Union of India v. Kaptan Singh and Anr.

U.APP. LA.APP: LA.APP. 486/2010, 606/2010 607/2010, 614/2010, 695/2010, 785/2010 786/2010- 787/2010, 790/2010,-..^MectoTSl, U.APP,_ 821/20"l^^ LA.APP.- 915/2010, 916/2010 & CM Mo.6773/2011 (Cross ObJectioRS), 14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 {Cross Objections), 26/2011:& CM l\fo.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), 55/2011 & CM No.12894/2011 (Cross Objections), 59/2011, lA'.APP. 63/2011, LA.APP,' 69/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 820/2010' & CM No.12880/2011 (Cross LA.APP-. LA.APP. 70/2011..LA.APP. 72/2011-& CM Mo.-6777/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 76/2011 & CM Mo.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 CM Mo.12869/2011 (Cross Objections)', LA.APP.' 135/2011, LA.APP. 136/2011 & CM r^lo.12971/2 (Cross 0bjections)011, LA.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 143/2011,- LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APP. 203/2011 & CM Wo.12913/20^ (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 273/2011. & CM No.13289/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP; 338/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 Mo.11/2004-05, Viiiage-Sanoth) dated 27.01.2003 &. Award AND CGRiD"Q| LA.APP. 336/2010 ' & CM APPL.14845/2011, LA.APP. 624/2010,. LA.APP..625/2010,. LA.APP. 626/2010, • LA.APP. 627/2010 -& -C.M. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 629/2.010, LA.APP.- -630/2010, LA.APP. 642/2010, LA.APP. 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA.APP. 645/2010";& e..M. LA.App.No.266/2008 8cconnected matters Pdge 11 of 74

1. • 10 vHlag.es; namely, Pooth Khurd, HolambI Kaia-n, Hofambi- Khurd, Bawana, Khera iChurd,.Narela, All Pur, Rajapur - Kaian, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue. District „(Morth-West)' and'if we see 'the map of the city of Delhi —villages-lleHf^the-M©fth-¥tet^ pait of Delhi. They lie wjthin an area between the formed by Rohtak,' Road i.e. MH-10 and G.T.Karnal Road i.e. MH-1." The Delhi- Ambala railway line -runs sonnewhat parallel to NH.-l. ^Whereas • villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in bet¥^een'the-raifvifay line and.f^H-1, the other villages are on the opposite side of th.e • railway line i.e. towards the '^vest of the railway line. Narala and Shahpur Garhi.-are. towards the east of the railway -Hne. The. urbanized city of Delhi-where the colony Rohini exists has been '.developed-on the agricoltural lands acquired post 1961 and is. situated in.the land within the aforesaid 'Bawana mdustrlai Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and •said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid/V. ' Historically, except for village l^arela, all villages have- been' • treated as equivalent with respett to their location.. -

2. The instant decision decides the.is.sue as to what should.betbe fair.market value of agricultural lands' in thesaid viil-ages' • as of the dates 7.8.200'0, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,.. 22.8.200,1; • 7.12.2001.- 15.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003.. Needless tostate,.pursuant to notifications issued, from time- to time^ -on. ^"^atoregstd-tfaies un^er Section 4 of th'e Land'.Acquisition Act •• 1W4T'vastlfam"orrand in said 10"" viirages were acquired and- •yg_v-j[5] parppt Irinri.q in the Revenue'Estate of village IMarela vtfhere the purpose of acquisition was partly residential -and..- •partly industrial, in the other villages, acquisition was'for the' purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters,, of74 ~ TJi^'Teaiofr^wtiy...syc?i-.•-fiije'Tra lands were needed'was to set up an industrial estate pursuant- •. to a deciSEon' taken to shift all. Industries operating' m nonconforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas,

3. i must highlight.that arguments by learned coonsel for ' the land owners were the same in all, appeals fifed'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 IMarela, v*/here an additional. argument was advanced; being that, the township.of IMarela had existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Mare.la ••. had a better value.an.d for which it was urged thafway back in,•. the year 1963 when lands in the revenue estate of village f\larela. • and'adjoining vHiages 'Bhorgarh and' Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of W- per sq.yd. vis-a-vis the price determined for lands' In village Bhorgarh and ^/lamurpur. ! must further highiight that learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being m village Narela a.nd the village abadi.being "in Kiamurpur.".4.. The position ofthe awards made from time to time and ' 'the relatable notification under Section 4 of the La.nd 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 1need not repeat the same.._5.. A perusal of all the awards announced from time, to —44fY-.ia wr.i that--J:he_l£aroe£l-LaRd...Acquisition' CoHector has determined compensation payable with reterence tdnotifications/orders issued by the Government ot InICT Delhi from time-notifying the minimum rates for agriculturariands in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to land owners having ex'cavated earth resulting in'pits having depths between.. LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters. Page 14 of74.......M L J >1111 4' to' b', the iand value has been appropriately depressed and this is to be found In a few am^aTdsi/t?!iere1arid^we been put in 2 or 3 categories ireV Ca^^ 'A', Category 'B' and Category

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 purposes of clarity I may note the basis on which the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court have determined the compensation payable. The same would be as under:- ' • •.,

7. Since the learned. Land Acquisition Collector as.'also the learned Reference Court have relied upon the notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agricolturar Tahds in Delhi, let me therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining-to agricultura! 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 2Q of74 m 1M - Effecta^e-Date- — ••- • % increase per annum Notification of the price {in fakhs/acre)

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] ll.,2-.

4. 21.11.-2000 - •12.32,

5. • 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 1.4.2000 12.16,. 13.82.....11 • -

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 tabuiatloff hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum' price was last fixed w.e.f., 27.4.1990, iri sum of ?4.65 iakiis/acre it was increased after neariy 7 years to ?10 lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple), The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the- price i/vas enhanced.by. 11.2% to reach the figure of ?11.[2] lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to fl[2].32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8/2001 was issued the price v^as retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4,1999 to ?12.16 iakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11%.P.tr.lsj3jiy.nri with.reference to the price determined as of I.4.'.199B"-.and vide same notificationtheprice was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f 1.4.2000 to tl.3.82 lakhs/ac-e i.e. increased by 11% per annum -vis-a-vis the previous i.e. fl[2].16 iakhs/acre and w.e.f 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-^-vis the previous price of ?13..82 iakhs/acre to telsgtro, n.y, enharrced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to>17.584 lakhs/acre wliicOveriiZ_ -an-mcress€r£jfT)n(y 2.98% per annum and then the price rose to ?53 iakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annum with reference to the base figure of ^17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30,8.2005. Beface_c!stisi^..the--8videnee reiied upon ipy the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court> it would be beneficial -for the reader of the present decision, as ! feel, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. I would highliglit 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, faijiifg which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of it was urged that the land price fixed by the ^. learned i^eference Court pertaining to the notification dated W 7.8.2000, for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated 7.8.2000 ror village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000. for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5.2001 for village Nareia; and the notification dated 22.8.2001,for village AH. Pur;. and the notification dated 27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if ail lands "were of uniform character and it _v^_urgeQ':.that CQrrectlve_a_ction ls_xeqiiired by doing 2 things.. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the ^ Government from time to t^^ per annum and, dnrram-mcrease-was exceptive" with reference to the ^ ^v... d3te.M.the notifications under Section 4of the Land Acquisition-' - 1894; Yequifihg the same to'be reduced to 10% per annum ' in tlie !east.'~Secondly,.the learned Reference Court was not justified in treating ail lands as of the same character and thus. LA.App.No,266/2008 &connected matters \ Page22 of74 m- Hrequiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by the Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land ov^ner had challenged the sanrse by leading evidence to the contrary Le. 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-l/3,• in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.fSfo.780/2010 as also 25.4.2001, Ex;PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex,PVV-l/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village Namurpur was sold @ ?26.75, lakhs/acre and as per the sale-deed Ex.P¥\/-l/2, 2 bigha and 19., biswa of land was sold in,the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of 02.[4] lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it ¥i/as urged that per acre land price^asof 25.3.2000 mn6er Ex.PW-1/3 wouid be ?28.89 lakhs/acre and. pertaining to-the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would-be. ?63.478 lakhs/acre-. It vs/as thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be. good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in. the aforesaid. 10-villages as of 7.8.2000, •;il.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 notificationswere issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894- by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended li.mb of this argijment^ pertaining to village Ma.refa, it was-urged that.. the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which !earn.:;d counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% mor^ LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters. Page 23 and for which the argument was that when in the past, pertaining to a notificatiGn issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural lands In village Namurpur- 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.Mo.4405/1997 UP! vs. Dharambir & Or?;. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in. sum of f[6],650/determined by the Land Acquisition Coliector was enhanced to ?15,750/- 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 secondiy 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 residentiai and industrial estates, had resulted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiaSity-, required fair market vaiue to be determined with respect to the price at which DSIDC and DDA;i.e. the implementing agencies, whicii acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residentiai Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate and for which learned counsei 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. 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 2^1 K -bigr Union of tndia. It was permssslbie to determine fair market yafye of acquired lands with reference to the fafr market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving • suitable increase in the market value of the fend by. percentages ranging between-6% per apnum to 12% per-annum for different periods. Sh.S.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land •. owners handed over a.chart, worked upon by learned courfsei, with, reference to the decision in Bed! Ram's case (supra) as per Vtfhich price increase per annum till 30.3.1955 had to be ^ 6% per annum with reference to the base price ?16J50/- per bigha as of 30.10.1953.1.6. 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- tiii' the various dates v\/fTeh the 8 notifications under Section 4. of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with - —which l.jam...cQncerned.. in.Jiie present appiaai.q. So.v\f'orked 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 should be assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9..200Q, 2.5.2001, "22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 and 23.5.200-2. •...(

13. The fourth argument' advanced was, and for which. - - -.. -• -.-relemnce was made by learRed-eqvnse| for the parties in the evidence led in LAC 99/2005, which Is subject'matter of 2 cross, appeals Le. LA.APP.IMb:268/200B..filed by the.land owners _.___..and LA^.PP.No.292/2008 filed._by IJoioo.._QiJndia, that fair market value should have"been assessed on/yield basis by annuailzing • the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was- the LA.App.No.26672008 & connectedmatters Page2Sof 74 t-estimQRy-of Ram K4sfraFh-te' effect that by selling aqricultura! i: 43j:oduce fronn bis-laij^be-^se-d to earn lakh per bigha per annum i.e. theTair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1S94 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date-should- -be-^SO iakhs per biglia. -,. S may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants in 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 notification in question the fair market value ought to have been determined with reference to the notification value was fixed by the Government and the notification dated- 24.1.2008 where under ?53 iakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument-

15. The last argument, which was in the alternative'to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference 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 f[5],3^,e#0/-, determined the fair market value as per the_saJd, sale deed in -the following'- words: fRefer. para 17 -of the decision Mated 7.l-.2^10-in-LAC-MQjJM/2009}; 7/ we add stamp the safe price 13,69,906/- per biaiia {x[5],39,690/- '7tKl60 = • 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes -io tl[7],74,109/-. per acre or %3,68,906/- per'bigha. Further if we give 12% LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters' Page 2® of 74 ^ ^ increase on said amount for intervening period between th& date when the safe deed -W.as^ exe.cut&d--^i)d the date,of natiffcatfon u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes toXig,16,037/- (round offX19,16,040/-)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e. Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of vv/hich 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land was put in Cat^ory 'A', 45 bigha and 2 ^ biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C. The subject sale deed clearly referred to.the land being comprised in Khasra r^o:200 and that page No.56-57 oTthe award.would. evidence that laiTd"comprised. in Khasra, fsio.2'00 ad-measu.ring 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 fl.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was ?14 iakhs per acre and further depress the same by another tl.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value determined ' whereof was-?12.[3] iakhs per acre. ' It v\/ould 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 sn question, the same had to be for: Category 'C lands and. for'Category'B'" and Category 'A', lands the price; had to be/-- • increased by f 1.[7] iakhs per acre for each category.

16. • i have already noted hereinabove the arguments wh.ch. 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

17. In various sub-paras of para b hereinabove, f have ) capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisitfrni G0lleGt-&F —a43d4tie4ea-m-ed-R€f-8fefi€e-€0eit pertaining to"the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatable to the 10' villages and thus Icommence fny journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping 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 5 above.

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

19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued, under Section 4 of the'Land Acquisition-A.::t 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant.LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters " Page 29of74 "tacts;,,,,wti{ch:rw^dlhe"my....dat^fof- Put in a tabular form the data would.be as unden- Village Date of Section 4 NJotification LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons ADj compensation (in iakhs/acre) with reasons Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' fl[3].82 Cat. 'B' n[2],26 iViinimum price as-of 1.4.2000 Cat. Uniform. n[4].3728. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 mth 12% increase p.a. Hoiambi Kaian 7.8.2000 fl[3].82 of 1.4.2000. ?14.12995. Price as in Gairafs case as of 15.11.1996 with •12% i.hcrease p.a. — - Holambi Kalan 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' ?15.[7] Cat. 'B' ^4 of 1.4.2001.tl[6].43811. of 1.4.2001, with 12% increase p;a.,. • Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 n[5].[7] =22.14239. Price as in Cairats case. as of 15.11.1995 with (compounded) Bawana 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' f 13.82 Cat. 'B' =^12.62 of 1.4.2000 IMo enhancement given.., r ' Khera Khurd 11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' n[3].82 Cat. 'B'n[2].52^ Qf_l,,4.2QQa n[4].40157. of 1.4.2000, with. Narela 2.5.2001 Cat. 'A' tl[5].[7] Cat. 'B' n[4], Cat. Uniform.. n[5].857.-; Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with. AH Pur Aii Pyr Hoiambi Khuril • 22.8.2001.23.5,2002 Cat. 'A: f.l5J Cat''B^?14 Minimum price •as ofl.4.2001 ?15,.[7] 12% Increase p.a. fl[6].43Sll. Minfrnurrs nrics of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a, fl[7],B524 MhriihTiyrrii Drica i Of:l.4.200;i •• IDf • l;.4V20C:l /.i:,: ^;..... i; L •22.8.2001. 715.T; ¥16,4381.1. • Ivlinsrnurn {of:,4.2v0i •; of:L[4].2:)d;; • 12% P'crea?-^;- • •fl[6].438iA; Rajapur >22.i:i..20Cil;2:i[5].,[7] •2::f;.4.2-'^Cr:l, of;L[4],2uDl;•;. 12% h-i:Cre;^;v;.-;;;v.- Katan i Kajapor Q''i Sanoth Sanotli T " •••:;»:•.s.,;4., •>'. ^C?--.2:2 ^21,[4] •Cc,: X/t12.[2] 2!2;-:r.:irn.- 2;if'Hico a;,..:;:vf l,-••:•;.'•""•"y: ih.irssc.;;l ri-$21322: ^ Uruforro....... some

2. ":19,.22-2'' yo;:::or!:T.. •• ote:i:-r>; basecf C""-. 25.2;20u[2] vith: 12%. k-vcrsa.:;o r:.s. Mirtirni-n- pr[2]:8 ss i Minimum "prtcs f16.99042. 27.i.20Q[3] ol 1.4.2001 >,.....; of. 1,4.2002 with: • 12% increase o=a. r 21.9.13765 •r.^....: ? I Cat. 215 J Ca t 'B' -22:^4-- - - -.- -^mWrnm-'-emsoBry.. Cat fl[2].[3] Mmmum price as of 1.4:2001 f^iriiFnum- pnce- as of -1.4:2001 with LA.App.No,266/2008 &connected matters Page31 of 74 3S' Slia^ipiir • •.16.5-,20O[1] - fl[7]...7-53.6fi.. •; =^-&f-sh-| t- •—. Mm fminYi-'^it:5r"S5" i •compound mterest @ 11.5% p.a. Shatajr Garni' i _... - j 23.5.2002 i -... ' i Cat..'A'fl[5].[7] MinirnuiTr price as' of 1.4:2001 • i fl[7].T9781. • of 1.4,2001 With compouoci interest; <s a,; 20, I new p^r',>poss to oes;': i-iith the 6 si;D/in[ss^.>-;;s oy iessmed c-ounseJ -e^' the safic- ovn-^itrs Bnc the 2.;;-ubrrh;:iS-.;n;t uroMSd i;h& Ih'Morj as r^'Otec; ii'i oaras 10 to 15 h3r€h--.^;vC/s. (pertBininq tc- h'-va s?n:;i ana pars B-Btovje loerirlrAm Unhjrvr":nh'c • •.;>1. The £^-:;o.:m.er5i; is p-scrcahed cT: the h ish;:- EX hVV-•1. •h vif;c r; i[3] Oiat ? 53.1:: h u h: 3 r"•d tris s a;:;le e c' ha,r \-v •- 1/2 wht.:/;;s daceo 25,4.20C[1] m.s per tha fcrmens fe:Hr [•iiai-Kcit vahje fc-r tna ftainer corr^es te ?2€;/J[5] laKh;:? par.acre snh tns Sact:er ?6-3.473 lahhs per ac;::a.. "•lie haarne^ I'ie^ere'Ki;;: CG:.;?h has reh;M:;;ted thg 2 ijahs deed's as raHabte svldeiicis- to ctehsrrr^ris' fmr rnarket vaSue' of agrk::iaturch iancis, h>j- au the yiSiayes qyestHDri orv the resisorhriici tlist the saie desa it?^P\h-l/3 /m-s •pyrchased by a reiiglous trust by the name of Ihacha SvvsO'm Satsdng' and Sii'-aj Bhari PW-5 who naci teridereh the soi^e: deed HI eyicience, •white deposing in Court in LAC No,68/2005 had stated that to his kno¥ifiedg,e the land was purchased for ^ relicilo^us purpose. The sale deed Ex,PW-i/2 has ilkewise been heia not to be e¥?aancehto"'deti^ vsiue of agricultural,lands on the reasonhig it was purchased by a lion Goverornent Organization ''ChrBtian Orgaruzat^on" a^".cl as car tha testimony. LA..A|;pjyo.266/200S & connected matters ¥&^32 of 74 of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated '^'6 —tbst--th©—Ir&d—to psy th€—^n'C0~'for the ssici 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 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. fsti Rohini & Ann (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 tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 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 of 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 lands in the area. 1 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 ^TizooS where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an'agriculturist for'a much-lei'serprice i.e. a[7],74,109/- per-acre as against the price which comes • ""to ?53.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and t28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex,PW-l/3, LA.App,No.266/2008 &connected matters. Page 33 of7') themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price itrasr "the ' reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which i concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be_a,djli-tLOJial reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair 4mFfe8t4^al4se-4xt-sui4ect_laads_caa. be^d 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 would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on" sai^ 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.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a bate,h of appeals,-lead matter being i_A.App.No.193/2005 Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. TJUTEi Ors. it was niqniiqntea tnaTthe sale dee^"therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored iDy 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.PV\f-l/2 and Ex.PW-l/B should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in p'aras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did' not. accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic, as indicative of the market value, but~touim"that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3'"^ the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.26,6/2008 &connected matters • Page 34of74 SI 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 fl,37,00'0/per bigha-and the sale deed- under which L&T had purchased the land gave •the.price f[3],26,600/- per bigha and the,average woyld. which was" near atJout the price of • ?2,15,160/- per'bigha, if wouid be deducted from the sum of f[3],26,600/-. ft 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.. f[2],15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfuHy. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed m question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had- required to be given. '• l. 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 intrinsic mytuaif|/ destructive evidence of the 2 sate deeds reflecting fair market value. •

24. • Thus, the first argument as noted in para 1.0 above' is rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of the argument that afcer accepting the said sale deeds as Indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to vlllag&--l4arela,"in view of the decision 'in Dharambir's case.. ^ (supra), land price should be suitably enhaoced'.woufd be dealt vAiii-h hy mp' at thp wh^n s determine the fajj:j[3]:iagkgt-¥a-lue' of lands for the villages in question..

25. ^ The second argument, contours whereof are' to' be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, \ need to note the LA;App.No.266/2008 8c connectedmatters ' Page 35 of.74 • iatest pranQuncement of the'Supfem Caurt'on the issue as per^ the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UPS. )... • •

26. But before that I must highlight that the decision In C/iaod'5-case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basjs, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme, and th-e-argiiment was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands in village RithaSa, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i^e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agnculturaMands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V formed by WH-1 andMH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnsi Road and Rohtak Road.

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 bro€hisre..Is relevant e¥idet^€e? -

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 hi Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: Si No: Plot size. Category/ Rate (per square metre)

1. 26 sq m EconDmicaliy vyeaker sections Rs 100

2. 32 sq m Low income group (LiG) Rs 125 1 dR m 1ow inrnmp qmup (UG). ' • Rs 1.5.[L. ~4~ 60, sq m Middle income group (^4^G) Rs 200

5. 90 sq m Middle income group (M!G) Rs 200 LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters - Page 36 of74 Ih^ K 150 per square metre. Ahich IS the average of the^Hfrf pfwfs^ional rates, shouid be taken as indicative of the ruling market price. On^careful consideration, we are of the view that such alotment 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 tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands m a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots ma 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 to ascertain the real market value, v^/hereas market value determmation for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend.upon the economic status of the land loser. ihirdly, we are concerned vi/ith market value of freehold fa^-wh^as-the allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure rerer to the initial premium payabie 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% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the lavout-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 secoad is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout Is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land' area in the layout, for roads', drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community -facilities), etc, • " •

15. The development authority wilt also.incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout,.which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost, of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/200B &connected matters Page 37of74, L\6 m underground drainage and sewage facijities, Taylnq water fines, eiectriclty lines and developing parks and civiL developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as nnuch as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.

16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an;;«n3uthorised private residential layout, the percentage of less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually.no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and comnnunity facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is iikeiy 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 unauthonsed layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% In all 40% as against 75% in rectard 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 sise of residential plots measuring 100 sq mto 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will.be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the resisit the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range oniy 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. ^Therefos;;e the -dedyction.^ for the "development' factor" to be made with reference to'the. price of a smaif".plot in a developed layout, to.arrive at the cost of', undeveloped iand, will be far more than the deduction LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 38 of74 m with reference to the price of a small plot In an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is also-weff-{<enGwn that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regain 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, residential- -€U4?v-G&mfiRerc4al-^^HRdiistfia+; aR4we{T among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community —fadiftfes, parks and playgrounds provided.

22. Some of. the "layouts formed by the statutory development authorities- may have terg« areas earmarked for v\/ater/sewag.e treatment plants, water tanks, eiectricai 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 20% to 75%. 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, ciasslfying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, piots i"P?ay 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 incbme 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 _^_ying capacity of ' the"a^ri^nts for alldtment... Third factor L/j V LA.App.Nd.266/2008 &connected matters ^ H3> SornG ci6velopment authorities sliot iiislssisr' EEfreehold freehold (ownership): rights with. deternnining the value or rreeou v regular leases. reference to, g gt the market value of a But it is very Xrence to the premium for a freehold property the period of lease is isfc SfctSSprSlA^" W " the market value of the property^ difficulties referred to

27. However, in view of ^....j.q j-g|y upon the above, it is not. safe ^ |-j^e plots formed • alSotment rates/auction rates 1. the market by DDA in a lid lands. The value of the be excluded as being DDA brochure price has therefore to oe exc not relevant." 2^. The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and 1reproduce the same by extrpctng from LAC Reference No.ll7A/2009. The argument aovanced 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. Ares and Narela '"'^"®g"^gn[®etter dated 04. He has relied upon allotment le sector A-5, issued by DDA 01 '•'j'® P ch '^grn Chander at the ' Narela.which, was allotted tq ^ ^5 no'.SS pocket 03, Sector-05 area rneasunn|,0 Sq. "Tl l"hitlfexfwe/Tboth'thland allotmentletter a 69Sfgo of iSial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. Page 40of74 LA.App.No.266/2008& connected matters measuring 350 sq. yards at fSlarela ihdiistriai Cdmplex at the rate of ?65Q sq. metres which is Ex; PW3/1 and another allotment'-fetter dated 25.04.2000 of industria! plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at ?30G0 per sq. metres.. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW[9] Kanwa! Singh & document Ex. PWll/1, which 1s detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost..^t-da¥#l-©pmeR-t-per bigha wotfld—b«-^:^-4t}0000 == ?248911 whereas'Ld. Counsel- has submitted'that DDAby selling alternate plot in IMareia Residential Scheme ® f3208 would be f2531408/- per bigha..And if 30% of the total area- utilized, for roads, p.ark, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so.the price-of per bigha would.come, to (25314-08 - 759422 = 1771986[6] per bigha). And. after- 'dediicting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. ?1771986 - 248911 - 1523075 per big.ha, where as petitioner ha.s been given rate only "3,27,083/- per "tjtgtrar ^ ' -Similarly he'has.tried'to demonstrate the'profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R.D, Sharma, Asstt. Nanaqer.

DSIDC who has produced •documents. Ex. PVV7/A (Coily). Ld. Counsei has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC -was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is f2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Totar'area under plots =: 112.47, hec Le.-1361250 sq.. yards. Price per sq. metre in the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot.f3000/-per sq. yards Total earning f4083750000 Total expenditure ?72Q526901. ' ' Totalprofit = ?3363223099 • ---'^-^.-P-r^Feames- to' '?247D' p'e'r-^q^yafd-'or''f247"000G per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) —:and the LAC has-paid comp-eRsation © Oa7083-per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of.^2142911 per bigha ^ ^ Ld. Counsel for'the petitioners has further arg.ued that LAC has awarded compensation @ ^327083 per k h LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 41 of7'|bigha for the (and in question if 200% appreciation of the. cam@s-4Q-^§^4i&&-.—IMhe-afnount is deducted from.qaSp -. _.M[ce._per bigha i.e. ?24700000,. the figure comes to ^1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled, for the same." • • i —Mow^^-wa-do—fmt-hsv-e evidence as.to.what -was' the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate-developed--by DSSDC and Narela' Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we,do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were not^d by the •Supreme Court in la/ Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of Sand in the subject cases. 30., It is no doubt true, as held even—fey—the-leamed- Keference Court, that with the development of Bawana industrial Area, -Rohlni Residential, Scheme and Narela • 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 Laf 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•Qf the lands. '32": The third submisslem- in the^ alternative was. based,upon the.observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bed/ Raw's case (supra), and Ihe submission is as noted In para 12- herejn above^_. The land owners require the price determined in Dtiaramb/f's case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters m 3Q.10.1963 in sunx,xx£:£X6y-75QA--p0r-bj^J^ia—Namurpur to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by.6% per.annum,- then by 10%' perannum and lastly by 12% per annunr) for different periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question.

33. It be highlighted that in 5e^_5a/z?'s case (supra), with reference to the base date as of the year 1959, for the year 1975 I.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court appSled. the.progressive. increase method by firstlyenhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1955 and then by 10% per annum til! the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years.

34. •. However, in Lai Chancfs case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as unden- "Whether-the awardreiating to acquisition on 24-10- 1961is reievant?. • 47.. The appellants contend that some lands in Rithaia Vv'ere acquired under Section 4(1) Motification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and cornpensation 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 OMGC Ltd. V. Rameslibhai Jivanbhai Pateh^ this Court held: (5CC p. 751, para 15) "15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing —-appropriate-escaIation over-th-e-^tov'ed~rnarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as evldefveed-by^-ale 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 Hi transactions/acquisitioris precede the stftejeet acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four— to five years. Beyond that ft may be unsafe, even ifit reiates to a neighbouring iand. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a'.few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger For example, for determining the market value of a land acqttrredHri—aybptifig the ahliuai increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 197Q or 1980 may have many pitfalis. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annua! 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 discJose 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 increasing 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 anyuse 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 Sg^L^^s-ea-se-C-sy-pfa) runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in -Lai Chands case which decision foHows——earlier decision of the Su^eme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 'ONGC Ltd. j/s. Rameshbhai Hvanbhai Patei. LA.App.No.266/2008 &.coimected matters:DHC:19030

36. — hi Lite iribLdnl case tfiere is anotTfer good reason riot to follow the Saw iaid down in Bed/ Rsm'z 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 iPB) Saraswati DrvI &Ann l/s. UP! & Ors,, pertaining to agricuSturaf lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambir's case (supra) as of the year 1953, which, would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Marela as of 14.3.1980 @ ?2G10/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ flOOO/- per bigha. If Bed! Ram's principle was applied the price would liave come to approximately ?50,000/per bigha but the [earned Division Bench determined the same at OB.QOX)/-.i^ier bigha,

37. That apart, as wouid be noted herein after by me, whiie discussing on the issue of the fair market value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2905, Mahender Sinah i/5, UP! & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in vinage Bawana-, and I highlight that one, village with wf^h 1 am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued urider Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act vvhere-uoder 3604.bigha and 18 biswa- of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fpir market value as.of 15.11.1§§6 was determined @ f[1],99,904.58 bigha which equals to f[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 "1.0 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters Page 4S.of74 determined by the Division Bench wouid equia! the minimum price notified by the Government. —to—take—t4Te-pfh:e--as—of-±5Tii.l§§6 @ ?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, ! would be hoiisticaliy discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notifications in question.

39. The..fojijitb. argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan. and others, the appellants in LA.APP.iMo.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 testinriony of Ram Kishan because he gave no'proof in support of his oral testimony. 41.. The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop 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 3to 4, crops per year, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the week of September, rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land i-s left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters ' Page 46 of74 sown around" the ff.rst week or the- second week of fslovember.each; year:.

42. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form of docunnents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he. was working as an Administrative Officer in the Nunicipai Corporation of Delhi tiij 313.1996 i.e. was not a tilSer him.self til! said period-and thereafter earned a-pension. !f thefamily^ as claimed by him, was earning fl lakh per fDigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha •and 18 Ipiswa, the annualHT^e&me-wetild be fl9•lakhs and one,, -fin-ds It-strange that not -a penny-was iiwested 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 nurnber of workers-employed, diese! purchased to. run the. tubewell/ if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity biJIs paid If the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and ifthe 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 slot 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 oeposition of Ram Kishan has. been.rightly •rejected.. -. •, 4^. --If-Miefe is reliable evidence of an independerit expert or —thefe—is otherwise—Feliable evtdemi-eT—a-s—¥¥SS~-found • in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (1) SC 444 State of Guiarat & Ors. 1/5. Rama Rana & Ors.. pertaining to the yield from agricultural land, only then it would be safe to determine fair market value 'by.applying the principle of LA.App.No.2.66/20Cf[8] &connected matters Page 47 of74 5D mpiialtemgzrcm- yieM..-basi¥^ being 10 times the annualand noi 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 principie 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. 8.12.20,07 i.e. is 4 years awayfrom the last year with ¥\fhich I am concerned i.e. the year 2003. I highlight that.recl<oned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which i am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The.iavi/ of statistics i^hich governs mean average.as one of the ' recognized modes to determine a-value, in' between 2 given values, requires the 2 end. points to be the' ones which would-be clo-ses^m^he-peint f-o-F-wh-icft the meanaverage has to be determined. — I am left-to deal with the last submission, as noted in -para 15 hereTrrsbove,-^3nd for which t 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 Kaian and • ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters has determined that ^basedityr^o months by..12% per anTjum,:ifor jt!would be ?19,i[6],037/- per aCtle-rQu acre.. L- •47.. • 'With reference'to thd'Avya. is apparent that; iaiid Gpmpnis4d5in n the: price as of said date for 3 e date,27.1^2003 the price ided off to f19,16,040/- per d No.l0/DC(WW)/2004-05 it <Chasra; N61200 admeasuring; 1 bi^ha and X[3];biswa;was a C^te^ory 'C land. The sale deed in q uestio n pe rta ins to the sa m e:Ia nd a if said-sale deed had to be accepted nd indeed there is logic that, it would, reflect fair market value of Category 'CMand. As; per the learned Land Acquisition Collectol-^1.[7] lakhs per acre iwoUld. be required to fill up the depressions for land.in Category 'B' and further.sum of ?1.7,— lakhs per up^y^d^efiFes[5].ions ii Category 'G' land,, meaning thereby •land.w^re less vis-a-vis Categdfy\fC' depressions in Category 'B' land. In other words, with reference to Category;'A' land, the ' v/vould have:to.be reduced and' vice-^ price;'of Category 'C land /ersa, vis-a-vis Category 'C land, the price-for Ckpgory 'BI-iand and for Category 'A' land, itably; f my discussion.- In view of and, reflecting upon the id Acquisition Collector and the question:'What should be the fair market value ofitlie isubject lands as of 7.8.2000, would be required:to be increased:su

48. • I,now-enter the-final;sti^ge c the evidence herein above ' noted reasoning adopted b.y the learned iLa the.learned Reference rCourt,; 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8^2001, 25.5.20,02-; and.. 27a.-2003': •iiej' •th notifications were issued underl-Secti.Act 189,4.' ' •". > 49., i-have! in pai^a!37'abdyej ho ^P.P Bench of this Court in ••LA.App.No.266/2008 & conBeGted matters.7.12.20Q[1],... e dates on 16.5.2002, which the jn 4 of the Land Acquisition ted aideCision of a Division — • '• iMo.866/2005 decided o.ii Page 49 o-f74 5^ 11.5.2006, Mahe'hd&r Sinah vs^-udl.- & Ors. wherein pertaining to.^jas of 15.11.1996 53 is fl,99,904.68 per bigha Which'e The said decision would be.relevant or^.. an issue which.1'haveiprbmisediri:o:|dis that the/Subject lands fte. thellands Bench.was concerned,, had acquil"ed;B as discussed in F)aras 25. to 28 of[the.d Union Territory of Delhi! was aljtr^cti pepuiation.growth,.5.villages inirural industry, one of\which'.was village:: Ba^ '• • • i '. 'i. G-XKarnal Road and^'Rdhtak Road were village.Bawana;and.\that the IVlaster Pja year 1990 had indlGated the landluse ii • in the future to.industrial and iconmercial, but had also ubserved that was ftotifted as contemplated. b:. Development Act 1957, ithe lands co agricultural purposes and there;w^s to.:f[9],;^59,542.46- per acre, the issue of potentiality,:uss.; The decision notes with ^which; the Division potentiality inasnnuch as, ecisio^n; rural areas in the ig migrants. Based on DeUii were identified for providing major health facjlitie^ 'scliools, i.markets and rural. vana.; ItjA/as'noted that providing good access to n for Delhi notified in the the area to be changed the reaso n no zon^"p[1] a h ction llA of the Delhi ntinued; to be used for no evidence that till the year 1996, any land-use "had been actyally changed and put to- "i 1 '. • • the use contemplated^,by the Master Plan. As in, the instant case, \Afhere all subject lands^,were continuously put to. agricultural use, same;was:the case nc To put it pithily, the potential usf^f tt potential. land value withirefenepceijto:.]:he area! being known to all as being required in the futuirej for-building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential ibeii^g,valued rwith reference to the potentiality te. the !|ands biing; 'ii. the.hearfuture capableof.being built upon. TO;put it, differently, the. decision, though not so. expressly, stating, would' be 'a p ted in, the-said decision, e lands..giving birth to a "opbsiO^ohTPfM^there is a difference between the; undeVelqped land having building. LA.App.No.2,6'6/2008 & coimected.matters potentiality. in presehti:vis-aj-'vis a.land having a building potentiality, infuturo. As already: na as of the date.15.11.1996/fair ma ?9,59,542.46 per acrejand whith •1, same as would be determined with r being closest Jn point of time; i i • 25.7,199Z....Where;und,eit. for agrlcu11u; price fixed.by the Government as; of acre, interestingly, the same bivis another judgment reported as. 200 Singh vs. UOf & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in.. village Holambl Kalah where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same noti fair marlcet value determined for ^9,7^,121/- per. acre and for Categon per acre i.e. near approximate to'the:ed;by me in para 36 above, "ket value determined was Tighlight once again is the eference to the notification e.. the notification dated -al lands in.DeJ.hi minimum L[4].199.[7] was ^10 lakhs per on Bench had pronounced IV AD:, (Delhi) 13 Gairai ication dated 15.11.1996, Category 'A' lands was t 'B' lands was ^9,51,121/fair market, value of lands In village Bawana. It needsi tq- be highlighted' that while determining the fair market value a.Holambi ICalan, evidenced fromlthe o para 19 and 20 of the;decisioi|, location.and potentiality with reference to clevelo.pment. work:carried out in the. surrounding lands was considered. I wouldi highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoin i.e. between. G.T.ICarnai' Road \an[6] Sihghola determiried; fair ma.rket v 5 of 15.11.1996 in village Dservations of the Court in ing village in the same 'V Rohtak' Road,. i.e. village alue as of. 19.3.1993 @.^li30,523/- per bigha i.6/^6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is „..repo-d:ejd-as-200.4;(4) APKDe!hi) 201Ra 77 Chancier vs> UO! and the ^||j||.....ssnae_P4A4slan-&@-nGh, asi per the|d6cis, DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vy; UOl. pertain Gn-'reported-a-s 111(2004) ng to a ^notification dated 14.1.I994- for villagevSinghola ^determined fair market value @ ^1,40,230/- per bi^ha i.el t6J3}lJ04A |;er acre. 'LA.App.No.266/2008. & connected matters rr.^TTi.e'•...afaresaid.jodgments^'^j^i:, ". '•••"•.. ' ' •i \ ' ' •'.paragraphs'as aJsovthe'Vafidijs notificat Ijime by the Governrnent of WCT Delhi' |;or agricultural lands in/Delhi tabu L.. • ' • i- •; i • above bring out two very jmportantifac fihe growth/rise In the prices of agrticililtu in •:--the preceding ons issued from time to - •• V-; _ • lotifymg.minimum price lated by hne in. para 7 IS relevant t^ determine ral land in Delhi over the years.- commencing.from! the. ygatl: 1990.'...As of 27.4,.1990 minimum price was f[4].65 jal<h[5] per acre per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.;e. the ihcreas over 7 years, which ^glves us a 115=05'4% ' the average price increase- wQuIdi be 1 over the next 1 year.is by 11.2% hnd tlnext 2 years and 11.5% for the next:ye which rose to ?10 lalch.s e is ^5-.35 Ial<h[5] spread increase in 7 years and 6,436%. The price rise ereafter l[3].y 11% for the ar i.e., as. of. 1.4.2001..it shows that due. to urbanization,' between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly ^sharfSly; a.'•evidence for this would be the decision: this Court in Gairsfs case (suprd), wh 9 -para 49 above. •; ' • •. 51. 1 need.-to elaborate a little'rn • decision in Gairafs case.. Discussing th id good corroborative of the Division Bench of ich 1 have discussed in Dre with' respect to the evidence pertaining to fair rnari<et value of agricultural;lahd in viHage Holambi Kalan a of 15.11.1996, in.paras^ 9 to Y] ^th valuation On the.basis ofi agricultural V I ' j •gi'oss return, per^acre:pdr aitnui^T;Wa. cropped.land and having good jirriga capitalized the land price:at T9'.[5] lfei<-hs •; - ^ • -j-. second method of land:•price.s'jofli cc s-t±Fi=mifTdtn'g-^=(Sa5^.inc1ucHiTg- pot-e Court discussed the matter with-/ refe B Court discussed the ield and found that the •f95,000/- for multiple tidn facilities, and thus )er acre. Discussing the mparable lands in the para.: 19 onwards the "ence, to land- prices in a.djoining village-Bhorgarhiwhere..BCliGojdowns had come up and t)'as^Q'~ori sate instances- found.that based: on, the said sale LA.App.N.o.266/2008 & connected.matters Page S[2] of 74 instances and #vmp-l!^ii-ef{±--oHi^rstri-8rHr(ith!rn^tlTe-f-a-n-d~^^ would come to ^10,03,364/- peri acre then considered the-pHees-fiiotified policy dated 1;4.1997 and thup, w.or figure Of f[9],76,1217- per acre fot i, f[9],51,121/-. per acre for Category • ! highlights that: the potentiality-had (Refer para 31). The Court Dy the Government as per <ed out the mean average Category 'A' lands and B' lands. The decision Deen well-faCtOred in when the Government issued the rrninihnum price notification,w.e.t.; even with'respect to sale against the minimum price er acre, sale instances were 1,364/- per acre.. Singh's case, pertaining to 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact tha transactions the Court found tliat as notified as of 1.4.1997 atflO lakhs p highlighting that the price was fl0,0 52... The decision In Mahender villagp' re.feiTJSd to. by me in para 49 above,. highlighUhe decision that the Master into account by the Cour!; commercial and industrial with reference to para 28,to 31 of t •Plan for. Delhi 1990 had beenitaker whi.ch was projecting: resideijitiaj. future exploitation of agriculturaMland in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality-had noted that; notw thstanding the Master Plan so, projecting and the lands theoretic ally acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated ii^to arjeality evidenced by the fad that till-the.year 1996 i.e. the Bate df the notification with whicn the Division Bench was concerhed, v taken place in village Bawana and had exploited^ the. potential.: ^As irtualiy ho development had- Holambi Kalan and nobody have, already highlighted in para 49,above there is a gap;between what,would be expectec the market actually grows, id lyiahpiider Singh's case to be the market growth, andl^iWhat • The decisions in Gairals c^se a highlight that potentiality trarislated itself into a reality between about 16.5% per annum and 1990 and 1997 when prices rose:by •thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with ihe L.A.App.No.266/2008 &'coxmected matters ^ requisite momentum and the:acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annurh. j 0 purqiiant to IVIa.stpr Plan:fnr Delhi ilQQ ney:'reason could be that 0-3 fa irly-iai:g-&...aj:-ea. caiine to be developed, both residential, con^ mercial.and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the;market got satlurated.

53. The empirical eyidenceiin: the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon-by ^the land owners, in respect •. i whereof the learned Reference!Courl: has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which f have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not r sale deeds, to determine fair market v sale deed relied upon by the learned pursuant whereto in some refei'er^ce! the learned Reference Court has held • • I ' deed Ex.R~2 as of the date of the se ). • • market value of agricultural lands w acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning of land, which was sold for ^5,39.^5^0/-; stamp duty would mean th^t !t[6] f70,160/-) were spent would yield tl-. acre as of the date of the sale i.el ]^0.[5]

54. ' Thus, the best which cpuld be said as the most favourable situation fon the l.and Iowners would be that with

I. I reference to the sale deed datjed 20.5.2002 for Category 'C, la;nds the price i.e. fair fharket yalue of lands in the area would be fl[7],74,109/- per acre; For Cafiegory 'B' and Category 'A' land alying upon, being fanciful alue, we have with us the |_and Acquisition Collector in village Rajapur Kalan that as per the said sale le i.e.' 20.5.2002 the fair ould be fl[9],16,040/- per that 1 b.igha and 13 biswa and ?70,160/- was paid as 09,850/- (^5,39,-690/- + le price.fl[7],74,109/- per 2002. m the price would have to be suitably eThanced and here we find another area of dispute for the reason,, as noted me hereinabove in sub-pafa (a): of ipa Acquisition Collector in different LA,App,No.266/2Q.08 & connected matters •a 18 the learned Landawards has deducted, sometimes fl'.[2] Jaidis per acreV. Sprrietimes ^1.56 lal<hs per acre a.nd sometimes tlJ laklis per aCre fram the price of Category for Category 'B' lands and ' as W:ell-t-lie price has been ere. 'A' lands to determine the pride wherever lands were in Gategbry 'Q' deducted further by fl.[7] iakhsjper a ! 55.. Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money,required to be spent to level the —cate^ofk-atw |s l:>a-s-ed-€m-ly on the basis of certain lands having pits and de[:ressions of various depths:—-fe€^utrifl-^rth€'"same to be !eveled:ar • to be spent. But On what ^basis d this' would require money has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awardsi that fl.[2] lakhs per acre would be spent and in some-that f 1.56 lakhs;. ' in some that fl.[7] lakhs per. acre wc no clue.

56. • in Gairai Sinoh's caie': (si worked out was ^25,000/- pen acre )er acre would be spiEjnt and uld be spent? There is just pra), the 'price differential I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in' Gairai Singh's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. in Gairai Sinaii'i.CBSQ the price for Category 'A' land determined was f[9],76,121/- per acre and for Category. 'B' land the price determined was.:f[9],51,121/- per acre and the price differential, comes to about '.1.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

57. I thus hold, that guiding s.tar f0r.pricfe differentilaIii n t '. i ' thus 1.. hold' that wherever.Categ Category 'C have to be differlentiated on price, the differentia should be 2.5%.,

58. Thus,; if <17,74,109/-,I rqun,•acrei^vDiji^beTrrepritei^ Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and higliilighti LA.App.No,266/2008,& connected matte;rs 's case should be my ne..ins.ta.nt cases as well and ory 'A', -Category 'B' and ^ed off to ^17.75 lakhs per ry 'CnarurnrVillage Rajapur ng that the sale deed Ex.Radmittedly pertains to a.Category,'C' land, the price for Category '13' land would be.i:fl[8].20.;.Jal<:hs per acre and for Category 'A' land would be ?18'655 akhs per acre.

59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as-per the:niinihium price notified by the Government as-of •li4J2000 the per and as of 1.4.2001,the same^iwas T. •percentage increase betweeh'ljheiyei ! treat Category 'A' land pricefat itl based.on the sale deed Ex.R-2, ded acre price was ?13..82 lakhs 15.[7] lakhs per acre i.e. the ar was 11.5% per annum, if 3.655!lakhs as of 20.5.2002 jcting the price by 11% per • annum, the price as of 1.4.20bl.would come to approximately il ^16.40, lalkhs per acre and this. ' " i contrasted' with the minimum'price. vould highlight that when notified by the Government at fl[5].[7] lakhs per acre as of;il.4,2t)01,. the price differential h f70,,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%.i 5in achieved while determining faif marl land with reference to. a few sale, deeds where small parcels of:e exactness can never be:et value of a large chunk of land are sold for the reason even w location, the frontage etc. of a piece • ' ' '. • i • ••by plus or minus 5%. rWhat I,wish t ! !: I sale deed in. question yields tq us a ithin a colony, the size, the of land would vary the price 0 highlight is that even the fair index as per which the. minimum, price notified by the Government has an element of eds to be highlighted that a sale on a particular date irwoi1< M~i^la~noi' price on a rationality- and acceptability. -^It ne though under normal circumstances •is normally not held good •eviqence.t: date prior thereto but! hiay be' usec I' ' f I land price on.subsequent •datesy fc particular date is the result offvario •having already impacted the l^hd pirice and it would be difficult to faih.om the existerlice of, rtfiarket: folxes/conditions walking backwards..But-,, in the instant ica^e, with.reference to the 5 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected mattetig' as evidence to determine r the' reason a price on a us, market forces/conditions dated—M -fc^.000,.2.5t^Q4t--22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001, the differential: peHodj is shriall inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5:2002 and thus in the peculiar fcjcts of the instant case, the sale dee has been projected by the Union lof market value of land as on said.|date, ] of evidence to be taken into accou market value of-.land as on the de 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001.

60. The argument that village treated locationally advantageous for the. reason the township of d in question, which itself India as an evidence of would be. a relevant piece it while 'determining the tes 7.8:2000, 11.9.2000, Narela had always been Narela was in existence since ilong and this was, recognized when, pursuant to a notification] issued in the year 1963, vis-a vis the'adjoining villages t[2], per squ was given to lands in village Narela in sight of the fact that the pric[6] differential due to locational i advantage was keeping in view! the.'realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization toOk place in Delhi and more and more areas came under p included.areas in North-West of|Delhi am concerned today, the price differential faded and by the year,2000 and onward, it has become, non-existent. 61! \ thus hold-that, pertaining to the notifications dated are yard price advantage DharambiYs case, looses otted development which i.e. the area with which 1 7.8.2000., 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 2:2.[8] 2001 and 7.12.2001 the land prices would have to be cl^termined on,the basis of the minimum price' notified by;thei.Governnnent as also with reference to the sale deed dated •25.5,2002 for the._reason 1find no other cogent evidence wherefrom could be determined." •.Pertain,ing t 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 arid 27.1.2003,. determined with respect to sa LA.App.N'o.266/2008 & connected matters; and price as on said dates the notifications dated the land priCe needs to be e deed dated 25.5.2002 -with t-e-#H2-s-ald:; s-afe-•price"it.is-sppa-pe-n^-th-at land price as of said date comes tolmore respect to the notification dated 9:8.2. land price notified was fl[5].[7] lal<lls per*" acre with, effect from 1.4.2001.

62. With respect to tlie •priceidiffei and Category 'B'. lands, noting, that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the iand acquired in village. Pooth.iKl^urcl and Hoiambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated'22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, IChera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the tha'njf determined with 001 wherein nnininnLim •ential for Category 'A' notification dated. 22.8.20,01) r Hold t lat vis-a-vis the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing' the same for Category 'A' lands effected by decreasing the same by 2.^5% • for Category'B'land. Before 1 work out the cornpeilsation and s nee it would be evidenced that pertaining to Categc prices would marginally.' increase i in i substantially in the other,.a striidrjg:;no deduction has to be to determine the price ry 'A' lands,, the land a few cases and;e of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price; determined pertaining to the notification dated,.23.5i.2002 ipertain ng to village Hoiambi Kalan wherein the learned Refereniie^Court has determined the fair, market value at ?22Vl[4],23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002,..-brtrt hieed td riiyruight' that" pertaining to^the same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to ivillag rference Court has det^rmin-^-"the- ?17,85,240/- per acre and ! find that 2 Alipur the ' learned fair market value at pertaining to village the notification dated RajapTj]-KaIan and Sanoth,'pertaihijng tu" 27.^2^3 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands,is fl[9],16,040/- in some cases aind fl[9],13,760/-. in a few, ' I I I • I j LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters j j Page 58of74 meaning thereby that much' lesser ^ worked out in the,year 2003 \/is4-A/is out for Hoiambi Kalan pertaining t the 23.5.2002 and the reason for notificptioh the land pride determined of 15.11.1996 has been taken and iincreased at the rate of 12% per annum compoundedr Village Podth KhurdI Motlfic^tio. 6:4. • With. reference to the! notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from' 1.4.2000 mi acre is ?13.82 lakhs• and requiijing s updated to reach the.date of th6' npti with- reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category'"'"'Cland'sJ land price per acre comes.to T17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2i5% the price acre and further, increasing by; 2.5° f18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' 1 said prices by 11% to reflect the ^rice ' deed for the date -7:8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to •^14.75 lakhs compensation • has been iihe,: compensation worked 3 the. notification dated abrasion. is that in said n Gairafs case (supra) as L2000' Timum price notified per aid price to be suitably 'ication i.e. 7.8.2000 and comes to tl[8]:2 lakhs per the prices comes to. ands; and decreasing the vith reference to the sale per acre and decreasing the; 5ame ?14,38,125/- per acre.for Categoryi;'B' learned Reference Court ihas, without' with Category 'B'. lands and i,uniform price awarded is fl[4],37,280/- per acre, the price^differential;worked out by me comes to a mea.ger f[1],000/- per'^cre^ a Td thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amoi^nt awarded by the learned Reference Court. •. ^ ' ). • • i"*• • • 1- • •..

65. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India I ' and cross objections wherever ifiled by Union of India in the by 2.5%, it comes to lands. Noting that the any reasons, done away LA.App.No.26.6/2008 & connected;matters 4 2^ appeals filed by land owners ifi -re$pect whereof.grid has been. prepared and labeled as-'GRID-AV-he'reir above are dismissed. ' 66.,. All Land^Acquisition Ap.p^a|s:.f and cross-objections filed iby the 'lbnd: o.Union of India are allowed by de.creein for Category 'A' lands.in village'Pooth. -notification dated, 1.4.2000 in sum Of for • Category 'B' lands the; com|bensati.on awarded at fl[4],37,280/- per acre is.maintaided and thus such appeals or.|k.' cross references..which pertain nto Category 'B' lands are dismissed.... ' •67. ' PertaTnihg-to such appeal wiere the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as Der the Land Acquisition i ' ' ' ' Act.1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Ks..W/2001 (93).DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross olDjection, for Iwhich pei'-ipd'of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall' be paid,.These appellantsjor cross objectors would be.entitled to proportionate cost. i Village HolambLi<alari.:MotifficatiQn.date.d 7.8:2000 ^68. For the reasoning; given in paras 64 to'67 hereinabove led by the land owners wners in^ appeals filed by g conipensation payable Khurd pertaining to the

4.75 lakhs per acre and pertaining to the notification (sairje) da village Holambi Kalan, ail ^appeajs as p ted 7.8.2000 relating to ei' 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections stand.disposed of enhancing the compensation to T14.75 lakhs pefiacre per the award.and even as per Ctie'ref were of uni.form category.:Weedl6is'to s -Union of India and cross objectiohsfwher Appeals and cross objectiohs'filed tyiIan.. enhancing.the compensation tb fI[4].7.[5] with'statutory, benefits as lper thekand • i 1 ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters: 1 • and 1 highlight that as srence.ail subject lands bate appeals filed by the 2ver filed are dismissed, d owners are allowed by fakfis per acre' together Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment repprted' as Sunder l/s. UOI-2001 (93) DLT 569,-except for the penod jwhe,revthere is a delay in filing which period of delay no ation shall be paid. These -thie- 01" cross objedrion, ^for interest on the enhanced cornpens appeliants or cross objectors wo.uld. cost.. be entitled to proportionate ana.._relatlng to the same

69. Peitaininq to village -Ba.w notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court has not enhanced the compensatior, for parity of reasoning, fail market value for Category 'A''lands is fixed at tl[4],75 lakhs per acre arid'for Category. 'B' lands,at ti[4],38,125/- per. acre and noting that Union -of India has neith objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C fixing the compensation as he er filed any appeal or cross hereinabove are allowed by 'ein before mentioned and needless to. state on the enhaipced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to,statutory benefit Act-1894 as explained in thejjudgn i/a/ 2001 (93).DLT 569, except for delay in filing the appeal, forjwhiclas per the Land AcqLiisition lent reported as Sunder Vs. the period where there is a period of delay no interest on the enhanced cdmpensatid|n Sha 1be pajd. These appellants would be' entitled to proportionate cost. ^Village Khera Khura/NQtlfScalion dated 11.9.2Q-00

70. With..'reference to the rlotification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 acre is fl[3].82 lakhs per acre aric suitably •updated'to reach tjhe date of the^ notification i.e.,11.9.2000 and with reference [toithe sale deed dated 25.5.200^ wherein for Category 'C lands,' land price pei acre comes to,f17J 4, ijQUnd.e.d....off ^ Category 'B' lands increasing;the sa LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters; minimum price notified per requiring said price to be 75,000/.-.. p-er acre, and for me by 2.5% the price connes to ^18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the price decreasing the said prices by.1:1% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean' average price for Category 'A' lands in village Narela comes to ^16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ^15,76,087- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has,, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is.^15,85,570/- per acre and since fqr Category 'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by ^9,000/- per. acre which is a meager amount, ! hold that for Category 'B.' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the -.pjlc:e-5taM.5_£_Dj][3,DmdJxLX16,.16,51)n/- pj&t:-ac.r& 4r

73. Ail Land Acquisition Appeals, as per 'GRID-E' filed iDy the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in "^peals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing connpensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Narela pertaining to the notification; dated 2.5.2001 in..sum of ^16;16,500/- per acre and asl per the reference order for Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals flied by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India,as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. jthe appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are alloiwed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced conhpensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 18^4 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. UOj 2001 (93) DLT 569.shall be granted, except for th"e period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters ' Page 63 of74 to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further incrpsing by 2.5% the prices comes to. ^18,65,500/- per acre 'for -! • decreasing, the said prices by- 11% t:ategory, 'A' lands; and 0 reflect the price with reference to the sale, deed for thei dEite 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' jlands comes to ^14,83,500/- pen acre: and 2.5%, it comes to ^14,46,413/- peKacre !

71. All Land Acquisition Appeals as land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union' of Indi.a -are allowed by decreeing ' compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dc fl[4],83,500/- per acre for Category 'A per acre for Category 'B' lands. ^ I no notification and the village, the Union appeal. On the enhanced comp'ensat per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as e in village, Khera Khurd decreasing the same by for Category 'B' lands, per 'GRID-D' filed by the ted 11.9-2000 in sum of ' lands and ^14,46,413/-:e that pertaining to this jf India has not filed any ion statutory benefits as xplained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl tPLT 56.9.shall be granted, except for the.period where there is a delay i-n filing the appeal, for which period of. d.elay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These iapipellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village- Narela Motiflcation dated 2',5.2001

12. With; reference: to thei notification dated 9.8.2001 wiierein with effect from-1.4.2001, mi limum price •notified per quiring said price to be of the notification i.e. e deed,.dated 25.5.2002 price per acre comes to 000/- per acre, and for by 2.5% the price comes acre is.fl[5].[7] lakhs per; acre;-ahdi re /^^suitably- updated-to reach the] date ^^^2.5.2001 and with reference to the se wherein for Category 'C lands, iilaind fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7];75, Category 'B' lands increasing thejsame LA.App;No.266/2008 & connected matters interest on the enhanced cqmpehsation shall be paid. These. appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost.

74. '. With reference to the notificatio.n dated 9.8.2001 "minimum price notified per -wh^reiTrnAnth"-effect-i^^ 1 acre is fl[5].70 lakhs per acre and requiring said -price to be suitably updated to reach the cjate of the. notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference v\/hereiri for Category: 'C' lands,, la =ri[7],7,4,109/-, rounded off to; fl[7], Category 'B' lands increasing the sa to fl[8].[2] lakhs.per acre and.further i; comes to ?rS,65-,5,00/- per acre f • decreasing the.said' prices by 11^ reference to the saie^ deed for the to'the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 id' price per acre comes to 75.,000/- per acre, and for me by 2.5% the price comes icreasing by 2.5% the prices Df Category 'A' lands; and ^0 to refl-eet--t]^e. price with date 22.8.2001; the mean _^erage price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan •..comes to fl[6],74,500/- per acre ar ^ 2.5°/o, it comes to fl[6],32,637.50 per -IMotmg that the learhed Re'fjerence Court has, without any reasons,, do^ne away with Cateigdry j'B' lands and uni'rorrn price d decreasing the same by acre for Category 'B' lands. awarded is fl[6],43,811/- per acre, t out by me comes to a meager ^9,0 Category 'B' lands I:maintain th^ amount awarded by the. iearned Reference Court. I I ' Te price differential worked 00/- per acre-and thus qua

75. \ All Land Acquisition Appeals i ! and cross objections wherever filedl by Union of India in the appj^ais.filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' S 'GRID-G' hereinabove are.dismissed.

76. All Land Acquisition Appealp 'nied by the.jand owners and cross-objections filed by th:e land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' filed by the Union of India.Page 6'4 of 74 Union of. India are alloyyed by decreeing compensation payable for Categor^i' 'A' lands In village Hiolambi^^'K^ pertaining to the;,notjficatibn dated 22.8.2001 in kiiti of-?16,74,500/'- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the i compensation awarded at fl[6],43,811/-. per acre is maintained cross referenced which perlrajn: to dismissed..

77. •Pertaining to such appeal stands enhanced staluton^ benefits e and.thus such appeals or Category 'B'. lands are where the compensation s per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. •• W/2001-(93i) DLT-56a shall be.grar where there is a delay in filing the ap which period of delay no ihterest on tl shall be paid.' These appeilahts'or entitled to proportionate cost. ited, except for the period peal or cross pbjection, for le enhanced compensation cross objectors would be

78. With reference to the > notification dated' 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1,4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15^0 lakhs per acre land suitably updated to reach the dat > *.. i 22.8.2001 an.d with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for'Category 'C landsi,^ lane "equiring said price to be e of the notification i,e..fl[7],74,109/-, rounded loff to- tl[7],75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the sam e by 2.5% the price corner to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices etifor Category 'A' lands;'.and comes to fl[8],65,500/-i,per'adi •decreasing the said prices by reference to the sale.deed for •average price for Category-'-A^iarids fl6J[4],500/- per acre.and decreasi i comes to ?16,32,537.50 per aciie for, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmattersj ll% to "reflect the price with the date• 22.8.2001; the mean in village. Ali P.ur comes to ig the same by 2.5%, it • j Category 'B' lands. Noting • I the;^tea rn ed^^?e1^fenm rjjth&yt aRv i-easons, done away, with -Category ''B' lands' aM"ir 116,43,811/- per acre,..the.price differe •gonnes to a, meager f[9],00p/- per ac l^nds I maintain the amount avVard^d t.Court..

79. All Land Acquisition Appeals fil in respect whereof grid ^has been'|:ir(iija H; hereinabove. are dismissed, r n'pte tf fi.led any appeal challenging the decision

80. • There shall be no, order as to nifotim price awarded is ntiar worked out by me. id thus qua Category 'B' y the learned Reference 5d by the Un-ion- of fndiared and labeled as 'GRIDat land owners have not of the Reference Court. costs. •81.- With reference to the ^notif cation dated 9.8.2001,. wherein, with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is fl[5].70 lakhs per acre and rec suitably updated to reach the date.22.8.2001 and with.referehce to the, sal ^ll^herein for Category 'C ilands, iknd p fl[7],74,109/-, •rounded off to ?1|,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the slame by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further!increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to f18,65,500/- per acre.lfor C i decreasing the said prices byal% tc reference to the sale deed for the:date 22.8.2001; the mean,aVexa-g-.e_|irice.-fox.--Cate-gQiiy 'A' •iafv45-i^:h-viltegeH40te-mbi--l^hiird co:mes to fl[6],74,500/- per acre arid decreasi.ng the same by ^.5%, it comes to fl[6],32,637.,.5,0..p.er.:.;acr^.io,r Ca.tegory 'B' lands. |piITg~TnM'"-Tri^l^med iReferehce C uiring- said price to be of the notification i.e. e deed.dated 25.5.2002 rice per acre comes to ategory. 'A' lands; and reflect the price with ourt has, without any ands -and- uniform price •rea.so.ns_,_, d-OJie away, with -Categ-Qjij/ ':B' • awarded is fl[6],43,811/- p;er acre; out by me comes;to a meager ^9 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected iiiatters tile price differential worked,000/- per acre and thus qua Xategiixy v'R'.. lamis- S--:maintain.^|tj: learned Reference •Court.: •

82. The appeal filed by tlie, Union of India in respect whereof grid has.been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-S' hereinabOve is dismissed. 1notejthat land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the'decisipn of the Reference Court.

83. There shall be no order as to costs. -wa^=Gl-ed by -the V With reference to the notification..dated, 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated- to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with'teferehce to wherein for Category X! lands/, f17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7] j[5], Category 'B' lands increasing the'sanne to ^18.[2] lakhs.per acre and further incr comes to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for decreasing the said prices by 11% the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 000/- per acre, and for by 2.5% the price comes aasing by 2.5% the prices Category 'A' lands; and 0 reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Categbry 'A' comes" to ••^16,74,500/- per acre •2.5%, it cornes to fl[6],32,|637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. • • '.. •". i • j Noting that the' learned Reference Court has, without any I • •. • ' j •. • reasons, done away with,Category•'B'j lands and uniform price ^ awarded is fl[6].43.811/- per acre., thei price differential worked.^.out,.by. me,,.connes.to a meager=^9,000/-..pe,E^aj[:ra_aM thus qua ^®®Gatego.ry 'B' lands 1.maintain Jthe amount awarded by the ahdsjin village Rajapur Kalan and [decreasing the same by learned Reference Court. •; |

85. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India. and cross objections' wherever filed by Union of India in the, appeaisr-fiied &y-HBnd";owTtS7S-TTrTC prepared and labeled as 'd'R8D-j' her^lna

86. All Land Acquisition ^Appdais fi and cross-objections filed by the land ov Union of India are allowed by.decreeinc for Category 'A" lands in village iRijapur bove are dismissed.. ed by the land Qwners i/ners in appeals filed by conapensation payable l<alan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum Of ^15,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands, the comp f 16,43,811/- per acre is maintainedian cross references which pertain;td C qlismissed. •, • '

87. Pertaining to such appealI w}ensati.on awarded. at d thus such appeals or ategory 'B' lands are ere the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in.the judgimeht reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be^ granted, except for the period. where there is a delay in filing thetappeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants:|dr: cross objectors would be:entitled to proportionate, cost. |.88:,.- With reference to the inotifi. wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 min acre is fl[5].70 lakhs-per'acre,an;d ^requiring saic^ price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. zation dated 9.8.2001 mum, price notified per 7.12.2001 and with reference to.the:sale deed dated 25.5.2002. •. •• • • I:: i wherein for Category 'C lands, land phce per acre comes to r ^17J[4],lQa^lrQnnd.ed'' m.fl[7]:,75JIQQ/- per acre, and for Liategory 'B: lands, increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and furtherjincreasing by 2.5% the prices c&mes-to'?18i65,500/- per acre /for Category 'A' lands; and.decreasing the said, prices by ll% to reflect the price with LA.App.No.266/2008 &'connected matters reference to the sale..deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' -lahds in village Sanoth comes to; f17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are.of same value I hold that for. acquired lands \i village Sanoth for the notification, dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled T of f=17,29,500/-. filed by the Union of India by Union of India ini the ect whereof grid has been to the enhanced compensation, in sur'

89. All Land Acquisition Appeals and cross objections wherever filed appeals filed by land owners in resp' prepared and. labeled as 'GRID-K' hensinabove are dismissed.

90. All Land Acquisition Appeal^ filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the lano owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of f17,29,500/- and needless 'to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits, as per the Land Acquisition Act 189.[4] as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. UO^. 2001.(93) DLT 569 shall be grariited, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interjest on the en lanced compensation shall •be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled; r to proportionate cost.; j • I • •Village ShahD.ur.Garfii:NQtifi:ation dated 16.5.2002 91.'. Pertaining, to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by rne hereinabove the larid price wbUld have to be determined with reference to.the sale deed dat^d!2o!5.2002 and for which land. -.... ! price for Category 'A' lands hSs been determined by me 3.t "0 is just a difference of 4 the notification I maintain dated- 16.5.2002 the land at the rate of ^18,65,500/- ^18,65,500/- per acre and since the days between, the date of sale and that for the notification in quest'ioh owners are entitled to compensation per acre and ! highlight that as per the all lands are in the same category) App filed by the land owners! as per the'' needless to state on. the enhanced owners: would be entitled-to..all „ Land Acquisition Act'. 1894 as interp reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001, (93).such- appeals or cross objections filed there is delay, ho.interesti would be pal Proportionate costs stand awarded. i - • objections filed by Union of India are dis award ahd'Th-e reference als and;cross objections BRID-L' are allowed and compensation the landstatutory benefits as per the reted in the judgment DLT 569 except that in by land owners where:1 for the period of delay. Appeals • and cross missed. 3o5„2002 23.5.2002

92. ¥iiia£ie'SBiaiioyr Gairhii IMdtlfIca tio.ri cieted- ^ Pertaining to the nqtifical;ion dated pertaining to village Shah'pur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a:differential of only 3 days'l hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same -^J^category, the land owners would be entjitled to.compensation at the rate of flS,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land • • • ' i Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder \/5. UO! 2001 (93.) DLT 569^ ex|cept in such appeals or cross objections filed by iand owners where there is a delay, no interest would'be paid for the period costs stand awarded. Ali:such apipeals land owners as per 'GRID^M' starid alloyved as aforesaid and all appeals and cross objections fjled. by Union of India are dismissed. of delay. Proportionate and cross objections by

93. •. As. noted by me pertaining to the notification dated 23,5.2002 relating to village HoLaijibi Kalan all lands have been treated in. the same category by-the rparne.d Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.Paee 70 of 74 Co.liector. and the Jearned. Refere nee • Court. The learned Reference Court.has avyar(le_d. corhpensatinn in sum ^o. 14,239/- per acre; which |l 1ia\ inasmuch as for.the date 23.5.2002 value would be 65,500/-, per acr cross objections filed by the land o dismissed and appeals and cross o India are allowed by modifying:the ihipughed decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to fl[8],65,500/- per acre or with reference to the enhanced' pr •award the statutory benefits already No costs.. j • • i ViHaae Ali..Pur Motification dated,.23.5.20Q'2 e found to be excessive have held that fair marl<el: e and thus all appeals and wners as per 'GRID-N' are Djectlons filed by Union of which, needless to state, ice with reference to the granted stand maintained.

94. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village All Pur, for parity of feasor relating to village Holarhbi Kalan and fair market value payable at fl[8],65, apipeals.and„ cross.objections 'filed 'GRlD-0' are dismissed and all appea by land owners as perisaid Griid are compensation payable to ^18,65,[5] statutory- benefits as pen Land Acqui s qua the said notification Shahpur Ga.rhi I determi'ne 500/- per acre and thus all by Union of India as per s and cross objections filed allowed by enhancing tiie 00/- per acre on which sitipn Act as interpreted in the judgment reported; as Sunder l/g. UOl 2001 (93) DLT.569 shall be- paid save and. except in such appeals or cross objections where.there iis a delay,Mriterest would not bie paid fof • • i., the period of delay.. Prdpprtionate' costs as well. aQliifltatiQn" dated

95. Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and UnioniOf India ias per 'GRID-P' pertairiing to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sant)th, 1 note LA.App,No.266/2008 & co.nnected matters Page 7.[1] of 74 that the learned Land Acquisition Cc Hector has pjaced the land: in 3 categories and 1 find that, the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding conripehsation.;•:—

96. On the mean averagejbasis which 1have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the w-itirr^'efer-ence--to the ^sale deBd dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to tl[9],4-3,500/--jDer_acre and'for Category 'i'.„ land the •Price comes to l^l[8],94,912-.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to>18,47,539.68: per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court, has uniforrhly determined fair market value at fl[9],1.3,765/--and thus such appea have, been filed by land owners the in so far they pertain to Category 'E similar Would be the fate of appeals s or cross objections which same have to be dismissed / and,Category 'C lands and and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appea and cross objections as per 'GRID-P cross objections filed-by land^ownei lands are allowed by decreeing conipensation payable in sum of ^19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced are dismissed. Appeals and rs pertaining to Category 'A' per the Land Acquisition Act compensation statutory benefits as 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93). DLT 569^ shalL bte ipaid" s^^^ except in sucn appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay.. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India •pertaining to, Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by fi'^ffyii-fg-H:-he--r-e4afcab!e the Reference' Order &y reducing the compensation' for Category 'B' land co rm ^fl[8],94,912.50 per acre ' and ! for -Category 'C land to fl[8],47,5!39.68 per acre. 27J,.[2]

97. • For parity.of^reasoning a^ per para 96 aboye pertaining to village Sanoth, similar jcorrective action is to.be required pertaining to.lands acquired pursuant to.notification dated 27.1.20Q[3] relating to village Rajahur Kalan and where Ifind that t,. the learned Re.ference.Court Ipas in some cases awarded compensation in sum of ?19,1^765/- per acre and in some cases at ?19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform category.. On'the;. mean, javerage basis, which I have been following by increasing theiprice as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the ndtifica.tion issued i by the Government as also bv increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and,taking the nqean Eiverage, for Category 'A' landsi •pi^ee'-eam-es--tcr^-l-97423:,-500/-=Hpe^ acr-e-^rrd •for Category 'B' land the price comes to fl8y.94,912.50 per acre and-for Category 'C lands the price comes to; fi[8],47,539.68 per acre. Thus such.appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be disnjiissed in so far they pertain i:o, Category 'B' and Category;'G' lalnds and similar would be the fate of-appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India (• pertaining to Category 'A' lands.j The said appeals and cross i objections as per 'GRlD-QiV are dismissed. Appeals and cross I objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands • are allowed by decreeing;^ comjiensation payable in sum^ of f 19,43,'500/--per acre and-^heedless-ta'-stater-oTrth- enhanced compensation statutory.benefits as per the Land Acquisition /-\ct 1894 as interpreted in theijudgment reported as Sunder I/5, UP! "••^"2f};01-(^i-&i::^569-shal•lr^-e—patd—s-ave-xmd•.except in,such appeals and'cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters.; Pags73 of 74 jyquld not be paid for the period ofcf^ well. The appeals and cross^objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category-'B' and Category 'G'-lands are allowed by ?Iay. Proportionate costs as modifying the relatabie decree in the.Reference - Order iDy --Category: 'B' land l-o r. Category 'C '' land' to -Fedi3!-ef-f)-§—t-ji-e—ee-m-pensa-ti-en^-for ?18,94,912,50 per acre and fo fl[8],47,539.68 per acre. f. (P.BADEE LA.y\pp,No.266/2008 8c. connected matters[1]. '! X! if'NAl^DRAJGG) JUDGE