Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Yadav & Ors

(Exhibit PW-15/1), where under land measuring 2-19 2,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, at the price per acre comes 6,169/- per bigha. It was bigha was sold (a) ^3 learned counsel urged th to ?56,93,163/- or ?11,[8] LA.App.No.999/2010 &,connected mat:ers Page 6 of22 contended that this sale after making, a reas development cost to det of undeveloped agricult Jahangir P,uri. Another deed should be relied upon, onable deduction, towards ermine the fair market value ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the Mamurpur was sold to R revenue estate of village adha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/-\per acre was also relied upon. (e) Learned counsel fc upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shri r the land owners also relied ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ ?18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of land in the said village as of the date of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1996.

9. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2 in.village Bhalswa Jahangir ?1,40,000 and urged that ever is to be given on said value, notification under Section 4 cp thus it was argued that since in the same village, it would Poddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed, whereunder 1.-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of Iif 12% appreciation per annum the price as on the date of the mes to ?1,94,782 per bigha, and •rice of similar land is available be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt l:he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected maters Page 7 of22 IV fixing the, mari<et value of undeveloped agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition C market value of the land at a reflected in Exhibit R-2 and Court.

10. It may be noted that wh above captioned matters on been reserved for Judgment appeals, lead matter being LA •Hector has assessed the fair price much higher than the one so has the learned Reference Bn judgment was reserved in the 19^^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition,App.No.266/2008 titled lai Sinah 1/5. UP! & Ann in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar to the arguments of learned the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.

11. The.topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out?in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand {Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah 1/5 Union ofIndia in which he has explained the topology ofthe area while proving the Ai<s Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. His testimony vrould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badii and submitted that in response counsel for thejand owners Haiderpur are situated in. the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are- situated n the South of village Jahangir Purl., LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matlers Page 8 of22

12. 1 may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on th b eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. Villages Badii, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamoorDur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

13. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development, took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post ids in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision reported as Amar Singh l/s. Union of it was noted that there existed a langir Puri in the area which had;f emergency i.e. the year 1975that the two subject acquisitions acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in india 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) A81, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c

76. It has to be remembered were also for re-settlement of,slum and J.J.Clusters.

14. The decision in LA.App.^ Ann which was reserved,on o.266/2008 iai Sinah i/s. UOi & 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since, been fjronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and I would highlight that v\|hile assessing the fair market value of the land situated in;.0 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-Wes villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar and Bawana, I had noted t t Delhi being revenue estate of Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela,, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd lat the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 9 of22 • I constituted a 'V at the point Road i.e. NH-1 and Rolital< common point, proceeding of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. it needs to be highliglited that village Bhaiswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V aforesc and abuts towards the east of two sale deeds for the reaso id and as explained hereinabove NH-1.

15. In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notifications issued in the year In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated 25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) and the sale deed dated '24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these IS recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

21. The first argumentjis predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which js dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4.2001. As rket value for the former per acre and the latter @ The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh per the former, fair ma comes to ^26.75 lakhs ^63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the the villages In question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' had tendered the sale deposing in Court in Lfi that to his knowledge tland Suraj Bhan PW-6 who deed in evidence, while C No.68/2005 had stated e land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious d Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise purpose. The sale dee been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on the Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated pay the price forthe sai reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization" and as per ister Annie, the secretary of ihat the organization had to d piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women circumstance, personal t

22. As held in the dec see 717 Land Acauisiti.e. there was 0 the vendee. a special sions reported as 1995 (1) on Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which.are ten of Section 51A of the L. zlered in evidence by virtue A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as^an exemplar sale deed to determine the market V the reason there may which have! led the buye ^alue of land in an area for be special circumstances ir to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller Jnced by any special icy to buy a particular piece jyer would be one who has has apprised himself of all area; has understood the the prevailing prices. If a particular piece of land, he may pay a much,higher price and this-would not be a good index of fair marl<et value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the without -being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bu studied the market and available land in the topology of.the area anc buyer has a fancy for a Union of India had relied 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Gourt pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village upon the sale deed dated Rajapur KaIan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74,109/per acre as against the price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre fpr Ex.PV for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28.89 \/-l/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters - \€ Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

23. Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with ^hich I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that |the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it \ reason to be circumsp intrinsic evidence of the. of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported c counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya 19.12.2008 disposing o matter being LA.App.^ vould make all the more a ect on sale deeds having transaction being the result I would be failing not to ecision cited by learned' 3,eing the decision dated a batch of appeals, lead 0.193/2006 Pratap Sinah highlighted, that the sale had purchased 8 bigha land for expansion of i ignored by the learnec ground that L&T had a hence the. price refiec {since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UP! & Ors. It was deed therein by which L&T and 9 biswa of agricultural:s factory which had been Reference Court on the ancy for the said land and ted therein, could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable d sduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as tt market value. The argur in the decision of the Di\ 38 wherein, the Division value in the sale deed or le instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair nent ignores the reasoning ision Bench in paras 37 to Bench, did not accept the its own logic as indicative therein was reduced by would be the same as wo reference to the averag of the market value, but found that if the price 1/3'^'^, the price arrived at jld be price arrived at with rate' of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 12 of22 produced by the Govern n,37,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ^2,15,1.60/- per bigha, from the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the the • sale was 1993 a Section 4 of the Land 24.7.1995 and 16,11.1995 and the Court determined fair market \^alue as of the said dates at the same -sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-: In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale, deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the a,ppreciation for.[2] years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the Inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and th destructive evidence of fair ma'rketivalue."

16. For the reasbns therein, the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair niarket value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.

17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the ment were giving a price of and the sale deed under ed the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of f 1/3'"'^ would be deducted,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of nd the notification under Acquisition Act was dated s itself is intrinsic mutually the 2 sale deeds reflecting I reject these two sale deeds in land situated in village Bhalsw to be transferred for a sum o a Jahangir Puri has been agreed f ^18 lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at ^5,70,000/-.

18. Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ^15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is difficult to comprehend the Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.[4] abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ^18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ^18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ^15.[7] lakhs per acre. 1 ne special considerations and n informed willing buyer and without being influenced by particular land, and had thus

19. I have discussed this 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where an abnormally high p years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op ned that the said price was for 3t the price settled between an an informed willing seller and special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large track of land had' to be fixed. issue in my decision dated 008 lai Sinah l/s. UP! & Ann i.e. •ice for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being wellinformed and there being a s have held.the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with pecial feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by rhe hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision. I reite •ate the same.

20. As regards. auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandh Transport Nagar, I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur wit h the decision of the learned Reference Court contained 1n paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised oh the,decision of th s Supreme Court reported as LM LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 14 of22 Chand Vs. Union of India 200 reasoning pertaining to tlie e of residential plots.or flats by

21. In my decision dated iai Singh Vs. UOi & Ors., I he declared by the Supreme reference to price, at which different agencies i.e. DDA an and findings in para 29 to 31 are extracted hereunder:- 9 (15) see 769. Similar is the vidence relating to auction rates DDA..8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 d extensively discussed the law Court in Lai Chands case with developed plots were allotted by d DSIDC. Relevant observations of the decision in iai Singh's case

29. Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted lar reference to the Bawan by DSIDC and Narela R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Suprerhe Court in Lai render this evidence as the value of land in the s

30. It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawan a Industrial Area d sold b.y DSIDC or DDA with a Industrial Estate developed esidential Scheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in the same oer which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which most unreliable to determine jbject cases. as held even by the learned with the development of Rohini Residential Scheme and' Narela Residential slzheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.

31. I hold that the learrned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. C

22. Highlighting, that in La! Chands case (supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be crystallized. 23.. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Saijay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

24. Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in Lat Chands case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for Rohini Residential Scheme, I negate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that 1am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 iDigha and 929.05 bigha. I

25. From the topology of the area and as per the testimony ) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village Bhalswa jahangir Purl would reveal that the two vil village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi ages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Purl and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous 3urudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.NQ.999/2010 & connected matters 'yv thus the.fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable. market value of the land situated " cquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of. lad considered the material on record i.e. the: evidence in my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of LA./^ppeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land at ?11,60 land, n0,44,522.73 per ac Md,: ?9,28,464.65 per acre for Ca notification dated 24.7.1998. notification dated 18.07.200!:

26. While assessing the fair in village Burari, which was a dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition Act, 1 d assessed the fair market value

580.82 per acre for Category A re for Category B land and tegory C land pertaining to the The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at ^9,20,568/- per acre for Category A land and ?17,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. Ir lai Singh's case {supra), I had assessed the fair market valud of land in 10 villages as unden- S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section 4 Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

1. Pooth khurd 7.8. 2000 n[4].75 for Category 'A' ^4.3728 for Category 'B'

2. Holambi Kalan 7.8. 2000 ^4.75

3. /f Bawana 7.8. 2000 ?14.75 for n[4].38125 for 4; s Khera Khurd 11.c.2000 ^4.835 for.Category 'A' ^14.46413 for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 17 of22

5. Narela 2.5.2001 ^16.165, for n[5].76087 for

6. Holambi Kaian 22. 8.2001 T16.745 for n[6].43811 for

7. Alipur 22.8.2001 ?16.745 for

8. Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 X 16.745 for ^16.43811 for

9. Rajapur Kaian 22.8.2001 ?16.745 for

10. Sanoth 7.[1] 2.2001 ?17.295

11. Shahpur Garhi.16.5.2002 n[8].655

12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 n[8].655

13. Holambi Kaian 23. 5.2002 ^8.655

14. Alipur 23. 5.2002 ^8.655

15. Sanoth 27. L.2003 ^19.435 for n[8].94912 for ^8.47539 for Category 'C

16. Rajapur Ka ah 27. L.2003 ^19.435 for n[8].94912 for ?18.47539 for Category 'C

27. In lai Singh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the to time and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojmected matters Government officers and Inad found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AC Delhi 13 Gairai Singh I/5. UO! & Ann. 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander I/5. UOL 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah Vs. UO! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Sinah Vs. UO! & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on 1993 to 1996 and in relation t between the year 199C sharply and good corrofc be the decision of the Gajra/s case (supra), wh above.

51. I need to elaborate decision in Gajra[s ca^ pertaining to fair marke village Holambi Kalan as various dates between the years:o the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said 'decision as under;- "50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding paragraph^ as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ^4,65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of[1].4.1997 i.e. the increase is T[5].35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436% The price t ^ 11-2% and thereafter by 11/0 for the next 2years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, and 1997 prices grows fairly orative evidence for this would Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 a little more with respect to the JG. Discussing the evidence value of agricultural land in of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matte:TS Page 19 of22 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,00Ci/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ?9.[5] lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas inclluding potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the. matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had corhe up and based on sale instances found that, based on thp said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to ^10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 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 well-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as ag that the potentiality had been the Government issued the •n w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions the inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was n0,03,364/- per acre.

52. The decision in Mc' to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for account by the Court w hender Sinah's casp. pertaining "ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into hich was projecting residential, agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwit projecting and the la potentiality, the same h commercial.and industrial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding the Master Plan so nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality of the notification with concerned, virtually no c evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which the Division Bench was evelopment had taken place in Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential, para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the market 'ecisions in Gajrafs case and LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters Page 20 of22 Mahender Singh's ca translated iitself into a when prices rose by se highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 and 1997 about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with.the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large, area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and indus|trial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

53. The empirical evicence 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 upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not iful sale deeds, to determine fair good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras relying upon, being fane market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land whereto in some referer ^5,39,690/-. and ^70,160 mean that ^6,09,850/spent would yield the p the date of the sale i.e. 2 Acquisition Collector pursuant ces in village 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 of agricultural lands would be ^19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which' was sold for - was paid as stamp duty would (^5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were 'ice n[7],74,109/- per acre as of 10.5.2002.

28. In thfe absence of any ccigent evidence placed on record by either parties mother than th e minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, I hold that the Learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle and has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices were notified and the date of the notification issued under LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 21 of22 € sition Act and finding no scope to nsation or to reduce the same ! objections, whether filed by the ndia. r their own cost. Section 4 of tine Land Accju.is furtlier enhance the compe dismiss ail appeals and cross land owners or the Union of

29. I leave the parties to SEPTEMBER 19,2011 mm bea

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 22 of22