Union of India v. Mahavir & Anr

I. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Rajapur Kalan were acquired the reasoning and the fair market value determined, by the learned L^Cand the learned Reference Court: is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd and Alipur save and-except in this village the acquired land was of uniform category. •I- Pertaining to the notification dated 7.12.2001 pursuant whereto 222.05 bigha land was acquired in village Sanpth for laying a 80 meter approach road to IMarela township, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed compensation uniformly in sum of n[5].[7] lacs per acre which is the same as per the policy for minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the learned Reference Court has adopted the same price and given appreciation for 250 days at 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 agriicumjrarrands in Delhi, let rhe therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same woul^be ' relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- - LA.App.No.266/200S &connected matters Page 20 of74 - Effective Dote P-flee— ' % increase per annum IMotlfication 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] 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 j89.51

8. From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would- be apparent that after minimum price was last fixed w.e.f. 27.4.1990 in sum of. ?4.65 lakhs/acre it v^as increased after nearly 7 years to flO 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 \/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lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to fl[2].32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to ^12.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% -PgJ Qnnum with reference to the pri^e determined as of _L[4].1998 and vide same notification the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to fl[3].82 lakhs/ar e i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis the previous I.e. ^12.16 !akhs/acre and.w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-^-vis the previous price of ?13..82 lakhs/acre to p\ enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to>17.584 lakhs/acre whi^h gives us •3n-iTtcrease^Tn3r[2].y«% per annum and then the price rose to f53 lal<hs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annum with reference to the base figure of 717.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30,8.2005. 3^: BBfiice_notiqg-,the--evidenGe relied upon by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court, it would be beneficial for the reader of the present decision, as ! feel, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted i would higf>light that from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the alternative and it was urged that they would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, failing -Which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by the ^ iearned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kaian; the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5.2001 for village Narela; and the notification dated 22,8.2001 for village Ali Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Kaiari and Sanoth treats as if a!i lands were of uniform character and it ^Jirge_l tjTatxQiTective_artion lax by doing 2things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to ^e, 11.5%:increase per annum and TJer-aTTTTnnT^increase-w-as excessive~with reference to the dat^.^the notifications under Section^fthe Land Acquisition Act 1894; requiriiig the same to be reduced to 10% per annum in tTie least. Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not justified in treating ail lands as of the same character and thus. LA.App.No,266/2008 & connectedmatters, Page22 of74 r requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by the Land Acquisition Coiiector and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C, on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed, by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.

10. Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference Court: was not justified In ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as aiso deeil date 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] iaichs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 binder Ex.PW-1/3 would be ^28.89 iakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be T53.478 lakhs/acre, ft was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds v\fould be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000,.11.9.2000, 2,5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended Hmb of this argument, pertaining to village Narefa, it was urged tha'^. the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learn r^d counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page23 - and for which the argument was that when~ in the ^mst,pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural lancis in.village l^amurpur- Narela by.giving a-price benefit of f2/- per sq.yd.. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6,8.1987 In C.A.Mo.4405/1997 UOf vs. Dhdrsmbir & Ors. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in.sum of ?6,650/determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to ?16,750/- per,bigha by the Reference Coui"t which was enhanced to =22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this 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 Reverence Court, having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted m areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, required fair market value to be deterrhined with respect to the price at which DSIDC and DDA;i.e. the implementing agencieS; which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate and for which learned counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which 1 would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged. "

12. Aiteniative to the second suhmission, 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 -i?s. Unlo/r of India, it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the fand 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, worked upon by learned counsel, 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 per annum with reference to the base price ?16J50/- per as of 30.10.1953 I.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court In Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per armum til! 31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various dates vtfheh the 8 notifications under Section 4. of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with —which L-am.concerned. in.±he present/appeals.. So v^^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, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 and 23.5.2002., ^3' The fourth argument advanced was, and for which -pefer-ence was made by iearffed-coung^j for the parties in the evidence led in LAC iS!o,99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.Mo'.258/2008 filed by the land Dwners - and LA.APP.No.292/2008 filed._by UnioQ__otJndia, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annuaiizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 2S of74 testimony of Ram K-tstorr to the effect that by selling aqncuitural to earn fl lakh per bigha 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 land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be-^20 lakhs per bigha., I 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.Kahg, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for each of the notification in question the fair market value ought to iiave been determined with reference to the notification which was closest in point of time whprp under minlmnm 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 27.1.2005, dealingwjth 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],^,e#0/-, determined the fair market value as per tiie-said sale deedlfiThe foilowing'words: (Refer oara 17 of the decision dated 7.l.20W4a4AC-No,U7-A/2Q09}: 'If we add stamp dW/-in— the saie price ^3,69,906/- j2er__bighB ^5,39.690/- -f 70,160 = 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comestoxl[7],74,109/per acre or \3,68,906/- per bigha. Further if we give 22% LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters' Page 2S of 74. OJ) increase on said amount for Intervening period between the^ date when the sale deed Mas^.executed—^nd the date of notifkintioh u/5 4 (20.05,2002 to 27.01.2003) I.e. 8 months it comes to X19037/- (round offX19J[6].040/-)," The argument was that ifwe 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 which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land.was put in Category '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 and that page No.56-57 of "the award.would evidence that TarTd comprised in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in Category. 'C. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of T15.[7] lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ?1.[7] lakhs per acre for Category '8' lands, fair market value determined whereof was ^14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another xl.l lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value determined whereof was ?12.[3] lakhs per.acre, it would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed In question, the same had to be forXategory 'C lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price had to be increased by Xl.l lakhs 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 ! need not repeat the same.

17. (n various sub-paras of para b heretnabove, I iiave capsuled the reasoning ofthe learned Land Acquisition G-oiteetef- -snd-th^4eamed-Refe«fi€e-Gewt 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-reasonjng of Jhe learn Land Acquisition Collector-and the learned Reference Court as per various subparas,of para'6 above.

18. But before dealing with the arguments 1 nei highlight various anomalies which strike the reader at the outset. The same would be;-

19. Since [ am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition A::t 1894, ! think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant,LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters "I^acfe wTilch: w.oald.he my. data for furthei^aaalysis. Put in a tabular form the data would.be as unden- Village Pooth Khurd Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan Bawana Khera Khurd Narela Date of Section 4 Notification 7.8.2000 7.8.2000 22.8.2001 23.5.2002 7.8.2000 11.9.2000 2.5.2001 LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Cat; 'A' n[3].82 Cat. 'B' n[2].26 Minimum price of 1.4.2000 a[3].82 of 1.4.2000. Cat. 'A' n[5].[7] Cat. 'B' T14 of 1.4.2001 n[5].[7] asas as as Cat. 'A' n[3].82 Cat. 'B'n[2].62 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 Cat. n[3].82 Cat. 'B' n[2].62. of 1.4.20m as ADJ compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Cat. Uniform. n[4].3728. of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. n[4].12995. Price as in Gairafs case as of 15.11.1995 with.n[6].43811. of 1.4.2001 with f22.14239. Price:.as in Gajrafs case. as of 15.11.1996 with (com.pounded) No • enhancement given. n[4].40157. of 1.4.2000 with Cat. 'A' n[5].[7] Cat. 'B'n[4] n[5].857. LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters • - '. • All Pur 22.8.2001 Cat 'A' ?15.[7] 'Cat'3-^ f 14 fl[6].43Sll. Nmfmurn once 12% increase p-a. AM Pur •.,23.5.2002 '. '•?17,B324 Wilnh'num pnce r.^: ^ of 1.4.20 HoiambI Khiird ! KBiapur i KE>^Br; u--.; Kc;3:i^ar !. ^ * Ssnol:h Sanotri ij: •22.8.2001 fI[5].?,,:n[6],43811; !-'h"^Mrnurn ofiC'^- 1, -V..c-.'Hj J.; Ot i: -1.[2] • 'i -":• KSC • - - ••- --•• • -.;-. -ii. i'C- i;•;... r;•..• •;: O; 22.[8] 2001 Li "i;:•- •;3.--: i;, -V

1. !•••! 1 •.-•..! > i jf i:-:i:.'/I 121:^ !h.:;-:aC5e -n s-jme U:/;:. •-1 f"'; •• \ 'I '•.•..u, \.k,=.v.'• llr^-'r^rrr. ^:vr-i.:p:.r; - -a:; 25.5.20ul ^ 12vnnc;-aa:;:-i >16.99042, of. 1.4.20C[1] i'dth; 12% increas'^ p.s, i i[7].i.20Q[3] Cet.'A'^ns.r;?19.13i'c[5] for I Cst. 'B' ¥1-4t"- —'-ljitif5FRT "-e3te5-s-ry. Cat. 'C' tl[2].[3] Mk^irnum price as Minimum price- as LA.App.No,266/200S &. connected marars. Shshpuf Sharij;M.ir Garhi 16.5-.2iMji "-rOatv W-fl[5].[7] 23.5.2002 MnIiTrtfm-price' as cat.:A' as.[7] Hinlnium price as of 1.4:2001 fi[7].-7-5-3.6a.-:MwnTmmr~pr'\ce~^f —^472'9^'ir—V¥tch" •compound Interest @ 11,5% p.a. fl[7].79781, - Minimum price &s of 1,4,20D[1] with compotnid interest:: i

20. ^ to U-^6 suD/vas5^/-::i:le^mec couni'ei.-••,: f '-T- V-- ••• > "i • •••. ' ur^iiid 1:;=;::- Un'on as:n uaras 10 to 13 (pe^'tain.n- e,, ti'hi-: c-v^'ner^'; ^:no pair: 3 u:eri:;vvr:i;-v IJrJr.n v: >1 •••.-;;; datsci. ^ina'^ric::i€er '-v- 1/2 whk;'; dacsa 2S.4.20C[1] As per fonTi-a^^ "air:!^a^"'K^n' v?uue for tv^.2: forrrw conges ic t2t:J[5] laKh;? par ricre 3nc: latter @ t6?.478 ^akns per &cr?;:. The ^•earn^:;''J B.^fere^Ke Cg-j^-:. has reiected deeds rel^iab^e evUiaiU:^ tc fair market vaiue of agricuit-rai 5ands. f'>i' ''' •question the r-ea^sonmci that th^ sale d€-eo; t^rPv^-l/S purchased by a reiiglous irrust bv the name of ^Rsciha Swo^Tii, Satsang^ am Bhan rW:Q who riad 'candared the sale eked in evidence,• vvhlie deposing In Court In.LAC UO.QW2Q05 had "stated that to his knowledge the land purchased for being used for a religious purp The sale deed Ex>P¥i-l/2 has Hkewise been hcio not to be T^labi¥Wfa3nce''to"deteFfn^ vsiue of agncuiturai lands on the reasoning it ws[5] purchased by a Non Governroant OrgBnlzat^on ''Cnnstian Organiiatbrr t63t^^"nony LA.App.>.-Cs2(;-6.--10QS & oonnecled matters ?&i4s 32 of 74 of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated -that-the organization had-ta^ay_.thc p_ricedEox_t.b.e 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 held In the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acouisition Officer E/uru & Ors. Vs. fstiRohini &Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acouisition 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 mav 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. I would be failing if ! do.not highlight that the Union of India had.relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated- 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lea ser price i.e. fl[7],74,109/- per acre as against the price which com.es '"to ^63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 33 of1': themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price dud ex-rdcie deslioy each othBr: "23. Ttfus; apHTt from—the reasoning of the Reference Court, with which 1 concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair -maricet4Aal4ieIiDl-subj.&ctJands_can.be. determmed 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 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 batch of appeals, lead matter being. LA-.App.No.193/2006 Pratao SInah (since deceased) thru LRs 1/5. UOI & Ors. It was hiahilahted thM'the sale dee^therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agriculturai 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 eould not be treated as a good..evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but"^^]^ that if the price therein v^as reduced by l/S""^, the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008 &.connected matters "v. would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the.sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the saie deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of ?1,37,000/per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the.p.rice f[3],26,600/- per bigha and the average woyld which was" near at)out ttie price of f[2],15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3''^ would be deducted fronn the sum of 0,26,500/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the nooffcation 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 notto.be read, pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Couri; 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 mutuality destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value. •

24. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and i immediately highlight that the extended limb of the argument that afcer accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to - vliiage-"Mare!a," in view of the decision in Dharamblr's case (SLipra)71and price sTiould be suitably enhanced would be dealt with hy fhp wh^n I determine the 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-/200S Sc connected matters Page 3^ of74 latest pronQuncement of the Supl-emg^^ Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UOI.

26. But before that I must highlight that the decision in La! C/7and'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-^argument was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands, in village Rithaia, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i^e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. 1 highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithaia are situated within the 'V formed by NH-1 and.NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karna! Road and Rohtak Road.

27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultura! 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 trachurB.ls relevant evsdencB?

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: 5!. A/o; Plot size Category Rate (per square metre)

1. 26 sq m Economically weaker sections Rs 100 _ fEWSr.

2. 32 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125 3^ 48 50 Law inconae-qroiiialLlG) Rs iSO„ ~4~ " 60 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200

5. 90 sq m Middle income group (MiG) Rs 200 LA.Ado.No.266/2008 «& connected matters • The appeMants contend that Rs 150 per square metre average of the^nrcf pfwteional rates, should 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 developmeS au^orities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition, of undeveloped lands for several, reasons. Firstly, market value has to be aSPnjlt-'nra^7'^ reference to large tracts of undeveloped agncultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to IX-nnS f, nnA ^'^hin urban area, ° statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value deterniination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. I Z concerned with market value of freehold fant^T Wh^as the aitotment "rates" In the DDA brochure reier to tne Initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We niay elaborate on these three tartrirc:,13. The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made lo 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 layout in which the exemplar plots are situated.

14. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities) etc.. • •, " '

15. The development authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/200S &connected matters Page 37 of74 underground drainage and sewage faciiities, Tayinq water lines and developing parks and civiL c^w{=Hel^-wtmld=4?fe--ab@ttt-35%-Qf-the^akjextfdeveloped plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% ofthe cost ofthe developed plot.

16. On the other hand, If the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of "'^^duGtiafV-^or-devetepment-" may be far less. This is ^ ^ a. 9 i w 4 j f kyw ICil lltid lO because in an unauthorised layout, usually, no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is 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 minima!. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in al! 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA

17. The "deduction for development" with reference to. prices of piots 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 dllTerent. As the industrial plots wili be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq mto 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development wll! also be marginaHy less, with the result the deduction to -be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.

19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. {Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to th^ contrary.)

20. Jherefore the deduction for the "development factor", to be made with reference to the price of a small plot In a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of' undeveloped land, wili be far more than the deduction LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters. Page38 of74 with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is ateo- wefr-jmown that the development cost Incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regai=4-tG 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- —Gum-Gen^meFc4al-G:™^ustfla+; aBd-eveaamong residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community parks and playgrounds provided.

22. Some of. the layouts formed by We statute devel^ment authorities may have farg^ areas earmarked for vi/ater/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 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, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker lections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots nfay be earmarked for persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs lOQ sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be Rs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons belonging to high income groups. ''

24. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HjG, MIG,' LIG and EW[5] may also vary. Ail these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogicai to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the a^lT^7itsTor~afiOtm Third factor LA.App.Nd.266/2008 & connected matters ^ -7=; qnme development authorities allot plots on lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent. lesser prem^ determining he the market value ofthe property^ difficulties referred to

27. However, in to rely upon the above, it is not safe _ reaard to the plots formed sipS'SLSH™ not relevant. •^ ^ c-nhipct has been" discussed by the 2-8--- The evidence on the suDjeci learned Reference Curt and Ireproduce the same by extracting from U^C Reference NO.117A/2009. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court, being the same c.s was • advanced before me. has been noted by the learned Reference court with reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads:v *3 "Ld. Counsel fx»C-tb£_P-etiticiXLersJias fu^^^ •• that DDA &DSiDC allotted plots in pre-determined rate of ?3028/- wnicn ne na i. foirSufr ?ecS?^5l'rS ^m°|t,rin, 70 S,. mS5l^"wS^lfEx'pSe/Tb^^hisand dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC. • page40 of74 LA.App.No.266/2008& connected matters measuring 350 sq. yards at. Nareia Indiistriai CQmplex at the rate of ?65Q sq. metres which is Ex. PW3/1 and another allotment Setter dated 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at ^3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW[9] Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PWll/1, which1s detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost ^^^-d6¥e{opmeRt-per bigha wouki—be—i7§4400000 ^ f248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot In Narela Residential Scheme @ ^3208 would be ^2531408/-per bigha. And if 30% of the totai area utilized for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale Is 70% so.the price of per bigha would come to (25314G[8] - 759422 == 1771986[6] per bigha). And after deducting -development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. fl771986 - 248911 = 1523Q75 per bigha; where as petitioner has been given rate only f[3],27,083/- per Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R.D. Sharma, Asstt. jvianager, DSIDC who has produced documents Ex. PW7/A (Coily). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720525901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1351250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is ^2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area underplots 112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in the year 2000 at which DSiDC sold plot OOOO/- per sq. yards Total earning = f4083750000 Total expenditure T720526901 Total profit = ^3363223099 fe.-Prefit-eomes-to t247U" per "sqryanJ or f247D000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards).and the LAC-has-0aid compefisation @ f3^TO§3-per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of ^142917.per bigha.._ Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ 027083 per LA.App.No.266/2008 8cconnected matters '.. bigha for the land in question if 2Q0% appreciation of the -said-ofice-is-gensklered on Qomas to ?654166. If the amount Is deducted from salp.^ricS-J^er bigha i.e. ^24700000,. the figure cohnes to "<1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." t:—P^QWj—we do not-teve evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate clevelope^ by DSSDC and Nareia 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 noted by the Supreme Court in Laf Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land In the subject cases.

30. It is no doubt true, as held even b^-the-feamed- Reference Court, that with the develcpiment of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Mareia Residentiai Schem.e, 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. ! hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in vlev^!' the obseiVation and the findings of the Supreme Court in La! Chancfs case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, i promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while i shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands.

32. The third submission in the alternative was_ based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in BediRam's case' (supra), and Lhe bubinission is as noted In para 12 herein above^ The land owners require the price determined in Dharamb/Ys case (supra) relating to the notification dated /. • • • LA.App.No.266/2008 &. connected matters Page 42 of74 -3jlJil-lSfi3Jn_SLm3-cx£:£16T750A.p@r-bigJm4o4i4ti44a^ Mamurpur to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum, then by 16% per annum and lastiy by 12% per annum for different periods and tinereby determine the fair marlcet value for the,[8] notifications in question.

33. It be highlighted that in Bedi Ram's rasp (supra), with reference to the base date as of the year 1959, for the year ' 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied, the progressive increase method by firstly • enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finaliy by 12% for the remaining 3 years. I

34. However/ in La/ Chands case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:-^ "Whetherthe award relating to acquisition pn 24-10- • I96I is reievant?

47. The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala Vv'ere acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1951 for the planned development of Delhi and cornpensatton 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 1951 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This. Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. V. Rameshbhai jivanbhai PatellQ. this Court held: (5CC p. 751, para 15) "15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing — — a]jproprrate"escalation oveT^then^toved-rnarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as ^ evfdeneed-by-s-ale tra nsa^ttens-er—aeqtrisittons), 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 & connectedmatters transaetfons/aequisitions precede the subjeetacquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining^ the market value of a land ^C(^^d-ip-i-^92"~adbptihg increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 197Q.or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the Yate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." (emphasis supplied),48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only tv;o to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, iDefore 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 any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition."

35. It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in 5eQy_5s^5-^se4sti^a) runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in. la/ Chands case which decision foilows—aii—earlier decision^ of the Supreme C^urt reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. l/s. Rameshbhai iivanbhai Pate! LA.App.No.266/2008 &.cotmected matters Page 44 of74 36.- Ill Lhc iiisLd/iL Ldbe tiiere Is anodiengora reason~ffdt to follow the law laid down in Bedi Rarrfs> case (supra) for the reason I find that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati pRsn &Ann Vs. UP! &Ors,, pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharamb!?% case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ ?2010/- per annum per bigha and.gave the increase @ ^1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price wouid have come to approximately ^50,000/per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at 03,00-0/-:P-er 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 unrepbrted decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.IMo.866/2005 decided on ll.5.2006, Mahender Sinah vs. UOf & <9r[5]. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands In village BavA/ana, and 1 highlight that one village with whi:h 1am dealing Is village Bawana. pertaining to a. notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate Le. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of 15.11.1§§6 was determined @ fl,99,904.68 bigha which equals to ^9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which price for agricultural Sand being the minimum price determined by the Government was flO iakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266/2008 Sl connected matters Page 45.of 74 detGrminisd by thG Division BGnch would ecjual the minimurn price notified by the Government. -3^^-—"-ifH—wefe—as—@ T[9],59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be apjDroximately 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 hohstically 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 -fourtb argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para. 13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning ^1 lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce.

40. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no*proof in support of his oral testimony. 41.. The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken oyer on 4.10.2000 would require ah inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family v\^ere not being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4. crops per year> is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3^^ week of September, rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land \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 tfie first week or the second week of Novemb6r each year,

42. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form ofdocuhnents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he was working as an Administrative Officer In the Municlpai Corporation of Deihi till 31.3.1996 i.e. was-not a tiiier himself tiil said period and thereafter earned 3 pension. !f the family, as claimed by him, v^vas earning lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure IS bigha and 18 biswa, the annual4B€eme-weu{d be ^19 lakhs and one strange that not-a penny was invested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Nandi or othen/^lse. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined. No proof of number of workers employed^ diesei purchased to run. the tubewell/ if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and If the fields were irrigated by canal water, no proof of ariy payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the.fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the Issue of.the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly rejected. 4^. - if tliere is reliable evidence of an independerit expert or ^there—is cther-wtee—re1sable evidef^cc, as—was---found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as jT 1997 (1) SC State of Guiarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Qrs., pertaining to the yield from agriculturai land, only then it would be safe to determine fair market value by applying the principle of LA_.App.No.266/2008 8c connectedmatters ihs yisld- basi5--3n^——eoot^Its—cBpitaiizinQ being 10 times the annuat-ytefd and not 20 times as was sought" to be.projected. argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle be adopted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008.

45. in para 7 above, j 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 tabie 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 ye^ars away from the last year with which 1am concarned 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 law of statistics which 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 £i^-sest-t©-^he-point foFwtikh the mean average has to be determined. 1 am left-to deal with the last submission, as noted in -para 15 herenT-aixnre,~and for which I highiight 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 bisv^a of iand was sold in vlhage Rajapur Kalsn and LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ^aee4S of 74 has determined that:based:the!reo -7,74; 1Q9-fr^pQr n the; price as of said date for 8 months by 12%- per annum,.jforlth would be ^19,16,037/-per aCfje rou acre. •- - 47.:With reference^'to the Awa is apparent that, land Gompris^d;;in 1 blgha and IB biswa was a Category 'C' land. The sale deed i question pertains to the same^iand and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would,,reflect fair market value of Category 'CMand. AS;'per.the learned Land Acquisition Collector ?1.[7] lakhs per acre'would, be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and further,sum of <1.[7] lakhs per,acmimuild^be-4:eq4j-jr-ed--^ up tl^d^efir-essIons in Category 'C land,-meaning thereby ' I • land w^re less vis-a-vis Categpry:.;C' reference to Category''A' land; the VA/buld haye.to be reduced andivicei ' land, the price for Category 'B'- land would be required'.to be increased-su

48. - 1, now enter the final: stjage c the evidence herein above'^ndted reasoning adopted by the learhpdiLa the-learned Reference iCourl:,. i] ppse e date 27-l\2003 the price ided off to ^19,16,040A per d No.l0/DC(l\fW)/2004-05 it Chasra. N[6].200 admeasurincj depressions in Category 'B' land. In other words, with.price'of Category 'C land /ersa, vis-a-vis Category 'C and for Category 'A' land tably. f my discussion. In view of and, reflecting upon the id Acquisition Collector and the question: What should be -the fair.market value of'trte\sul)ject lands as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8;?q01, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 ile:v ti. 7.12.2001, ie dates on 16.5.2002, which the notifica'tions were issued undet^Section 4 of.the Land Acquisition ActlB94. •] 49., I have. In para! 37'abo.^elnoted ai decision of a Division Bench of this Court- In £A./ No.866/i005 decided on LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 49 of7^1^ 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinah vsyjiJOl 8t Irs, wherein pertaining to ^^detirmined-as of 15.11.1996 js ?1,99,904.68 per bigha^which dquals The said 'decision would be.relevant or an issue which i'have prornised;;foidis that the, Subject" lands i'.e. thelands Bencli was concerned, had acquired;a as discussed in paras 25 to 28 6fith'e-d Union Territory of Delhii was atitracti population.growth,.5. villages in Irurar providing major,health faciii1n-e^- -sdibols, mark^^^^ and rural industry, one of which w.as village-jBa^/vana. It was noted that G.T.ICarnal Road and.Rohtak Road| were village Bawana-and. that the |Vlaster|Pla year-1990 had indicated the landjuse in the area to be changed;,in. the future to •industrial and jconmerGial, but had also utjserved that notwithstainciring thiiS>Tor the reason no zon^piah •was -notified as contemplated.byI.Section llA of the Delhi. Development Act 1957, 'the lan|dsi continued to be used for agricultural purposes,and there hwas no evidence.that till the year 1996, any land-use'had beeh-:Lctually changed and put to the use contemplated: by the Master case, where all subject lands wer to ?9;59,542.46 per acre, the issue of potentiality,:uss. The qlecision notes with which the Division potentiality inasnnuch as, cision," rural areas in the ig migrants. Based on De-l-hi were identified for providing good access to n for Delhi notified in the Plan. As in, the instant e continuously put to agricultural.use, sarne.'was the cas[6] noted in the said decision. To put It pithily, the potential use'qf tt potential, land value with.lrefer.ence;jto; all as being required in the futurei for. building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential i|being valued w.ith reference to the potentiality i.e. theilands beinlg; in the.near future capableof.being built upon. To put it diffeVently^ the. decision, though not so. expressly, stating, would' be-a pi|0p0^fibTiTlT^ there is a difference betweeii the: undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.2.66/2008 & connected matters e lands.giving birth to a the area: being known to potentiality, in presenti vis-^aj-vis.a - land having a building potentialltY, infuture. As already nS as of the date.15.11.1996; fair ma ?9,59,542.46 per acreiand wh ch I.:ed^by me in para 36 above, ket value determined was lighlight once again is the same as wouid be determined mth reference to the notification being closest Hn point of tihe i i ! 25.7,lM[7]..where:urider for agricuitu price fixed.by the Government as: of ^ * 1 acre, interestingly, tine same:Divisl another judgment reported as 200 Singh i/s. UOf &Anr. wliere pertaining to agricui.tura! iands in village Holarnbl Kalah where 940 biyha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notincation dated 15.11.1996, fair maricet. value determined for Category 'A' lands was ?9,7^,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ?9,51,121/per acre i.e. near approximate to-the fair market value of lands in village Bawana: It needs; to be highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village.HolambI Kalan, evidenced from-jthe observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the; decisioiji, lociition and potentiality with * r reference to develo.pment-workicarried out in the. surrounding lands was considered. •I would! highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V. e., the notification dated "al lands.in.Delhi minimum L.4.1997 was ^10 lakhs per on Bench had pronounced 5 IV ad; (Delhi) 13 Gairai I.e. between. G.T.lCarnal Road iand Singhola determined. fair market- v.^1,30,523/- per bigha i.e/?5,26,510.4() per acre. The decision is.-r-eportecLas..200.4.(4) AP'-(Deihi) 2Q'Ram Chancier 1/5. 6/(?/and the..sarrve-DMsi^n-BenGh, as! per theldecislori-'r-epGrted-as -111 (2004) Rohtak Road, i.e. village alue as of 19.3.1993 @ DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vs: ^/O/. p'ertain ng to a notification dated 14.1.1994 for village:Singhola.cjetern'iined fair market value ^1,40,230/- per bigha i.el f[6],73jlj04/-1: er acre. LA.App.No.266/2008, & connected matters •; iT'". 5tn TTie.afores^. ^~pI3pnSHts3i5£ted-, in -ti-ie preceding '.K paragraphs'as also-the, various notiflcat ^.[5] ' ' Ijime by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as- tabulated by me in. para 7 above bring out two very.;imp.ortaht|fac £he growth/rise in the prices of agncultu years^ commencing from' the. year^ 1990."...As of 27-4,1990 rninimum price was ^4.65 !al<hs per acre )der acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the iificrea /over 7 years which-gives us a 115'l05A% the average price increase wo.uld: be 1 ons Issued from time to cs relevant t<| determine ral land in Delhi over the which rose to flO lakhs e Is ^5.35 lakhs spread increase in 7 years and 6.436%. The price rise over the next l year is by' 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and ll!5% for the next;ye ar i.e.. as. of. 1.4.2001. It ^hovys that due. to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharfDly, a -: evidence for this would be the decision • • i • • Ithis Court in Galrai's case (suprd), wh -para 49 above.

51. 1 need.-to elaborate a little' more with' respect to the decision in Gairats case.. Discussing th[5] evidence pertaining to fair rnarket value of agriculturahlahd in village.Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, -in paras' 9.to 17'the Court discussed the valuation on the,.basis of|agricultural yield and found that the ! ' i gross return, per acre per an'nurji was "f95,000/- for multiple - cropped.land and having gopd lirriga ^ * * '**'• '' ' \ I id good corroborative of the Division Bench of ich I have discussed in tibn facilities. and thus xapitalized the land price pt'"<9".[5] ifelchs per acre. Discussing the econd method of land: prices"'jofii comparable lands in the (H -stHTOtmdtfT^--ai^-E^-s^iiicIucHiTg--(!r0t^n)brait^^ onwarob tne Court discussed the matter with •reference to land- prices in adjoining village'Bhorgarh where.:BClj Godowns had come up and •lD"a^d~^n ~sa^ instances found that based^ on the said sale '•i LA.App.N.o.266/2008 '& connected,matters 'ii instances and -^m^bei=reftt^Hmhjstrraltrath7nH:h^l^aiid"-p would come to fl0,03,364/- peli acre then considered the- prices- notified ' i ' poiicy dated 1:4.1997 and thus. w,or figure of ?9,76,1217- per acre 'fot i. f[9],51,121/-- per acre for Category highiights that'the potentiality! had (Refer para 31). The Court by the Government as per ced out the mean average Category 'A' lands, and B' lands. ' The decision Deen well-factored in when the Government issued the rhinihuim price notification w.e.t. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact tha transactions the Court found that as notified as of 1.4.1997 at ^10 lakhs p t even with'*respect to sale' against the minimum price 5r acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ^10,03,364/- per acre. 52.. The decision in Mahender Singh's.case, pertaining to village Pawan^, referred to. by me in para 49. above,, highlighl:' with reference to para 28 to 31 of t Plan for. Delhi 1990 had beenltaker • i which v^as projecting: resideiiitiaj, le decision that the i^iaster into account by the Court commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural ^land in Delhi and on the Issue of potentiality had noted that; notw so, projecting and the lands theoretic: the same had not translated iiito a reality evidenced by the fact that till the.year 1996 i.e. the d&te cif the notification with whicp, thstanding the Master Plan ally acquiring a potentiality, the Division Bench was concerned, \/ I \ taken place in village Bawana and had explpited= the. potential.: iAs I irtually ho development had Molambi Kalan and nobody have already highlighted in para 49, above there is a gap jbetween what, would be expectec. to be the market growth and^what The decisions in Gairafs c^sf a the market actually grows, id Mahender Sinoh'^z:as^ -highlight that potentiality;transla.tecl itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rqselby. thereafter the extended pot^htialit "LA.App.lSfo'.266/2008 &cbmiected matters about 16.5% per annum and y did not translate with the requisite momentum and theiaCceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum, i One; reason could be that pursuBtnt to Mastpr Pl^inifnr Rpil^i iQQ|n came paras 21 and 22 hereina.bove for not r sale deeds, to determine fair rna'rket v sale deed relied upon by the ledrned to be developed, both residential, corrmercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the liunger ofthe;market gotsatlurated.

53. The empirical eyidenceiin' the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by ^the: land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference'!Court: has given good reasons not to rely upon.and for which;1 have given further reasons in slying upon, being fanciful alue, we have with us the Land Acquisition Collector pursuant wh,ereto in some referertcej; in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has field that as per the said sale deed Ex.R~2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural Imd's would be fl[9],16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning of land,which was sold for ^5,39.i69p/'stamp duty would mean that •^6 that 1 bigha and 13 biswa and f70.160/- was paid as 09,850/- (f[5],39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price.^17,74,109/" pet acre as of the date of the sale i.el 2'0.5.2002.

54. Thus, the best which! could be said as the most favourable situation forl the iahdiowners would be that with •reference to the sale d,eed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C. lands the price i.e. fair rjnarket vaiue c be fl[7],74,109/- per acre; For Category the price would'have to be suitably e another area of dispute for the reason, as noted by me •hereinabove in sub-para (a) of ipa Acquisition -Collector in "different L'A;App,No.266/2008 & connected matters f lands in the area would 'B' and Category 'A' land ihanced and here we find a 18 the learned Land awards has deducted 5^ *. sometimes fl.[2] lakhs per acre/sometimes ^1.56 lakhs per acre and sometimes ^1.[7] lakhs per acre 'A' lands to determine the price wherever lands were In Gategbry 'C deducted further by lakhsjper a.re. 55.. Now, neither side has brou as to what would" be th.e money.required to be spent to level the -ta-n^s-an^-i note ^at cafegoffzatlon |S based-oftly on the basis of from the price of Category Por Category 'B' lands and ' as well--t-he price has been ght any evidence on record certain lands having pits and dep i^qtH-mg-^the -same to be leveied iar ressions of' various depths d this would require money to be spent. But on what ^basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards, that fl.[2] lakhs per acre would be spent and.in some" that fl.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that fl.[7] lakhs per. acre wculd be spent? There is just no clue.

56. in Gairat SIrqUs case (sipra), the price differential worked out was ^25,000/- pen acre. ! have noted hereinabove that the acquisition In Gairai 5inah'i\ case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. in' Gairai SinoHs case the price for Category 'A' land determined was f[9],76,12;l/- 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. 1 thus.hold, that Ga/rai A'no/i's case should be my guiding star for.pricfe differential nn the jnsta.nt cases as well and thus 1 hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C have to be differ^entiated on price, the differential shouid be 2.5%..

58. thus, if vl[7],7;4,109/-,I rounded off to ^17.75 lakhs per a ere i/voutd"&e^Clie•pri ce"fw^ iCalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighti LA.App.]Sfo.266/2008.& connectedmatters fy 'C'"l3TT^rni7'illage Kajapur ng that the sale, deed Ex.R-2 s? m admittedly pertains to a.Category 'C land, the price for Category 'B' land would bei:.^18.;!0.v,Jakhs per acre and for Category 'A' land would be ?18."655 lakiis per acre.

59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assume importance that as-per the,niihirnum price notified by th Government as;bf T.4.2000 the per acre price was ^13.82 lakh and as of.l.4.2001.the. same^was ^15.[7] lakhs per acre i.e. the •percentage increase between'tlheVe I treat Category 'A' land pricejat based.on the sale deed Ex.R-2=, ded • ' ! annurti, the price as of 1.4.2obl wcjiuid come to approximately ?16.40, lakhs per acre and this" would highlight that when contrasted -with the minimum'price/notified by the Government at n[5].[7] lakhs.per acre as of jl;4\20)01, the price differential is ar was 11.5% per annum, if 3.655!lakhs as of 20.5.2002 jcting the price by 11% per ?70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%J Sin achieved while deterhnihing faif 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 land are- sold for the reason even w Jocation, the frontage etc. of a piece ithin a colony, the size, the of land would vary the price -.by plus or minus 5%. iWhat l.wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in. question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum, price notified by the GDvernment has an element of rationality and- acceptability, lit ne though under normal circumstances "! is normally not held good "evidence 1: date-prior thereto but: hnay b^'iikec f: • 'j land price on subsequent ^datesy fc particular date is the fesuit of|Vario having already impacted the lahdpt to fathom the exist&itice of. dnarke backwards..But-. 'in the instant jca[5] LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected mattefis ' eds to be highlighted that a sale on a particular date !MTOn< our_^aTid price on a as evidence to determine r the' reason a price on a js. market forces/conditions ice and it would be difficult t fbrGes/conditions walking e, with reference to the 5 s -iiotifications dated 7.8..2&QQ,- )00, 2^5-^0^22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001, the differential period sale deed in question is dated 25.5-20i facts of the, instant case, the sale;dee has-been projected by the Union iof market value of land as on said.^date, of evidence to be taken into accou market value of-.land as on the 6z 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 aiid 7.12.2001.

60. The argument that village treated locationally advantageous for t Nareta was in existence sincejlong when, pursuant to a notification! issue is shnail inasmuch as the )2 and thus in the peculiar 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, Marela had always been he reason the township of and this was recognized d in the year 1963, vis-avis the adjoining villages^'2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in viliage Narela.in Dharambff's case, looses sight of the fact that the pric.^ differential due to locational advantage was i<eeplng in viewj the'realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbamzatii^n took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which included areas in North-West ofiDelhi i.e. the area with which 1 am concerned today, the price difFerehtial faded and by the year.2000 and onward, it has become non-existent. •61. • 1 thus-hold-tiiat. pertaining to the' notifications dated •7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,122.[8] 2001 and 7:12.2001 the land prices would- have'to be cjeterniined on,the basis of the minimum price' notified by •the i G reference to the saje deed dated 25.[5] no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates could be determined. Pertaining tD the notifications dated Dvernment as also vuith.2002 for the reason I find 16.5.2002, 23.5:2002 and 27.1.2003,determined with respect to tlie sa LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters; the land price needs to be e deed dated 25.5.2002 -• -.Qs© -wrt1"i•refererkre^ t-Q-#he-s^]d-5Se• land price as of said date comes toimore respect to the notification dated|9!8.[2]

62. With respect to the price! differential for Category 'A', and Category 'B' lands, noting, that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in -village Pooth-Khurcl and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated'2^8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, IMarela and Allpur '(pertaining to the notification • dated '22.8.2001) l.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 byl 2.5% Category'B'. land. b[3]. Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Categc prices would marginally ' increase ^ in substantialiy in the other, a strildng:,no emerge with respect to the land price, determined pertaining to the notification dated, 23.5'.2002 pertaining to village Holambi Xalan wherein the learned Reference^CDurt has determined the fair, market value at ^22,14,23,900^- per acre as of 23.5.2002,. hieed td^~iTtgi7tight'that" pertaiTTing tcr the same notification once•it-.Ts:-ap^a^FeR^-tR61— than, if determined with 001 wherein minimum acre with effect from deduction has to be to determine the price ry 'A' lands,, the land a few cases and te of discordant would ted 23.5.2002 in relation to Villag eference Court has determin-ed-i-the a Alipur the ' learned fair market value at pertaining to village The notification dated for Category 'A' lands ^17,85,240/- per acre and I findS that I " i RajapuT~Kalan and Sanoth^' pertalniing • • ' • i 27.^2^3 the fair market value ass.essed is ^19,16,040/- in some cases aind ^19,13,760/- in a few, \ meaning thereby that "much; lesser ^ worked out in the year 2005 vis-a-vis' out for Holambi i<alan pertaining t 23.5.2002 and the reason for notiflc^tioh tii.e iahd price 'determined i the 64.^ With • reference to the! noti. wherein with effect from' 1.4.2000 mi acre is fl[3].82 lakhs and requir;ing s updated to reach the.date of the not! compensation >has been the compensation woriced the. notification dated abrasion. is that in said n Gairafs case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken arid Iricrfeased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. " i

7. ication dated 9.8.2001 Timum price notified per aid price to be suitably ication i.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to-the sale deedrdated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands; Iahd,price per acre comes to.fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7],75,000/- per acre,,a increasing the same by 2^5% the price acre and further, increasing by; 2;5° fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the...:. said prices by 11% to reflect the price \\i\th reference to the sale deed for the date •7.8.'2000; the mean average price for, Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to T14.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing the: same by 2.5%, it comes,to id for Category 'B' lands omes to 1:18.[2] lakhs per the prices comes to ^14,38,125/- per acre for Catego^ry^r/B' I • learned-Reference Coui't 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 ^i^comes to ameager fl,00p/-- per acre "a id thus qua Category 'B' • lands I maintain the amount awaij-ded l;iy the learned Rieference Court. • -. '

65. All, Land. Acquisition Appeals filed by.the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.lSfo.266/2008 & connected;matters ands. Noting that the any reasons, done away appeals filed by land owners in^respect whereof jgrid has b&enprepared and labeled as 'GRID-A'hereir ab dismissed. 66.. Ail Land. Acquisltjon.Ap.p'pa]s.filed by the land owners arid cross-objections filed iby the Ibnd o Union of India are allowed by deireein for Category 'A' lands-In village'Pooth notification dated; 1.4.2000 in •sum.of-^14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the::cbm[)ensati.on awarded at f14,37,280/-. per acre is.maintained and thus such appeals or cross references..which pertain I to Category 'B' lands are dismissed... 67.' PertMiihg -to such appeal w stands enhanced statutory benefits as Act 1894 as explained In the judgment.4/2/ 2001 (93).DLT 569 shall be granted, except fo.r the period where there is a delay in filing the/appeal or cross objection, for /vners ln^ appeals filed by g con^pensation payable Khurd pertaining to the which period of delay no interest on the shall be paid. These appellants jor'cr entitled to prbpbrtionate cost. ^ere the compensation 3er the Land Acquisition reported as Sunder Vs. enhanced compensation OSS objectors would be., 1 j'

68. For the reasoning: given In parSs -64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holahibi Kalan, all '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 theiTef ^iPwere of uniform category. Needless to state appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objectibhs^wherever filed ape dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by;Ian. enhancing tHe compensation to fl[4].75 with statutory benefits as Iper the jLand and 1 highlight that as srence.all subject lands d owners are allowed by rakhs per acre-together Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgnient reported as Sunder Vs. UOl2Q01 (93) DLT 569, except for the period.;whe,re,-there Is a delay In filing —the appeal or cross objection, for interest on the enhanced compens appellants or cross objectors would i cost.. which period of delay, no ation shall be paid.. These be entitled to proportionate Village BaWaria jMotlficatiori dated 7,8.2000

69. Pertaining to vlllagej,; BawanB__relating' to the.same notification dated 7,8.2000 where the learned Reference Court Ms..aQt..eaha.nGed the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A'Mands is fixed at ^14.75 lakhs pei acre "and for Category.'B' lahdS'at tl[4],38,125/- per. acre and noting that Union of India has neitt" objection, appeals as per 'GRiD-C fixing the compensation as, hereinbefore mentioned and needless to, state on the enhanced compensation the appellants, shall be entitled to.statutory benefit:; as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the^udgn" 2001 (93).DLT 569, except for delay in filing the appeal, foriwhict on the enhanced compensation ^ha|l be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village IKhera Khora Nbtifical:ion dated 11,9.2000

70. With/reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is fl[3].82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably •updated" to Teach tihe date of the^.notification i.e. 11.9.2000 and with referencejto th(i sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands,^ lahd price per acre comes to er filed-ahy appeal or cross hereinabove are allowed by lent reported as Sunder l/5. the period where there Is a period of delay no interest ^17,74,10.9./:^.^xounded.. off to(^7; Category 'B' lands increasing the sa 75,00Q/.-..p-er acre, and for me by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 &connpcted mattqrs • to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices -somes to. ^18,65,500/—pef^aer-e—for—Category '-A--lands; and •decreasing the said prices by,lil% to reflect tine price with reference to the sale deed for tihe date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for'Category 'A' lands in village IMarela comes to ^16,16,500/- per acre -and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes ~to 76,087- per acre fpr Category 'B' lands.. Noting. that the learned Reference Court lias,- without any reasons, done away- with Category 'B' lands and uniform price- awarded is.fl[5],85,570/- per acre and since fqr Category 'B' lands the price worked out by'me is less by f[9],006/- per. acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category ',B.' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the _jmcLe_stand[5] enhanced to

73. All 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 • compensation payable for Category 'A- lands in village Narela pertaining to the notification'; dated 2.5.2001- in..sum of ^16,16,500/- per acre and asf per the reference order for Category -B' lands. Thus,-appeals.filed by the Union of India as aiso cross objections filed by Union of India,as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' l^nds 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 ii 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 Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569-shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filin'g the appeal, for which period of delay no LA-.App.No.266/2008 & connected majters ' to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further incn^asing by 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; dsite 11.9.2000; the mean average- price for Category 'A' jlands comes to ^14,83,500/- per acrejapd 2.5%, it comes to ^14,46,413/- per acre 71.- Ail Land Acquisition Appeals as land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners i appeals filed by Union of India are: allowed "by decreeing ' compensation payable for Category 'A' lan.ds in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification do fl[4],83,500/- per acre for Category 'A per'acre for Category 'B' lands. I no notification and the village, the Union 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^l[4].46,413/-;e that pertaining to this yf 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. 6^(7/2001:(93) i)LT 56.[9] shall be granted, except for the period where there is a jelay i-n filing the appeal, for which period of. delay no inteirest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These;apfpellant[5] would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Marela F^otlfication dated 2.5.2001

72. With reference: to the! notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001, mi limum price notified per acre is fl[5].[7] lakhs per-acre:andi re suitably- updated - to reach the! date 2.5.2001 and with reference to the ss wherein for Category 'C lands, Maind ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17;75, ii quiring said price to be of the notification i.e. ie deed, dated 25^5.2002 price per acre comes to 000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing thejsamej by 2.5% the price comes I LA.App:No.266/2008 & connectedmatters IN i fnterest on the enhanced cqmpeh'sation shall be paid. These •appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Notific ation dated 22.8.2Q01 74., With reference to "the 'VdTCTehr-wTtiT"-effec±-i'iTnTrt:^^ 1 notification dated 9.8.2001 minimum price notified per acre is fl[5].70 laichs 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!to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category. 'C lands, la ^17,7.4,109/-, rounded off to; ^17, Category 'B' lands" increasing the sa to <18.[2] lakhs per acre'and further 1 "comes to fl[8].65,5.00/- per acre fbr Category 'A' lands; and decreasing tlie.said' prices by 11% -to refteet-the price with id price per acre comes to 75,000/- per acre,.and for me by 2.5% the price comes icreasijig by 2.5% the prices reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.20D[1]; the mean _^rage price for Gategory 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalar,comes to fl[6],74,500/- per acre ar 2.570, it comes to n[6],32,637.50 per •Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons,, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded, is ?16,43,8ll/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me coriries to a meager ?9,0|00/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands iihiaintain thej amount awarded by tl'ie learned Reference Cou.rt. i • 1 I •

75. ' All Land Acquisition Appeal^j filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever.filed by Union of India in the app.iials.filed by land owners In resjiect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-i^' s| 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed. I

76. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by th'e landl owners in appeals filed by •LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' d decreasing the same by acre for Categoi-y 'B' lands.