Samar Singh v. Union of India & Anr

2. To'be referred to.Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 12 of74

1. • 10 •villag.es; namefy, Pooth Khurd, Hotambi Kala-n, Hofambi- Khurd, Bawana, Khera IChurd, Narela, AH Pur, Rajapur Kaian, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue. District..(North-West)' and'if we see'the map of the city of Delhi —weH¥^i^ld-4md--feat^es-e villages li-e4frthe-N^fth-\¥€-stern part of Delhi. They.lie within an area between the ''V' formed by Rohfcak. Road i.e. 'MH-10 and G.T:Karna! Road i.e. IMH-l.' The Delhi- Ambaia railway line runs somewhat parallel to MH-1. Whereas • villages Marela and Shahpur Garhi are in between'the'-raifway line and.MH-l, the otiier villages are on the opposite side of th.e raiiway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line. I'Jareia and Shahpur Garhi.-are, towards the east of the raiiway line. The urbanized city of Delhi where' the coiony Rohini exists has been.developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is • situated in.the land withiil the aforesaid Bawana mdustri,ai Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is aiso on the land within the aforesaid,'V. Historicaliy, except for village Nareia, all villages have- been' • treated as equivalent with respect to their location.

2. The instant decision decides the is.sue as to what should bethe fair.market value of agricultural larsds in the said visiages" as of the dates 7.8.200U, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,..22.8.2001; • 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002.. 23.5.2002 and 27.1=2003., INSeedless to state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time> on "ator5S^atQ""dates under Section 4 of the Land.Acquisition Act •'TBWrvasf tracts ofTand in said 10""'vmages "we^^ acquired and g:a_yp' ^nd..gxrpnt lands in the Revenue'Estate of Villacie Mare's v^here the purpose of acquisition was partly residential and..paitly industrial, in the other villages, acquisition was'for the.purpose of establishing an industriai estate or laying down a LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 13 of74 m iruBdr-ur^might-mmptex, Tli€" r.§-§'§wr'wliy. •sycn,-i'a-r^e tracts"-" of lands were needed'was to set up an industrial estate pursuant- • to a decision taken 'to shift aH_ industries operating' i;n nonconforming areas within Delhi to conforrnsng areas,,

3. I must highlight.that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the, samelo. aJLappei^...fi!ed':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, vs^here an additional. argument was advanced; being that, the township.of Narela 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 IMareia. and adjoining viiisges Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village IMareia were given a price advantage of f2/'- per sq.yd. vis-a-vls the price determined for lands' in village, Bhorgarh and ^/famurpur. I must further highiigiit that learned counsel conceded that village Marela and Mamurptir comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village rslareia a.nd the village abadi.being in ivlamurpur.".4.. The position of the 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 Acqu.isition Appeals and the Cross Objections as per ihe index hereinabove- and thus I need not repeat the same. 3.:. A perusal of all the awards announced from time, to. ihatUtR^i&a"jT).ad--Laad... Acquisition •CoHector has determined compensation payable with reference to 'not[fi^tions/ord€rs Issued by the Government of HCJ Delhi from time-notifying the minimum rates for agricultural'lands in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits havi'ng deptlis between.. LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters • Page 14 of74. 4' to b', the iand yaSue has been appropriately depressed and this is to be found in a fev¥ aww^^wftereloTi^^riave been put in 2 or 3 categdnes'"];ev:'CaTegbr^/ 'A', Category 'B'- and Category 'c. •••,.• • ?

6. A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the iearned Reference Court has determined fair marj<et 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 w/ould be as under:- ' • •

4--of- th-e Land "Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant vifhereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against ^13,82 lacs per acre for Category 'A'Jands and f12.26-lacs per. acre for Categon/ 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by adopting the, price as per the policy fos' minlmijm rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Couii: has adopted the same rate i.e. ?13.82 lacs, per acre and"has-granted increment'at the rate of 12% per anrsum for the period 1.4.2000 till 7,8.2000 I.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus.determined fair market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- pes acre and-'tias ignored that there was Category 'B' land for which he had to make necessary adjustment.

I. -.Pertaining to the same notification, dated 22.8.2001pursuant whereto agricultural- lands in village Rajapur, Kalan were acquired the reasoning. •and the fair market.value • determined, by'the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court' is the sam.e as adopted for village Hoiambi Kalan, Hoiambi IChurd • and Alipur save and-except in this village'the acquired land was. • of uniform category. • i- Pertaining to the notification' dated 7.12.2001: pursuant whereto 222.05 -bigha land was acquired in village Sanpth ibr laying a 80 meter approach road to IMareia township, the learned Land Acquisition •• Collector has. assessed compensation uniformly in sum of ?15.[7] lacs per acre which is the same as per the. policy for minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the learned Reference Court has adopted the same price, and given appreciation for 250 days at the rate of 12% per annum to reach the figure of ?16,99,042/-per acre.

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 agricoltorarrands in "Pelhi. let-me therefore note the-dates and the minimum rates notified from time -to time - pertaining to agricuitural lands in Deihi since the same would"be relevant for.the present decision. The same would be-a-s under:- • LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 20 of74 S! ^-'o" na|-p rif • •. Q/ ^ /O increase per annum a: - • Notification of the price (in Iakhs/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] 11..[2]

4. 21.11.-2000 -

12.32

5. 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 1.4.2000 12.16.. 13.82...

6. 9.8.2001 1.4.2001 15.[7] 11.5.7. 30.8.2005 '30.8.2005 17.584 2.98

8. 24.1.2008 18.12.2007 53 89.51 • 8, From the tabulation hereinabove noted it wouSd. be apparent that •after minimum price was last fixed w.e.f., 27.4.1990, in sum of. ?^4.55 lal<hs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to flO iai<hs/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 was enhanced by. 1.1.2% to reach the figure of fll.[2] lakhs/acre and. thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to ?12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to ?12.16 iakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% annum with.reference to the price determined as of J^4..1998.and vide,., same notification the '' price vvas retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to ?1.3.82 lakhs/ace i.e. increased by 11% per annum •vis-a-vis the previous i.e. fl[2].15 iakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-^-vis the previous price of ?13..S[2] Iakhs/acre to enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ?i[7].584 lakhs/acre ~arriTrcres5E-af-o7Tly^a% per annum and then the price rose to ^53. fakhs/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. 9... relied 'upon •by.the iand owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court, it would be beneficial -for the reader of the present decision, as I feei, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. I would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument.was in the alternative and it was urged'that they would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, railing which as per the second argument, fai.liijg which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by the Reference Court pertaining to the notification.dated 7.8.2000, for village Pooth Khurd;' the notification dated 22.8.2001. for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated 7.8.2000 Tor village Bawana; the notification dated 11,9.2000. for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5.2001 for village Nare!a;'and the notification dated 22.8.2001,for village AH. Pur;;and the notification dated 27.1.2003- for village Rajapur Kalan and Scinoih treats as if all lands'were of uniform character and-it ' _v^,iJrge_d:.that_mrrective_ai:tion by doing 2things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to-time, per-annum and excessive-with reference to the'-.,.dat^.^the notifications under Section4_of the Land Acquisition ' Act 1894; requlnng the same to be reduced to 10% per annum sn tlie least.'~Secondly,.the learned Reference Court was not Justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No,266/2008 &connectedmatters Page 22 of74 requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by the Land Acquisition Coliector and- in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land o\A/ner had chaiienged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category/ 'B' and Category 'C, on account of pits and depressions of various, depths, as per the awards passed, by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.

10. Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference Courl; was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 253=2000., Ex.PW-1/3,-in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.Mo.780/2010 as also itie"3B"te""de'eT! tfated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, -i.n the same LA.Appea!. Vide sale deed Ex,PVV-l/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricuitura! 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 f32.[4] ia!<hs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price, as of 25.3.2000 «nder Ek.PW-1/3 would be T28.89 lakhs/acre and. pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be. ?63.478 iakhs/acre. It "was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds \¥Quid be good evidersce to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in'the aforesaid 10-villages as of 7.8.2000, •;il.9.20Q0,- 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001,' 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003'i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications, were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894- by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument, pertaining to village Marela, it was-urged tha'^.. the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for v\/hsch learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters '% and for which the argument was that when.in. th-e-.-pa-st-, pertaining to a notificatiGn issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, ^he Reference Court had given said benefit to agricufturai lands in. village ^1amurpur- Narela by giving a. price benefit of ?2/- per sq.yd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UOf vs. Dharambir & On?. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in. sum of ?6,650/- ' determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to. tl6J50/- 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 secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due. to Bawana industrial Estate, Narela •Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed Into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in the subject lands having acquiYed a building potentiality, required fair niarket value to be determined with respect to the price.at which DSiDC and DDA j.e. the implementing agencies, which acted as the ^Modal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Indus'trial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana-Industrial Estate and for which learned- counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted- by the learned.Reference- Court, which \ would be noting hereunder while dealing v\i\th the •submission-urged. 12, Alterii-ative to the second suhmlssiDQ, 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 Bed! Ram LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 24 of74 -vsr -Uivvn of India, »t was permissible to determine fair market • yaJue of acquired lands v^ith reference lo the fair market value determined by-Courts at an earlier point of time by giving • suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between-6% per annum to-12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land, owners handed over a chart, vi/orked upon by learned counsei, with, reference to the decision in Bed! Ram's case (supra) as' per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965, had to be @ 6% per annum with reference to the base price T16J50/- per bigha as of 30.10.1953-i.e. the price affirmed- by the Suprem.e Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till 31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per- annum till the various dates~wfTeh the 8 notifications under Section 4;-of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 were issued from time to time, a:nd with —whitii L_am.,.concerned,.i.n.liT.e present..ap.pe.ais. So.v\/orked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair markel, value-would come to ?55,88,759/- 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-beassessed- for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2D00, 11.9..2000, 2.5.2001, -22.8.2001, 7,12.2001, 15.5.2-002 and 23.5.200-2. -,

13. The fourth- argument' advanced was, and for which ' ' -refer-ence was made by learn©d--xeL!4nsel for the parties in the evidence led in LAC Mo.99/2005, which is subject'matter of 2 cross appeals I.e. LA.AFF.ifo'.2'68/2008 filed by the land owners,,.—and LA.APP.No.292/2008 fil.edJjy UrslODJ^iindia, that fair market • value should have been assessed on. yield basis by annualizing - the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was- the. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 25 of74 t-estimQRy of Rafn Kisfrapi-t-Q' t-hg effect that by selling aqricultura!.. pixidiJce--£ijQrn-bis-4afl4s-h-e--4Jse^ to earn fl iakli per biqha per annum I.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the Jand of Ram Kishan •and others were acquired. It was:thus.urged that the fair • market val.ue as of said date-should- be^20 lakhs per bigha.:- f 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.Mo.268/2008 and'the respondents in LA.aPP.I^<Io.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 __whic.h was closest in point of time where under minimum land • value was fixed by the Government and the notification dated 24.1.2008 where under ?53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument.-

15. The last argument, which was in the' alternative to-the first 5, pertained to-the.notification dated.27.1.200.3, 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 Mo.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for f[5],^§,6-§-0/-., determined the fair market value as per the.-said-. sale deed"!n~the"fo11owing'' words: (Refer, para 17 of the decision -xiBted-^^-.2010-4n4JiC-MQjJM/2009}: 'If we add stamp the sale price X[3],69,906/-.mr^-bjghs ^5,39,6907-.-f 70.160 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes to f 17,74,109/-, per acre or 13,68,906/- per'iDigha. Further if we give 22% LA.App.No.266/2008 8cconnected matters' Page 2S of 74 ^, increase on said amount for intervening period between ttie^ date when the sale.deed..mas-.exBcuted-..and. the date of -nxjtifix:Btfon u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003} i.e. 8 months it comes toXlQ,16,037/- (round offt19,16,040/-). " The argument was that if we look at the award relatabie to the said acquisition. i.e. Award r\lo.l0/DC(lMW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3- bisv^a land of which 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.iand" being comprised in Khasra Mo.•200 "and that page i^lo.56-57 OT'the award.would. evidence 'that "lancJ"comprised. in Khasra, Mo.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13-biswa was placed in' Category, 'C.. Whereas the Land Acquisition Coifector had determined fair market; value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of ?15.[7] lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated •9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ?1.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was ?14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another xl.l lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value determined whereof was-fl[2].[3] lakhs per acre. ' It would be apparent what the.argument was. The argument precisely \A?as that if the market-value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in questiorj, the same had to be for Category 'C lands arsd. for Category/' 'B'' and Category/ 'A'. lands the price, had to De."increased by ?1.[7] lakhs per acre for each categor>^

15. • I have already noted hereina"bove the arguments wh.ch were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, iearried 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.

17. In various sub-paras~~oT para b hereinabove, f have capsuled the reasoning of the iearned Land AcquisitiGfi _apd-th-e4eam@d-R-€fe-feR€e-GQeft pertaining to the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatabie to the 10 villages and thus I commence i^y 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 iearned Reference Court as per various subparas.of para 6 above.

18. But before dealing with the arguments f 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 ' Page2^ of 74 --•tacts, jmcb:.wMS:.be'P"t in a tabular form the data would, be as unden- Village Date of Section 4 IMotification LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons ADj compensation (in la!<hs/acre) with reasons Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000 Cat;'A' n[3].82 Cat. 'B' n[2].26 Minimum price asof 1.4.2000 Cat. Uniform. fl[4].3728. • Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with; 12% increase p.a. Holambi Kalan 7.8.2000 fl[3].82 fl[4].12995. Price as in Cairats case as of 15.11.1996 with 12% Increase p.a. «i Holambi Kaian 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' fl[5].[7] Cat. 'B' ?14 Ninirnum price as of 1.4.2001,^16.43811. fviinimum price.as of 1.4.20,01 with 12% increase p.a.. Hoiambi Kaian 23.5.2002;fl[5].[7] 02.14239. Price: as in Gairafs case. as of 15.11.1996 with 12% Increase p.a. (compounded) Bawana 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' ?13.82- Cat. 'B' =^12.62 No enhancement given.. m Khera Khurd 11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' n[3].82 Cat. 'B' n[2].52^ at[1],4.2000 fl[4].40157. of 1.4.2000, with — —. Narela 2.5.2001 Cat. 'A' n[5].[7] Cat. 'B' fl[4], a[5].B57. NInimum price as of 1.4.2001 with LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 3® of 74 AH Pur Ali pyr Hoi a nab i L; ro: KB jap i Sa noli' Sei iiotn 22.8.2001 23.512002' Cat. fl[5].[7] Cafc;'B^fl[4] Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 wlxh of 1.4.,2001 fl[5]..[7] t-'On::rril?rn ' 0: '..M-J/W 12% Increase p.s. fl[6].43813L Mifurnurrj cnce 12% increase r.cij.-; cf i..-:,;:;.-,,;:.: i •-c[1]..

22. B.20(n.. 'fUJ;:•! r-:rn r-, -uf >. ^ •.. <:io.43ei •: •. r rrr-• •?-; ' • ^ri or i,.i,: ' "11% - r -f 271L20Q[3] t;;.[1] --i:- • L. risii:i;;•,. • •. •; i: •• ••:• •• 111:.:h.;:2c.?i:-i: - f !.:i.A,, \.k •• • llr rrr. ^vv-r?sv.f:-i •:/••• 'C.£: C. '• 15,::1.[2] 1l.[1] •- r-.- -.... i.,..• !- !l i V M^-rrr;. ^-r pr of 1,4,20:11; f 1611904[2]: M!null urn; a Cat. 11^ i:05.[7] Car.. 01# - - 1Cat 112,[3] ^Mihilmurn orica as;of 1.4imoi. of. 1,4.2001 vOO-:.; 12% increas'^;: qj?. ^ 219., 1370 5 • vor liini'ferm - -Ccfieg'&ry, f4iniFnum price as of 1.4.20Ci v^?th LA,App.«o,266/200'g &. comiected matefEi Page 3i of 74, m Snalipiir Shatajii' Gsirhi lo.",, S¥-fl.5-.[7] 23JT20C)2"' "Mifilroifni -piT Cat./A= fl[5].[7] Minimum oric-s as of 1.4:2Cr01 fl[7],Z53€5. ice 3s -©f-^rT«0-et--withcompound Interest f® 11.5% p.a. fl[7],.79781. M^nirvium pries S'S of;L[4],2uD[1] With co^mpcijnci interest; @ 1:l57o p.E-. I

20. i ncvv i":-::;njD-v;:s£2./-:;:: NSsirTVSC: i-?:nc- 0v';:-'iprs E;;C; tM'-.: 2. 3v.; lU'Ciad 2;, 2V:;:' 2-u::ir;: as 'MitPC- 2\ ijsras j:.C to IS 2"ilp-erta-i^ric: c.,.- ti'i'S;;?rr:;: 'Siia pi-i"? 3 s.c-y'/e: u:er[2]::i'--:ira;

21. •'MTt sp,,;:p:.c;-"t::;'--i;;;P\::;:2.ipi or. •;•••:€: 'I:®:;:.Pf, E v ' ^••; c:i;-. i,••1 Ciiiit::::: P '?;:5,3,' il 3;?r" P uri,:•;? ^:;J 2 2,i• '-v••• i/2:::• aacea Z[5].4.2;P22 ms per ^2;:Pr: 2--r 12;,;;: P:>r'r:-;j" i:;':>r^as tc- 22£:275 par -'icre enp t:"/e iap:cM- p:;^ ''6?,422 r;Pcns per PC:--P "niP 2;;:arnr -i FP:Pare''-rc: CGr;:. has rp^?y::crs t:hp.[2] ii^rpift; c'epcis as rp2ab:p pv!c2^p.v::;p ro c[2]:p:prrr: fair maP'-rri s-p;y.e rrf pp;yciii[2],r-c;i 'iarpcis. "2>r- cji 2rr;i:. r2i2yrMBa 'questhjr; cs'' fnp rprBiSonrny th&t tira ssip clepc? 2r,22vp,;,;2 pr:a£ purchasep 2^y j ^''eng[2]:)i...iS trust p) 'tha na-!Tis o-f "-raai^ia 5'r-;a-rr Sstssrpp rrrc: y:r-p:; Hriaa iFp:P-2 VMa:;;, nap rePCMsrprii t2s sa?e. da-aa in evidence, while ijepcsing in CoiPt In L/M[2] Mp/5y/2tHj[5] fiaa stated that to his kmrnledae tlic; isncl was purchased for rs^^yicus pyrppaaparr[2] vva bphw;:! yaed for a rehcaa^^s pi.irpass. The; sale deed t>L?SN-lf[2] has i\¥:&mse been he^a nca to oe "2^i3l5I^'ev1cia'nce^ to'"cletemwie fair H s/bIus of agricaltarai lands on tne reasoning §t vvas purchaseo by a ?PDa (P:>varTi-ra.ant Ore•wazar^on "Christian OrganiaatSon^^' a/'O aa aar t2a tsst^w^-::ap LA..Apy.r-.;o.,i;2a/;a:'jQS coauected matters PKg.s32oa?4 -iiof PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated ted to p..^....the^n£e;:fexJ:he. said 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 heid in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717. Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. l/s. Isti Rohini & Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 RaUfuddin l/'s. Land Acouisition Officer (Refer para-13) saie 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 saie deed to determine the market value" of !and jn an area for the reason there may be special clrcumstarsces which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a we!! informed willing- buyer would pay to- an equally,we!i 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. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated. 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kaian was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for'a much-leaserprice i.e. fl[7],74,109/- per-acreas against the price which comes to f63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-l/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds •Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App,No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 33 of1': n themselves are having intrinsic evldence_of the tancsful price -arrct'ex^facie destroy eacti ottreT: ••• "23. Tt[U5/ apartrrfcan—the ' reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be adiiijLLO-nal reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair 4:s:i4!tet-value-jof_sub-iect_Iattds.xan....be,.dfitenT)lned -and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area,'it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on- sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer.' \ would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.LS.Dahiya being the decision dated 19.12.2008-disposing of a batch of appeals,'lead matter-being. LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs 1/5. UOTEs Ors. It -was highlighted tli^the sale deed "therein which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good..evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by. the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of.the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and 'thus even in the instant cases the 2 safe deeds in question i.e. Ex..PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market 'value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 Wherein the Division Bench, did' not accept the value in the safe deed on its own -logic, as indicative of the market value, but'~touim'~that if the price therein v/»/as reduced by the price arrived at would be the same as' LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 34of74 would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate d the.saie deeds produced by the Union of India Le. the safe deeds: produced by the Government were giving a price of fl,37,000/per bsgha-and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the..price53,26,600/- per bigha and the^verage vvoyld. ••-mffle--tQ-^273i76-0S/=--which mm~ near atiout tlTe price of f[2],15,160/- per"bigha, If 1/3''^ would be deducted from the sum of f[3],26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment, the year of the sale was'1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 -and-the Court determined fair market vaiue 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 meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. • 1. 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 mutya!l|/ destructive evidence of the 2 sale.deeds reflecting fair market• value.-

24. • Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above^ is rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended ifmb of the argument that afcer accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to vlHage---^4arela,"'in •vie¥/ of the decision in Dharambir's case 9^ Isupra}•, land""pTlc¥Should be suitably'^Wan'ced.would be dealt with by me Bf the^nd-wli.en.i determine the-fair--Dmckgt4/31ye of iands for the villages in question.

25. The second -argument, contours whereof are- to' be^ found In para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA. A,pp;No.266.-''2008 & connected matters Page 3Sof.74 m Courf on the.issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La/ Chand vs. UOL 26, • But before that I must -hsghlight that the decision in LM [^-.xase (supra) predicated a claim.on a.DBA.broGhure w.hereunder, on iease-hofd basjs, residential plots were allotted !... for residential housing schem.e-,.and •th-e-argument'was being •considered for fixation of-fair market value of agricultural- lands, in village Rithaia, where further lands v^ere acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agriGulturai lands in village Rithaia are situated within the 'V formed by I^H-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road.

27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agficultura]' 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:- "Wh&thBF the DDA btQchuf&.m relevant ewidmnce?

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

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│             SL No. Plot size     Category           Rate (per square metre)                 │
│ %           i.       26 sq m.     Economically weaker sections          -Rs 100             │
│                    ^^—            imm" • ".                                                 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│             2.       32 sq m      Low income group (LIG)                Rs 125              │
│                      48 SQ-m      j ow inconie-qrnup_XLlG)              Rs 1.5.CL     ._.   │
│            ~4T~'' SQ.s.q 'm       Middle income group (MIG)             Rs 200 •            │
│             5.    90 sq m         f\4idd!e income gro'up (rv1IG)        Rs-200 •            │
│      LA..App.No.266/2008 & coimected matters                            Page 36 of 74 •     │
│                                                                 2011:DHC:18691              │
│       The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre                                   │
│       which is the average of the said pFWi^iona! rates, should                             │
│       be taken as iodicative of the ruling market price.                                    │
│       12.       On-careful consideration, we are of the view that                           │
│       such allotrnent rates of plots adopted by development                                 │
│       authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of                               │
│       compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for                                 │
│       several- reasons. Firstly, market value has to be                                     │
│       determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped                              │
│      agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment                              │
│      rates, of development authorities are with reference to                                │
│      small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area.                           │
│      Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities ado.pt                                   │
│      dsTferent rates for plots in the same area with reference to                           │
│      the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to                             │
│      asceilain the real market value, whereas .market value                                 │
│      determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not                                 │
│      depend upon the economic status of the land loser.                                     │
│      ihirdiy, we are concerned with market value of-freehold                                │
│     •fain^--w1weasthe allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure                                 │
│      refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots                             │
│      on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three                                    │
│      factors.                                                                               │
│      First fact&r                                                                           │
│      13.     The percentage of "deduction for develooment" 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' -Js with reference to the area                                  │
│      required to be utilised for developmental works and the                                │
│      secoiad is the cost of. the development works. ^For                                    │
│      example, if•a residentiaMayout .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 Tacilities),                                │
│      15.-- the deve.lopinent authority will also .incur                                     │
│      considerable ^ expenditure      for    development     of                              │
│      undeveloped land into a developed layout,, which includes                              │
│    • the cost of levelling the land, cost, of providing roads,                              │
│ LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters                   Page 37 of74                        │
│                                                                      2011:DHC:18691         │
│      underground drainage and sewage facifities'/Taylrig water                              │
│      iines, eiectricity lines and developing parks . and .cMi                               │
│                                                                  -tlie                      │
│      developed plot. The two factors taken together would be                                │
│      the "deduction for development" and can account for as                                 │
│      much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.                                         │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

58. Thus, if ?17,74,109/^,| roun ' acm woTrtd^beTne price~^ror a ied off to til.lb lakhs per ry 'enaTTcrrn-vlllage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighti ng that the sale deed Ex.F<-2 LA.App.No.266/2008. & connected matters admittedly pertains to a.Catego y.'C land, the price for Category 'B' land would be Jakhs per acre and for akhs per acre. g a little further it assumes importance that as-per the minimum price notified by the Government as;of •1.4.2000 the per and as of,1.4.2001 the same iwas ^ •percentage increase between the^ye i treat Category !A'. land price|at i?l based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, ded Category 'A' land would be ^18.655

59. • Taking the logical reasonin acre price was ?13..82 lakhs 15.[7] lakhs per acre i.e. the ar was 11.5% per annum, if 3.655Hakhs as of 20.5.2002 jcting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.20pi would come to- approximately fl[6].40. lakhs per acre and this \ contrasted with the minimum price vould highlight that when notified by the Government at ?15.[7] lakhs per acre as of jl.4.2001, the price differential is t70,000/- per acre i^e. 4A6%i:S.in •i achieved while determining falf marl':e exactness can never be:et value of a large chunk of land with reference to. a few sale deeds where small parcels of thin a colony, the size, the of land would vary the price 0 highlight is that even the fair index as per which the are sold for the reason even w location, the frontage etc. of a piece •by plus or minus 5%. iWhat I.wish t sale deed in, question yields tq us a minimum price notified by the Government has an'element of rationality and- acceptability, jit ne though under normal circumstances is normally not held good" Wi^ericel: date prior thereto but: hnay be Usec land price on.subsequent •date/ fc paiticular date is the result of vario having already impacted the l^hd;pr to fathom the existence of linarket forces/conditions walkinq backwards. But, in the instahtica LA.App.No.266/2008 & coimected mattei's' eds to be highlighted that a sale on a particular date rwoi1< ouT;^laTdl. price on a as evidence to determine r the^ reason a price on a us, market forces/conditions ice and it would be difficult e, with reference to the 5 ^ p^dflcatla«s--dat©d-J^nr2Q-G,•= - J-O-Ot—• 2-Z.8.2001 and 7.12.2001, the differential peHod is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5;20p[2] and thus in the peculiar d in question, which itself India as an evidence of would be. a relevant piece it -while 'tJetermining the tes 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, Narela had always been facts of the instant case, the sale dee has been projected by the lJnipn;of market value of land as on said hate, of evidence to be taken into accou. market' value of-.land as on the de 2.5.2001,-22.(3.2001 and 7.12.2001. 60, The argument that village treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of Narela was in existence sincejiong when, pursuant to a notification] issue and this was recognized d in the year 1963, vis-avis the •adjoining villages f[2]. per square yard price advantage vvas given to lands in village Narela in DharambiYs case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational, advantage was keeping in view; the.'realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanizatiiDn 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. I thus hold- tha;t, pertaining l:o the notifications dated 7.8.2000., 11,9.2000, 2.5.2001, r22.[8] land prices would- have to be c|etern minimum price' notified by the; G ' reference to the saje deed dated 25.[5] no other cogent evidence wherefrom could be determinea'.' otted development which i.e. the area with which 1 2001 and 7.12,2001 the lined on the basis of the Dvernnnent as also with.2002 for the reason ! find Pertaining"! 16.5.2002, 23.5:2002 and 27.1.^003,determined with respect to the sa ' I and price as on said dates D^fhe notifications dated the land price needs to be e deed dated 25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters; g)::b-ecays-@- -wltli' fefei=en€e^ t-e^he -s-aB-sSe• land price as of said date comes toimore respect to the notification dated 19.8.[2] land price notified was ?15.[7] lal<l)s per' acre with effect from 1.4.2001. •; i.' •

62. With respect to the pricei,differential for Category 'A' and Category 'B'. lands., noting, that pertaining to the said CXTTCer determined with 001 wherein minimum notifications categorization has been don land acquired in village Pooth Khurc (pertaining to the notification dated'2 ' i. Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Ali notification dated 22.8.2001) r.liold that 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 byi 2.5% fnr Category'B'. land. g[3]. Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Categc prices would marginally' increase ^ in substantially in the other,.a striking mo e only pertaining to the and Holambi Kalan Z.8.2001 only), Village 3ur (pertaining to the 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, 23.512002 pertain ng to village Holambi jCalan wherein the learned Re'feren(ie:.Court has determined the fair market value at ?22,14,23,900y- per acre as of 23.5.2002, --btrt hieed t(j^rTtg"ht1ght'ttrat pertaimng tcr:the same notification ^ "^ated 23.5.2002 in relation to Village Alipur the learned i^eference Court has determin-ed+the- fair market value at pertaining to village he notification dated for Category 'A' lands ?17,85,240/- per acre and 1 find/that • • j • i • Rajapm-Kalan and Sanoth/'pertaitTl|ng~i 27.1^2^3 the fair market value assessed is fl[9],16,040/- in some cases and fl[9],13,760/-. in a few, meaning thereby that much: lesser> worked out in the.year 2003 vis-a-vis' out for Hoiambi Kalan pertaining t the compensation • has been the compensation worked the. notification dated abrasion. is that in said in Galrai's case (supra) as eased at the rate of 12% 23.5.2002 and the reason for notificptioh th.e land price deternijned of 15.11.1996 has been taken and incr per a n n u m co m po u nded.

64. With. reference to the! noti wherein with effect from' 1.4.2000 mi Pication dated 9.8.2001 limum price notified per acre is ?13.82 lakhs and requirjing said price to be suitably updated to reach the.date of the notification i.e..7,8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed! dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category''C'lands; land price per acre comes to.fl[7],74,109K rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre,.and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2^5% the price comes to t^l[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further, increasing byj 2.5% the prices comes to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in viliage Poolh Khui'd comes to ^'14.75 lakhs per acre and.decreasing the: same by 2.5%, it comes,to f14,38,125/'- per acre for. Category^;'B' learned Reference Court ihas, wit|hoUt'.with Category 'B'. lands and i uniftprm price awarded is fl[4],37,280/- per acre, the price^dlfferentiai worked out by me ^comes to a meager ?1,000/- per^^cre^ aid thus-qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amoont awarded t^y the learned Reference Court. •. ^: • ••

65. All Land. Acquisition App.dals filed by the Union of India and cross obje.ctions wherever filed fc' LA.App.No.26.6/2008 Sc connected:matters lands. Noting that the any reasons, done away y Union of India in the Pa.ge 59 of 74 '.x" appeals filed by land owners iit respect whereof.grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' he?einabove are dismissed. 66..• All Land.Acquisition Appeals, fl'led by the land owners and cross-objectjons filed iby the lbnd'owners in^ appeals filed by.Union of India are allowed by deci'eeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village'Pooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of 1^;.4.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the i compensation awarded at f14,37,280/- per acre is. maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain; to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.,.- 67." • Pertaining "to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as Der the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1^5.,(/D/.2001 (93) DLT 569 s.hai! be granted, except for the period [ _ • where there is a delay in filing the appee i' which period'of delay no interest on the shall be paid. These appellants Ior cr entitled to proportionate cost. Village HoJanibLKalait-Motification.d

68. For the reasoning: given in paras 64 to'67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (sanrie) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, ali -appealsi as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensation to fl[4].75 lakhs pef; acre per the award.and even as per the ref al or cross objection, for enhanced compensation OSS objectors would be ate.d 7.8:2000 and 1 highlight that as ^rence all subject lands - were of uniform category. l\?eedless to state af3peals filed by the 2ver filed are dismissed, d owners are allowed by fakhs per acre- together Acquisition Act 1894 as Union of India and cross objectiohsrwher Appeals and cross objections filed by:Ian enhancing the compensation to ?14.75 with statutory benefits as;per the'Land explained in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. UP/-2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where, there is a delay in filing appeal or crtjss objection, for which period of delay no ation shall be paid.. These be entitled to proportionate interest on the enhanced compens; appeilants or cross objectors would cost. Villeqe Bawan'e

69. Pertaining to village! Bawana,.,xelatinq to the same dated:!.8,2000 notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court has not enhanced the compensatior, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A';"land[5] is fixed at tl4J[5] lakhs pet acre and for Category.'B' lands at fl[4],38,125/- per. acre and noting'that Union of India has; neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRlD-C hereinabove are allowed by fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and needless to. state on the enhaihced compensation the appellants shali be e-ntitled to',statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the pudgn i/a/-2001 (93)'.DLT 569, except for delay in filing the appeal, foriwhici- ! • on the enhanced compensatidin shall be paid. These appellants would be'entitled to proportionate cost. Viilaae Khera lCiiura:l'l6tification dated 11.9-2Q.Q0 dtification dated 9.8.2001 minimum price notified per requiring said price to be suitably •updated' to reach tjhe date of the^ notification i.e.,11.9.2000 and with referencejto the sale deed dated 25.5.200^ wh'erein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to

70. With.''reference to the wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 acre is fl[3].82 lakhs per acre and lent reported as Sunder Vs. the period where there is a period of delay no interest 75,000/-,. p.er' •acr;e, and for me by 2.5% the price comes Pa.ge61of74..f 17,74,1.05./r.,..--i:o,und.ed... oft tOi^L7^ Category 'B' lands increasing the sa to ?18.[2] lakhs' per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices •-60ffi-e-&—t0-^-8T§-57^G/—p€f— aere-^r—Gateg-ofy 'A--iands; and decreasing the said prices by.1:1% to reflect the price with reference to the saleideed for tihe 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 fl[5],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 _.pjic_e_sla_Qiis__e_oJ2a_nmd_J:a.CLfi-,l&,5Liii}/ri^p.^^

73. Ail Land Acquisition Appeals^as per 'GRID-E' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing corripensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Narela, pertaining to the notification: dated 2.5.2001- in sum of ^16,16,500/- per acre and as! per the reference order for- Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals fiied by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India,as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross, objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. UOj 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters • to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further incn^asing by 2.5% the prices comes to. ^18,65,500/- per acre Tor • decreasing, the said prices by- 11% t ategory •'A' lands; and 0 reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the; date 11.9.-2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' jlands comes to fl[4],83,500/- pen acrejand 2.5%, it comes to fl[4],46,413/" per acre

71. All Land Acquisition Appeals as land owners and cross-objections fileci by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera iChurd pertaining to the notification de fl[4],83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' per'acre for Category 'B' lands. 1 not notification and the village, the Union Df India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as - per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI[7].QQl.m) [)LT 56.[9] shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay i-n filing the appeal, for which period of. delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. ^ Village-Narela Motification dated 2.5.2001 72'. With, reference i to thei notijl 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 fl[4],46,413/-:e that pertaining to this fication dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from'-lT4!2001,, miiin-ium price •notified per acre is tl5J lalchs per acre;and^ requiring, said price to be - ' suitably updated - to reach thef date 2.5.2001 and with reference to the Sc wherein for Category 'C iands^ 'iaii' fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to fl7i75, of the notification i.e. le deed dated 25^5.2002 price per acre comes to 000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing theisamd by 2.5% the price comes LA.App;No.266/2008 & connected matters / interest on the enhanced co:mpe.nsation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. ataon dated 22.8.:

74. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 "minimum price notified per acre is fl[5].70 lal<hs per acite and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the o|ate of the. notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference!to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, la f 17,7.4,109/-, rounded off tO: ?17, Categoiy 'B' lands increasing the sai to ?18.[2] lakhs.per acre and further i comes to Tr[8],65,5.00/- per acre fDr Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the.said prices by liyo -to refteet—the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22:8.2001; the mean average, price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan -wfTremiiTnwttli^-effert-i'iTrnT-^ 1 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:comes to ^16,74,500/- per acre arjd decreasing the same by 2;5°/o, it comes to fl[6],32,637.50 per acre for Category 'Er lands. -Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any 1easons,. done, away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price.awarded is f16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me-comes to a meager f[9],o|oo/- per acre, and thus qua Category 'B' lands l:maintain the amount awarded by the iearned Reference Court.

75. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever.filed by Union of India in the app.eals.filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been •prepared and labeled as 'GRID-P S dismissed.

76. All Land Acquisition Appeal 'GRID-G' hereinabove are by th e Iand owne rs and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters '. U^iion of. India are alloVved by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village! tiplambi^ Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8;2001 in sum of ?16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the i co fl[6],43,811/- per acre is maintained cross references which pertain to dismissed..

77. •Pertaining to such afipeal stands enhanced sta'tuton/ benefits e mpensation awarded at 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. iZO/2001-•(93i) DLT'569: shaii be grar where there is a delay in filing t|he ap which period of delay no interest on t shall be paid. These appellant' or entitled to.proportionate cost.

78. With reference to the • no wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 n 1 ' ' acre is ?15^/0 lakhs per acre |and suitably updated to reach the dat ted, except for the period peal or cross objection, for ie enhanced compensation cross objectors would be tification dated 9.8.2001 linimum price notified per "equiring said price to be e of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 an.d with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands^, lane price per acre comei to.fl[7],74,109/-, rounded ioff to- ?17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the Sam e by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per- acre and further incfreasing by 2.5% the prices e. for Category 'A' lands; and 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed foH the date• 22.8.2001; the mean comes to fl[8],65,500/~i per ac decreasing the said pitices by average price for Category---.A^lahds;, I• fl[6],74,500/- per acre and decreasi comes -to ?16,32,637.50 per acfje.for. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters; in village Ali Pur comes to ig the same by 2.5%, it Category 'B' lands. Noting tfrat th rn encH:Cqudt.Sas,-4Aith&yt any fea.-sons, done away, with Category 'B' lands atid, uiliform price awarded is 116,43,811/- per acre,..the price-differintial worked out by me gornes to a..meager ?9,000/- per acre a lands I maintain the amount avVarded I; I Court.,. _ ' I

79. All Land A.cquisition Appelals fil in respect whereof grid has been firdpar H' hereinabove are dismissed. ! npte tr filed any;app.eal challenging the decisior

80. • There shall be no order as to cobts.

81. With reference to the.notif wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 min acre is fl[5].70 lakhs.per acre and rec suitably updated to reach the bate 22.8.2001 and with.reference to the sal wherein for Category 'C ilands, l^nd p id thus qua Category 's' y the learned Reference 2d by the Union- oMndlaed and labeled as 'GRIDat land owners have not 1 of the Reference Court. cation dated 9.8.2001 mum price notified per uiring- said price to be of the notification i.e. e deed.dated 25.5.2002' rice per acre comes to fl[7],74,109/-,-rounded Off to fl^,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the s'ame 1 to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and furtheHincre •comes to fl[8],65,500/-• per acre ^for C decreasing the said prices by 11% tc reference to the sale deed for tile 6a\ 5y 2.5% the price comes 9si:ng by 2.5% the prices ategory. 'A' lands; and ' reflect the price with e 22.8.2001; the mean ^e_rag.e_.Qj:ice.-.fox.-Categoi':y 'A'.faf^^ifl--v-^ttege-H-0te-mbi-l^hurd comes to fl[6],74,500/- per acre and decreasi.ng the same by ( 1.5%, it comes to.fl[6],32,637.,.50^.pen..acr[5]..for Cci.tegory 'B' lands. ^oring"'Tfi'^" the l^rhed iReference Court Tias, without any •reason.5_,_..d-0-£Le awa^/.. with'Categ^M^/•'B' lands -and- uniforiri price awarded is^'16,43,811/- per acre,^the price differential worked per acre and thus qua out by me comes to a meager ^:9,000/ LA.ApiD.No.2.65/2008 •&. connected matters any appeal challenging'the'decisipn of 83.. There shall be no order:as to G ' • •. Village Rafapur Kalan E^otifkatio

84. With reference to the - not wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 mi Xatefliiry ".''B'..lands' i intam4th^ arn-ouot—awa^^d-ed •by •the • learned Reference Court.;

82. The appeal filed by the. Union of India in respect • •whereof.grid has-been prepared and labeled as 'GRlD-l' hereinabove is dismissed. 1 noteithat land owners have not filed the Reference Court, osts. n dated L2001 fication dated 9.8.2001 nimum price notified per acre is fl[5].70 lakhs per acre, and requiring said' price to be suitably updated to reach thej date of the notification i.e. 22,8.2001 and withTeference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, jiand price per acre comes to fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to' ^17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the^sanriei by 2.5% the-price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further incr comes to f18,65,500/- per acre for decreasing tlie said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean ands average price for Category 'A' i comes to -fl[6],74,500/- per acre 2.5%, it comes to fl[6],32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the' learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with. Category 'B'j lands and uniform price awarded is fl[6],43,811/- per'acre,,.thel price differential worked outJay. me. comes to a meager^9,0QD!/~..perjrm^ thus qua Category 'B' lands 1 maintain ithe -amount awarded by the and learned Reference Court. • I

85. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the casing by 2.5%.the prices Category 'A' lands; and in village' Rajapur Kalan decreasing the same by:a/ia{iLeais:-fiied by iBnd;o¥/TrerrS"i7i"i"e5pect"whe r<e0^-g#e!-lms-beeH prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereina

86. All Land Acquisition Appeals fi bove are dismissed.. ed by the land Qwners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by.decreeinc for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur compensation payable Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum Of ^16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands, the corapi fl[6],43,811/- per acre is maintained; anc cross references which pertain ito Ci. i ciismissed. •.

87. Pertaining to such appeal' wft stands enhanced statutory"benefits as p Act 1894 as explained in the judgimeht UOi 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be. granteci, except for the period where there is a delay in filing thelappeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the shall be paid. These appellants:;or cn: entitled to proportionate, cost.; -. -Viliacie Sanoth Motificaten:'dated 7 j[2].2Q0l,,. With reference to the notifi wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 min ensati.on awarded at d thus such- appeals or ategory 'B' lands are ere the compensation er the Land Acquisition reported as Sunder Vs. enhanced compensation Dss objectors would be lation dated 9.8.2001 mum, price notified per.acre is ?15.70 !akhs; per 'acre an|d Tequiring sai^ price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.t:. /.12.2001 and with reference to.the:sale deed dated 25.5.2002: I wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to f17J[4],1Om--_r_ouMed. Dfrto~f17,75_^QQ.Q/- per acre, and for Category 'B! lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to f^l[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further|inci"easing by 2.5% the prices c&m-es-to'?lSi65,500/- per acre ifor C decreasing the said prices by 11% to ategoP)^' 'A' lands; and reflect the price with Page 68 of74 date 7.12.2001; the mear r reference to the sale deed for the average price for Category 'A"lands ^17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that a in village Sanoth comes to II lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value 1 hold that for. acquired lands \i village Sanoth for the notification.dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of ?17,29,500/-.

89. All Land Acquisition Appeals and cross objections wherever filed appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and. labeled as 'GRiD-K' hen^inabove are dismissed.

90. Ail Land Acquisition Appeal^ filed by the land owners filed by the Union of India by Union of India in the and cross-objections filed by the lane owners in appeals filed b Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of fl[7],29^500/- and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits-as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOi 2001.(93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or period of delay no interest on the en be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled 1• to proportionate cost.; j ••Villade Slialip.ur Garhi;MQtif!bation dated 16.5.2002 91.' Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by rne herelnabove the land price would.have to be determined with reference to.the sale deed datfed 20i[5].2002 and for which land ! price for Category 'A'.lands has been determined by me 3.t r cross objection, for which nanced compensation shall ?18,65,500/- per acre and since the days between, the date of sale and that for the notification in question owners are entitled to compensation LA.App.No.266/2008 8cconnected matters' -e is just a difference of 4 the notification I maintain dated- 16.5.2002 the land at the rate of ?18,65,500/per acre and ! highlighfthat as per the al! lands are in the same category: App filed by the land ownersi as per jthe'' needless to state on, the enhanced owners would be entitled'to..all istatutory benefits as per the I • • • i Land Acquisition Act 18,94 • as Interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 200lh(93) such appeals or cross objections filed there is delay, ho interesti would be pai Proportionate costs stand awarded. objections filed by Union of India aire dis award a h d'TlTe' refe re nee als and;cross objections 3RID-L' are allowed and compensation the land DLT 569 except that in by land owners where:l for the period of delay. Appeals • and cross missed. ¥cPla€se Shaiipyr IMQtiflcatlon deterf 233„2

92. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 i pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the i sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days 1 hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the. land owners v\/ouid be entitled to compensation at the rate of \18,65,500/~ with statutory benefits as per the Land I Acquisition Act 1894 as-interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder l/s. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 ex|cept in. such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest -would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All;such apjpeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRiD-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and ail appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed.

93. As, noted by me pertaining tcj), the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Holarnbi Kalan ail lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition Coji.ector and the -iearned Refere Reference Court.has avyarclexl.. c f22;i[4],239/- per acre, which |! have found to be excessive _ • • 1 inasmuch as for.the date 23.5.2002 \ have held that fair markei: value would be-65,500/-, per acre and thus all appeals and ice Court. The learned nitinpimaMnn in sum ^oJl wners as per 'GRID-N' are ejections filed by Union of cross objections filed by the land o dismissed and appeals and cross o India are allowed by modifying,the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to fl[8],65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, ice with reference to the granted stand maintained. with reference to the enhanced pri •award the statutory benefits already i No costs. i Village Ala Pur Motifacati^n dated.23.5.2002

94. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur,'.for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and fair nnarket valise payable at fi[8],65, appeals and.. cross.objections:filed 'GRlD-0' are dismissed and ali appea by land owners as perisaid Griid are allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to ?18,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acqui the judgment reported; as Suri'der \/ Shahpur Garhi 1 determine 500/- per acre and thus all by Union of India •as per s and cross objections filed 5ition Act as interpreted in 5,. UOf 2001 (93) DLT.569 shaii be- paid save and. except in such appeals or cross objections where there iis a delay, interest would not be paid fofthe period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Village Sanotli Moliiflcati m dated '27.1.20iQ[3] 95.. Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the •. I land owners and Union of India ias per 'GRID-P' pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sandth, I nqte LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected,matters Page 7,[1] of74 that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has pjaced the lands in 3 categories and I find that! the'learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation.; -;

96. •On the mean:average|basis which 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 -^prre—wlt-{r^r-efer^'rce—tc) the..sale de^ dated 20.5.2002 and •taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to ?19,43,500/-- jDer; acre and^fOr ^tegory. '1' land the.price comjs to fl[8],94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to flS,47,539.68: per acre. 1find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly deteirmined fair market value at fl[9],13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners thej same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'E ' and,Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appealsj and cross objections tiled by I Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' cross objections filed by land^ownei lands are allowed by decreeing conipensation payable in sum oi fl[9],43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced I compensation statutory benefits as per the Land /Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgmervt reported as Sjjnd^VsuJOl 2001 (93). DLT 569 sITali; be paljd say^^^ except in such appeals and cross objections whdre there is a delay, interest would hot be paid for the period of|delay. Proportionate co^ts well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to. Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by finefUfyi-Pfg—the-H--elats-b!e the -Reference Order &y reducing the compensation' for Category • 'B' land to are dismissed. Appeals and rs pertaining to Category 'A' -fl[8],94,9p.5Q per acre and | for Category 'C land f: 47,559.68 per acre. ' 27/1.[2]

97. For parity.of.reasoning ab per para 96 above pertaining to village Sanoth, similar fcorreitive action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to.notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Raja 3ur Kalan and where I find that the learned Reference.Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of n[9],13-765/- per acre and in some cases at fl[9],16,040/- per acre b^ treating all lands of uniforrri category.. On the^ rnean-average basis which I have been following by increasing thelpricejas of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issuedi'by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated i 20.5.2002 and,taking the nrjean average, for Category 'A' iands^ -the pn^--eom-es--tcr-f-1974[3],-5-00/^per'aer-e-^rrd for Category 'B' land the price comes to fl8/94,9l|2.5Q per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to fl[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 to i.' • _ Category 'B' and Category 'C lainds 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 objections as.per 'GFUD-Q''. are dismissed. Appeals and cross ! objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 7A' lands ! • are allowed by decreeing;' com!:|)ensation payable in sum of fl[9],43,-500/-' per acre and-'needless"tD''^a[1]:e-0Ti--the enhanced i compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition /Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s, UOi •2001--(-96-)—D'cT—56'9—is-imll: 43-©—s-ave—afld--.except in sueh appeals and'cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters. not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cros[5];Objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category-'B' and Categ|ory 'G' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in' the.Reference •Order by -F0d-y-E!-R-§ ifh-e eo-Fn-p-eRsa-ti-si-n"—^-foi^-^Categdry" 'B' Icjnd ^18,94,912,50 per acre and for • Category 'C 'land' fl[8],47,539.68 per acre. I i!IIj a?.BADEE AUGUST 23l„ LA.App.No.266/2008 Si connected mattersj. ^ iil NAMDimjOG) JUDGE to to