Mr. S.K. Pathak, Adv. v. JOGINDER KUMAR & ANR .....

I. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural lands.in village Rajapur Kalan. w.ere acquired the reasoning arid the fair market value determined by the learned LAc and the learned Reference Court is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd... and AJipur save and except in this village the acqyired land was of uniform category.

I ____ pur~lJ~Jl.t whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Alipur "" _yy_gr.e.. _acg.uJred. ·.the learne<;i___J~qq.. _ACQJJJsltJon.~~IIector has awarded compensation at the rate of ~15. 7 lacs per acre based on the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which price ha-s been adopted as the base by the learned Reference Cqurt and after ------.---··-. granting appreciation at the rate of 12o/o per annum w~e.f~ LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 1.[9] of 7~- • I.... 1 4 200l.ti.11. 2~.~,2002; th!' p~iC,!' Qcteri'IIfaei.Hs 'I'H-,85.~~~·.. -~ ~:re. Pertaining t~·· the notification (lated. 27.L2003 / pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha.land i"n village Sanoth ·. anq 2188.03 bigha land in village Rajapur Kalan ·were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the minimum price. notified as of f[4].2oof-ffxed the same value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages· i.e. ~15. 7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of t14 1acs per acre and· for Category 'C' lands in sum of ~12.[3] lacs per. acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different reasoning in.some impugned decision and different in a few.· In some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted the minimum price in sum of ~15. 7 lacs per acr~4~-2-001-~d apprecia-ting the same by 12°/o per annum for a period of 666 · days has fixed fair market value at ~19,13,765/- per acre which, has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has d~termined the fair market value· with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder 1 bigha and

13. biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for ~5,39,690/-.

7. Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector as ·also the · learned Reference -court have ·relied upon the n·otifications · issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agri·c_ylttlra-r·1and_s_ in Delhi, let me therefore note the·dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time. pertainmg to agricultural lands in Delhi sin.ce the same woul'cf be.. rel.evant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters I.II I I I ' ~. I I ' • I C:.II\Jn ll:::lt-o ri:F · Effett:i,~e 9ate- --- -~--~Fke----.j. % I - ----- -------~ - -- -~ --- ·-- - --- --... Notification of the price (in I increase I lakhs/acre) I per · annum

1. 3.5.1990 27.4.1990 4.65

2. 25.7.1997 1.4.1997 10.0 11.[5] ---- - -- -- ~-- -·....... -. ----- - --. -..

3. 24.9.1998 1.4.1998 11.[2] 11.[2]

4. 21.11.-2000 - 12.32 I

5. 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 12.16 I 11 1.4.2000 13.82 11

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

7. 30.8.2005 130.8.2005 1 17.::,84 2.98 I I,8.. 124.1.2008 118.12.2007 189.51

8. From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum price was !ast fixed w.e.f. 27.4.1990 in sum of ~4.65 lakhs/acre it was increased after · nearly 7 years to ~10 lakhs/acre and the annual increa·se comes to 11.5o/o per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998.. the price was enhanced by 11.2o/o to reach the figure of ~11.[2] lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to ~12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issu~d the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to ~12.16 ~akhs/atre i.e. the price increased by 11°/o. pg.r ·~:DDLJ.ITI wi_th reference to the prke determined as o(........__ 1_,..4"_._1998_·_,_and____.vide_ same notifica_tLon. ___.tbe.......price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to ~1.3;82 lakhs/ar ·e - -·--- - ··- - - i.e. increased ·by 11% per annum- vis-a-vis the previous i.~. t12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5°/o per annum vis-a-vis the previous price of ~13.82 lakhs/acre to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 21 of74 ··-- ------. ----:c:--~======~-·~·- ··------······-·-·· ~~h- t~ _f-igure -_crt ~~5J __~::-Tfl:e: _R[t~e__ _was next_ en~anced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ~_17.584 lakhs/acre whic.~grves· us ~if -----arnncrease of-only 2.98°/o per annum and then the pnce rose to. ~53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased· 89.51°/o per annum w.ith reference to the base figure of ~17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005.

9. Before not.in.g the evidence retied upon by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court it would be beneficial -for the reader of the present decision; as I feel, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. I would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the alternative and it was urged that they would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, failing. ) which as per ~he third argument and so on. From the side of I Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000. for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated • 22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification 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 Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands ·wei-e of uniform character and it was _y_r~d that correcti\lfL.a.ction is_r_e_q_uir_ed by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time tq ttm~!_Jl.S% increase per annum and 12% per annum ·increas-e-w-as excess-ive--with reference to the q~tes_of _the notifications under Se~tion 4 of tile land Acquisition Act 1894; ·reqUiring the same to be reduced to 10%, per annurn ·-------·Til" tne Teasr--Secondly, the learned Reference Court ·was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus. LA.App.No:266/2008 & connected matters Page 22 of74 •• I requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such land~ which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C' by the Land · Acquisition· C'ollectcir and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C', on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed. by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.·

10. Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference. Court was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, · in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as atso tt'le"---sate--ueetl dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. ·Vide sa~e deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ ~26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sa!e deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of ~32.[4] iai<hs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 'o;nder E;~.P\N-1/3 would be ~28.8J lakhs/acre and pertaining to the s.a!e deed Ex.PVV-l/2 the land price would be ~63.478 !akhs/acre. lt was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000,.11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,. 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications. were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument, pertaining to village Narela, it was urged tha+.· the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which lecun::!d counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10°/o mon · LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 23 of7~ and for which the argument was that when in the.past.,-.....·r ~ ~q pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section (,/"' / 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference t[6].urt had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur- Narela ·by giving a. price benefit of '{2/- per sq;yd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in ·C.A.No.4405/1997 UOI vs. Dharambir & Ors. The said decision would reveal.that the price per bigha in. sum of {6,650/determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to '{16,750/- per. bigha by the Reference Court which was enhance'd to '{22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by· the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored.

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

12. Alternative to the second submission. being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (.93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 24 of74 'lt. ··- ·- • I -ys-.---ttnton of India, it was permissible to determine fair market. ·-- ·-·... --··- ' value of acquired lands with referen(:e to the fair market value determined by· Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase _in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6o/o per annum to 12o/o per annum for different periods. Sh.I.S:Dahiya, learned c.ounsel for some of the land owners harided over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bedi Ram's case (st.Jpra) as per which price increase per ·annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6% per annum with reference to the base price ~16, 750/- per bigha as of 30.10:1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till 31.3.1973 ·and thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various dates when the 8 notifications underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with ___ which Lam.co.ncerned. in_ _the present_appeals~. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market.., •. value would ·come to ~56,88, 759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle market value shouJd. ·be assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001. 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 and 23.5.200-2.. I

13. The_ fourth argu~~-!:1-~_: advanced was, and for which ----------,__=~~~-~-\IY.~~- m.aqe by learned cq~~~ fqr the parties in the evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which is subject· matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.N"o-.208'/2008fifecroi1h_e_la-nd___owners ____________and LA.APP.No.292/2008 filedl>y Unioo_of_Jndia, 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...... te,~tim~~~_of Ram Kishan to t~e ~~ct that ~y sellin~ agr.i~y_ttu_r9J,....0-\/" ··-· __ _...._produce from his la.A~~-~d to earn ~1 lakt)_ ~~r_bigha per /. ----- ---· annum i.e. the falr 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 pursuantwhereto 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.. 1 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.2·68/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008.

14. The fifth argument advanced was by· Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared in ·a fe·w matters and urged that for each of the notifica_tion in question the fair markef ·value ought to have been determined with reference to the notification ______..!..!wLLhu..ic....... h was c1QsestJn_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 27.1.2003, dealing witt) which, in some References the learned Ref~rence Court had, with· reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where I · under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was s.old for ~.39,6-90/-, determined the fair market value as per the- said ----- ~--.,s-a........ le-a..-e-ea··ln--the--following:words: (Refer para 17 of tbe decision dated 7._1.2010 ln LACNo.-lllA/20~_!!Jf we add stamp d-Uty-in - -----~-~­ the sale price ~3, 69,906/- _QeL_fligha ({5,J..9~ 590k__ + 70,160 = ·6, 09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes -to~ 11, 74,109/-. per acre or '{3, 68,9061- per bigha. Furtl?et if vve give 12%.LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters· • increase on said· am'?unt for intervening period between the· date when the sale deed _was_ executed. and the date of ) 'l/ ··--- "tw-tification u/5 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 rnonths it / ·comes to 't19,16,0371- {round off't19,16,040/-}." The argument... - - --·---------·--.. ·was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e. ·Award No.lO/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 bisw()_~~_nd w~~ put in ~~~~-Q-~_ry 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category '8' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Cat~_go~}"_ '.C'.· The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Kllasra 1\ll>.ZOO and that page No.56-57 ·- -or --rneaward.would evH:tente that -land cornprised in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 1.[3] · biswa was placed in Category 'C'. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had detern1ined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of 't1S.[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- 'tl.[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 tl.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determined whereof was ·t12.[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 I deed in question, the same had to be for Category 'C' lands and for ·category '8' and Category 'A' lands tne price naa to oe increased by ~1.[7] lakhs per acre for each category. 16.. 1 have already noted hereinabove the arg-uments wl·..ch were advanced bv Sh.Saniav Poddar, !earned senior counsel l.'llhc ~ - ~. ---------------- - - - --- ------· --. - ----------------. appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 aqove and hence I need not repeat the same. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 2i of74 ~-

17. In various sub-pc:ncl5-of _p~ra 6 nereinabove, 1 have capsuled the reasoning of the.learned Land Acquisition C-nlleGffir·:)'2/ - - - ---(;1-a,....,nd~tt"le-le.amed HefereA€e-Gettft pertaining ·to the-·a notifications / issued under Secti_~n 4 of the Land Acquisition Att. 1894- and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence my journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the rea~Q8if1g of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per· various subparas.of para·6. above.

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

19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions •n 10 villages and 8 notifications issued. under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition A::t 1894, 1 think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 29 of74 • - fact-s-; Wnich w.owa __ be ··m-i. data for---further analysis.--. Put in a. - -.·--·.. -·----·... ·-·..... -- ______,,___________________. --·:.-______________.:,_ tabular form the data would. be as under:- Village. Pooth · Khurd Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan· Holambi Kalan Bawana Date of LAC compensation Section 4 (in lakhs/acre) with Notification reasons ADJ compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Cat. Uniform. ~14.3728. 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' ~13.82 Cat. 'B' ~12.26 Minimum price of 1.4.2000 as- --Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. 7.8.2000 ~13.82 Minimum price as of 1.4,2000 ~14.12995. ~ Price as in Gairat's _ case as of 15.11.1996 with 22.8.2001 23.5.2002 7.8.2000 12o/o increase p.a. I Cat. Uniform. ~16.43811. Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] Cat. 'B' ~14 Minirtwm price of 1.4.2001 as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. ~15.[7] of 1.4.2001 Cat. 'A' ~13.82 · Cat. 'B' ~12.62 ~22.14239. Price as in Gajrals case as of 15.11.1996 with 12°/o increase p.a. (con1pounded} No enhancement given. I 1 of 1.4.2000 · ·-·-. ~~-..... ·=· =-"----·~-.. ·:.._,.____:.::·:;;:=:::-:::::·- ---;:,...;.___·.-'-+-=-:-~----i Khera 11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' 't13.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd Cat. 'B' 'tl[2].62- ~14.4015 7. Minimum price as Minimum price as oJ-~.4~2000.._ __ _ 1\ of 1.4.2000 with \ 12°/o increasep.a.... I I ---------~N-ar-e-la--'--~12=-.-=s-.2=-o=-o=-=l:----+c=-a~-·t_.;.-"7-;A-:-'--·~:-:-~=·~1~5==.==7=~+c~a--:t:-.[7] U-;-n--:-:if~o-=-rm=-.----1 ~----1-------+- ---··· Cat. 'B' ~14 t15.857. \ Minimum price as Minimum price as 1 of 1.4.2001. of 1.4..2001 with 1 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 30 of74 i i 'f ---r--~-~-----~T~--. L__; l. ·-------' IA!! Pur j22.8.2001 !Cat. l l l I l l ~ ~; I A r A 715...,. '..t. • i - - ~~.,..&::~~ 'S' ~·14 P..,........ j • _.,_;...l. -~f',;1 ~ •_r'l f:~l_.._,_ ~) ~(!''i ~-- [ '- ' lctJ.. 2:CeDl ·=-.•..•.:,..·..,.::.. -:.· ~- j";.•·-·.::-:.......-····-··-....-... ··-~- ·-··-··-----~-·-·;..,:; ~~~ ~:3\.: ·r;.~=~;..... i~: ~--:::. ·-.·:__..::;:}.:···-.-:-,__::·'!.-:.:_ ·,. •".~: ~ ·:·...:-;: • ·..··,.-;.. ••• 1:.:;:;··:::: •... ~. "':: ··;,.... ~:..,... ~..:-:.:::..::'._.: -... ~···:-·--:...·•·-··- ~..... ~---...··.. _,.__ ···-----....-~·-. ····..•··· ··-........ ___________.,.__________~-....----------·#"• ----------~-------------· ~ ~~-- 7 c ~ • =::-Ct:~<3-::-~ •: /...)... -·----·.... ----·-· -----.... __..,_..,..;·· -~: ··: _,;_,:~ -·....-~- ·-- ~-r~~ ~ -n:~ cj~:Jb'"r~ 1Jc~ __..... CJT'.;..• ~~. ~::~ 0C·; 1. of 12~;:, ln-:rease p.a. ------- _._.............. ·--- ------·---·-·..L-----;:······:(;~-;:'.:s·..... • •'•......:. =-;...... ·.:~·: (:..::: •,......:;;.. I.;·:..:::::: '\:.{,i •.-:.,.:.:: ·{..::...•'·, ·.=•:... ·.. ' ':: •.... ~..i:. ·: !-'.:;,.• ·:.::'·.· ·. •",-::..:.··+..':,,. '!••::.. ·::: ~.......:... •. •' 1 ~·-: ··.:-· '':0.;.......... ·'-.·:.. 'l.:!:.......:......~· 11';;- ~:::::'. \:...•..:·.. ';.·-.···.·· -::.,. 4•.-,, • r.· =~:: ~=:•.. ~·--~ ··r~: -JL.:· ~:.....:; ·..:'.-..·::..;. ·.::·~... ·:-·: ···.. i;..:.,..:. !'' ~:::.....: ·::··... ·:,·:..·...• ~o,::,...:\..;'':..,••, i-: ·.··.....::J.......,:h ~::..;~. ~........... =(:............ • I -- -------------~~~~~~-~"""""'"...--~~-......----...--~-..,.~ -- ··--·---- -·-- -- ------- ·-·-. of PW-7 Sister_ An.ni~, the secretary of the organization ·stated 1 that the organ1zat1-on had to P-CJ:Y-:-tRe--pft~_(_t.he said piece of f1Y land as it was the only plot of the. requisite size suitable for the / requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. /sti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are 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 !and !n an __are[9] fQLthe reason there rnay be sp_ecial 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 ---·--eq-ually 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 niuch 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. I.. the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated· 27~i.2oo[3] where-under agricu-ltural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for·a much le:,;er price i.e. ~17, 74,109/- per acre as against the price which co:res ------- ·---to ~63.[4] 78 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 of7/. • • themselves are having inTrTnSic-evlde_rice__Qf the fanciful price a11d ex-facie destroy each ottler.d ~~ 23.______:rrros. _ayart fror.tl -the r~asoning of the Jearn"_e_d_ / Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para" 21 above would" b_e_additio_nal reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subjecLlands.can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly betvveen 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on· sate deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.I.S.Dahiya being_Jbg__g_ecis.ion dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batc.h of appeals,- lead matter being LA.App.I'Jo.l93/2006 Pratap Sinqh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. --uo~& orr- It was hlghiightealhat the sale deed··therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good..evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in p·aras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not acc~pt the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, buCfoorrr:r-·that if the price therein was reduced· by l/3rd, the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 34 of74 would be price arrived at with refere-nce. to..the-average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of ~1,37,000/per bigha· and the sa_le deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the. price _~3,26,600/- per bigha and the. average would me--:W-~..-3-1-,SOet--- which was ---near atmutthe price of f[2],15,160/- per bigha, if l/3rd would be deducted from the sum. of ~3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ~2.15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench • is not to.be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated -the sale deed in question as t_he basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. · would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as p~r the 2 sale deeds and this itseif is intrinsic mutua!!y destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair. market· value. I

24. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of the argurnent that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to ~ village- ~-Narela,· ·in view of the decision in Dharambir's case.. - -~(s.upra};-Tancr·prfc-e sl1-ould be suitably-·e-n-ha-nce-d _~.;vould be dealt with by me at the eruLwben 1determine-the fair-marl<etv.aiue of lands for the villages in question.

25. The seco~d argument, contours whereof are· to be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the L\..App.'No.::?-66/2008 & con.nected matters Page 35 of74.... --··-.--.. _. ___latest probounceme.nt_ot~the:.:._5_u_pie:me Court on the issue as per u. - ·-·. -·--·-·-- the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La/ Chand vs. UOI. 26.. But.before that 1 must highlight that the decision in Lai Chand's__"case (supra) predicated a claim on a boA brochure· whereund~r. on lease-hold basjs, residential plots· were allotted for' residential housing scheme.a.nd. the-argument was being ·considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands. in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme Le. · 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. l highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V' formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Rpad.

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

11. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini- Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on • __ · _-'.:asehol\1 basis:___.. _______.. _~--. 51. No: Plot size Category Rate (per square metre) - - - -·. ·-

1.

2.

4. 5. 26 sq m 32 sq m 48 sq IJl 60sq m 90 sq m Economically weaker sections <-E-wsr·. · -----·-·--· --· Low income group (LIG} I ow incomegroiJp (LIG) Middle income group (MIG) Middl~ income group (MIG) LA.App.No.266i[2].008 & c.onnected matters Rs 100 Rs 125 Rs 15Q_ Rs 200 Rs 200 Page 36 of74 ·. I I I • I ~ ---- ~ -~~- =-~............--~=--~--- - - - - - - - - ---- -~- -- The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the-satd proVJ"-Sionarrafes·, sh-ould be taken as indicative of the ruling market price...

12. On careful consideration, we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several. reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determined witb reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to. ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold land;·whereas the aftotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor

13. The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of · undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development}, with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20°/o to 75% of the price of such devetoped 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 th.e second is the cost of the development works. · For.exqmple, if· a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40°/o of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community -facilities), etc

15. The development authority will also. incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout,. which includes. the cost of levelling the land, cost. of providing roads,.. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 37 of74 unqerground drainage and sew~ge faciliti~s;-Tayin·g·w~IeY _- \-- 1~ lines, electricity lines and developing parks -and clvJL_ ~)-/ ~~~~~t~~ci ~~~~T~:~:b~~t~~~\;~~~~~:~h:~'!~~~t~~ _/ the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.

16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthori.sed private residential layout, the percentage of· -------"9He~OO-c~JGp-ment" may be far less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any-land isset" apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% p1us 20% in all 40o/o as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. •• ••

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 !ayout.

18. The position with reference to industrial layouts wil! be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of ·one or two acres or more as contrasted with the si:4e of residential plots measuring 100 sq m·to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for deveiopment (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development wil! also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made· from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75o/o 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 25o/o to 40°/o, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages- mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.)

20. Therefore the ·deduction for the tfdevelopment. factor" to be made with reference 'to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped· land, will be far more than the deduction LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 38 of74 with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is a-lse---wett--koown that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost- incurred by private developers, having rega-r:d---to higher overheads and expenditure.

21. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may Vqry- with reference to the nature of layout-·whether it is residential, residential- ---------- ---EYm-EGmfR€fC-ia-l-e:r-i-Ratt5-t-r-ia~; aoo-ev-e-A- among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having _regard· to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community -------- - ----- --fa-e-H+ties, -p-arks and playgrounds provided. • •

22. Some of. ·the -layouts --formed hi -rt1e statutory devefa-pment authoriti-es may have targ€ areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electricai substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20o/o to 75°/o. Second factor

23. -DDA and other· statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon the economic _status of the allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, !o\v income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in t'1e same layout, 'fli~ ~ • plots 111av be ea.rmarked for oersons belongmg to economically weaker sections at aprice/premium of Rs 100 sq m. whereas the price/premium charged may be Rs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons I belong-ing to high incbrne groups. ·

24. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA stat-uto!-y authority, but upon the paying capacity of ·-the apprrcantsror·aliotment. - · · ---- · - -- · Third factor LA.Aoo.No.266/2008 & connected matters.. Page 39 of ~4 •

25. Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by ·way of absolute sale. Some.development authorities like DDA aHot -p1ots on leaseho-mbasis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a ·nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, a·nd more substantial annual rent. 26.. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership) rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allqtment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to th_e ·market value ·of the property.

27. However, in view of the difficulties referred to · above, ·it is not safe or advisable to. rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in detern1ining the market value of the adjoining undev·eloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." 2·8-.·· The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference No.ll7A/2009. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court, being the same as vvas advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference • Court with reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads:- "Ld. Counsel fo_Ltb.e__p_eti1ioners_has· further submitted that· DDA & DStDC altotted plots in Narela Residential Area and· Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate. He has relied upon allotment letter dated 04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela. which was allotted to. Sh. Hem Chander at the ·.pre-determined rate of ~3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/l, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of plot no.SS Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring 70 Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as f[3],989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. LA.App.No.266/2008 & cmmected matters Page 40 of74.. plot__ -~?_._~?_0, measuring 350 sq. yards at. Narela -~-_.fndustnal Comp~~?<-~t the_rate of ~650~. metres which is Ex; PW3/1 and another allotment-- letter dated 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at f3000 per sq. metres.. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of. PW[9] Kanwal Singh & document Ex. · PW11/l, which -is detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost. of development per bigha wetttd--be---1--J-94-400000 = 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 total area utilized for roa-ds, park, drain etc. ·total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408- 759422 = 1771986[6] per bigha). And after deducting.development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. f1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, \JVhere as petitioner has been given rate only f[3],27,083/- per ------.---lb..... l---g"'""ha--.----,---·· ----------------· • Similarly he· has tried to demonstrate the profits • earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R.~_D._Sharf'J\_9.,___ Asstt,_ Ma_o(lger, DS_ID<_;:__who has produced docun1ents Ex. PW7/A {Coily). Ld. Counsei has argued that total.expenditure incurred on developn1ent of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and totai area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total. earning of DSIDC is ~2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: ITotal area under plots =1112.47 hec i.e.· 1361250 sq.j yards. Price per sq. metre in = I~3000/- per sq. yards I the year 2000 at Iwhich DSIDC sold plot Total earning - ~4083750000 Total ex_penditure - {720526901 Total profit - ~3363223099. - ---~- - - - - i ··Le.-·-Pfofit::comes-to l2470- -per---5-q-:--yaraoT~22170000 per bigha {i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards),...-,~--_-aafHnvd~the LA.C--Ras-p-aid compensatioo @ ~32-108-3-per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of.U1429~_7 per bigha.___.·. ________ _______ ·• Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further arg.ued that LAC has awarded compensation @ ~327083 per- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters Page 41 of7't • • bi~ha f?r t~~ lanc:l)n. _qu_estion if 200% appreciation of ~h-~_· _ 1_ ~~ sa1d pnce ts considered on armtfflt-:-af land, -the figm:e- --:-:--~4 / comes to ~654166. If tt-l-e---amount is deducted_fr_Qro_sale____ · / · _Q_ric~ __per.bJg_h_a_ ·i.e-:· {24700000,. the figure com·es to · ~1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same."

29. Now, we do not have. evidence as to what was· the extent of plotted land· sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate develop~Q- by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20o/o or 75°/o, we.do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted !n the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in La! Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

30. It is no doubt true, as held even by --tlle---{e-amed- Reference Court, that with the development of Bawa na Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela ·-------·----·- Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.

31. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in La! Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itseif to the value, I promisethe 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 alteFnative wa_s_ based upon - - the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram's case (supra),· a·1ld tile submission is as noted in para 12 herein above. The land. owners require.the __p_r_i~-~-----Q_etermined in Dharambits case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App_No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 42 of74;i j!;I;~ ·',, '! i,, I,. i •.I 30 l 0 1963 in sum of·fl[6],.750~--per bigha for village Mamurpur to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by _6% per annum; then by 10% per ~annum and lastly by 12% per annum for -different periods and thereby dete-rmine the fair market v-alue for the 8 notifications in question.

33. It be hi.ghlighted that in Bedi Ram's case (supra), with referencetO "t"t1e -·base date as. of the-·y·e-ar.1959~ for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning i[7] years the Division Bench of this Court applied the progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum qy 6o/o till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finaliy by 12% for ·the remaining 3 years.

34. ·However, in La/ Chands case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-10- 1961 is relevant? 47.. The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was~ awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. · Their contention is that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value ofthe acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by. providing an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate or 12o/o per annum. This Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai jivanbl1ai PateJJJl this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15). "15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of., ---------·-·:·----determining· the market value by providing · -------·---···-------applop[1] iate -escalation overthe-p-rovecr·market value · of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisioons), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale. transactions Qr acquisitions of comparable lands in. the neighbourhood. ·The said method is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 43 of74 --. ---·- --------·- - --.--:-:~:-:-:-----=-=======::...:====--...: -··------·-- ·~e -:__· ___ w-Aer~- _::____-tfte,~-::-:·~=--- -n~ih:::d-1 u' ··--· sate tran~a~~i-ons/acquisitions precede the s-ub-jec-t- ---~-----t.A0 acqu1s1t1on 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 --=---------~a~-~"c'"F'Iqtrut+liri'"1EeW'd+--+~inl"l--+199-z;-- adopting th'e arfnual increase • method with reference to a sale or acquisition in

1970. or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo · drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." (emphasis supplied)

48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy Itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of th.is 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 · 15o/o per year, as the newspaper reports disdose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to SOo/o 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." Division Bench in Bedi Rant5-f.a--~supra) runs in the teeth of the law· decla-red by the Supreme Co~rt in. La! Chands case u(supra), which decision follows- an earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai /ivanbhai Patel. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 44 of74 • • ----· 36.-· 111 the instant case there Is another goo.d reason--not to follow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's case (supra) for the reason I fi.nd that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in • roo • ' the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors., pertainin·g to agricultural lands in viflage Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive· percentage.. increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambir's case (supra) a.s of the year 1963, which would have resulted in· the land price being determined in village Mamurpur- Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ ~2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ ~1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would have come to approximately ~50,000/­ per bigha but the !earned Division Bench determined the same at ~33,0.00/-,per blgh.a.

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market. value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of·a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinqh vs. UOI & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one village vvith wr;f,ch ! am deaHng is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued iJnder Section 4 of the Land. Acquisition Act when~-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial E·state, the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 was determined@ ~1,99,904.68 bigha ··which equals to ~9.59,542.46.per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by.which price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the Government was ~10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 45 ofi[4] ·o ~ determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. ---~3"'H'8-r-,-'-·-------ff I were to take the price- as of -I-5-.11;1~ @ ~9,59~542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by lOo/o per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason,· as assured by me herein above, I would be holistically· discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the a· notifications in question. • •

39. The.fo.u.rth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.ChaturvedL learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan ·and others,the appeUants 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 tha.t there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on 4.10.2000.would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to th·e.family were not ·being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year. is falladous no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3rd week of September. rice is harvested in.Delhi and if vegetables are grown. even they are harvested and the land !.s left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 46 of74 ~ I ! ! sown-a-round--the first week or the second week of November e.ac.h year.. -·.. -·

42. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led. in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he Was working as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Del~i till 31.3.1996 i!_e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a pension. 1f the familyt as cla.imed..by him, -was earning ii lakh perbigha, for ·the lands belonging_ to the family, ·which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annual-+ncome would be ~19 lakhs and one finds tt strange that not ·a penny was invested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or. dividend could be earned. Besides,· there is no proof of such high volume of sales being •. effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined. No proo.f of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tubewelt· if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity biJis paid if the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, th.e 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 qeposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly ·rejected; -.lf there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or -------tt:lere--is otherwise -reliable eviden£-e,-as--was-· ·-found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997__~~-~SC 444 State of Guiarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to the.yield from agricultural land, only then it would be safe to · determine fair market value by.applying the principle of LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 47 of74.~:~~:a~::~:~t~~~a~~e~:-:;;~.:~·:a:=---~ to be. projected. ·

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

45. In para 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which 1 am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, ·2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 ··• above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as. of 1.4.2000, 1..4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the notificati.on dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e_. is 4 years away·from the last year with which I am concerne:!:...-;. the year 2003. I. highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average.as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be ·the • ones which would -be desest to th€-i*)int f-Gf w~i-tt-1 the mean average has to be determined. ___A_fi__. _ I a·m left to deal with the last submission, as noted in ----~pAa-F.ra~l~Srlhet ei11 abmre;-ami-for which ·t highiight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification d;3ted 27.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References with re-spect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kaian and · LA.App.No.266/2008 & conn_ected matters Page 48 of74 •• has cletermined that based~ thereon the price as of said date I, i ' '.. --W~S--9-l::~Bo ~17,74,1-09/ pe·l".~--~ing-the-sanre for U months by 12% per annum, Jor t~e date 27.1.2003 the price would be ~19,16,037/- per ac~e rourded off to ~19,16,040/- pelacre. I · 47.·. With reference to the Awatd No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05 it is apparent that land compris~d· ih l<hasra No.200 admeasurin(;t 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Cqtegony 'C' land. Th~ sale deed in..... question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would{ reflect fair market value of Category 'Ci land. As per the iearned Land Acquisition.. ··... ·I. Collector ~1. 7 lakhs per acre ·would. be required to fill up the depressions for land in CategorY, ·~· and further'" sum of \1.[7] _lakhs per aer:e would be req-y.fred ·tb fill UP tRe-tiej[3]:r:es-sions in ·Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' · land were less vis-a~vis Cate~}ory 'C' _land. In other words, with _·_.-:_____ ---·-· -· ----·-···------·---------- ·--·.. -.. ···'·. -........ ' • -·__, ~--reference to Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C' land would have to be reduced and ivice-versa, vis-a-vis Category 'C' land, the. pric~ for Cate?ory ·B· la.nj and for Category 'A' land would be requ1red to be tncreased su1tably. ·.

48. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of. ·..,: ·.. I the. e~idence herein above · noted\ and r~f~~cting upon the reason1hg adopted by the learnied Lahd Acqurs1t1on Collector and the..learned Reference Court, i! posel the question: Whatnshould be the fa1r.market value of· the su~Ject 1 lands as o[1] 7.o.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8<2001, 7.1.2.2001, 16.5.200~!.. 25.5.2002 and. 27.1.2003. i~~~·- t~e dates on which the -............_.... - -- ···-·····--·. I. notifications were issued under~sectibn 4 of the Land Acquisition..... I.. Act 1:894. __ 4~·-·---,--·_I have, in para' 37abo~~~-n _· t~_d_a_(~ecision of a Di~ision Bench of this Court in.L~.APP.No.866/2005 decided on '''. I.. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' I I I \·. I - -·-·-·... -- --·- -- ' 11.5.2006, Maheflder Sin hvs..UOI & brs. wherein pertaining to • • 1 i-..:.. -~--''~lfii-t+lla~ Bawana, fair ma-rket valtt~·det rmined as of 15.11.1996 is {1,99,904.68 per bigha which.~q~alsto~9,59,542.46 per acre... -·-··---:····.... -.··.....--··... i.: ·. The said ·decision Would berelev?nt o the issue o,f potentiality, an issue which I have·.promisecl..}o 'dis uss.. The decision notes that the. subject· ·_lands i:.e.. the· ':lands with which- ··the Division. l.. Bench was concerned, had acquired ·a potentiality in;asrnucli as, '. •'.;. as discussed in paras 25;to 28 C>f!the d cision,· rural areas in the un·ion Territory of DeihL was attracti\.g migrants. Based on pop~l~tion gr~>wth,. 5 village's' ~ n,rural·,~eJhi wen:: identified for prov1dtng major· hea-lth facrhttes-;· schools, markets and rural industry, one o·fwhich was Villa~e 1Batana. It was noted t11at G.T.Karnal Road a~d Rohtak Road\ werelproviding good access to village Bcivliana and. that ihe Master: Plar for Delhi notified in the.year 1990 had indic-ated the land.' use i1n the area to be changed • ·.in.the future to industrial an~:co mercia!, but had also observed that ·notwithstandmgthl[1] s;·.:tor th~ reason no-zonarplaii · was notified as contemplated by!. Section llA of the Delhi Development Act 1957,:the lan~s: c+tiriued to be used for agricultural purposes and there:w~s m\o evidence that till the year 1996, any land -use had bee·n ~ct1ally chang.ed and. put to the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As m the mstant. I.. case, where all subject lands· wer~ continuously put to agricultural use, same ·was.the c~se ndted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential us~ qf tlle lands giving birth to a • potential land val~e with referenCe·:to. he:r~a being known to all.as being· re:uir~d i~ the fut~re: fo.l bu1ldmg_ p~~~-oses,_ was found not ~.esultmg 1n the potential.lb.eTg vaJued ·With reference to the potentiality i.e. the ~lands bein:g~ m the near fl.J~ure capable of being built upon..To Put itdiffEire+y, ~:-~:cision, though not so expressly 5tatm[9], would b~· a p~opos1tlon rhat there IS a difference bet~een th~ undeV~Iope~.. land having building I LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 51() of 74 I • I. potentiality· in presenti vis-a~vis.<a · land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As alr~ady noted by me in para- 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair mafket value determined was '{9,59,542.46 per acre· and which,I. highlight once again is the same as would be determined:with ~eference to the notification i.. being <;:losest: in point of time i e. the notification dated 25.7.1997 where~under f r · It 1 1 d · DeJI · · ·.. ___... _...... o agncu u a an s 1n. 11 m1nrmurn. ' price fixed by the Government' as. of.4.1997 was ~io lakhs per.. acre. Interestingly, the same ·Division Bench had pronounced ·another judgment reported as 200 IV AD. (Delhi) 13 Gajraj Singh vs. UO! & Anr. Where pertainilng to agricultural lands in village Holarnbi Kalan where 940 bi~gha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notitication dated 15.11.1996, fair market value deter~11in~~d for Category 'A' land_s was ~9,79,121/- per acre and fur Category 'B' lands was ~9,5.l,121/-. • per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana; It needs· to !:be highlighted that vvhile determinir1g ·the fair m~rket value a~ of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from·lthe observations ofthe Court in para 19 and 20 of the· decisio~, locltion and potentiality with reference. to development worl< carri~d out in the surrounding lands was considered. I would high~ight that another Division · Bench of this court, in another adjoi1ing village in the sarr~e ·v· i.e. between. G.T.Karnal Road.and \Rohtak Road, 1.e. village Singhola determined ·fair mar~et vrlue as of 19.3.1993 @. • U,30,523/- per bigha i.e, {6,26,510.4r per acre. The dec1s1on 1s • __,,.reporte.cLas..2004 (4) AP:(Delhi)-?0 Ram Chander vs. UO/and the..---- -.. '- --........ I I.. -_----·--· same--D~.visi.o-n-6-€-~Gh, as. per the:ldeci·s'-oR-•reported-~~s 1~1 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum ~tnq(7 vs. UO/, ·p~rta'~\'-~g to-~___not1f1cat1on dated 14.1.1994 for village Sil~ghola qeterlined fair market value @ ~1,40,230/- per bigha i.e:. ~6,73,104/-1er acre. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. l ' i

I. !. 'I i -- ---· -·--·-· --· __,..... -. -. I. --- -.....:5_1): ---- 1fie ·. af()~~~~-~}i:'~~-2nlen-~~i-T~~~ i':l_·_:::t~e___ --~rece_:~i-~~-~ _ ~aragraplls as also the various notific~t~pn~ i~sued.f~om time. to ~rme by the Government of NCT ~elh[1] l.ot1fymg. mm1mum pnce for agricultural ·1an~s in Delhi as' tabylated by m~ in para 7 above brin~ out two very,importa~t _facts relevant ~~ determine the growth/rise in the prices of agr,icultural land in Delhi over tl1e years·, commencing from. the. y~ar· 1g}90... As of 27.4.. 1990 minimum price was ~4.65 lal<hs per acr, whic.h rose to no lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ~5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a l1S·;QS4~j increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436o/o. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2~~ and t1ereafter by 11°/o for the next 2 years and 11.5°/o for the next yerr i.e. as of 1.4.2001..It ~hows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and • 1997 prices. grows fairly sl1arply ahd good corroborative. - evidencefor this would be the de~ision of the Division Bench of.. l this Court in Gajra!s case (supra). which have discussed in para 49 above.

51. I need. to elaborate a little. more with- respect to the decision in {iaj@]s case. Discussing thk evidence pertaining to fair market value of agritultural,lahd in lillage Holambi Kalan as.. I. I of 15.11.1996, ·in paras 9 to 17 th!e Court discussed the valuation on the basis of· agricult~ral ~ield and found that tl1e gross return per acre per annun[1] wa$ ~95,000/- for multiple cropped.land and having good.i_irriga!tion___facilities. and thus -· capitaliz~d--the land p~ice ~t ~9-.[5] lbkhs ~er acre. Discussing the · second method of land. p~i~es ·:of ~~rnparable lands in tile ----------sttr-FetifttHn-g-ai~~s'ti1C:Iucl-h;-g potenti-ality! in- para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with: refe~ence to land- prices in ---- adjoini~g ~~~~e.Bhbrgarh wher~-~CIG+owns had come up and -----· ·1Tased on sale 1nstances found that !based on tl1e sa1d sc~le. ! I '' --~'-------L -. 'i • ' I ---Tn5tances · d · · b~ r· f · d I an ·g-wi-rtg-m:::-n-ent o, rn ustriati-z:-at-torrthe--1-anrJ- pri\·e would come to ~10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). Tile Court then considE~red tli-e- price-s--notified by the Government as per policy dated 1..4.1997 and thus wor ed out the mean avera~:-~e figure of f[9],76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lancls ar,\.J.. i. f[9],51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality/ had een well-factored in when the Governr~erit issued the ~inim Im price notification.w.e.f 1.4.199~, evidenced by the fact thar even with• respect to sa lc transactions th,e Court found tllat as against the minimum price·.. notified as of ~.4.19.97 at;c10 lakhs Pfr acre, sale instances wer·e:, highlighting that the price was ~10,0],364/- per acre. 52.. The decision in fl-1aflender ~inq/7's case, pertaining t:~·· villa.geBawana, r~ferr.ed to. by me +para 49 above, highligh!::, with reference to para 2B to 31 oft e decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been take into account by the Court whi.ch was projecting reside~tia_l, commercial and industrl,~;l future ex~l~itation of agricultural lald in De~hi ancl on the issu,::_: of potentiality had noted that notw1thstandmg the IVIaster PicHI so, projecting and the lands theoreti~~lly acquiring a potentiality,. I the same had not translated ihto a r:eality evidenced by the fact

I. that till· the year 1996 i.e. the date df the notification with which... I the Division Bench was concerned, irtually no developrnent ht:1d taken place in village Bawana ·and Holambi Kalan and nobocly ha~ exploited the. potential.·,As 1 have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap jbetw en what would be f:)(pectcd to be th~.mark~t gro~th anct'wha[1] the market actua~ly, gr~wc~ The dec1s1ons m Gatra{s case and Mahender Stnw/7 s.._a~·~ highlight that potentiali:y tran'slate[1] itself into a reality betwee~ 1990 and 1997 when pnces rose b~J about -16.5o/o per annum and thereafter the extended potentiali~y did not translate with the ·LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' ' I --- ·····-·-·.,. <-j ••

I. I requisite momentum and the acc~lerrtion fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum... 0\ne· re~son cou.ld be that p_w::s,u.ao_Lt,u__Master Plan for Delh[1] 1990 a faJrlyJacg_e_ area ca_me to be developed, bo~h residential: co1mercial and industrial and probably there was enough av;Jiabtllf.Y of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturatecD.

53. The empirical evidence; in th~ instant ca,se, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by th, land owners. in respect whereof the learned Referen<;:e ~ Courtt has g1ven good reasons not to rely upon and for which I hav~ given further reaf;ons in ~ I paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market Jalue, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale ' deed E~<.R~2. as of the date of ~he sjle i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural laJ!d[5] would be ~19,16,040/-· per acre as of 27.1.2003 on tl1e reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa.. ! -. of land which was sold for ~5.39;~90/- and ~70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean thqt. ~6 09,850/- (~5,39,690/- + ~70,160/-) were spent would yi,eld t e price ~17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale. i.e;. 20.5\.2002..

54. · Thus, the best wh1ch; coul<t! be sa1d as the most favoUrable situation for the l<;md. o~ners wou.ld be that w:t~ reference to the sale deed dated 2cD.5.2002 for Category C •. lands the price i.e. fair rharket v~lue tf.lands in the area ·would be '{17,74,109/- per acre, For Categorl'B' and Category 'A' la.nd ··the price would ·have to be suitably e1rhanced and here we fmd another area of dispute for ~he rrason, as noted b)f me hereinabove In sub...para (a). qf para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App.No.266/200R & connected matters Page 54 of74 I 'I I -··--1-- - I

I. -·--- ----. somdimes. n.[2] lak~s per acr.,. so1etimes n.56 lakhs per acre --·----~nd ~.~metn11e-=__~1.[7] lakhs per acrj from the pnce of Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and.: I.. wherever lands were in Category ·~· as wel-l-the price has been deducted further by ~1. 7 lakhsi per acre. 55.. Now, neither side haS brou~ht any evidence on record as to what wou·ld be the moneyreq~ired to be spent to level the --1-a-AdS antf+Fle-fe-t:ha-t ca-fe-§-e;=ft:-a-tfe-n rs b-aseei---e-ITiy on the basis of certain lands having pits and deP,ressions of various depths ·----:-r--eett~+~-th-e- -same to be leveled a~d this would require money ~o be spent. --8-~t--;~---·_wl~-~t- -b:;~~-j~~s th;. Land···-Acc;uisition • • -... -·-------~-.. • - ---..... I.......... Colle_ctor h~·ld, 111 some awards. that f[1].[2] lal<hs per acre would bt::· spent and Hl some· that ~1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ~1.[7] lakhs ·per acre wlluld be spent? There is just no clue...

56. In Gajrai Singh's case (s1pra), the ·price differential vvorked out was ~25,000/- per atre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gairaj Singh': case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. In· Gairaj Sing'h's casJ the price for Cateqory '!-'' land determined was ~9,76,12·1/- pJr acre and for Category 'D' land the price determined was ~gls[1],121/- per acre and the. I I price differential comes to about:2.5°/o with reference to the. I price of Category 'A' land.: \

57. 1 thus hold that G'ajraj 9inqh's c9se should be my guiding star for price qifferenti.a.l in ~he in~t~nt cases as ~~.II and thus 1 hold that wherever Cate~\ory A, ·Category e, c1nd Category 'C' h.ave to be differ'entia,ed on price, the differential should be 2.5~'0. · 1 • I

58. Thus, if ~17,74,109/-, 1 roun~ed off to ~17.75 lakhs per acre-wouratre:tl'le pricefor ~-qa~eg~ry ·C'l;mrlln-viIIage R~jaPu~ Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and h1ghl1ghtmg that the sale deed Ex.F\·L. I I ' ·~ -- --~-- -·...... l-. I admittedly pertains to a Category. 'C' land, the price for Category '13' land would be' ~18.10. lakhs per. __acr:~---;~}cl for· ' Category 'A' land vvould be tl[8].655 akhs per acre.

59. Taking the logical reasoninp a little further it assume~~ importanc~ that as.per the minimum price notified by til f.~ G.overnment as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was {13.82 lakh:; and as of.1.4.2001 the same ·:was ~15.[7] lakhs per acre i.e. the ·percentage increase between the·year was 11.5°/o ·per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land prie;e·:at ~1.655: lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, ded cting the price by 11% per.. I. annum, the price as of 1.4.2001. wluld co~e t~ approximately ~16.40. lakhs per acre and thiS ~ould h1ghl1ght that when. contrasted with the minimum· price !notified by the Government at ~15.[7] lakhs.per acre as of 1.4.2(i)01, the price differential i::; ~70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46°/o. Sin~e exactness can nc:ver be • achieved while determining fair marlfet value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels o"f. I • land are sold for the reason even within a co"lony, the size, the....... location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5°/o. What I wish ~o highlight is that even the sale deed in. question yields to us a fair index as per whicl[1] tile minimum price.notified by the Gov~rnment has an element or rationali~y and acceptability..:it n~eds to be higlllightc~~d that ~hough under no1"mal ~ir_cu~strnces\_a sa~e ~n -~- ~~-~~icu~ar date.1s normally not heldgoocr ev1a1nce tp work OUL ~land pnce on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent ·dat.e[5], ·f~r the reason a price on a particular date iS the result o/i vario~s market forces/condition,; having already impacted the land p~ice a11d it would be difficult to fatho1~ the existence of ~~rkef forces/conditions walking backwards. But~ in the instat1t, ca,e, with reference to the 5 LA.App.No.266/2008 & cmmected matter~ I I I l I ~------· - · ••• -· ••..• j. • • not-ifications dated 7.8-.--20-00,. -1).9:2©00, 2.§.;;u).9-1-;- 22.8.2001 and· 7.12.2001, the differential period 'is small in~smuch as the ~ale deed in.question is dated 25.5.20l[2].and thu~ in the.peculiar facts of the mstant case, the sale de d 1n questton, whtch itself has been projected by the Uni?n of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said pate, would be.. a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into ~ccou.t while;-determining th.e market value of· land as on ttle dl\tes 7.8.2.000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001.

60. The. argument that viliage ~arela had always been treated locattonally advantageous for ~he reason the township of Narela was in existence since. long ·land this was recognized when, pur~ua~t to ~ notifi~ationj issut in the ye~r 1963, vis-ilvts the adjotnmg vtllages z[2] per square yard pnce advantage Was given to lands in viliage Narela i~ Dharambi!'s case, looses sight of the fact that the pric~ differential due to locational advantage was keeping in view; the r\ealities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urb~:Hiizatibn took place in Delhi and I more anc;i more areas came under p\otted development which included areas in North-West of:Oelhi i.e. the area with which I I am concerned today, the price differe~tial faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it.has become non-4xistent. ·. I. 61..· I thus hold that pertaiping to the· notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,: 22.8j2001 and 7:12.2001 the land prices would h~V.e to be cjeterrrined on the basis of the mllitmum pnce · nottfted by the Gpvernment as also vv1th __,, refere~c~ to the sale deed dated 25.s\.2002 for the reason I find,........ ·-· -·-···..·----·-····... -...-··-· ·... ·r---·-·-··-----·-·-·-.. ----·-·. no other cogent evidence wherefrom ljand price as on ~aid_ dates ·could be determined~- ·.Pertaining- tp the notifications elated 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 ~nd 27.1.~003,-fhe land priceneed.s to be determined with· respect to the sal,e deed dated 25.5.2002 -·..-:-~-~-ec~us~:~:Vrth•~;ecf~e-:~tr-"t~~~s~fd- ~~-1-e:~{Ce··it-.t&~~~~~-~lt-that---. land price as of said date comes to1more.thah if determined with respect to the notification dated; 9;8.2001. wherein minimum land price notified was 'f15. 7 lak~s pert acre with effect from 1.4.2001...

62. Witl[1] respect to the. price; differ\:ntial for Category '/--\' and Category 'B' lands, noting. that pertaining to the said notifications cat:gorization has been donr only pertaining to the land acqurred 111 vrllage Pooth Khurdl and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 21.8.2001 only), Vi-llage. I Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Ali~ur (pertaining to the n~tification ·dated 22.8.2001) I.hold +at vis-a-vis the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing· the same for Category 'A' landsl deduction has to be.ffected by decreasing the same by 2.5°/~ to determine the price I •. · for Category 'B' land:.. ·. \.

63. Before I work out the cornpensafion and since it would be. evidenced that ~~rtainin: to qate~~ry -'A' lands, the land pnces would margrnally · rncrease · rn a few cases and '. substantially in the other,. a striking ·no~e of discordant would emerge with respect to the land ptice d~termined pertaining tc[1] the notification. dated. 23.5'.2002 pertain\ing to village Holarnbi Kalan wherein the learned· Reference Co~rt has determined the,fair market value at ~22114,23,900~- per! acre as of 23.5.2002, --.tttt-need to---ntg'rltightttrar-perta·\Tilng t~ tile same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to villag~ Alipur the learned Reference ~-ourt has d~~~-!rnine~-i-the ·lfair market value at '{l[7],85,240/- per acre and I fin~ in~h:~l;ertaining to village RajapurKalan and Sanoth, pertal 1 \ he notification elated 27.1.2003 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands --·- - - -.--- I is ~19,16,040/- in some cases and {:J._9,13,760/- in a few, !. ' --·--·-- ----. ·-- __,... -- • -. -~·--"----+-1~~ meaning th.ereby ·that_ much. lls~~r Icompensation. has -i.J~~n worked out m th~-~-~ar 2_oo_~ _vr~~~~v'~l?e_ compe~~ation worked out for Holambr Kalan pertammg t\ the_ notrfrcation dated 23.5.2002 ·and the reas~r1- _f~r ·)the abrasion. is that in said notificption the land price deter~ined \n Ga[ra[s case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and incrreased at the rate of 12o/o per annum compounded. I Vmage Pooth Khuro[1] NoUfication dated 7.8.2000

64. With reference ·to the: noti ication dated 9.8.2001. wherein with effect from· 1.4.2000 mi imum price notified per acre is ~13.82 lakhs and requit:ing s id price to be suitably u[1]:dated _to· r~ach the_ date of the notilication i.e. _7.8.2000 ancl Wlth_r~~=~~nc~ to. -~he_ sale. deed:_datep 25.5.2002 wh~rein for Category C' lands, land pnce per acri come_:; to:~17, lil-,109/-, rounded off to ~17, 75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' Ianeis increasingthe same by 2.5.% th,e price fomes to H[8].[2] lakhs per acre and fun:her mcreasmg oy[1] 2;5°o the pnces comes -co.. ~18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasinG! tile said prices by 11°/o to reflect the price Jvith reference to the sale --- - - I. deed for the date. 7~8.2000; _the \ean average pnce _for Category 'A' lands in villag~ Pooth Khurd comes to {14. 75 lal<hs ' per acre and.decreasing the: same\ by 2.5°/o, it comes to ~14,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B'llands.,Noting that the iParned Reference Court -has wit>hout' ny reasons, done away ~,, I. with Category 'B' lands and unif?rm price awarded rs ~14,37,280/- per acre, the price differ4ntial ·worked out by me comes to a meager n.oop;- per ~ere +d thus qua Categm·y _·s~ lands 1 maintain the aiTIOUnt awar;ded tjly the learned Refer e11ce

1. Court. I I I,.

65. All Land Acquisition Appeals filjed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed 8 y Union of India in the Page 59' of 741 -·~----···--····-----·------ ---------

I. I appeal,s filed by land owners in Hespe1t whereof;grid ha~ bg€m _prepared_and labeled as 'GRID-A' rerej1above a,r~ d_i_~~i~sed. ----.-----:6::--:6=-.-· All Land Acquisition App~als ~iled by the land owners and cross'objections filed:by the l~nd orners in· appeals fiiG'd by Union of India are allowed by decreeinp compensation payable for Catego~y 'A' lands in village Pooth IKhurd pertaining to the '•'.t •. notification dated 1.4.2000 in -surT:l of ~14. 75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands th'e.: combensation.awarded at 'U[4],37,2801- per aCre is maintained a1d thus such appeals or cross references which pertain: to a:ategory 'B' lands are d.. d. I rsmrsse.,. \ ' I -67:. PerraTiilrig -·to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced·statutory benefits as ber the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgmen~ reported as Sunder V..'i. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 sl1all be granteb, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the app~al or cross objection, for ·which per-iod of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid; These appellants or· c oss objectors would !Je entitled to proportionate cost. Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000

68. For the reasoning given it~ par~s 64 to 67 hereinabove. pertaining to the notification (satl1e) dafed 7.8.2000 rel~ting to vtllage H~lambt.Kal~n, all appeals:; as plr 'GRID-B' her~rnabove and cross objecttons stand drsposfd of enhancrng the,. CO'Illpensation to ~14. 75 laklls pe~ acre\ and I hig~light that as per the award and even as per the ref~rence all subject lands were of uniform category. Needless to s~ate appeals filed by the -Uni,on of India and-cross objections wher~ver f.iled are disrnissed. App~als and cross objections fil~d by lanld owners are allowed by. enhancing the compensation to 't14.75 fakns per acre togeti1er _with statutory benefits as per the !Land !Acquisition Act 1894 as. I ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & cmmected matters explained in the judgment t~epprted as Sunder Vs. U0/2001 (93) DLT 569, ·except for the period whfre there is a delay in filin 9 -------l-19-e-- appeal or cross objection,· fo[1] which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compen ·atio!2__ shall~ be paid. ThesE:~ app~llants or 'cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate ' cost. V)llage Bawarl'a Notification dated 7.8.2000

69. Pertainil]g.to villag_eL Bawan.a____relating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where he learned Reference Court.'.......---__uht_yas not. enhanced the compensatio, for parity of reasoning, fair • •• m~~~~-=-~~lue for Category 'i\;-~ia~_?s\ is fi_xed at ~14. 75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands att ~14,38,125/- per acre and noting that Union ·of India has neit~er filed any appeal or cro::;s objection, appeals as per 'GRID~C' hereinabove are allowed I:Jy fixing the compensation _ as heleinbefore mentio-ned and needless to_ state on the enhanced q:ompensation the appellant~; sh~ll be entitled to-.statutory benefit~ as per the Land.D-.cquisition Act 1894 as explained in thE~ judg~~ent reported as Sunder 1~2:.c U0/2001 (93) ·OLT -569, except for the period where t1-1ere is a delay in filing the appeal, for:whic period of delay no interest.: I.. · on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants.. / I would be entitled to propoli:ionate cost.... I Village IK.hera Khura:Notification dated 11.9.2000. I

70. With ·reference to the ~otification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with· effect from 1.4.2000 \minimum price notified per. I.... acre is '{'13.82 lal<hs per acre an~ requiring said· price to be suitably· updated· to reach the d~te of the, notification i.e. 11.9.2000 and with reference ~to thk sale deed dated 25.5.200;~ I wh·erein for Category 'C' lands, la1~GI price per acre comes to.I. ~17,74,10.9./.::,..i:.o.unded off to.~'tl.7,f75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasin~l ~he same by 2.5°/o the price comes - i LA.App.No.266/2008 & cotm_ected matters Page (-i.Jl_ of 7'-il i > - ·-·-··~ • ··---··-!--- -·· •.. to '<18.[2] lakhs' per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices to~ -~. _\ ·--G8ffie&-te:-ng,e-§,§-ffGI-f)€-r-ae-re-fo-r-··€ctt--egory 'A-'---Iands; and / ·decreasing the said prices by.11°/o to reflect the price wit!1 reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean aver~ge 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 't15,76,087- per acre for Category 'B' lands. 1\loting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away- with Categor.y 'B' lands apd uniform price awarded is I ~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, I hold that for Category 'B.' lands the price determined would be as per the reference b~t for Category 'A' lands the '. ' p_ri_c__e__s..tancis_e_ob.a_o_ce.d_to__U[6].lfi;5001: _per-acre._______....:..:~..

73. All Land Acquisition Appeals ·as per 'GRID-E' filed 9Y the land owners and cross-objections fifed by the land owners in ~----··· --- ·-------·· ·- ---·.. -· appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing ------·compensation payabl-e 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 Unron 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 Cat~gory 'A' lands are. I allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced contlpensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition /-\ct...L' ··-- •.-lS[9].4.as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI:2001 (93) OLT 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 · Page 63 o'f 711 i. I to U[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further incrtasing by 2.5% the prices comes to;cl[8],65,590/- per acre for jCategqry 'A' lands;____ancl decreasing. the said prices by ~ 1°/o /o reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A':lands in village Khera Khurcl cornes to ~14,83,500/- per· acre i and. tiecreasing the same by 2.5o/o, it comes to t14,46,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands.

71. All Land Acquisition Appeals a, per 'GRID-0' filed by the land owners and cross-objections file[1] by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing I compensati~n. payable for ~~te~ory 't' lands in villa_9e l<hera Khurd pertammg to the notrf1cat1on d~ted 11.9;2opo 111 sum of '{14,83,500/- per _acre for Cateqory ·'A' lands and ~14,46,413/--.... per acre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertaining to this. • noti"fication and the village, the L!nion bt India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced comp:erisation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as eixplained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. U0/2001 (93) ~LT 56.[9] shall be granted, except for the period where tl1ere is a belay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay ~o· int~rest on the enhanced • I compensation shall be paid. These ·ap~ellants would be entitled to proportionate cost.... \.. Village Narela Notifi.cation dated 2.5.2001 72'. With reference to t.he: noti~ication dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 'i~4-.200l mihimum. prfce-··r-\Otified per acre is ~15.[7] lakhs per acre and- rebuiring said price to be suitably updated to reacil thel datJ of the notificatior~ i.e. 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sdle deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands; ··la!nd \price per acre comes to ~17,74,109/-, rounded off to ~17;75,000i- per acre, and for Categ.ory 'B' lands increasing the:sam[1] by 2.5%) the price comes LA.App:No.266/2008 & connected matters · I ' I interest on the enhanced compenlsation shall be paicl... I. appell.ants would be entrtled to pro~ort1onate cost. ___ - _:- ---...\f-i-na-§1-e-J=I-olam-ei-Kal·ar-l Notifidation dated 22.8.2001 These~ /.,.. I.

74. \/\lith reference to the 'notification dated 9.8.2001 I vvherei11 vvith effect ft 01r[1] 1.4:z-<J'Ol\ -minimum price notified per... I.. acre is f15.70 lakhs per acre an<ji requiring said price to IJe ' suitably updated to ·reach the ~ate of the notification i.e. ' ' 22.8.2001 and with reference: to the sale deed dated 25.5.200~~ -. I I wherein for Category ·c~ lands, lahd price per acre comes Ltl I;c17J[4],109/-, rounded off to ~17,!75,000/- per acre, and for...... 1-· Category 'B' lands increasing the sa1me by 2.5% the price come~~ I to (18.[2] lakhs per acre and further illcreasing by 2.5% the prices. I. comes to ~18,65,500/- per acre fpr Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the.said prices by 111/o to refl-eet--t-Me price with I reference to the sale deed for the\ date 22~8.2001; tile mean • · ave(age price for Category 'A' lan~s in village Holambi l(ali:ln - - - - · - - - - I... --... •• -. J:. comes to ~16,74,500/- per acre arid decreasing the ~;arne by I 2.5(S, it comes -to ~16,32,63.7.~0 peri acre for Category 'B' lands.. ' I ·Noting thato the learned Ref,erenc;e Court has, without any reasons, done away with Cat€t9ory \·s· lands and uniforTn pi-ice. I awarded is ~16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential workecl I i · out by me comes to a meager ~9,0100/- per acre and thus qua I Category 'B' lands I maintain th~ amount awarded by the iearned Reference Court. I I I l

I. I

All Land Acquisition Appeal~ filed by the Union of India ' ' I ' 75.' and· cross objections wherever •file~ by Union of India in tile ! app$als filed by land owners in reswect whereof grid llas be(2n.. I prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' ~ 'GRID-G' hereinabove are i dismissed. '

76. All Land Acquisition Appeal~ fileq by _th.~_ land owners and cross-objections filed by th:e lan~ owners in appeals filed by I LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. Page 61 of74 I i. I -: Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable..: · I ·r. for.~ate~ory 'A' lands in villa_ge: Holatbi· Kalan pertaining to tl1e notJfrcatr.~n date~ ~2.8.2001m ~um o( ~16,74,:00/~ per acre and for Category ·B lands the compensation awarded at ~16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and.tl1us such appeals or cross references Which pertain toi Category 'B' lands are dismissed. - I

77. ·Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory ben~fits 4s per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder V.:;.. I. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall b~ gralted, except for the period where ther: is a ~elay in filing ~he a9peal. or cross objection, for which period of delay no ir'lterest on tthe enhanced compensation. I shall be paid. These appellan:ts or cross objectors would be ~ntitled to proportionate cost. ·.. ·Village Ali Pur Notification ~ated 22,8.2001

78. With;eference to th e no~~fication ~ated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2?01 11il11n1mum pnce not1f1ed per acre is ~15;'70 lakhs per acre;and ~equiring said price to be su.~tably updated to reach the da~e of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the ~ale deed dated 25.5.2002 ' ' wherein for Category 'C' lands', lan[9] price per acre comes to.~17,74,109/~. rounded:o-Ff to fl[7],7f,OOO/..: per acre, and for ·Category 'B' l.ands increasing tl1e sarrie by 2.5°/o the ·price comes • to ns.[2] lakhs per acre and further in1reasing by~·~% the pri~es · comes ~o ~18,65,~00/-.per acre.. fol Ca~egory A lan.ds, a~1d..,. decreasmg the sa1d p~1ces byl11°/o' to reflect the pnce wrtr[1]..,. I reference to the sale deed for! the date. 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category_.'~l.alids \in· village Ali Pur comes to ~16,74,500/- per acre and de~reasi!19 the same by 2.5%, it ' i. 1 comes to ~16,32,637.50 per acr,e for f=ategory 'B' lands. Noting.: ~ ' I 'I i_,. --:··:..!.h.-at the:"f:earn~(f'S"efetence COurtJ;~~·~\O.flth~Yt ~flY -.reasons, done -~--"'away with categ-~~Y- -~8· lands an_d ___u.hiform price awarded is. U[6].43,8ll/-. Per acre,the price fiffertntial worked out by me QQmes to a meager f[9],000/- per 9cr:e a d thus qua Category 'B,..... i lands I maintain the amount awa~ded y the learned Reference.. ! C,ourt..

79. Ail Land Ac:::quisition Appe:als fil~d by the Union of lrKliEr. ' • !., in respect whereof grid has been Rr"epa1ed and labeled as 'GHID- H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note tHat land owners have not.:. I filed any 'appeal c~allenging the decjsio~ of the Reference Cour-t.

I. I

80. There shall be no order as to co:sts..VW~qe Ho~ambi Khurd Notifk:atioJ dated 22.8.2001.. I

81. With reference to the ·notification dated 9.8.2001. I wherein with effect frorn 1.4.2001 min\imum price notified per • acre is ~15.70 laklls per acre a~d re !uiring· said price to be suitably updated to reach the;date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with.refereilce to tre sale deed.dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' ·lands,. land ~rite per acre come2~ to {17.74,109/-, ·rounded off to {1~,7s,opo!- per acre, and lor Category 'B' lands increasing the same ~y 2.5°/o the price cornes ! to ~18.[2] lakhs per acre and further· increi;lsing by 2.5% the prices. I comes to ~18,65,500/-. per acre for lategory 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by·. 11o/o t~ reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the daije 22.8.2001; the mean..... I __ a.\Le.ca_g_e_price.._fo.x:__caregory. 'A.' l<mG-s-~---vi-1-lag-e--H-e~-a-m bi -IEh urd-· - ~ames to ~16~74,500/- per acre ·and. dj~creasing the same by I 2.5°/o, it comes to ~16,32,637.50 __p_er.acr~Jor Category 'B' lancls....... I -· -~.·-fi;imlllg ·rfrar·:tffe-fea-f"ned. Refere;ce ~iourt has, w~thout a.ny _ _ __ · reasorts_,_ d_o.n~. with· ~ateg.O-PJ 'B'-ands and unrforrn pnce.. I ayvarded· is ~16,Lf~{B11/- per acre,·\ the ~rice differential worked ---- O.Ut by me comes·:..to a meager ~9;,00011 per acre and tllUS qua LA.App.No.266/2008 ·&connected matters I 'I -I I '.I Page 66 of74 I Category 'B'.. lands rq.aintain..~e fmount awani@d by· the ·learned Reference Court. 1

82. The appeal filed by. the ution of India in respect ·whereof.grid has·· been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. i note:that lbnd owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of ~he Reference Court.......................l.....-···... ····-·--··-····--·--····

83. There shall be no order:as to qosts. Village Raiapur Kalan Notificatidn dated 22.8.2001 ~.. I

84. With reference to the· noti,fication dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 miJnimum price notified per acre is '{15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the! dat~ of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with ·'reference to:the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands,:land price per acre comes to • ~17,74,109/-, rounded off to {'~7,75,eOO/- per acre, and for Categor~r '8' lands increasing the·sani~ by 2.5o/o the price comes to ~18.[2] lakhs per acre and further inc~basing by 2.5o/o the prices. I. comes to ~18,65,500/- per acre for !Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 1lo/o to reflect the price with. I reference to the sale deed for the d~te 22.8.2001; the rnean.: i average price for Category 'A' lands\ in village Raja pur l(alan I comes to ~16,74,500/- per acre! and !decreasing the same by... '. I 2.5o/o, it comes to ~16,32,637.50 per acire for Category 'B' IOJnds... ' I Noting ·that the learned Refer~nce !court has, without any.. '. ' • reasons. done away With Catego:ry 'B'\ lands and uniform price. """.9.1~2-rdeQ_j_~--~16,43,811/- per acr~·. the\ price differential worked... I....out. by rh..e.comes to a meager' ~9.ooq/-.pe.c._a_cre..and. thus qua. I Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the -+I_______ learned ReferenceCourt. \ 85. and All Land Acquisition 1-\pprals filled by the Union of India cross objections wherever filed ~Y Union of India in the ' I LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 67 of7L1l.... ···-··-··.-· ·-··. ···---. -------~-___,,c--. · -. --···.... -...···-·------··-·--.....---..... - ·----~---- I - •.· a-~_eals~-fHed ·by·-i-anct-·uwner:.;·irrTespe~::;it--vvhereof grid !':la-s-bee-A--prepafed and lilbeled as 'GRID-)' hereina:bove are dismissed.

86. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners · and cross-objections filed by the land ofners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by. decreeing compensation payable fOr Category 'A' lands in village "ajapu[1] Kal.~pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of fl[6],74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the comdensation awarded at fl[6],43,811/- per acre is maintained an!d thus such ilppeals o~ cross refereno~~ which pertain to Category ·'8' lands are dismissed. I I I

87. Pertaining to such appeal· wnere the compensation stands enhanced statutory ben~fit? as ~er the Land Acquisition,. I Act 1894 as explained in the judgn1ent! reported as Sunder vs·. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be. g·rante~, except for the period where there is a delay in fifing the appe~l or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the ~nhariced compensation..... I.. shall- be pa1d.. These appellants or cross obJectors would be, entitled to proportionate_ cost.. \ Viilaqe Sanoth Notification- daJed 7.12.2001 i. I With reference to the 1 notifitation dated 9.8.2001 ' ' I

88. ' wherei'n with effect from 1.4.200~ mini\mum, price notified per.... I a~re is ~15.70 lakhs per acre an,d req:uiring saiq price to be. suitably updated to reach the dqte \of the notification i.e. LA.App.No.266/2008 & com1ected mat1ers Page 68 of74 • reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean avera~e P_~~~e for C:(;ltegory 'A' lands in village Sanotll comes to ~17,29,500/-· per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Refere~ce Court are of same value I hold that: for acquired lands ih village Sanoth for th(;; notification dated 7.12.2001 the ·lanb owners would be entitled. I to the enhanted. compensation in suT of ~17,:29,500/-. · 89~ All Land Acquisition Appeals! filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India it~t the. I appeals filed by land owners in resP,ect whereof grid l1a~; been.prepared and. labeled as 'GRiD-K' her~inabove are dismissed. I

90. All Lan'd Acquisition App~al[5] filed by the lancl owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by..-····----~------------- --...........I..... Un1on of lndta are allowed by grant1lg compensatton 111 sum or ~17,29,500/- and needless · to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits- as. p\er the Land.L\cquisition;~ct 1894 as explained in the judgment ~eported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001(93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal a( cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enranced compensation shall ' be paid. These appellants or c,ross 0bjectors would be entitled ' I, I. to proportionate cost.: vmage Shahpur Garhi NoiJfitation dated 16.5.2002.. I

91. Pertaining. to village Shahp;ur Garhi, as held by ITIC: hereinabove the land price would. hbve to be determin~::'cl with. ! reference to. the sale deed dated·2ols.2002 and for which lane\ price for Category..,A' lands has b¢en determined by rne at. I. '{18,65,500/~ per acre and since the~e is just a difference of L! I days be-tween the date of sale and ithe notification I maintain tilat for the notification in question\ dated 16.5.2002 the laric[1] i owners are entitled to compensation! at the rate of ~18,65,500/-- LA.App~No.266/2008 & connected matters I I per acre and I highlight that as p~r the award ana--rFre rerererice ~II lands are in the same category[ Appf-als and cr()?._S objections fried by the land owners· as per;the· '~RIO-L' are allowe.d and needless to state. o~. the enharced lcompensa.tion the land. owners would be entrtled ·to. all:statutory benefrts as per tile. Land Acquisition Act 18,94 as ~nter~reted in the judgment.::~~rt:;p::,:uo~d:~o~:· ~J~~c~i~~~.~~:~i~~T,!~:::cne:r: t:~~:~:.there is delay, i1o.interest-would be pai 1 for the period of delay. Proportionate cost~ stand awarded. Appeals and cr-oss objections filed by Union of India are disl-nissed... I Vu~~age Slhahpl.ur GaJo"lho Notific~tfion dated 23.g[9].2«JlQ.l:2... I,

92. Pertaining to tile notification dated 23.5.2002 I pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the • sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 clays I '. hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same ' category, the land owners would be en~itled to compensation at the rate of fl[8],65,500/- with statutOry benefits as per the Land i. Acquisition Act 1894 as. interpreted in the decision reported as I Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 ex~ept in such appeal:; or. ' cross objections fi.led by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period ~f delay. Proportionate.. I costs stand awarded.. All such apllealsi and cross objections by land owners as· per 'GRID-M' stand allo~ed as aforesaid and all 1.appeals and cross objections filed ~y Union · of India c)re dismissed.: 'I I VmUage IHlolambi Kalailil Noitnf-katidn dated 23.5.2002 I

93. As noted by me pertaining t<j) the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi l<~lan all lands have been. I

I. treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 70 of74:r •; I Co,llector and the learne.d Reference Court. '. ! The learned, I Reference Court.has avvard.e_d_ do..mp.. _ens.atio_n____in_.snm__oL.... I ~22·, 14,239/- per act~e which;I ha~e found to be. excessive '... I I ·inasmuch as for.the date 23.5.2002 1 have held that fair rnarket.. I. value would be 'f18,65,500/-: per acr e and thus all appeals ancl cross objections ~ile~ by tl1e land oiwners as per 'GRID-1\1' a1·e dismissed and appeals· and cross opjections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the i'fpugried decree passecl by the learned Reference Court and r¢ducing the compensation -. I payable to ~n[8],65,500/" per acre ori which, needless to state,. ' ' with reference to the.enhanced· p~ice with reference to the.award the statutory benefits already! granted stand maintained. No costs. I Village Ali Pur Notificati6n dated 23.5.2002 I

94. Pertaining to the notificatio~ dated 23.5.2002 relatinG to village Ali Pur,· for parity of reaso1s qua the said notification relating to village Holarnbi Kalan and\ Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at;~18,65,p00/- per acre and thus all appeals and. ·cross. objections filed jby Union of India as per ' I. I. 'GRID-0' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filecl. I. I by land owners as per· said Grid are! allowed by enhancing tile. ' compensation pay\lble to ~18,65,5,00/- per acre on whicll -.:. I statutory benefits as per Land Acqui~ition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported. as Sunder VL[5].. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569. shall be. paid sa~-e---·a~d·-·e-xqcpt. i~ such appeals or eros?.~ objections where there.is a del~y, intfrest would not be paid foif the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well....... I Village Sanoth Notificatibn dated 27.1.2003 -. I

95. Pertaining to the appeals a~d cross objections by thE.. I iand owners and Union of India:as pe:r 'GRID-P' pertaining to thE notification dated 27.1.2003 relatin~ to village San0th, I note ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 71 of7·4 • J • 'I I I that the learned Land AcquisitiOri c911ector has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court ha':;.. -.. - I wit~~:)Ut any.. discussion h~ld the lards· as of uniform category wh1le awardmg compensation.. ·- T-·----·· · · ··-· ---·-· · -

96. · On the mean average' basis/ which I have been followinGJ by increasing the price as of 1.4.~001 with reference to the: notification issued by the Gov~rnm.1nt as also by increasing tile ·---es'"""'ame-wit-h-"ref-eie-nce--to the.sale !deed dated 20.5.2002 anti I taking the mean average, for Categ'<i>ry 'A' lands the price comes.. I.. to '{19,43,500/- ·per acre and for ~ategory 'e\' land the. price... --....·--·--------------·---.--- ·-.. -:-- I....,.....~9.01_~? to ~18,94,912.50 per acre a~d for Category 'C' lands the pri~e comes to 't18,47,539.68: per ~ere. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly· detJrrrtined fair market value dt ~19,13,765/:.. and. thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners th~ same have to be disrnissed ' in so far they pertain to Category ·~· and Category 'C' lands and. I · similar Would be the fate of c~ppeals[ and cross objections filed by:. j Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals •. I and cross objel:tions as per 'GRID-P( are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owndrs pertaining to Category 'l-\' • I lands are allowed by decreeing co~pensation payable in sum of. ~19,43,500/- per acre and needle~s to state on the enhanced ' compensation statutory benefits a~ per the Land Acquisition 1L\ct '. I I 1894 as interpreted in the ju~gme~t reported as Sunder Vs. Ll()f 2001 (93) DLT 569 siTall ·b'e pai[1] d ··saVe and except in such. I. appeals and cross objections wh~re there is· a delay I inten:::~3t ' would hot be paid for the period ofidelay. Proportionate co~ts as I well. The appeals and cross obj~ctions filed by Union of lncli;::\ pertaining to Category '8' and Cat~gory 'C' lanqs are allowed h~/ ri'TOO-ifyi-19-g-the-..-Felata-131e -EieEree:;A the Reference Order:.. ~,. reducing the · compensation for Category 'B' land cc' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 72 or'/c! \'. • -fl[8],94,9J[2].50 per acre and for Category 'C' land - f18,[4] 7,5'39.68 pe_r acre. Villaqe Raiapur Kalan NOtification dated 27.1.2003. I.

97. For parity ofreasonrng ais per para 96 above pertaininc:; to village Sanoth, simil_ar:corre¢tive action is to be required pertaining ·to lands acquired p!ursuant to notification dat<::~cl · 27.l.2003 relating ~o villag~ Rajabur Kalan and where 1 find that: • • • J • the learned Reference.Court mas in some cases avvarcled ' com-pensation in surn of t19,1~,765/- per acre and in som(-:: cases at ~19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniforni category. On the mean:averaige basis which i have b<:::'f:'~"' -. I following by increasing the; price ias of 1.4.2001 with referenu'.~ to the notification issued · by the Government as also t)v increasing.the same with r~-f-e-r.e;---;n~e to the sale --deed dated. I 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'JJ..' lancL;;. I '. ·· -the pfi-c--e-c---om-es--t~--l:-9-;-4~}-,--5-eet-=-tper· aere-a-n-d for Category 'H' ' land the price comes to tl[8],94,9lj[2].50 per acre and for C:ate~]ory 'C' lands the price comes to ~18,4.7,539.68 per acre. Thus such '. !. _appeals or cross ·objections • which have been filed by lanc:i owners the same have to be disrY;Jissed in so far they pertain i::o Category 'B' and Category 'C' lp\nds and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objedtions filed by Union of lndid r pertaining to Category 'A' lands.;. The.said appeals and CIT>~:;~, objections as per 'GHID-Q'. are ~ismissed. Appeals and cro~:;::: I objections filed by land owners p~rtainlng to Category 'A' Iancb. I. are· allowed by ·decreeing. comr;>ensation.p;:tyable in sum of... ! ~19,43,500/-· per acre anct·..needt~ss- tu -state-urr-tiTe en!lanced. I. compensation statutory benefits ~:; per the Land Acquisition /-\ct 1894 as interpreted in tile judgm~nt reported as Sunder lis. UO/. I 2001--(-9?;,-s-t:T--5-69--!5t-t-a-H --b~sa-ve-aA-d except in ~;uch..,.. appeals and· cross objections w~ere there is a delay, interest - '. -- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. Pag::: 73 of '/c': ___ vyo_uld not Q.~ paid for the period of drlay. Proportionate costs a::: well. The appeals and cross objecjtions filed by Union of lndiiJ p~rtaining to Category '8' and Categ;orY. 'C' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in;· the.Reference· Orcler by ---.._____ --~·-··. I ----,-----;r-eelttE-i-R"§--t-:he coffifJ€·ns-a-1:-i-fr~fe-r-t-·:ca-tego ry 'B' Iand to · t'l[8],94,912.50 per acre and fo~. Category 'C' land to I.. ~18,[4] 7,539.68 per a~re.

AUGUST 23, 2011 rniT'!/dJk ' ! I '. n[rl!~l~?.~~tlill.:.·.i. U?HADE~P- NANDRNOG) )uoGE · ! --------·--- ____._. ---~~-~--· l I • LA.App.No.266/2008 & com1ected matters; i l I i i I I ! -------'----------·· ' 0 - - · - - - - -: -. - - - - - -:... · - - - - ••• · - · - - - - - - - - Page 74 of74