Union of India v. Ashok Saini & Anr.

3. I must highlightthat arguments by learned counsel for.· the land owners were the same in all appeals__ filed by them as also cross-objections wherever filed, and·similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and except pertaining to village Narela, where an additional. argument was advanced; being that, the township.of Narela ha.d - 1 existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Narela had a better value. and for which it was urged that way back in the year 1963 when lands in the revenu·e estate of village Narela. and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of "{2/,.. per sq.yd. vis-a-vis the price determined for lands in village Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight that learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurp-ur comprised the same·revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi being in MamurpuL 4.. The position of the awards made from time to time and ·the relatable notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition· Act 1894 have been detailed by me while noting the various Land Acquisition Appeals and the Cross Objections as per the - - - · · ------···········----·---- · - - · index hereinabove and thus I need not repeat the same.

5. A perusal of all the awards announced from time to "' --· - ______tu..imU-..U;e;..._..v.Jw~oA'.uclld~.~-. reveal that the learned Land Acquisition Co!!ector has determined compensation payable with refarence to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from tfffle-te time notifying the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi and wher~ver it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 14 of74,.:r· I I '::· ·: I;_:_' I -,, ( \..:_:--r ' '----'-- 4' t<for:-the land value has been appropriately depressed and this is to be found in a few awards where lands have been put in. 2 or 3 categories t-e-. Category 'A', Category ·s· and Category '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 determined fair market value on different principles and for purpos~ of l clarity I may note the basis on which the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Re.ference Court have determined the compensation payable. The same would be as under:-

I. Pertaining to th~ 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 Alipur save and except in this village the acquired land was. '~- \'--of uniform category.

7. Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector as 'also the - learned Reference ··court have relied upon the n·otifications · issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi, let me therefore. -. note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time - pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same would be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- -------·. -·. ··-·------·---·-·- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 20 of74 !Y[5] -_':~ ( "'--- I I ' ' I •,; ~ I c:;t Nn n:::~~t-o nf EfforE,.. n... t-,.,. o...;,.,..... % -~~-:- ~.. ·~~~' v '- ~..... ~......''-''-..Notification of the price (in increase lakhs/acre) per annum

1. 3.5.1990 27.4.1990 4.65

2. 25.7.1997 1.4.1997 10.0 '11.5........ -. ····- ···-·- ---·... ·-----·· ·-· 3.' 24.9.1998 1.4.1998 11.[2] 11..[2]

4. 21.11:2000 - 12.32

5. 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 12.16 11 1.4.2000 13.82 11

6. 9.8.2001 1.4.2001 15.[7] 11.[5]

7. 30.8.2005 30.8.2005 17.584 2.98

8. 24.1.2008 18.12.2007 53 89.51 -

8. From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum price was last fixed ~.e.L 27.4.1990 iri sum of ~4.65 lakhs/acre it was increased after. nearly 7 years to ~10 lakhs/acre and the ·annual increa·se comes to 11.5% per annum (simple), The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price was enhanced by 11.2o/o to reach the figure of ~11.[2] lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to ~12.32 lakhs/acre, ·· which notification.was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f... 1.4.1999 to ~12.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11%.p~r _9JJHLJ.ffl with reference to the pri(:e determined as of.... 1.4.1998 · and _._vide__ same notiJicatioll.___tha~:~_._price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to ~13;82 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis the previous. i.e. ~12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-a-vis the previous price of ~13.82 lakhs/acre to -. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 21 of74 t-9 ' --: !,,[1] L1l ~,·'1 I,. ' I J ':' 'I ! i 'I ~ I,.-;-,---;.! ''I "'., I 'Tl (- r,_ ~h J~ _figure. -_Of ~15:..Z~Jakbstacre: ----~.: price was next · enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ~17.584 Iakhs/acre which gives us· an increase of only 2.98% per annum and then the price rose to ~53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased· 89.51%> per annum w_ith reference to the base figure of ~17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005.

9. Before _noting the evidence relied upon by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court; it would be beneficial.for the reader of the present decision, as I feei, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. I ' would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the alternative and it was urged· that they would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, failing · ~. which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000. for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification datec;f ·· 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5.2001 for village Narela; ·and the notification dated 22.8.2001. for village Ali Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2003- for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands ·were of uniform character and it was J![ged that correctiv.e_,a_ction is_required by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time ~Q_tl!!l~,_ _;I.l.S% __increase per annum and 1 ")Q.L rmr:3nnJJt'V\--rncrease w-as excessive -with reference to the...... g~tesof the notifica'tions under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; reqUiting the same to be reduced to 10% per annum ·Trl' tne leasf~-Secondly, the learned Reference Cqurt was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No266/2008 & connected matters Page 22 of74;;-(I 2011:DHC:1902[3]..,-:-------, I I 'I ' i,I, I ' ! ',' ~__! --.--: ':...!...:.J J '::··,::I i.'.'....J:I;:: ! i I c I\_ requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for· such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Cate,gory 'C' by the Land Acquisition ·Co-llector and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C', on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed. by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.

10. Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference Court was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as atso ttre--sat-e-·rtee-d dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. ·Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ ~26. 75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-:1/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of ~32.[4] lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 under Ex..PVV-1/3 would be ~28.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be ~63.[4] 78 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the s~id 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market v(31ue of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument; pertaining to village Narela, it was· urged that. the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 23 of74 P,. ·' ·~. 'I ' ~ ~f and for which the argument was that when in the- _.paS-t,.---. ___ · pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition -Act 1894, the Reference c()ijit had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur- Narela ·by giving a. price benefit of ~2/- per sq~yd.. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UOI vs. Dharambir & Ors. The said decision would reveal.that the price per bigha in. sum of {6,650/determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to ~16, 750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to ~22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by- the Supreme ·court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored.

11. · Learned counsel for the land owners seconoly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and. developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSIOC and DDA.i.e. the implementing agencies, '. which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate and,for which learned counsel took me through the ·evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, ·which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged. ·

12. Alternative to the second submission, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (.93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 24 of74 2011:DHC:1902[3]: i;.[1] -l i I ·: i I:;I ~ i.:'. I. '''I:4;-:-·. ';;,.[1] _j..-, r· ·~vs. Union of India, it was permissible to determine fair market.. - -··----value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.I.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bedi Ram's c~se (supra) as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6~.. per annum with reference to the base price ~16, 750/- per bigha as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till 31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per. annum till the various dates when the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition.Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with.. which Lam__concerned_ in_ _tb__e present.appeals. So worked out, · learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to ~56,88, 759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such ·appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle market value shouJd ·be assessed for the preceding notificatioD[5] dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002. and 23.5.2002..

13. The fourth argument ·advanced was, and for which...ref-e-r-ence was made by learned counsel for the parties in the evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which is subject· matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.No.268/2008 filed by the land owners.-----c--and LA.APP.No.292/2008 filed_by Union_ofJndia, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing · the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 25 of74 ·t[9] 2011:DHC:1902[3]; I I; I testimony of Ram Kishan to the e_ffect that by selling agriculturar; produce from his lands he used to earn ~1 lakh per bigha per ·· --.-- -~innum i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition.. Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kisha·n and others were acquired. It was.thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be ~20 lakhs per bigha. 1 may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by. ·Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram K.ishan · and others i.e. the appellants _io LA.APP.No.268/2008 and the /. respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008. \.

14. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared in ·a few matters and urged that for each of the notifica.tion in question the fair" market value ought to have been determined with reference to the notification ----~w,_,_h.....,icb was.d_us_e_st in point of time where under minimum land value was fixed by the Government· and the notification dated.· 24.1.2008 where under ~53 lakhs per acre was the. minimum price fixed as of 18~12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument. ~-l

15. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing wit~ which, in some References the learned Ref~rence Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for ~5.39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said sale deed in the following; words: (_Refer para 17 of ~he decision dated 7.1.2010 in LAC No.117A/2009).·"Ifwe add stamp duty in the sale price ~3,69,9061~ _per bigha {t[5],3._9.L69.0~~-t 70,160 = ·6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which com~s.to '{17,74,1091per acre or ~3,68,9061- per ·bigha. ·Further II we give 12% LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters· Page 26 o!74 ~1 2011:DHC:1902[3]: ',, increase on said· amount for intervening period between the date when the sale deed was executed and the date of ···-- ·notification u/5 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003} i.e. 8 months it comes; to '{19,16,0371- (round off'{J~1_6,040/)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition. i.e. ·Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 bisw?_~~_nd wa? put i~]_~9-~~Q-~I}' 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category '8' and the remainder 220 big-ha and 3 biswa · in Cate_go~y_ 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra No.200and that p-age No.56-57 ----~-·or the award. would evtaente--tnat-TC:ih-a ·comprised in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in Category ~c·. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of ~15.[7] lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated ·9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ~1.[7] ·lakhs per· acre for Category '8' lands, fair market value determined whereof was ~14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another ~1. 7 lakhs per ~~ acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determined whereof was '{12.[3] lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the same had to oe·for Category 'C' lands and for Category '8' and Category 'A' lands the price had to be increased by '{1.[7] lakhs per acre for each category. 16.. 1 have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel who -----~ ---·----·· ------·--------appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above and hence I need not repeat the same. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 27 of74 ~--:1 2011:DHC:1902[3]:- ''-- -c. i. I I

17. In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court pertaining to-the 8 notifications issued under Secti_~n 4 ~f the Land Acquisition Att 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence my journey to. deal with the arguments advanced keepir:tg in view the facts noted as also the ·reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various subparas of para 6 above.

18. But before dealing with the arguments I -need to highlight various anomalies which strike the reader at the outset. The same would be:-

19. Since 1am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued. under Section 4 of the L~:md Acquisition- Act 1894, 1 think it advisable to put' in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 29 of74 (]y j 2011:DHC:1902[3]: i I !'!, I '] ·--· ( I '"-facts, _which \¥_aula..be -my data for- further anaJysis. Put in e[3] ---~------ ------- ·········-·-.,. ---·-··--·-·----··---------------.. ·---- ~-:--~-tabular form the data would be as under:- Village Pooth Khurd Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan 8awana Date of LAC compensation IADJ compensation Section 4 {in lakhs/acre) with I{in lakhs/acre) with Notification reasons reasons 7~8.2000 l Cat. 'A' ~13.82 jCat. Uniform. Cat. '8' ~12.26 ~14.3728. Minimum price as-- -Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 of 1.4.2000 with 7.8.2000 22.8.2001 23.5.2002 7.8.2000 ~13.82 Minimum price as of 1.4,2000 l2% increase p.a. ~14.12995. Price as in Gajrals case as of 15.11.1996 with · 12% increase p.a. Cat. Uniform. ~16.43811. Cat. 'A' ~15. 7 Cat. '8' ~14 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as 1 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. _ ~15.[7] Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ~22.14239. Price:as in Gajra/s case as _of 15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. (compounded) Cat.:A: {13.82 · [N.o enhancement Cat. 8 ~12.62 g1ven.. Minimum price as· of 1.4.2000 · ---··- _L_____ ----.. -------- Khera 11.9.2-000 Cat. '-A' ~13.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd Cat. '8' ~12.62- ~14.40157. ~' -·-· Narela 2.5.2001 fVIinimum price as,. Minimum price as otlA_2000____, of 1.4.2000 with 12%·increase·p.a. Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] Cat. 'B' ~14 Cat. Uniform. ~15.857. as 1 M4nimum price as of 1.4.2001 with LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 30 of74,)) - I (--- \ '------- Ali Pur Ali Pur Holambi Khurd Rajapur Kalan 22.8.2001.23.5.2002 22.8.2001 22.8.2001 ------+-- --- - Rajapur Kalan 27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' ~15. 7 tat.-'B' ~14 ~15.[7] ~15.[7] Minimum· price as of 1.4.2001 ~15.[7] ~4 ~16.43811. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a, _ ~17.8524 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with- ~16.43811 Mininium price as of 1.4.2001 with ~16.43811 Minimum pr~ce as IMinimum price as _of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Cat. 'A' ~1~.[7] Cat. 'B' ~14 Cat. 'C' ~12.[3] Minimum price ofl.4.2001

1. ~19.13765 for - U~i~orm cat~gory: \ Mmtmum pnce as as 1 of 1.4.2001 with in some cases.

2. 't'19.1604 for Uniform category -based on- sale deed dated. 25.5.2002 - with Sanoth 7.12.2001 I f15.[7] ~16.99042. Sanoth 27.1.2003 I I Minimum price as 1 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Iof 1.4.2001 with 12o/o increase p.a. Cat. 'A' 't'15.[7] Cat. 'B' '{14 _ Cat. 'C' f12.[3] ~19.13765 for U~i~orm cat~gory. '! - Mmtmum pnce as as of 1.4.2001 with 112o/o increase p.a. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters Page 31 of74 \:___,-.-·.·Jlf Shahpur 16.5.2001 Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] ~17~153illL ·"-----·-- Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1A.2001 with --,--compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. Shahpur 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] ~17.79781. Garhi Minim·um price as Minimum price as of 1.4~2001 of 1.4.2001 with compound interest · ' @ 11.5% p.a. -· I.. "':.. -- ----

20. I now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by learned counsel for the land owners and the 2 submissions · --- - -·-~ ---· -~. - ·--· urged t)y the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India).

21. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW- 1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ~26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ~63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in. question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased· by ·a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed- Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural. lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government · Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 32 of74 ':.·,;·.[1] ] ' ' '-,--of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that-the organiz-ation had to pay the -price for the said piece ofland as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for -destitute women i.e. there was- a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 {1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Jsti Rohini & Anr. {Refer para 6) and 2009 {14) SCC 369 Mohd. RatJfuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer {Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section - ~ \ ' 'Jh 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which ----------~~~~ (~ " have led the buyer_ 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 without being influenced by any _special circumstances.or the fancy to buy a particular piece qf land. An informed buyer would _be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lan·ds in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon ~ the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which ·was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated ·----·---··- -- 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan 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 for Ex.PW-1/2 and ~28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 33 of74 themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price a11d ex-facie destroy each otheT.n.~~------Thus.. _9JJart fr:om the reasoning of the· learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above w_o_u_l_d____be_addLUanal 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 betvyeen 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a -reason to be circumspect on sate deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.I.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batc.h of appeals,· lead matter being LA.App.No.l93/2006 Pratap Singh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs..VOl ~ Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deecrlherein by which L&T-had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected 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 deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the _2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bene~, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own -logic as indicative of the market value, but___fcfmTir-that if the price therein. was reduced by 1/3rd, the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 34;0f74 ):(' I -, - !!... ·-~ L -------:---:--::----=----~- -·· - --........ _.._______,........................... would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of ~1,37,000/per bigha· and the sale deed under which L&T had pi.J.rchased 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 - - ~2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3rd would be deducted from the sum. ·of ~3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value 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 t_he basis for if it ~as so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. · 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 this itself is intrinsk mutual~ destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair_ market· value.

24. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately· highlight that the extended limb of. the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to.., v1Hage--Narela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced _would be dealt with bv me at the end when I determine the fair market value of J.. lands for the villages in question.

25. The second argument, contours whereof are· to be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 35 of74 _:!l ' ~ I I -,,-, ( ·----··-- -· ------· latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La/ Chand vs. UO/. 26~. But before that I must highlight that the decision in La/ Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basjs, residential plots were allotted f for resi"dential housing scheme and the ar_gument was being ·considered for fixation of ~fair market value of agricultural lands in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situqted within the 'V' formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Rpad.

27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing the same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts, in paras 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:-, Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence?

11. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis:

51. No. Plot size Category Rate (per square metre)

1.

2.

3. -~-4-.----

5. 26 sq m 32 sq m 48 sq ry:1 60sq m 90 sq m Economically weaker sections (EWSl~ --~---=---- --~ Low income group (LIG) Low income group (LIG) Middle incom~ group (MIG) Middl~ income gro~up (MIG) LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Rs 100 Rs 125 Rs 150 Rs 200 Rs 200 Page 36 of74 · ()J I I! I L____ 1!'-. '',!, The appellants contend that Rs 150 per squar_e metre which is the average of the said provisional rates, should be taken as indicative -ofthe ruling market price.

12. On careful consideration, we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several. reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural 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, DDA 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 fo ascertain the real market value, whereas.market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold tand-;-whereas the attotment "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

13. 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 price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to ·75°/o 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.

14. The "deduction for development" consists of two 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°/o of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities}, etc

15. 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,.Yo.· LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 37 of74 · 2011:DHC:1902[3],• 1:r II i iI......-- 'i. I I ·I I I i underground drainage and sewage facilities; TaYirfg..\lliater lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil amenities, whiEh 'Nould be about 35% of the value of-th€ developed pTot. 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 unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of· "deduction for development'' may 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 work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20o/o plus 20% in aH 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 standards and quality 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 si~e of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq mL 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, then the. deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure.will 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 far more than the deduction LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 38of74 ~! 2011:DHC:1902[3]:: I ' ' ~--! I 'I,, ' ' I ·,,[1] • i ~ i' I..~~ -- ! ~ ----....-'---with reference to the price of a small plot.in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is atse--·weft--kttowft that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost· incurred by private deyelopers, having reg-a-r:d--to- higher overheads and expenditure.

21. ·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, residentiai- -~-------~:-C-:-~:::;Ut-t-mH-t-C±OI+Iml+lmH-H-e"-Hrcial or industr+a+; a-R[4] even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having.regard· to· the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community ------faeilities, parks and playgrounds provided. _ y~

22. Some:of. the -layouts formed by- --tt1-e ·statutory. d:evefep-ment authorities may have targe areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked ·. for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20o/o to 75°/o. Second factor

23. DDA and other statutory development authorities 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 sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots may be earmarked for persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be_ Rs · 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 income 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 DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of -the-applicants1-or-anDtment. -- ·-------------------- Third factor LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 39 of74 -~ I -,~,,,

25. Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities Hke DDA al1ot plots on leasehold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent. · 26. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value ·with reference. to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold {ownership)'. rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long,· the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price} charged by DDA, as being equal to the ·market value of the property.

27. However, in view of the difficulties referred to · above, ·it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant.".~)· 28~·· The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference No.ll7A/2009. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was · advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court with reference to the evidence relied upon. ·It reads:- "Ld. Counsel fo_c~tb_e__p_etitLonerS-tlas further submitted· · that DDA & DSIDC aftotted plots in Nareia Residential Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate; He has relied upon allotment letter dated 04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the · -pre-determined rate of ~3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/l, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 ·of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring 70 Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as ~3,989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 40 of74 2011:DHC:1902[3].::: ·,, ·:. I ii w I::: L~ " ! I J '' ! I' ~ !.! '71 j""';1 I:;,,I,·i ',,,, I r· ri ''---' 'i( plot no.270, measuring· 350 sq. yards at. Narela -~-- Industrial Comp~~x_at the_rate o~ ~650 sq._ metres which is Ex. PW3/1 and another allotment letter dated 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at ~3000 per sq. metres... Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW[9] Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PW11/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = ~248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ ~3208 would be ~2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized. for roa.ds, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 - 759422 = 1771986[6] per bigha). And after deducting.development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. ~1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only ~3.27,083/- per _ _...,b....,ig-na--:-·-. ---- Similarly he·has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R.~ SharJn_~.__ Asstt. Manager, DS_IQC who_has produced documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC w·as 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is ~2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area under plots - 112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in - ~3000/.;. per sq. yards the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot Total earning - ~4083750000 Total expenditure - ~720526901 T_9tal profit - ~3363223099 ·i.e. Profit comes to ~2470--p-er sq. yaraor--f2470000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and the LAC has paid compensation @ ~327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of ~214291.[7] per bigha... Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compeflsation @ ~327083 per- 1( LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters P.age 41 of 71~ >': j -C bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the said price is considered on account of land, the figure 1 comes to ~654166. If the amount is deducted from sale Qrice__per bi_g_[1a_ i.e. ~24700000, the figure com·es to ~1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." 2Q. Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land· sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference t[9] the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela · Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was.20% or 75%, we_ do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted !n the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in La/ Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

30. It is no doubt true, as held e\/Pn hv thP IPi1rnPrl Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela ~r- - - - - - - - -----------·-----·-------···----,. I~ Residential Scheme, 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 learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lal Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evioence 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.

32. The third submission in the alternative wa_s_ based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram's case (supra),· and the submission is as noted tn para 12 here:in. above. The land owners require the __Q!j_c~,-- det~rmined in Dharambits case {supra) relating to -the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters _Page 42 of74 j '" ':·:,: ' '- I i I ' I '<::: •··. I,~ c~ to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum; then by 10% peLannum and lastly by 12% per annum for ·different periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question.

33. It be hi.ghlighted that in Bedi Ram's case (supra), with refe-rence-to -the-base date as of th·e--y~ar--i9s[9], for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied the progressive increase method by firstly · enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years. ""'

34. However, in La/ Chands case ·(supra}, the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:"'" "Whetherthe awardrelating to acquisition on 24-10- 1961 is relevant?

47. The appellants conten[9] that some lands in Rithala were acquired. under Section 4{1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was~ awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is ·that as the present acquisition is _in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing · an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This. Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai jivanbhai PateL10 this Court · held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) _____:l~__Norrnally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value _by providing ·-------- ------- app[1] op[1] iate -escalation over-th-e----proven--market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions-), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr acquisitions of comparable lands in. the neighbourhood. The said method· is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 43 of74 ~b I '; i ~f -----,-,------------------ ---- -~e - _· n where----~---~:~:::-~-:--~ --r--efted--on sale---'---------,--transacti-ons/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a ·few years, may becotne unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the an-nual increase method ·with reference to a sale or acquisition in

1970. or 1980 may have many pitfalls.· This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo - drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." (emphasis supplied) - 48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard -escalation, satisfy itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if. the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the- market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports disdose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the. 2007. rates._ Caution is therefore necessary before incre~sing the price with - reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will ·not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition." ------ --- ---·-

35. It is apparent that the ratio of law laid- down by the ·. Division Bench in Bedi Ra-Rt--s-ta--se-{-5-l-J-f}Fa) runs in the teeth of the law decla-red by the Supreme- Court in La! Chands case (supra),· which decision foHows-- an earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai /ivanbhai Patel. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page44 of74 ··j ·' ! •• i I ' (- '--- -.- ' -l J 36.m- 111 tile i11stant case there is another good reason ·nat to follow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's case (supra) for the · reason I find that a, Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in vHiage Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive· percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambils case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur- Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ ~2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ ~1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would· have come to approximately '{50,000/per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at ~337000/- per bigha.

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market value of subject l~nds, in the unreported decision of·a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Singh vs. UOI & Drs. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana~ and I highlight that one village with which I am dealing is village_ Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition ·Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 ·was determined @ ~1,99,904.68 bigha which equals to ~9.59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by.which price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the.· · Government was ~10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266i2008 & connected matters Page 45 of74 tF I ! i ~J I "-1 ' ·:::II 'I,J:'! -' i,.! i;.:! '21 ~ (",_ c determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. 3-8. If I WPFP tn tRkP thP nrirP ~~ nf 1.'1;·11.1~ @ ~9,59~542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason,· as assured by me herein above, I would be hoHstically discussing the subject while opining upon_ the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the anotifications in question.

39. The.fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, ~earned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishanand others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India· i.e._ LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning ~1 lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce.

40. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the _ testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no·proof in support of his oraltestimony.

41. The reasoning of the Court tha_t there was no- c_ro-p standing on the land when its possession was taken over on 4.10.2000- would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not ·being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year; is falladous no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3rd week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown. even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008 & colll1ected matters Page46 of74 '{1~ ·: i -, ' ! ' I "I' -,; i.;,[1] -~-'... j I ! ( I ';:-- \___,,)0 sown around the first week or the second week of November e.ach year._ _

42. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led -. --·- -----------in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he was working as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi till 31.3.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a.pension. If -- ·-· ---·- ·---- ---·. the family, as claimed by him, was earning 't[1] lakh per bigha, for ·the lands belonging to the family, ·which admeasure 18 bigha ·-·-----------··____________.,__ _ and 18 biswa, the annual income 'v'Vould be ~19 lakhs and one finds it strange that not -a penny was invested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not.been examined.. No proof of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tl.Jbe,. well;· if any, to irrig.ate the fields or electricity biJis paid if the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of. the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly ·rejected.

43. If there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (1) SC 444 State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to the yield from. -ag-ricultural land, only then it would be safe to determine fair market value by applying the principle of LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 47 of74 2011:DHC:1902[3],_,;, i -,-- J,I I ~ (~ '-._-c capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, the capitalizing ·being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 times as was sought to be projected.

44. The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle be adopted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008.

45. In para 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7. above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of 1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would be no need to factor· in the minimum price notified under the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 ye-ars·away from the last year with which I am concerne:!:.c. the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average.as one of the recognized niodes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would -be- ck}sest to th€-----f*)int fe-F- wt:l-k-R the meanaverage has to be determined.

46. I am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References with respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 48 of74 - I --- I r-- - J ' ' ' I _J, '!\.. _(.,__,)2has determined that based thereon the price as of said date 'NOrks out to {17,74,109/ •per acre and -increasing the sa111e for 8 months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2b03 the price would be ~19,16,037/- per acre rounded off to ~19,16,040/- per acre.

47. With reference to the Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C' land. Th~ sale deed in question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflect fair market value of Category 'C' land. As per,the learned Land Acquisitjon Collector ~1. 7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the 4 depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum of ~1.[7] l lakhs per acre vvould be required to fill up the depressi-ens in ··-·I c i _:·-:,_... ' I ~ ·:··:r "'i J;i Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were less vis-a-vis Category ~c· Jand. In other words~ with -reference to Cate-gory--'A' land,- the price of c-at-~gory 'C' land would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-a-vis Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land would be required to be increased suitably. -. 48. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the_ reasoning adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the-learned Reference Court, I pose the question: ·what should be the fair market value of the subject !lands as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e.- the dates on which the - -- --·-·-··--~-·· ·- -·--·- ----- -··.. notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

49. I have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a DiVision - - -, - - -... -·· - - l, Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on -- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 49 of74 -1 -~ •---:- ',.'! I I '• I -,-i 11.5.2006, Mahender Singh vs. UOI & Ors. wherein pertaining to. village Bawana, fair market value determined as of 15.11.1996._!_s_!.~_!_~9,9_94.68 per big_b~ which equals to ~9,59,542.46 per acre. The said ·decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i.e..the lands with which the Division Bench wa~ concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the.decision,· rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural -De-+h-i were identified for providing major health fadlittes;- schools, markets and rural C__ industry, one of which was viHage Bawana. l~was noted that G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and that the Master Plan for Delhi n9tified in the year -1990 had indic-ated the land use in the area to be changed.. in.the future to industrial and commercial, but had also s-J i·: '. I ------:---rurl""b.-cserved that notwithstanding th1s; for the reason no zonal pli~in______________ was notffted as contemplated by Section llA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the.· year 1996, any land -use had been actually changed and put to.C· the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being known to all as being required in the future for buiJdjng purposes, was ··. - ---·-·--··-··found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near flJ.ture capable of being built upon. To put it differently, the. decision, though not so expressly-·stating, would be a proposition that there is a difference between the undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 50 of74 l_ ''--·- -~.J;--;;-; • I 'I I 'I I "";!;-;-:--- I ~ (~- - '"- (- \~ potentiality in presenti vis-a-vis a· land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already -noted by me in para- 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was ~9,59,542.46 per acre and which I. highlight once again is the ' same as would be determined with reference to the notification being c;losest -·in point of time i.e. the notification dated 25.7.l[9].9Z_where-under for agricultural lands in DeJhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was ~10 lakhs per. acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced. another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gajrai Sinqh vs. UOI & Anr.- where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was· acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was ~9,76,121/- per acre and for Category '8' lands was ~9,51,121/­ per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to be- highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations ofthe Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development work carried out in thesUrrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division- Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V'. i.e. betwee~ G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. villag~ Singhola deterrnined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ ~1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. ~6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is...,.r:eportecLas.2004 (4} AD ·(Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. UO/and the same-Dlv~si.G-n-Bench, as per the decis~oA-:-r-eported-as---111 (2004) · DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vs. UOI, pertaining to a notification dated -··~ - ··-·-------·--··-·- 14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ ~1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. ~6. 73,104/- per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 51 of74.)~ 2011:DHC:1902[3],; J --~ -,----: I i --~ "I ' ' ' '::': ~I..__l li ----- -- ---5_0. -~ -nle aforesaif!-._11:'~2meE__~~:not~f- iJ'l... tt1e___ prece~-ing ~ 1/" \___ paragraphs as also the various notificattons issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price· for agricultural lan~s in Delhi as tabulated by m~ in para 7 ' above bring out two very important facts relevant t~ 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 f[4].65 lakhs per acre which rose to flO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is f[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 rise · over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the_next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this woui<;J be the decision of the Divi~ion Bench of · this Court in Gajra/s case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

51. I need to elaborate a little more with- respect to the decision in Gajra/s case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural_land in village 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 good irrigation__facilities and thus __,__,______. --- ··- ---. -- - -.. capitaliz~d the land price at ~9-.[5] lakhs per ~ere. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the --- -·----------· ----·- e<11rrn•mrlinn ?trja-a-s-1-nclueftftg--putentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in __,____. -·--·· adjoining villag-e Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and traserori ·saTe instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 52 of74.~ "! I "':': J,'i 2_ I ~:!,I ' ' i -~ ' ' '' _j -,-- 'I,, I I instances and giving benefit of industrialization tire latrd price would come to ~10,03,364/- per acre {Refer para 31). The Court then considered the- pri-ces- notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of f[9], 76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and f[9],51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored 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 price notified as of 1.4.1997 at flO lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was f10,03,364/- per acre.

52. The decision in Mahender Singh's case, pertaining to village_ Bawana, 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 projecting 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 till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana- and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I 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. The decisions in Gaira/s case and Mahender Sinqh's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5o/o per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 53 of74 ~1 i ! ' '. I I,. ' i; I ' ' I ~ ~;-;-- I "-1 -,-! (.I '-requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could ---be -Tha-t pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi •1990 a fairly large..ar:eacarite to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

53. 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 c:te_eds, 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 village Rajapu.r 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 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for ~5,39,690/- and ~70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ~6,09,850/- (f[5],39,690/- + t70,160/-) were spent would yield the price t17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

54. · Thus, the best which could be said as the most favou.rable situation for the l~nd 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 t17,74,109/- per acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land the price would ·have to be suitably enhanced 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.. LAApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 54 of74 r0-· ~) ~, i' ' j !, ': i:.i i, I, I::'1 -- "'"j;"'"1 I ( "--- I '~--::,52 sometimes fl.[2] lak~s per acre, sometimes fl.56 lakhs per acre and sometimes fl. 7 lakhs per acre from the price of Category ---------... ···---- ·····---- ------·-·· 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C' as weU-t-Ae price has been deducted further by fl. 7 lakhs per acre. 55.· Now, ~either side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the· -- !~nne; ~nrl I nntP that cateaortz-at+en is h-ase&tmty on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths · -------ron.~.irinn +-ha---same to be leveted and this would require money.. ·------ _______________;______ -----·-· ··----------------- ··----- ·-· =--to be spent. But on _what basis has the Land Acquisition