pursuant whereto 445.81 bigha land in village Holañibi Kalan was acquired, the learned_LAC has_determined_fair market value in sum of.fl[5].[7] lacs per acre which is the same as per minimum price w.eJ. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopted the same reasoning as was adopted while determining the fair market value of lands in village Holambi Kalan which were acquired pursuantto the notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the.dedsio.n in Ga/rat's case (supra) and ap,preciatingthe same by 12% compounded: • per annum the price determined is 22,14,239/- per acre. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.52002 rt whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village.Alipr....were acquired...the.. learned Lana.... AcsIU...n....collector has awarded compensation at the rate of fl[5].[7] lacs per acre based on the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which price has been adopted as the. base by the learned Reference Court and after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. Page LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters 1,[9] of 7 840/pe re.... Pertaining to the notification dated. 27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha. land in village Sanoth and -?188.03 bigha-fand--in village Rajapur Kalan.were acquired,the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the mihimum price.notified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the same value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages i.e. T15.[7] lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of14 lacs per acre and for Category 'C' lands in sum of f12.[3] lacs per.. acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different •,. reasoning in some impugned decision and different in a few. In some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted the minimum price in sum of 15 7 lacs per acre-as-of--1-4 01--a-nct appreciating the same by 12% per annum fOr a period of 666 days has fixed fair market value at 719,13,765/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Courthas determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunderl bigha and
13. biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of viila9e Rajapur Kalan was purchased for 5,39,69O/-........
7. Since the learned. Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned Reference TCourt have relied upon the notifications: •.. issued from time to time by the Government of NT.Delhi, fixing minimum pnce for agncultural lands in Delhi, let me therefore n.ote thedates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same woüTdbe......réevant fOr the present decision. The same would beas under:- '.f•...'
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ SLNo Plot size Category Rate (per square metre) │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 26 sq rn Economically weaker sections Rs].00 │ │ 32 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125 │ │ 48 sq Low income gup (LIG) Rs 15Th,......... │ │ O.sq rn Middle income group (MIG) Rs200 │ │ 9Osqm Middle income group (MIG) Rs200 │ │ LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . Page 36 of 74 │ │ 2011:DHC:15753 │ │ . │ │ The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square• metre │ │ which is the average of │ │ be taken as indicative of•the ruling market price. │ │ 12. On carefUl Consideration we are of the view that │ │ such allotment rates of plots adopted by development │ │ authorities like DDA canhot form the basis for award of │ │ compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for │ │ several, reasons. Firstly, market value has to be │ │ determin.edwjth reference to large tracts of undeveloped │ │ agricuftural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment │ │ rates of development authorities are with reference to │ │ small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area. │ │ Secondly, ODA and other statutory authorities adopt │ │ different rates for plots in the same area with reference to │ │ the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to │ │ ascertain the real market value, whereas market valu │ │ determination for acquisitions is uniform and does no │ │ depend upon the economic status of the land loser. │ │ [I: Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold │ │ fa-rtdT whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure │ │ refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots, │ │ on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three │ │ factors. │ │ First factor .. . . . │ │ The percentage of "deduction for development" to, │ │ be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of. │ │ undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for │ │ development), with reference to the sale pric.e of smaH │ │ developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price │ │ of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon │ │ the nature of development of the layout in which the │ │ exemplar plots are situated. │ │ The "deduction for development" consists of two │ │ fl components. The first Is with reference to the area │ │ required to be utilised for developmental works and the │ │ second is the cost of the development works. For │ │ example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or │ │ similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of │ │ the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, │ │ playgrounds and civic amenities (community •facflities), │ │ etc. . . │ │ The development authority will also . incur │ │ considerable . expenditure for development of │ │ undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes │ │ the cost of levelling the land; cost. of .providing roads, │ │ LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 37 of 74 │ │ 2011:DHC:15753 │ │ underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying wãtë7 │ │ fines, electricity lines and developing parks . and civil │ │ rne n ities, │ │ developed, plot. The two factors taken together would be │ │ the "deduction for development" and can account for as │ │ much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. │ │ 16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an │ │ unauthori,sed private residential layout, the percentage of │ │ -d4i4foc--development"ffIay....be....far less. This is │ │ because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be │ │ set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities.. │ │ Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The │ │ roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for │ │ movement of vehicles.. The amount spent on development │ │ .wo.rk would also be corn.parati.ve.l.y less and minimal. Thus.. │ │ the deduction on .account of the two factors in respect of │ │ plots in 'una'uthorised layouts, Would be only about 20% │ │ plus . 20% . all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA │ │ plots. . . . . . . │ │ 17.. The "deduction for development" with reference to │ │ prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts │ │ may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the │ │ stand.ard.s and qua Ifty of the layout. . . │ │ 18. . The position with reference to industrial layouts will │ │ be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of │ │ the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with │ │ the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq.mto 200 sq │ │ m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and │ │ no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development │ │ (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities), will be │ │ far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will │ │ also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to │ │ be made' from the cost of an industrial plot may range │ │ • only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% │ │ •• . for residential plots. . . .. │ │ 19. If the .acquired land is in a semi-developed urban │ │ area, and not an undeveloped rural area,' the.n the │ │ deduction for development may be as much less, that is, │ │ as little. as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure.wiIt . │ │ already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned │ │ above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the │ │ contrary.) . │ │ 20. Therefore the . deduction, for the "development. :. │ │ factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small •. │ │ plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of │ │ undeveloped land, will be fa.r more than the deduction │ │ LA.App.No.266/2008 & eonnectei matters , Page 38 of 74 │ │ 2011:DHC:15753 │ │ with reference to the price of a small plot in an │ │ unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. it is │ │ a4swe1+•known that the development cost Incurred by │ │ statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred │ │ by private developers, having regard-to. higher overheads │ │ and expenditure. │ │ Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the │ │ percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, │ │ parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the │ │ nature of layout—whether it is residential, residential- │ │ •_-. cumcommecc4aI-ec4nd-ustr-iaJ-; aRd--even-among res.identaI │ │ • layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the │ │ size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community │ │ . ........facilities, parks and playgrounds_provided. │ │ Some 'of. 'the layouts formed by the statutory │ │ . development authorIties may have large areas earmarked │ │ for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical │ │ amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is ony │ │ to show that the "deduction for development" factor is.a │ │ variable percentage, and the range of percentage itself │ │ being very wide from 20% to 75%. . , , 'I │ │ Second factor │ │ DDA and other statutory development authoritis │ │ adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same │ │ layout, depending upon the economic .,status of the. │ │ allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle │ │ income group, low income group, and, economically │ │ weaker Jections. As a consequence, in the same layout, │ │ plots may be earmarked' for 'persons belonging •o │ │ economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs │ │ .100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may beRs │ │ 150 per square metre for members of low income group, │ │ Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle │ │ income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons. │ │ belonging to high fr ome groUps. │ │ 24; The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, │ │ LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors │ │ reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take │ │ the average of the allotment rates', as the "market value" │ │ of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by │ │ ODA statutory authorfty, but. upon the paying capadty of │ │ thE'ä1tföiiRótment. • "" │ │ Third factor • , , , │ │ LA.App.NO.266/2008 & connected matters • •, Page 39 of 74 │ │ 2011:DHC:15753 │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
51. I need to elabOrate a little more with respect to the decision in Ga/rats case. Discussinthe evidence pertaining to fair market value of agriculturalland in vi!lage Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras.[9] to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was 95,000/- for multiple cropped land_and having goodqibnfacflities and thus capitalized the land price at 9.[5] Iakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land. prices_of comparable lands in the ----s g-afeasinctud+ng- potentFaHtyiirr para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjOining vUlageBhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and sen... instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.N.o.266/2008 & connected matters n stances and g[1] g—beneftt f— _-1,,- V would come to 10,03,364/- per acre (Referpara 31). The Court then considered the prices- notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of '9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and 9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights,, that the potentiality had benA,e[4] 4actored in when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f, 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum pricer notified as of 1.4.1997 at T10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was 10,03,364/- per acre.
52. The decision in Mahender Singh's case, pertaining to vitlage.Bawana[1] referred to. by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by. the Court which was projectina residential, commercial and indUstrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that tUl the.year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtuaUy no development had • taken place in viDage Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential.. As 1 have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. Th'd isluns.... in Ga/mis case and Matiender S/na/Is case j9flijqflt that potentiality translated itself into a aiity. betwen 1990 and 1997when prices rose by about.16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potenti&ity did not translate with the LA.App.No.2661'2008 & connected matters 2011:DHC:15753....... requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough avaabiIity of developed land and the hunger of the, market got saturated.. The empirical evidence in the instant case; apart from • the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect • whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have.given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the • sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in viUage Rajapur Kalan the.. learned. Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be 19,16,040/ per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that I bigha and 13 bswa of land which was sold for 539690/- and 70160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that. 6,09,850/- (5,39,690/- + 70,i60/-) were spent would yield the price 17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sate i.e. 20.5.2002. Thus, the best which could be said as the most • favourable situation for the land owners would be that with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C; lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would • • be U.7,74,109/- pe.r acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land woul and here we find another area of dispute for the reason, as noted by me • hereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App.No.266f2008 & connected matters ' •. sometimes fl.[2] lakhs per acr, sometimes 1.56 lakhs per acre ••: and sometimes T[1].[7] !akhser ace. frohcef.Category 'A' lands to dtermine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C' as price, ha-s been deducted further by T[1].[7] lakhs per acre..... 55: Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the. on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths to be leveled and this wbuld_require money to be spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that 1.[2] lakhs per acre would be •. spent and in some that T[1].56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that fl.[7] lakhs per acre would be spent? There isjust no clue.. '.
56. In Ga/rat Sing/i's case (supra), the price.differntial worked out was 25,0001- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Ga/ral S/nab's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. In Ga/ral Sing/i's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B'. land the price determined was 9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land..... •
57. I thus hold that Ga/ra/.5/nab's case should be my. guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as well and thus I hold that wherever Category 'A', 'Category 'B' ard. Category 'C' have to be differentiated on price, the differential.. should be 2.5%.
58. Thus, if 17,74,1091-, rounded off to T17.75 Iakhs per acre...woutd-bTh priceio'ra.tategory 'C'tand Invi1lage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2.LA.App.No.26612008. & connected matters admittedly pertains to a Category,±C' land, the price. for,- Category 'B' land would be T18.20 lakhs per acre and --for-------per acre.
59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as Of 1.4.2000 the per acre pricewas T13.82 Iakhs and as cf l.42001 the sarne-was[5]..;'7'iakhs'per acre i.e.-the percentageincrease between the year was 11.5% per annum: If I treat Category 'A' land price at T18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11%'pr annum, the price as.of 1.4.2001 would come to approxirnatey. ?16.40 !akhs per acre and this would highlight. that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Governmer?t at f15.[7] lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is •70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels Of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the pric by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed.in:question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum,price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability.. It needs to be highlighted tht though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular dat is normally not held goodevidence:tO wdr.k 'OUfid..price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine. land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on particular date is the result of various market forces/conditio.n having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. '. and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the • sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself • has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be. a relevant piece H of evidence to be taken into account while detèrmining the market value of land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.200122.8.2001 and 7.12.2001. The argument that village Narela had always been treated locationally advantageous for the reason the townshipf Narela was in existence since long and this was recognizd when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, vis-àvis the adjoining villages 2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambh-'s case, !ooss sight of the fact that the price, differential due to locationl •. advantage was keeping in view the realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which • included areas in North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with which'l am concernec?today, the price differential faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent. ' I thus hol.d that, pertaining to the hotifications datei 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001 the land prices would have to be determi'nd on the basis of 'th minimum price notified by.. the Government as also witl!1 reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 for the reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said date could be determined' Pertaining to Thè notif'icatñdate 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to'b' determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page.[7] of 74 2011:DHC:15753.:becausawith 'èfè'rence t&" - It pparet-th at land price as of said date comes to more than if determined, with respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified. was f15.[7] lakhs per acre with effect from 1.4.2001. With respect to the price differential for Category 'A' and Category 'B' lands., noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in viflage Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001) 1 hold that vis-à-vis the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category. 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine theprice for Category 'B', land., Before I work out the compensation and since it.woud be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantially in the oth.er,.a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi. • Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value at 22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, -butt--need tohihti'ghtThatperta1ngt:the same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court has determinedH the.... -fair market value at 17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village RjuKalan and Sanoth, pertai e notification dated 27.1.2003 thefair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is 19,16,040/- in some cases and 19,13,760/- in a few, LA.App.No.266f2008 & connected matters '. S 2011:DHC:15753.-.. -._-., meaT1Trrth-ereby fiat much lesser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-à-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Katan to the, notification dated 23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Ga/rats case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded.. ViflagePooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000 With. reference to the notification dated 982001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is 13.82 •lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the.date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Catègör7'C''tands, iand price per acre comes to,17,74,109/-,' rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 23% the price comes to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 25% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the 'date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd, comes to T14.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to • ' 14,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court 'has, wfthout any reasons, done away with Category 'B'. lands and uniform price awarded, is 14,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me per ac-r d-th-us-qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. AU Land Acquisition Appe&s filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of india in the eals filed by land owtri'1rcnprf pcepaf _and_labeIed_as_t RtAIhereTnabove.are4sm4ssed__
66. AU Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable • for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertaining to the • notification dated 1.4.2000 in sun of tf4J[5] lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 14,37,280/- per 'acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are •. dismissed.....'. Pert&hing -to such appeal where the compensation • stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition •,. •,Act1894as expi a med. inth judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/2001 (93) DLI 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid., These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to prOportionate cost. VillaQe Holambi Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000, For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the' notification (same) da'ted 7.8.2000 relating to ' village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of enhandng the compensation to ?14.75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that as per the award and even as per the reference all subject lands were of uniform cateot. Needless thate appea!s filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are aVowed by enhancLng thecompensation to T14.75 Iakhs per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. ' • • - TI — ___ explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOi 200]. (93) DLI 569, except for the period where thece4s-a--d&a-y in filing -----peaior cross obje.cfion, for which periOd of delay.no interest.on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. The appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost... •. VillaQe Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2000
69. Peaining to_vil!ae...,B awan.a.rang to the sam notification dated.7.8.2000 where the learned Refe.rence Court. ha,aot enhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category ' lands is fixed at 14.75 Iakhs per A' acre and for Category 'B' lands at 14,38,125/-per. acre and • noting, that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and needless to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled tostatutory benefits as per the.Land Acquis'ition. Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the. period where therei is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest. on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellnts' 7' would be entitled to proportionate cost.. Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000 • •70. With reference to the. notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1 4 2000 minimum price notified per acre is •13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price tO.H be suitably •. updated to reach the date of the notification I.e. 11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2602 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to munded off ti17,75,000/..per acre, and i for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.,, to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further inc-ceasing-by. 2..3-%_t-he.-prices" comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A lands; dnd decreasinUthe said pricë byTI% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.92000; the mean average price for, Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to.14,83,500/ per acre and decreasing. the same by, 2.5%, itcomes-te 144674-3Fperacfé4oFCategory '8' lands. • •• 71 All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum of • 14,83,500!- per acre for Category. 'A' lands and 14,46,4131peracre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertaining.to this notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sundet Vs. U012001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, •except for the perio.d where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001 •
72. With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 rnrnum pnce notified per acre is T15.[7] lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 253.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre cornes.to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7],75,0001- per acre, and fOr Category 'B'Iands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to 18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices...........LAdS; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect. the price with - - rererence to tne sale deed for. the date 2.5.2001; the mean average, price for Category 'A' lands j village Narela comes to 16,16,500/- per acre and decre.asing the same' by 2.5% it comes to fl516081- per acre fec--Category- -B' lands.. Noting. that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category. 'B' lands.and uniform price awarded is 15,85,570/- per acre and since for Category 'B' lands, the price worked out by me is:less by 9,0O0/- per acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category 'B' lands the price determined would be' as per the reference but for Category. 'A' iands the pricestandse±ihancedto16,16,5flQIr 73.. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-E' filed by the land owners and crQss-objections filed by the land owners In appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Narela. pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001. in sum of 16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order, for Category "B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of india as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' land$ are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compEnsation statutorybenefitss per the Land Acquisition Act................the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569.shafl be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in'filing the appeal, for which period of delay no. LA.App.No.266!2008 & ccrinected matters ' Page 63 df 74. interest on the enhanced compensation shaD be paid. These WU•Tbe en.... Notification dated 22.8.2001
74. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 — wheeeffect-from--142001....minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 iakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date_of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5..2002 wherein for Category. 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 17,7I[4],109/-, rounded off to 17,75.,000/- per acre, and fr. Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.[2] Iakhs per acre. and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to fl865.500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; an • decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect—the price with re.fe rence to the Sate deed for the.date 22M.2001; the mean avrag.e price for Category 'AHands invUlage Holambi Kalai[1] comes to I[6],7450011- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl[6],32,637.50 per acre for CategOry 'B' Lands.. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without an reasons,. done away with Category'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worke out by me comes to a meager 9,000/ per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court... 75 AU Land Acquisition Appeals fUed by the Union of India and cross objections whereverfiled by Union of India in th appeals filed by iad owners. in respect whereof grid has b.e.n..................... prarEdand1beled.....'GRID-F & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed.
76. AU Land Acquisition Appeals filedby.the Ia..nd owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters.. •... Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in vifi-age 1-lotambi Kalan pertainmg to the notification dated 22.8.2001:.jn sum of 16,74,500/. peracre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/-. per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B'. lands are dismissed,.... • 77;. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection,' for which period of deiay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellantsor cross objectors would' be entitled to proportionate cost. Village All Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001 •
78. With reference to the. notification. dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is 15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. •. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C, lands, land price per acre comes to • 17,741 109/-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price cones. to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices........ comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category A' lands; nd decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Catego.ry..A-I-ands in.viflage Ati Pur come's:.to• - • 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5% 01 it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for. Category 'B' lands. Noting Ah - that Tharned rce Court has,wrthoutanyçe done - away, with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is l[6],43,8fl/- per acre, the pricdFfférentiaj worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and.thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference • Court....
79 All Land Acguisit4ow Appeals'....fifed....by-the... in respect whereof grid hasbeén prepared and labeled as H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any 'appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. • 80. ',. here shall be no order as to costs...... Vifiape Holambi Khurd Notficatgon dated 22 8 2001
81. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 • wherein, with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 iakhs per acre and requiring said price to be................suitably.. updated to reach the date of the notification i.e....22..8.2001 and.with reference to the sale deed.dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre 'comes to 17,74,109/-, 'rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for" Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the pricecomes tol[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands;' and, decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with • reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean avericCate.j 'A' comes to 16,74,5O0/.. per acre and decreasing the same by. 2.5%, it comes to l6132,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Notr'itht théTéáined Reference Court has, without any reasons dnne_away with Category'' d uniform price•' awarded is f16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked OUtby me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. ' Category W. lands I maintainthe_amuntawarj.by... the learned Reference Court.
82 The appeal filed by. the Union of India in respect whereof grid has ' been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference.Court. 83:. There shall be no order as to costs.. Village RafaDur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001
84. With reference to the notification..dated. 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is t15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be • suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i e 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 17,74,1091-, rounded. off to U[7],75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.[2] Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A'. lands; and decreasing the said. prices by 11% to reflect the price. with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average pricefor Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same, by 11 2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per.acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' IndS and uniform price 1,43,811/- per acre, the price duffe.rential worked out by me...co.mes to a meager 9,00.0L per.crand..thus,.qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. 85 AU Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of tndia in the -..:a1s:-fHed gribeen. prepared and labeled as 'GRID-i' hereinabove are dismissed..
86. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands In village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the. notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of 16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded: at • 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category:Bv lands are dismissed. • 87. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs, UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation: shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001
88. With reference to the notification dated 9.82001, wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saiçl price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 • wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 171410_9i_thüédiff.to. 175750_Q0/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to t18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes-to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and • decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with H,..................... reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean•........... average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to 17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notific.atindated[1]...122Oo[1] the tand_ownrswouJ[4].be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of 17,29,500/-. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of lndia and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and, labeled as 'GRID-K' hereinabove aredismissed. AU Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owner and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed b' Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of 17,29,500/- and needless to state on. the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Ack 1894 as explained in the judgment 'reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appeDants or cross objectors would be entitIei to proportionate cost. Village Shahour Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2002 Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as hid by me 'hereinabove the 'land price would have to be determined with reference to.the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at fl[8],65,500fr-pe'r---acre and since_there is just-a--d+ffereftCeOf'4 days between the date of sale and the notification i mainta9i that for the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. ' per-acre and I highlightthat as perth awthdind-The - all lands are in the same categoryAppeals and_cross objections fUed by the land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowe.d and • needless to state on, the enhanced compensation the land owners would be entitled to. all statutory benefits as per the • Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as SUnder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLI 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is delay, no interest would be paid for the period of. delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross. objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. -.. VUq Shahpur Gàrh Notfflcaton dated 2332002 Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days i hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections flied by land owners where there is.a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay; Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by landowners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid andall appeals and cross objections filed by Union of india. are. dismssed. VWae Hni;%mhi Kaan Notffkation dated 2332002—..........._____ As. noted by me pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to vlllage Hotambi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters... Collector and the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awarded compensation in cum of. 22,14.,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 1 have he1dthat fair market value wo.ul.d be ?18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeats and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensatin payable to 18,65,500I- per acre on which, needless to state, with •reference to the enhanced price with reference to the award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained.
94. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notificatiOn relating to village Hotambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determiie • fair market value payable at 18,65,500/- per acre.and thus all appeals and., cross objections filed by Union of 'India as per • 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the • compensation payable to 18,65,500/- per. acre on which. 'statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT. 569 shall be paid save and, except in such appeals or. crss • objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Village Sagth Notification dated 27'1.2003
95. Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as per 'GRID-P'pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to' village SanOth, I npte C that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has paced-the.-Ind-s--_.__in 3 categories and I find-that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation. - 96.. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasng—tbe-prLce....as....LL420.0.......with....reference..to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the the sale deed thted 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average., for Category 'A' lands the price comes to 19,43,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Cateo 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68 per acre. l.find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at 19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and, similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed.. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of. 19,43,500R per acre and needless to state on the enhanced.... compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act.1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93)..DLT 569 5hll: be pa...dve and except in such appeals and cross objectiOns where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as welt. The appeals and cross objectiOns filed by Union. of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are alloied by m 4fy+ g--the----r-eIatabledeefee the Reference. Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to • r.. •18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' land to 18,47,539.68 per acre. Village RalaDur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2003
97. For parity of reasoning asper para 96 above pertaining to village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant• to notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of I[9],13,765/- per acre and in some cases at 19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform: category. On the mean average basis. which F havé. been followin.g by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with refrence to the notification issued bythe Government as alo by increasing the same with.. reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A': lands theprice ac Category 'B' land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68 per.acre. Thu such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category '' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands.. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertainIng to Category 'A'lands are allowed by •decreeing compensation payable in sum of 19,43,500f- per acre a.ndneedlesstostate—on--the.... ènhàhced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. IIQI 2OOi-- 93) DLT-569—shafl -be---pa4d—s-ave---and except inF such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. Pag? 73 of /4 •.. wouki not be paid for the period Of delay. Proportionate costàs well. The appeals.and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by Te4g the compensation -for-- Category 'B'. land to 18,94,912.50 • per acre and for Category 'C' • land to 18,47,539.68 per acre.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE AUGUST23, 2011 mm/dk LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.. ••