Union of India v. Krishna Devi & Anr

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To'be referred to Reporter or not?

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

1. 10 viiiages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambl Kaian, Holambi-Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, Aii Pur, Rajapur Kaian, Shahpur Garhi and Sanqth are comprised in the Revenue District (North-West) and if we see the map of the city of Delhi —we-w0uld-^ifld-that-€h€se villages part of Delhi. They lie within an area between the 'V formed by Rohtak Road i.e. NH-IO and G.T.Karna! Road i.e. IMH-l.' The Delhi- • Ambaia railway line ruhs somewhat parailel to SMH-1. Whereas ' • viiiages Marela and Shahpur Garhi are in between •the Taijway line and.MH-i, the otlier villages are on the opposite side of th.e •' railway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line, and Shahpur Garhi.are, towards the east of the railway line. The. urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has been developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 artd is Situated in.the iand within the aforesaid 'V'. Bawana industriai Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1995, and •said Industriai Estate is aiso on the iand within the aforesaid ''V. Historically, except for village Narela; aii viiiages have- been' • treated as equivalent with respect to their location.

2. The instant decision decides the issue as to what should bethe fair.market value of agricultural lands in the said viHages' as of the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.20Qli 7.12.2001. 16.5.2002.. 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003. Needless to state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time^ on "B"rors5^aR3~d"ates under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act •'rSW^'vaYt'tracts'oTTand in said •10"vFirages''we're acquired and g:av/P' and gaxrpnt lands In the Revenue'Estate'of village Marela where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential and. •partly iPfdustrial, in the other villages, acquisition was'for the.purpose of establishing an industriai estate or laying down a LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 13 of % % Thm lands were needed' was to set up an industrial estate pursuant- •..to a decision taken to shift all, sndustries operating' i'n nonconforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas,

3. I must highlight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in all, appeals filed''by them'as also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and except pertaining to village iMarela, where an additional argument was advanced; being, that, the township.of jSiareia had.... • existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Marela had a better value.and for which, it was urged that'way back in.• the year 1963 when lands in the revenue estate of village Marela, and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village IMareia were given a price advantage of ?2/- per sq.yd., vis-a-vis the price determined for lands' in vsllage^. Bhorgarh and f^amurpur. I must further highlight that learned counsel conceded that village Marela and Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Warela a.nd the village abadi.being in Mamurpur.-.4.; The position of tlie awards made from time to time.and • 'the relatable notification under Section 4 of the La.nd Acquisition' Act 1894'have been detailed by me while noting the various Land Acquisition Appeals and the Cross Objections as per the index hereinabove and thus ! need not repeat the same. 3, _ A perusal of all the awards announced from time to -Hmp. Spp^rnpii Land... Acquisition •Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of MCT Delhi from time notifying the minimum rates for agricultura!'lands • in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between. LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters. • Page 14of74 • 4' to' b', the land value has been appropriately depressed and __ this is to be found In a few award^wherelBiras^We been put in 2 or 3 cateQdries i:e; Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category

6. A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made,. wouid show that the learned Reference Court has determined fair market value on different principles and for purposes of clarity S may note the basis on which the learned Land Acquisition. Collector and the learned Reference Court have determined the compensation payable.. The same v\^ould be as under:-'' • ' • • A. • Pertaining to the notification, dated 7.8.2000 issued' - 4 of th^ Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against if ^13,82 iacs per acre for Category 'A', lands and ?12.26 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the policy tos minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. ?13.82 lacs, per acre and'has-granted increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1..4.2000 till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section ' 4 of-the Land Acquisition Act 1.894 and thus.determi.ned fair market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per • acre and-has ignored that there was Category 'B' land for which % he had to make necessary adjustment.. B. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7,8.2000 pursuant whereto-211.14 bigha land was acquired in visage-; Hoiambi Kalan, the Land'Acquisition Collector treated.the !a=id. as of same character and determined fair, market value with reference to the policy for minimum rates in sum offl[3].82 lacs LA.App.No.266/2008 &connectedmatters Page IS of74 % per acre which has been enharrced ijy-thB-tearrred Reference Couft to ?14,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decision "of a" -BwfsT0rrBendr-of-this-eotJTt-TBpOTl^d-ss-2^8^-(¥lt'^0^ Gairai Vs. UOl wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market value determined was ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and treating the said date and the said price as the base, giving 12% per annurrrH^Teria^tlwfijr a period of 3 years, 8 months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000,. fair market value has been determined.

1. Pertaining to the same notification, dated 22,8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Rajapur Kalan w.ere acquired the reasoning and the fair market value determined,by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd / and Ajipur save and-except in this village the acquired land was of uniform category. J- Pertaining to the notification dated 7.12.2001 pursuant whereto 222.05 bigha land was acquired in village Sanpth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township, ^ the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed ' compensation uniformly in sum of ?15.[7] lacs per acre which is the same as per the policy for nninimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the learned Reference Court has adopted the same price and given appreciation for 250 days at the rate of 12% per annum to reach the figure of ?16,99,042/-per acre,

2. 25.7.1997 1.4.1997 10.0 •11.[5] •

3. 24.9.1998 1.4.1998 11.[2] ll.,2-.

4. 21.11.-2000 -

12.32 •5. •• 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 12.16,. 11 •. • 1.4.2000 13.82. 11,

6. 9.8.2001 1.4.2001 15.[7] 11.5.

7. 30.8.2005 30.8:2005 • 17.584 2.98. 8., 24.1.2008 18.12.2007 53 89.51 • •• •

8. From the tabuiation hereinabove noted.it wouid be apparent that after minimum price was last 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 increase comes to 11.5% per annuTYi (simpie), The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price wa,s enhanced by, 1,1.2% to reach the figure of f11.[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 9.8.2,001 was issued the price was retrospectiveiy enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to ?12.15 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% per annum with reference to the price determined as of _L4-1998 and:vide,_ same notification;• the price vvas retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to f 1,3.82 lakhs/ace i.e. increased by 11% per annum-vis-a-vis the previous i.e. fl[2].16 iakhs/acre and v\f.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by. 11.5% per annum vis-^-vis the previous price of ?13.,82 lakhs/acre-to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ^ - - n:yenhanced w.e.f. 30.8,2005 to fi[7].584 lakhs/acre whlch-a»7^^ ®^'-iTrcrea5eT3fimr[2].y8% per annum and then the price rose to ?53 lalchs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annum with reference to the base figure of ?17.584 ial<hs/acre and the date 30.8.2005. — ^ ^ BefQne_nQt4f^-..the~evidene refied upon by the land. owners and Union of India before the iearned Reference Court, it would be beneficial.for the reader of the present decision, as ! feel, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. 1 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, faillrSg which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of "rged that the land price fixed by the 0 iearned 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 lOr village Bawana; the notificatior! dated 11.9.200Q for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5.2001 for village Narela; and the notification dated 22.8.2001,for village Aii Pur;,. and the notification dated 27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Kalan 3"^ Sanoth treats as if ail lands were of uniform character and it ttaLxoirectlvfijrtlon.is_teqiiir;ed by doing 2things, Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the j|. Government from time to time,.11.5%:increase per annum and • eiiiium-rncreas^Tfas excesSwwith reference to the —, lates of the notifications under Sectlfin4jj.f the Land Acquisition ^ to be reduced to 10%,pe^an^um in the least. Secondly, the iearned Reference Court was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No[2],66/2008 & connectedmatters Page22 of74 r-' t % requiring further correction.by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by the Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land 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/ iri Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.fMo.780/2010 as also tfr^'SHte ijeeT! dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.AppeaL Vide sa'e deed Ex,PVV-l/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village fv^amurpur was sold @ ?26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19. biswa of land was. sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of 02.[4] lai<hs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price^as of 25.3.2000 «nder Ex\PW-l/3 would be t28.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to-the saie deed Ex.PVV-1/2 the land price would-be. ?63.478 iakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds v*/oyld 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 notificationswere issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894- by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this a'rgume^nt, •pertaining to village Ma.rela, it was-urged tha^..^the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learn^'d counsel submitted that the same shouid be at least 10% more \ LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 23 of^7'% t % and for which the argument was that whe^ii. in fhe past, pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section H of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultura! lancts in vlliage fviamurpur- Narela by giving a. price benefit of ?2/- per sq.yd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 5.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UO! vs. Dharambir & Or^. The said decision would reveal that the price per bighaJn.sum of f[6],650/-• determined by the Land Acquisition Coiiector was enhanced to •?16,750/- per.bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to f22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was revefsed by the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the R'Sfefence Court was restored.

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

12. AltMatlve to the second suhmisslDn, 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 f- % •-vsr Vrmn of India, It was permissible to determine fair market' • value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the land by. percentages ranging between 6% per annum to,12% per annum for different periods. Sh.LS.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of, the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bed! Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per'annum till 30.3.1965 had to be © 6% per annum with reference to the base price f16,750/-,per bigha as of 30.10:1953 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Courc in Dhararnbir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till 31.3:1973 and, thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various Sates when the 8 notific^ons under Section 4. of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with — which i._am_co.ncerned.in.±he present,appeals. So.vsforked out, iearned counsel highiighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to ?56,88,759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he, was appearing in such-appeals where.the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle market value should be assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, -22.8.2001, 7.12.2001,- 16.5.2002 and 23.5.200-2. • -. ^ •

13. The fourth argument •advanced was, and for which ^ * • • • -. --Fefe-T-ence was made by learned-cqui^-ej for the parties in the evidence led in LAC Mo.99/2005, which is subject'matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.NoT2'68/2008 fiied by the land dwners..—and LAJkPP.No.292/2008 filedJsy UniQO.,_Qf_india, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annuaiizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 2S of74 % testTOeey of Ram KtsftaFv to the effect that by selling aqnculturaf' •pjoduce from fais-iaRds-f^-ys-ed to earn fakfi per bigha per annum i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e! the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date shetjid be^20 lakhs per bigha. I may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel vi/ho appeared for Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants in LA,APP.No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.Mo.292/2008. ' •14. The fifth argument.advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that'for each of the notification in question the fair'market "value ought to have been determined with reference to the notification _MiiC-h was closest in point of time where_Lirid-er minimioTi land value was fixed by the Government and the notification dated • 24.1.2008 where under ?53 Jakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18,12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument.-

15. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to-the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra l^o.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for f[5],3§,6#0/-,. determined-the fair market value as per the.-sai.d, sale deed inthefoilowihg words: (Refer para 17 of the decision: 7/ i/ve add stamp tiie safe price ^3,69,906/- per bioha (t[5],39..690/- 7'0J6G = 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes -to 74-109/-. per acre or 13,68,906/- per bigha. ' Further if we give 22% LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page IS of 74 % increase on said amount for intervening period between the OHy date when the safe deed,.exe-Cjjted-^jjjd. the date of mtificBtian u/5 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it^ comes toXig,16,037/- (round offX19,16,040/-}." The argument was that ifwe look at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e. Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of v#!ich 1922 bigha and 18 biswa iand.was put in Gat^ory 'A',.45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C: The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Kfiasraisro;200 and tfiat page i\Jo.56-57 oT'the award.would evidence "that iaiTd ~comprised. in Khasra.. Mo.2'00 ad-measu.ring 1 bigha and 13-biswa, was placed- in Category. 'C. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of fl[5].[7] lakhs per acre based upon the" notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ?1.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was fl[4] iakhs per acre and further depress the same by another tl.[7] lakhs per acre for.Category 'C lands, fair market value determined whereof was fl[2].[3] iakhs per acre, it would be apparent what the.argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the same had to be for Categos^ X' lands and. for'Category 'B" and Category 'A'- lands the pnce. had to De/"increased by fl.[7] lakhs per acre for each category.,15. • I have already noted hereinabove the arg'uments wh.ch ¥\/ere advanced by.Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India"and the'same are reflected.in para 9 above and-hence ! need not repeat the, same. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page27 of 74

17. In various sub-paras of para b hereinabove. f have capsuled the reasoning ofthe learned Land Acquisitiof] - -ai:id-the4eamed-R€f-eFefi€e-G©UFt pertaining to"the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus Icommence ftiy journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in- view the facts —^ noted as also the reasMog 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:-

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition OfficerEluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini &Ann (Kefer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an^ exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land In an' area for the reason there may be soeciai circumstances vsihlch have led the buyer to pay a higher.price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would: be failing if Ido not highlight that the Union of India had,relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by.an agriculturist to an" agriculturist for"a much-leaserprice i.e. ?17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes to t53.47S 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-l/3, LA.App,No.266/2008 & connected matters. Page33 of 7-% ♦ % themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price "23. Ttros/ apart from—the ' reasoning of the leam.ed Reference Court, with which ! concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above wouid.be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair 4¥i4ri<;&ta*^al4i@-ot-sy^act_laads-.cao.b,e: determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 biglia of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sai^ deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals,lead matter being, LA-.App.No.193/2005 Pratao Sinah {since deceased) thru LRs "UOl & Ors. !t was highilghted th^the sale deeT'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 arid the p.nce in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PV^-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its mm logic as indicative of the market value, but~toOM"that if the price therein was reduced by l/S'^ the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/200S & connected matters Page34.of74 # % would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the.sa!e deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced'by the Government we're giving a price of fl,37.000/- ' per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the.price f[3],26,600/- per bigha and the average woyld •••-€eme--yto--f^T3i78-ew=^-which was" near abOTT^e price of f[2],15,160/- per'bigha, if 1/3'"'^ wouid be deducted from the slim' ♦ of f[3],26,60.0/-. ft may further be highlighted that in the said judgnnent the year of the'sale was'1993 and the riotiflcation under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was d'sted 24.7.1995 and 16.11,1995 and-the Court determined fair market vaiue as of the said, dates at-the same sum' arrived at as aforesaid 'i=e. f[2],15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench •is not to.be read, pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had. required to -be given. • I. wouid highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land, price as per the '2 sale deeds and" this itself is intrinsic mutuall|^ destructive evidence of the 2 safe deeds reflecting fair, market value.

24. • Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above' is rejected and I immediateiy highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to

25. The second argument, contours whereof are^ to' be found io para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters Page 3S of74 t latest.pronQunceFnenf of the-^ C-Qtirt" on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 Lai Chand vs. UOi.

26. But before that I must highilght that the decision in La! Chand's case fsupra) predicated a claim on a DDA broGhurfe whereunder, on lease-hold basjs, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme-,and th.e_acgiiment was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands, in village Rithaia, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. 1 highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithaia are situated within the 'V formed by iSIH-1 and MH-10 i.e. G.T.Karna!, Road and Rohtak Road.

27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing the same and. transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations vvfould equally be relevant to industrial' layouts, in' paras 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the-DDM brQ€hisrB.m relmvant 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 Rdhinr Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be fornied in Rithaia and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on, leasehold basis: SI. No: Plot size Category/ Rate (per square metre)

2. 26 sq m Economically weaker sections Rs 100 - ' -• (-EWSV

2. 32 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125 3^ 48 sq-jn Ism inrome group (UG) Rs 15.Q_ eO sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200.5, 90 sq m Middle income group (M!G) Rs 200 LA.App.No.266/2008sfe connected matters lAX t % The appellants contend that Rs isn. nor cinnaro ^^ich is the average of th^-sarcf prwi^ionai rates,Should be taken as mdicatiye-of the ruling market price. ' consideration, we are of the view thaf such alotment rates of plots adopted S dLS compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several, leasons. Firstly, market value has to be aqffcuTturaTlTnri^'^®^®'^®"'^® 1° r=w f^ ® area, whereas the allotment ^mnfi ni f authorities are with reference to. °. ®'' statutory authorities adopt,different rates ror plots in the same area with reference to capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to rintoS Lt- J market value, vKhereas market value. deterrnmation for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser are concerned with market value of freehold iori(i[7] Whwas the aitotment "rates" in the DDA brochui-e reier to tne mitiai premium payable on allotment of plots ' on leasehold casls. We may elaborate on these three tactors. • First factor ' _

13. The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultura! land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small Qeveloped plots, varies between.20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the favout in which the exemplar plots are situated.

14. The deduction for development" consists of two components. The first' -is with reference to the area required to be utilised.for developmental works and the secoad is the cost of the development works. For example, if a, residential-layout is formed by DDA or simiiar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (commiinity -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 # % Lsndergrdund drainage and sewage faciiiUes,"Taylnq'"'water" lines, electricity lines and. developing parks and rjyii rItfe-of-tlTe developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as mucli as 75% ofthe cost ofthe developed plot.

16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of — - m a y be far less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement ofvehicles.. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatiyely less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account.of the two factors in respect of plots In-unauthonsed layouts, would be only about 20%..pl-us-20% In all 40% as against 75% In reaard to DDA plots. • -. •. 17.. The "deduction for development" with reference to •. prices of plots in' authorised private residential layouts may range between. 50% to 65% depending upon the starsdams.and ciuallty of the layout, 18, •JThe posit-son with reference to industrial layouts will be difterent. As the industrial plots will be large (say of. the size of 'one or two acres or more as contrasted with ' the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq mto.200 sq rn), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to •..be made from the cost of an.industrial plot,may range only between 45% to-55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% • for residential plots.

19. If the-.acquired land is in a semi-developed urban, area, and not an undeveloped rural area," then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little, as 25% to 40%, as-some basic infrastnjctyre.¥^il! already be available. {Note: The.percentages siientioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.) •20. Therefore the •deduction, for the "developmersf factor" to be made with reference to the-price of a small •.plot in a developed layout, to.arri.ve at the cost of' undeveloped' land, will be far more than the deduction ' •LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 38 of74f % u lA with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private iayout or an'industrlai iayout. It is als©~wef+~-teiowft that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost Incurred by private developers, having regafd-to higher overheads; and expenditure. ' 21. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residentiai- -GUfn-€©p;miefc4a4-eF4Rdustfl^^^ aPrd-even-among residentiai layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community -fscHttfes, parks and playgrounds provided.

22. •• So'rrie'''ofrthe layouts formed "byThe statutory ••'d;e¥etepment authorities- may have farg-e areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, eiectricai substations, etc. In addition to the usual areas earmarked for. roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and comniiinity/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor, is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%. Secom' ^ctor.

23. DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment pf plots in the same layout, depending upon the economic. status of the allottees, ciasslfying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and ecpnomically weaker sections: As-a conseqoeh'ce, in the same layout,' plots. n^ay be earmarked- for •persons belonging to economicaHy weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be:Rs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, -Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle income group and Rs '250 per square metre for persons belonging to high income groups. 24.' The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may.also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment, ft will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, 'as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the -cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the _p^y[rig capacity of "the'"a^^^^lUsW'¥l^bt^^ent, •. TMrd factor LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters ^

25 Some development authorities allot ? haqic; that is by way of absoliste sale. Some 9S There are standard methods for determining the msmsBMi H.ii-it is verv difficult to arnve at the market vaiueuj a not relevant." ^ The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the. learned Reference Court and 1reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference NO.117A/2009. The argument aovanced: before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was • advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference courtwith referenceto the evidence relied upon, it reads.^ Area and Narela '"''"^"^^[®g^ter'datod 04.01.200 He has relied "PJ", 52 pkt 03, Sector A-5,issued by DDA of Chander at the ^ Nareia which, he has proved as Ik'Pwe/T'Atotmlnt letter dated 25.06.2003 of no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-05 area rneasunng.0 Sq.dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allottea ¥ Page 40 of74 LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters ur f % plot no^270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Mareia {hdiistria! Compiex at the rate oft65Q sq. metres which Is Ex; PW3/1 arid another allotment' letter dated 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which ^was sold at f30G0 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted' thaf from' the statement of PW[9] Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PWll/1, which is detail of land acquired. §t is apparent that tot^l land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost yOf—dwstopmefi^—per bigha —be—iT§44i}0000 ~ f248911 whereas Id: Counsel- has submitted' that DDA by selling alternate plot in IMarela Residential Scheme @ ?3208 would be ?2531408/- per bigha. •And if 30% -of the total area utilized.for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so.the price of per bigha would.come to (2531408 - 759422 = 1771986[5] per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. ?1771986 - 248911 - 1523075 per bigha,• where as petitioner has been given rate only ?3,27,083/- per ^: ^ ^ ^ ^ Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R.D, Sharma, Asstt. Nanaqer.

DSIDC who has produced documents Ex. PW7/A (Coliy). Ld. Counsel has argued that totai expenditure incurred on development of r^arela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore,, total earning of DSIDC is ?2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area underplots 112.47, hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in the year 2000 at which DS.iDC sold plot.^3000/- per sq. yards Total earning = ^4083750000 Total expenditure ?720525&01. • • • Totalprofit. = ?3363223099 • ••-•-•-i;^.-Pfefi-Feanfies-to' f2470 per-sqryaiTf- •Gr"f247"0000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) —:^nd the LA,C has paid compensatiQn @ f32-7-^83-p€r bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of.0142MI..per bigha • • Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued.that LAC has awarded compensation 0270B[3] per LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page41 of 74 #- % bigh^^r^e land in question if 200% appreciation of the. \j^^. -— comes to ^6541€&;—lf^#i€-^fnount is deducted from.qa'gp....;. _ Mce__per bigM i.e. ?2470q000, the figure comes to f1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." -2-#^—^—Mowj-we do n-et-h-av-e. evidence as.to •. what- -was; the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to: the Bawana Industrial Estate...deveiope-d-by DSIDC and r^arela' Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it v\iss 20% or 75%, we,do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the •Supreme Court in Lai 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—fe^-the—ieafH^d-v Reference Court, that with the development of Bawanaindustrial Area, Rohlni Residential' Scheme and Marela • Resldentiai Scheme, the subject lands had acquired- a.building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the val'ue to which the building potentiality would translate itseif.

31. I hold that the learned.Reference Court, keeping in view, the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in La! Chancfs case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence, as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itseif to the value, 1 promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while 1 shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. JZ: The third submission in the alter-native was. based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Sedi Ram's —ease (supra), ariiU the submission is as noted in para 12 here;in above^ The land owners require the ^jjce determined, in., Dharambif's case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page, 42 of 74 i i.... t % • 30.10 T9fil irLsunMtfcm^750A-psc-btgte-fo)i4^^ 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 determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question.

33. It be highlighted that in Bedl_RBjTfs cbsq (supra), with reference to the base date as., of the year.1959, for the year ' 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this ' Co.urt applied, the..progressive.increase method by firstly- • enhancing the price per annum by 5% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for •th,[6] remaining 3 years. '.

34. However, in La! Ghands case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whetherthe award relating to acquisition on 24~IQ- • 1961is relevant? 47..The appellants contend that some lands in. Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-i0-i961 for the^planned development of Delhiand conipensation was-a.warded at the rate of Rs 7000. per bigha. Their contention is that as the present acquisition is irs the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value dietermined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pateil^ this Court. held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) "15. Mormally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing.value of nearby lands in- previous years (as -evMefteed-by-s-aie 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 t % traBsaetions/aequisitions precede the sufejeet T acquisition by only a few years, that ss, up to fow «« J - — = — ^ i up LU lUUI to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ifit reiates to a neighbouring iand. What may be a reiiabie 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 vaiue of a land -- acqtrfrecHri-l-§§2radbptin^^^^^^ Increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 197Q,or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the '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 wefeyno adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market vaiue, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year,, as the newspaper reports discJose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the •country came dovyn by more than 40% to 50% from the

2007. rates.. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition."

35. \ It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by. the Division Bench in B.edi ^^am^s-ca-se-C-sy-pfa) runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court In. Lai. Chands case which decision follows--a-n—earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd..I./5. Rameshbhai iivanbhai Patel. LA.App.No.266/2008 &cormected matters Page 44 of74 36: — rrrthe itibldril Ld^e there is anotrTer~goMTeMon follow the law laid down in BedLRajrfs case (supra) for the reason I find that a Co-ofdinate Division Bench of this Court, In the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Dpvi &Ann 1/5. UP! &Ors,, pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambi?s case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Namurpur- iMarela 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 bbt the learned Division Bench determined the same at O[3],0.0X)/-:P-er blglia,

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while ^ discussing on the issue ofthe fair marketvalue of subject lands, in the unrepbrted decision of a Division Bench of this Court in,.i_A.APP.IMo.866/2005 decided on ll.5.2Q06, Mahender Sinah vs. UOi& Ors. and connected Land Acqoisition Appeals pertaining to agrlculturaf lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one. village with which I am dealing Is village Bawana, pertaining to a: notification dated 15=11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land >» Acquisition Act where-uoder 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of • agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as. of 15.11.1§§6 was determined @ fl,99,904.68 bigha which equals to f[9],59,542.4-6 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'minlmum price determined by the: Government'was ?1.0 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters Page4S.o£74 § % determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. " ' —If—{ were—to—ta-k^—t4i:e--piTCe—as~t)f-^5,11.i§§6 @ ^9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason,- as assured by me herein above, I would be hoiisticaliy discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the S" •, notifications in question.

39. The -faujlh argument, vwhich was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the ("espondepts 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 fl lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce.

40. The learned-Reference Couri; has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no'proof in support of • his oral testimony. 41.. The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on 4,10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family v^ere not being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4. crops per year, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3'^ week of September, rice is han/ested in Be!hi and if. vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page46of74 t % sown around tfie first week or the- second week of iMoverober..ea,ch.yea.c....

42. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form ofdocunients is.relevant. Mow, as per the testirnony of Ram Kishan he,, was working as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi til! 31.3.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period-and thereafter earned a-pensson. !f the family^ as claimed by him, vsibs earning fl lakh per.bigha, for •the lands belonging.to the family, 'which'admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annualbe fl[9] lakhs and one., •-fin-ds--it-strange that not-a-penny-WQ^-.iFivested 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. Mo proof of number of workers- em.ployed, diese! pyrchased to run the. tubewell/ If any, to Irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electricaily driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by.canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial judge is fuliy 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 yiei'd • and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has-, been rightly •rejected. • 4^. - -If-there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or —ct^-wfee—reliable evidet'i£-er-^s-^wss--found in the decision-of the Supreme Court reported as jT'1997 (1) SC 444 State of Guiarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors.. pertaining to the.yield from agricultural land, only. thers it would be safe to determine fair market- value by applying the principle of LA.App.No.2.66/2008 &connected matters Page 47 of74 « % being 10 times the annxiat yteftf and noc 20 times as was sought to be,projected. The fifth argument whsch was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle b^ ad_opted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008. i

45. !n para,[7] above, i have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricuitura! land in Delhi from time to time. I highiight that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,: 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.l!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 a,s of 1.4.2000', 1,4.2001 and 30.8.2005,. Thus, there vypuld be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years away'Trom the last year with which I am concerned i.e. the year 2003. I. highlight that.reci<oned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years avv/ay. The'.law of statistics which governs m.ean 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-t>e cio-sest-^Mhe-^Int f-e-F-wh-i-ch -the meanaverage has to be determined. — -1 ajn left- to deal with the last submission, as noted in -para 15 h«reliT-atFOver3nti-for which thighlight that-the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification,dateti,. 27.1.2003 determined the fair market value In some References "with respect, to. a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where'under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village.Rajap-ur Kalan and ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 48of 74 has determined that;basedIth^r^o months by..12%- per anDum,-lorjtt would be ?19,i[6];037/- per a.dtle'rou acre. •': •47..With reference'to the'Avya.. is apparent that iMd comprisidiih 1 bigha and 13 biswa wasa Catdgor question pertains'to the same:iand a if said sale deed had to be aceepted •value of Category 'CMand. As;per t I Collectoi; fl. / lakhs per acre:woUlc depressions for land in Category 'B' and further.sum of a.[7] _JBJdis_p^e£L_acre^vwMd-4^a-4:e^u|i^^ 9-^11 up t-t^fe-depressions in Category *G' land, meaning thereby '' ' ' •• land ^were Jess vis-a-vis Category;C' n.the> price as of said date e-sa-iTre for S e date^.27.1-.2003 the price ided Off to fl[9],16,040/- per •d No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05 it Chasra;J\lb.200 admeasuring y 'C' land. The sale deed in nd indeed there is logic that it wouldj,reflect fair market he learned Land Acquisition • be required to fill up the depressions in Category 'B' land. In other words, with 0 reference to Category:'A' land, the price; of Category 'C land would haye:to.be reduced andwice-versa, vis-a-vis Category 'C % land, the price for Category 'B.' Ia,nc would be required,to be increased su '48. •.. now'enter, the-final: stage c the evidence herein above'^ ndted reasoning adoj^^ted by the learhjed iLa the Jearned Reference iCourt,: !j pose and for Category 'A' land tably. f my discussion. In view of and. reflecting upon the id Acquisition Collector and the question: What should be the fair market value ofitlie^subject lands as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, •.2.5.2001, • 22.8SqO-l-, •25.5.20.02-.• ahd':..27'..t2003'MJe:t -t^ notifications were'issued underlS Act 1^94.' 49.. I have; in,para!37'abo^]Lho Bench of this Court: in.L'A.i^ LA.App.No..266/2008 &'connected matters. 7.12.20Q[1], e d^tes on 16.5.2002, which the m 4 of the Land Acquisition ted aidecision of a Division No.866/2005 decided on Page 49 of7'^!^ 11.5.2006, Mahehder Slnah- & Ors. wherein pertaining to of '15.11.1996 _ is ?1,99,904.68 per bigha^vvhich^dquals The said -decision would be relevant o an issue which.I have- promised-toidis. • • j.— 1 j" ! • that the, subject lands the' llands Bench was concerned,v had acquii"ed;a as discussed in paras 25.to 28 dflthe.d •, • ' • • - ' ''1.[1] Union Territory of Oelhil was atjtrictl population growth,.,[5] villages in Irural providing major health Tadli1n-e^ s^^ tdf[9].^59,542.46 per acre, the issue of potentiality,:uss..The decision notes with ^which; the Division potentiality inasmuch as, ecisioh; rural areas in the ig migrants. Based on De-Hii were identified for ools, imarkets and rural industry, one of which.W;as villac, - G-T.^arnaj Road and Kohtak Road village.BaWana; and-that the Master '. •• • • !' i I " year 1990 had indicated the land^use in the area to be changed;in the future to •industrial an| Icoijimercial, but had also A observed that notwithstaincflng; thi|s,ifor ^ was ftot-ifted as-.contemplated.^y.Se ^ ' ' ' ' j. Development Act:1957, ithe lanplsl co ag^ricultural purposes and therejiwas no evidence that till the •.. •. •.i •'i 1•' year 1996, any. land -use'had beeh actually, changed and put to the use cbhtemplatedi by the Master Plan. As in. the instant case, where all subject lands;^ werp continuously put to. agricultural.use, same;wasi the cas^ noted-in the-said decision. e;; Bawana.: It. was-noted that:Were access to P.Ian for Delhi notified in the the reason no zon^ pIan" ction llA of- the Delhi ntinued' to be used for To put it pithily, the potential use'dif tl- e lands,.giving birth to a:he areaKbeing known to potential land yaid^ withireferencej all as being required in the future found not resulting in the potential ibeing valued ^with reference to the potehtiailty i.e. theiiands biinp;-in the.hearfuture capable of.being built upon. To put it:differently, the. decision, though not so. expressjy. stating, would' bp a pij-opo^tioh"that there is a difference between the; undeveloped land having building.LAApp.No.2.6'6/2008 & coimected.matters:.. to.•.for-.building purposes, was 5^ • potentiality: in presenti vis-a-vis a' land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date.15.11.1996, fair ma ?9,59,542.46 per acreiarid whith^l. "ket value determined was Tighlight once again is the same as would be determined With qeference to the notification being closest in point of tihe; i 25 J,]J[9].7._where;und,e!i for agricultu price fixed by the Government asi of acre, interestingly, the samebivisi, another judgment reported as 200 SinQh 1/5. UOi & Anr. where pertaini village Holambi Kalah where 9^0 ^bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996, • i fair marlcet- value determined for ^9,7^,121/- per acre and for Caitegor. per acre i.e. near approximate to ^the e., the notification dated ral lands in...D^Jhi minimum 1.4.1997, was ^10 lakhs per on Bench had pronounced

3. IV ad; (Delhi) 13 Gairai ng to agricultural lands in Category 'A' lands was I 'B' lands was ^9,51,121/fair market; value of lands ^1^ in village Bawana^ It needs;- to- ije highlighted' that whil 5 of 15.11.1996 in village Dservations of the Court in determining the fair market value a Holambi Kalan, evidenced fromithe o para 19 and 20 of theidecisiofi, locistion and potentiality with reference to development, workicarried out in the, surrounding lands was considered^: ! would highlight that another Division Bench of this CiDurt, in another adjoinling village in the same "v" i.e. between. G.T.Karnal Road ^and Rohtak \Road, i.e. village Sihghola dete.rmined:fair market' value as of ' 19.3.1993 @.^li30,523/- per bigha i.e^ 1:6,26,510.4(}) per acre. The decision is,,,..-Depo4lejd-as..2004;(4) Ap: (De[1] hi) 0 iRa t....s.3,m@-Dm-sio-R-&enGhy asi per the'idecis DLT 95 Hukum Sinah i/s. (/<9/. pertain

77 Chander vs.VOl a nd th e OH-r-epGrted-a-s-111 (2004) ng to a notification dated 14,1.1994 for village,Singhola.(determined fair market value @ ^1,40,230/- per bi^ha i.el f[6] J3(li04/- |; er acre. LA.App.No.266/2008.8c connected matters •' •;"5tn.."Tfie''. aforest. '"|udgixi.eots^u--ncLtejd-. in i-tSe preceding H: paragraphs as also-the.various notifidations Issued from time to ^ Ijime by the Government of NCT'lpelhi ' |;or agricultural lands in.Delhi a^; tabu pboye bring out two very Important^fac She growth/rise In the prices of agricultu years- commencing from! the. ygail: nninimum price was ?4i65 lakhs pe:r acre per acre as-of 1.4;1997 i.e. the iificreaj over 7 years-which ^gives us a 115i05'4% the average price increase waUIdi be 1 over the next l.yearis by 11.2% and tlnext 2 years-and 11.5% for the nextiye notifying minimum price lated.by hie in, para 7 'v s relevant t^ determine "a! land in Delhi over the 90.-...As of 27.4,.1990 which rose to flO lakhs e is ^5.35 lakhs spread increase.in 7 years and 6.436%. The price rise ereafter by 11% for the ar i.e., as. of 1.4.2001.,!t ^hows that due,.to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly, sharply, a „. -evidence for this would be the decisipn -this Court in Gairafs case (suprdj, which ! have discussed in -para 49 above. -; '

51. 1 need, to elaborate a little-m decision in G.airafs case.. Discussing th id good corroborative of the Division Bench of Dre with' respect to the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural;lahd in village.Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 th valuation on the.basis of; agricultural v i ' i. •gross return, per acre per annurji-'Wa _cropped land and.having good jirriga i capitalized the land, price; pt'f9'.5.lkkhs second method of land; price.s'bfli co s±H=^im5Ti-dtng--&i=(sas^m cIudtng- p Court discussed the m.atter with' i ref e Court discussed the ield and found that the T95,000/- for multiple tidn facilities, and thus Der acre. Discussing the mparable lands in the nn-para; 19 onwards the "ence. to land prices in downs had come up and adjoining viirage^horgarh; where>l!Gl| Go tJ'Ss^cT on "sate instances.found.that based: on the said sale LA.App.N.o.266/2008 & connected,matters • i t instances and- gwmg—l3^h;efi+-Ci|HtTdiJStTra+trath!rr^ would cgitie to ^10,03,364/- pe!lacr& ^ • • -j then considered tli^- priGes-notified policy dated 1:4.1997 and thus. w,or • figure of f[9],76,121/- per acre foi i • f[9],51,121/-. per acre for Category highlights that:the potentialityi had (Refer para 31). The Court Dy the Government as per <ed out the mean average Category 'A' lands an.d 'B' lands. The decision Deen we11-factored in when the Governmerit issued the rhinirnum price notification w.e.f. t 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact tha transactions the Court found tliat as notified as of 1.4.1997 atflO lakhs p: even with; respect to SBie against the minimum price sr acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ^10,03,364/- per acre. 52.. The decision in Mahender Sinoh's case, pertaining to vilia-ge-BBmaDB, refeiTed to, by me in para 49. above,,.highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of t Plan for. Delhi 1990 had beenjtaker whi.ch was projecting residential. le decision that the iviaster into account by the Cour!: commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural iand in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that; notw thstanding the Master Plan so, projecting and the lands theoretic ally acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated iilto a reality evidenced by the fact that till the.year 1996 i.e. the date c the Division Bench was concerped, v taken place in village Bawana -and had exploited' the: potential.;; IAs I ff the notification with which irtualiy ho development hari Holambi Kalan and nobody -lave already highlighted in ^ to be the market growth, and: What • The decisions in,.fe/£s/s c^se' a para 49 above-there is a gap ^between what, would be expected the market actually grows, nd MRhRnder Singh's •highlight that potentiality tran'sl^teci itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997-when prices rqse:by about 16.5'% per annum and.. thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the LA.App.No.266/2008 &coRnected matters -1 t t requisite momentum and tlne^aecfeleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% p^r annum. ! On^yTeason could be that -piimiapjUQjvi^^ Plan: for r)eliiJLaaQ_a^Ea^ came to be developed, both residential, conrmercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the; market got satlurated.

53. The empirical evidence in; the instant case,' apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon, by'the: land owners, in respect •whereof the learned Reference'i Court: has. given good reasons not to rely upon and for which il have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair rna'rket \lalue, we have with us the sale-deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some refet'ehceE; in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court ha$ held that as per the said sale •.. I • deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale- i.e.'20.5.2002 the fair i.. • ^ -i, market value of agricultura! lands would be fl[9],16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning of land, which was sold for f[5],39.i'|59p^ •sta•mp duty would mean thdt f[6] f70,160/-) were spent would yi|eld t^ acre as of the date of the sale i.el ^0.[5] that 1 b.igha and 13 biswa and ?70,160/- was paid as 09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + le price.fl[7],74,109/- per 2002.. 54. ' Thus, the best whichlcbuld be said as the most favourable situation forj the land owners would be that with " i. reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C, la-nds the price i.e. fair rjnarket value of lands in the area would

I. • 1 / be fl[7],74,109/- per acre. For CajieOori the price would have to be suitably e. another area of dispute for the reason,, as noted by me hereinabove In sub-para (a) - of ipara 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA_,x\pp,No.266/20.0K & connected matters; 'B' and Category 'A' land ihanced and here we find SI # «.sometimes ^1.[2] lakhs per acreV soiTietimes ?^1.56 lakhs per acre a.nd sometimes ^=1.[7] lakhs per acre 'A' lands to determine the pride wherever lands were In Gategbry 'C deducted further by fl.[7] jakhsjper a •55';. Now, neither side ha^ brou as to what would be the money,reqi —eefegofk-attefl certain lands having pits and dep req^titrti^'-theTsame to be leveled:ar to be spent. But On what ^basis has the Land AcqLiisition Collector" held, in some awards.; that fl.[2] lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that fl.56 lakhs in some that fl.[7] lakhs per. acre wc no clue., 56. in Gairai Singh's case (sipra), the 'price differential worked out was ^25,000/- per acre. 1 have noted hereinabove that the acquisition \w Gairai Sinah'w case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. Sn' 'Gairai Singh's-the price for Category 'A' land determined was ?9,76,12;1/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price deterniined was, f[9],51,121/- per acre and the price differential, comes to ab.olit E.5% with reference to the,price of Category'A'land. ^.

57. • ! thus hold, that Gatai Singh's case should be my • guiding star for.price djffeF.e,nti,ariin the,insta,nt cases as well and thus !„ hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C h.ave to be diffeHentiated on price, the differential should be 2;5%.,

58. Thus, if ?17,7:4,109/-,I rounded off to til.lb lakhs per from the price of Category for Category 'B' lands and ' as W:ell-t-he price has been ere. ght any evidence on record lired to be spent to level the s l^j-a-s-ed-ofily on the basis of ressions of various depths d this would require money 3er acre would be spent and uld be spent? There is just acre"tvoutd~b^frre pTiCe"fOT Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighti fy 'C'^rmTcrrn'i/illage Rajapur ng that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No,266/2008, & coimected matte:rs # t. admittedly pertains to a Category 'B' land would be.hflB.: Category 'A' land would be fl[8].'655

59. • Taking the logical reasphin importance that as per the niinif Government as of T;4.2000 the per and as of,1.4.;2001,the samedwas ^ •percentage increase between the Ve 1treat Category 'A' land pricefat i?l based.on the sale deed Ex.R-2, ded y.'C land, the price for O-.-Jakhs per acre and for akhs per acre. g a little further it assumes num price notified by the acre price was ?13..82 lakhs 15.[7] lakhs per acre i.e. the ar was 11.5% per annum, if 3.655!lakhs as of 20.5.2002 jcting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.20^1 would come to- approximately ?16.4d\ lakhs per acre and this contrasted' with the minimum'^iDrice vould highlight that when notified by the Government at ?15.[7] lakhs.per acre as of ji.4.2001, the price differential is f70,000/- per acre i^e. 4.46%.L.Sin achieved while determining faii" marl land with reference to a few sale' deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason eyen w location, the frontage etc. of a piece iaie deed in. question yields tq us a:e exactness can never be:et value of a large chunk of ithin a colony, the size, the of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%.;What i Wish to highlight is that even die fair iridex as per which the minimum, price notified by the GbvtBrnment has an element of rationality-and- acceptability, j lt ne though under normal circum.stbnces •is normally not held gdo(3"evid@nce.T: eds to be highlighted that a sale on a particular date i) •woi1< o:at~a"1aTi"d' price on a date prior thereto but: hiay be/ Used as evidence to determine land price on. subsequent •dates;'fc particular date is the result of LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matteifg' ^ r the' reason a price on a -varioLis. market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and It would be difficult to fath.om the existerfice of,.fiiarket foi'Ges/conditions walking bacl<ward[5]..But, in the instai'itlease, with reference to the 5 t t and-7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasnriuch as the sale deed- in question is dated 25.5.20(^2 and thus in the peculiar d in question, which itself India as an evidence of would be. a relevant piece nt while 'determining the tes 7.8:2000, 11.9.2000, Marela had always been facts of the instant case, the sale dee has been projected by the Unipniof market value of land as on said.;date, of evidence to be taken into accou market value of-.land as on the dE 2.5.2001, 22.(3.2001 aqd 7.12.2001. 60, The argument that village treated locationally advantageou'-s for the. reason the township of IMarela was in existence sincejiong when, pursuant to a notification] issue and this was recognized d in the year 1963, vis-avis the• adjoining villages t[2]. per square yard price advantage was given to Sands in vi!iage Narela in Dharamb/Ys case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational advantage was keeping in view! the. realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under p' included areas in North-West of|Delhi am concerned today, the price differential faded and by the year,2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.

51. j thus hold-tha;t. pertaining to the 'notifications dated 2001 and 7.12,2001 the lined on the basis of the Dvernment as also with.2002 for the reason I find otted development which i.e. the area with which 1 7.8.2000-, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, i 22.[8] land prices would have'-to be dStern I minimum price' notified by the i G ':. - reference to the sale deed dated 25.[5] no other cogent evidence whereffdm •could be determined.' -Pertaining t 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003,determm.ed with respect to the sa e deed dated 25.5.2002 LA,App.No.266/2008 & connected matters and price as on said dates The notifications dated the land price needs to be thahjf determined' with 001 wherein minimum acre with effect from eptial for Category 'A' land price as of said date cofnes to]more respect to tlie notification dated j[9].8.2. land price notified. was fl[5].[7] lakhs per 1.4.2001.. •. i •

62. With respect to the priceidiffe • " -1 "; and Category 'B' lands, noting, that Dertaining to, the said notifications categoi'ization has been don land acquired in village. Pooth.vKtiurc (pertaining to the notification dated'22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela an!d Alipur (pertaining to the notification •dated •22.8.20.01) IMiold that vis-a-vis the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, e only pertaining to the and Holambi Kalan fixing' the same for Category 'A' lands effected by decreasing the same by 2;5% ^or Category'B'. land. Before i work out the compensa be evidenced that pertaining to Categc prices would rriarginallyj increase!' in substa ntia11y. in the other,. a stri king •,no emerge with respect to the land price: de the notification dated.23.5i.2002 pertain deduction has to be / to determine the price tion and since it would ry 'A' lands,, the land a few' cases and;e of discordant would termined pertaining to ng to village Holambi. Kalan w-herein the learned Reference iCourt has determined the fair, market value at f22,14,23,900/- per..-bttr hieed tQ-higWight'thar pertaim acre as of 23.5.2002, •tlTe same notification 2 Alipur the ' learned,dated 23.5.2002 in relation to ivillag '{Reference. Court has det^nrrirr^- the fair market value at pertaining to village:he notification dated for Category 'A' lands ^17,85,240/- per acre and 1 find Rajaprrr'Kalan and Sanoth;'perfaltTijn 27.^^3 the fair market value a^ss^esseo is fl[9],16,040/- in some cases and fl[9],13,760/-. in a few, LA.App.No.266/2008 & comaected matters that meaning thereby that much: lesser^ worked oufin the.year 2003 vis^-A/Js' out for Holambi' Kalan 'pertaining \ compensation has been Compensation worlced the. notification dated abrasion. is that in sale! n Gajrafs case (supra) as eased at the rate of 12% xdated 7.0.2000' 23.5.2002 and the: reason for the ^ notifiG^ti,oh thj[2] land price deterniined of 15,11.1996 has been taken arid Incr per annum compouridedr • Village PQdtti iChurd iNiotiflcatio 6-4. • With. reference to thej noti. wherein with effect'from' 1.4.2000 mi r L • acre is ?13.82 lakhs and requirjing said price to be suitably updated to reach the.date of th[6] n.otirication i.e.,7.8.2000 and with- reference to the sale deedj date:J 25.5.2002 wherein for 1 ' Category 'C land's; land price per acre comes to.^17,74,109/-, ication dated 9.8.2001 limum price notified per # i nd for Category 'B' lands omes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per ^0 the prices comes to rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre,.a. ' •. '1 increasing the same by 25% the.price acre and further,.increasing by 2;5°/[l fl[8],65',500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the... _ 1. • • said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date •7:8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in villa'ge Pooth IChurd comes to-^14.75 lakhs' per acre and.decreasing the; same by 2.5%, it comes to fl[4],3B,125/- per acre.for Category?'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court-ihas, witihouf'any reasons, done away i with Category 'B'. lands and isunifiprm price awarded is n[4],37,280/-. per acre, the price: differential worked out by me comes to a mea.ger ^1,000/- per.acre^ a ' !•. • T •• lands ! maintain the amoiJnt.awafded I: Court. •. ^ • •. ! • 6b. All Land. Acquisition Appeals fil and cross objections wherever ^filed by.Union of- India in the LA.App.No.26.6/2008 & cohnected;matters nd thus qua Category 'B' y the learned Reference ed by? the Union of India appeals filed by land -owners in.'respect whe reof;g rid.ha s bs© n. prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' fie'i^eInabove a re dis m issed. 66.. All Lapd Acquisitjion Ap.p^ai!s:.f and cross-objectjons filed jby the-ilknd o.Union of India are allowed by deireein • r-. • for Category 'A' landsv.in village'Pooth notification dated:i;4.2000 in suiifii of ?14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category.'B' lands the 1cbmfjensati.on awarded at f14,37,280/- per acre is.maintained and thus such appeals or cross references..which pertain i:to Category 'B' lands are dismissed..-.67. ' PeftaTnirig such' appeal w stands enhanced statutory benefits as ! Act 1894 as explained in the judgment 2001 (93).DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the/appeal or cross objection, for which peripd'of delay no interest on the shall be paid. These appellantsj or cr entitled to proportionate cost. V-iijaqe Holanibi.KaiaBiiWotrfication.d

68. For the reasoning; given in paras 64 to'67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holahnbi Kalan, all appeals! as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections Stand.disposed of enhancing the compensation to ?14.75 lakhs pefjScre per the avward -and even as per the:'ref were of uniform category. Needless to s i. Union of India and cross objectiohsi'wher • • i ••.j: i ^ Appeals and cross objections filed by Han enhancing tTie corinpensation to f 14.75 with statutory benefits as iper the jland LA.App.No.266/2008 & coimected matters led by the land owners wners in^ appeals filed by g conQpensatio'n payable Khurd pertaining to the lere the compensation Der the Land Acquisition reported as Sunder 1^5. nhanced compensation oss objectors would be ate.d 7.8.:2000 and I highlight that as arenc.e all subject lands tate appeals filed by the 2ver filed ape dismissed, d owners are allowed by fakTis per acre together Acquisition Act 1894 as # i explained in the judgment repprted as Sunder Vs. UOI- 2001 (93) DLT 56.9, except for the penod,.where,.there is a delay in filing af^oeal or. cross oiDjection, for interest on the enhanced compens appellants or cross objectors wo.uld. ! cost. •. VHIaqe Baworie

69. Pertaining to.viIlagel.' Ba.w. which period of delay no ation shall be paid., These be entitled to proportionate rl dated.••7.0.2000 ana..^relatLng ' to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court h^5 not enhanced the compensatior, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A'^lands is fixed at ^14.75 lakhs per acTe'an'd' for Category.'B' "lands at fl[4],38,125/- per. acre and noting that Union of India has; neith objection, appeals as per 'GRlD-C fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and needless to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to'.statutory benefit:; as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the Judgment reported as Sunder l/s. er filed any appeal or cross h.ereinabove are allowed by W/ 2001 (93)'.DLT 669, except.for delay in filing the appeal, for iwhicl" the period where there is a period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensatidjn Sha 1be paid. These appellants would be'entitled to propoitionate cost. ^Village Khera lKhura>Ndtiflca[1]:ion dated 11,9.20.00

70. •With.)• reference to the Notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.'2000 acre is ^13.82 lakhs per acre and suitably updated to reach tihe d 11.9.2000 and with'referencejto the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lances,: land price per acre comes to f17J[4],lQ[9]./r., r-u.,und.e.d... off toL^T; Category 'B' lands increasing the sa minimum price notified per requiring said price to be ate of the' notification i.e. 75,00.0/.-^ p-e.r acre, and for me by 2..5% the price comes LA.App;No.266/2008 &connpctedmattqrs • j c m to ^18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices ^ decreasing the said prices by.i;i% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Narela comes to "?16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl[5],76,087- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has,, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price- awarded is.^5,85,570/- per acre and since fqr Category 'B' lands tlie price worked out by me is less by ^9,.000/-. per. acre which is a meager amount, 1 hold that for Category 'B' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the _.pjlCe_5tajQil[5].£,DMD£MJii,n£-,16,5ilQ/=4)sr-acj:e

73. All Land Acquisition Appeals 'as per 'GRID-E.' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A- lands in village Narela pertaining to the notification: dated 2.5.2001- in..sum of ^16,16,500/- per acre and as! per the reference order for Category 'B' lands. Thus,-appeals fiied by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India.as also such appeals which relate -to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are alloiwed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 18^4 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. UOf 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be gdanted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.Mo.266/2008 &comiected matters ' • to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to. fl[8],65,500/- per acre Tor decreasing the said prices by 11% t reference to the sale deed for the; dE average price for Category 'A' jlands comes to ^14,83,500/-. per acrejapd 2.5%, it comes to ?14,46,413/-- peKacre

71. All Land Acquisition Appeals as land owners and cross-objections filed by the land' owners in appeals filed by Union' of India are allowed by decreeing ' compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification d ftL[4],-83,500/- per acre for Category 'A per'acre for Category 'B' lands. • 1 no notification and the village, the Union.appeal. On the enhanced cOmp'ensat j per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as e f ateg0ry -'A' lands; and 0 reflect the price with te ri.9.-2000; the mean in village. Khera Khurd decreasing the same by for Category 'B' lands, per 'GRID-D' filed by the ted 11.9.2000 in sum of ' lands and' ^14,46,413/e that pertaining to this of India has not filed any ion statutory benefits as xplained in the judgment reported as SunderVs..UOI2001:{93) ipLT-55.[9] shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay i-n filing the appeal, • ' i for which period of. delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These jappellants would be entitled to proportionate cost.

2.5.

12. With. reference Ito thei hotification dated 9.8.2001 wiierein with effect from'1.4.2001., mi "limum price 'notified per, acre is ^15.[7] lakhs per; acre;and-^ requiring said price to be suitably- updated-to reach the- date 2.5.2001 and with reference to th^ ss wherein for Category 'C landS/ Hand fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to fl7i75, of the notification i.e. le deed..dated 25.5.2002 price per acre comes to 000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing thejsame by 2.5% the price comes LA.App;No.266/2008 & connected matters 0 ••.xomes to fie,74,500/- per acre ar •2:5°/o, it comes to fl[6],32,637.50 per •Noting that the learned Referenc reasons,, do^ne. away with Category. • awarded, is fl[6],43,811/- per acre, t out by me comes to a meager ^9,0 Category 'B' lands I "maintain the learned Reference Cou.it.

75. All Land Acquisition Appeals interest on the enhanced cqmpeh'sation shall be paid. These •appellants would be entitled to prof •IMotifk 74.. With reference to "the -i/vfTer^rnArith^-effectiiT^^ 1 acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre anc t suitably updated to reach the o 22.8.2001 and with reference! to th' wherein for Category, 'C lands, la f 17,7.4,109/-, rounded off to tl[7], Category 'B' lands increasing the sa to flS.[2] lakhs.per acre and further i comes to f18,65,5.00/- per acre f ortionate cost. ation dated 22J notification dated 9.8.2001 minimum price notified per.requiring said price to be ate of the. notification i.e. sale deed'dated 25.5.2002 id price per acre comes to 75.,000/- per acre, and for me by 2.5% the price comes icreasing by 2.5% the prices 3r Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the.said' prices by 11%-to refteet-tl^e price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean _a^erage. price for Category 'A' lands in village l-lolambi Kalan d decreasing the same by acre for Category 'B' lands, e Court has, without any B' lands and uniform price "le price differential vvorked 00/- per acre and thus qua amount awarded by the filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever.filed! by Union of India in the apptais filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' S dismissed.

76. All Land Acquisition Appeal 'GRID-G' hereinabove are fiIe d by the land o\/vne rs and cross-objections filed by th'e land owners in appeals filed b> L.A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.Page 6'4 of 74 t i Union of. India are ailq^ved by decre.f^ing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in villaget Hplamb pertaining to tine notification dated 22.8<2001 in Sum of tl[6],74,500/- per acre and for Category ' 'B' lands tlie i compensation awarded at and thus such appeals or Categoi-y 'B'. lands- are where the compensation s per the Land Acquisition. fl[6],43,811/-. per acre is maintairied cross referenced which pertain to dismissed.. •

77. Pertaining to such afjpeal stands enhanced statutoP)/ benefits e Act 1894 as explained in the judgmemt reported as Sunder Vs. ' UQl 2001 (QSi) DLT'569' shall be. grar where there is a delay in filing the ap which period of delay nd interest on tl shall be paid. These appellants:^ or entitled to. proport!onate cost. Viliaqe' Ala.Pur Notification.( I •'

78. With reference to the 'no ted, except for the period peal or cross pbjection, for le enhanced compensation cross objectors would be tification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is flS^O lakhs per acre land suitably updated to reach the dat 22.8.2001 an.d with.reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 I I wherein for Category 'C lands', land price per acre comes to.^17,74,109/-, rounded loff to- ?17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the sanre by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to fl[8],65,5d0/-i per adre:: for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said pifices by reference to the sale.deed for.average price for Category.AA^rands fl[6],74,500/- per acre and decreasi '...[1] comes to fl[6],32,537.50 per acre for. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters; "equiring said price to be,e of the notification i.e. 1:1% to reflect the price with the date-22.8.2001; the mean in village, A!i Pur comes to ig the same by 2.5%, it Category 'B' lands. Noting tl]-3tth e;-^tearned^'^Ri^fenrer.:i;sa.s,-'w[4]:th&ut afp/ -reasons, done "away, with Category 'B' lands' am'u ••.j ^6,43,811/- per acre,,the.price eliter^ Qornes to a meager f[9],00p^ per a'cre a lands I maintain the amount awarded t Court., ' I

79. All Land Acquisition Appeal^ fil in respect whereof grid has been-jjfdpa H' hereinabove are dismissed. ! npte th fijed any appeal challenging the decision

80. There shall be no order as to niform price awarded is ntial worked out by me id.thus qua Category 'B' y the learned Reference 2d by the Union. of-Sndiared and labeled as 'GRIDat land owners have not of the Reference Court. costs.

81. With reference to the;notif wherein, with effect from 1.4.2001 min cation dated 9.8.2001 imum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs.per acre and reauiring- said price to be suitably updated to reach the bate of the notification i.e. ^ 22.8.2001 and with refereiice to the sale deed.dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C ilands, iknd pi • fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to ?1],75,000/- per acre, and for Category B lands increasing the sariie by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and furtheHlncreasing by 2.5% the prices.comes to ^8',65,500/-. per acre |for Category. 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices bya.1% tc reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for tile:date 22.8.2001; the mean _^a^exa.ae_!irice.-fox.--Categoi':y 'A'.|a^s-iH^..-v-H+a#e-H0l^-mbi-H^^^^^ ^ comes to fl[5],74,500/- per acre and decreasi.ng the same by ijj^2.5%, it comes to.f16,32,63.7.,.50:.p.er..;acre.i.or Category 'B' lands, i^oting Thai: the learned jReference Court "has, without any rice per acre comes to •reasons. wiih'Cat&gar^ '8' uniform price • awarded" is ^16,43,811/- per acre,' out by me comesi to a meager f[9] LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters the price differential worked,0p0/-| per acre and thus qua ! I I I • 7) •• learned Reference Court.;: 8,2. The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has - been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-!' i • • hereinabove is dismissed. 1notejthat land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decisipn of 83.. There shall be no order as to g( by-the the Reference Court.' osts. S-,84. •. With • reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 mi nimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre, and reiquiring said price to be suitably updated to reach thej date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and withTeference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category- X! lands, jiand price per acre Comes to fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to fl7^75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing theisanrie by 2.5% the-price comes i to fl[8].[2] lakhs.per acre and further inert comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for decreasing the said prices by 11% reference to the sale- deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean • • • ' ' • !. 1 • ". average price for Category 'A' lands jin village'Rajapur ICalan ' 1 ' comes to-fl[6],74,500/- per acrej and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl[6],32,'637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away With. Categb';ry"B'| lands and uniform price awarded is f16,43,811/-.per acre,..the| p.rice differential worked....Qu.t...by..rti.e.mm_es..to a meager^^9,OO.Di-...p.e.n..._aj:.re,.-m thus qua Category 'B' lands 1.maintain;the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.; I |

85. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed ipy Union of India in the LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters easing by 2.5% the prices Category 'A' • lands; and;o reflect' the, price with f •.a-pp.eai's:-ftied •% i3nd-:-owirTerrjriiTn^spect•"wtiereof grid has-feteenprepared and labeled as 'GRlD-j'' liereinabove are disnnissed..

86. All Land Acquisition Appeals fled by the land owners. i. • • and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals l-jled by Union of India are allowed by.deGreeinc for Category 'A' lands in village Hajapur notification dated 22.8.2001 in surfi oft: for Category 'B' lands, the comp ?16,43,811/- per acre is maintained.an cross references which pertain ito C qlismissed. -

87. Pertaining to such appeal! wlstands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgimeht UQl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period. where there is a delay in filing theiappeal or cross objection, foi which period of delay no interest on the i shall be paid. These appellants jdri cr. entitled to proportionate, cost.; 88.,,- With reference to the riotifi wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 mini compensati.Qn payable Kalah pertaining to the 6,74,500/- per acre and '^nsati.on awarded at d thus such appeals or ategory 'B' lands are ere the compensation reported as Sunder Vs. enhanced compensation 3ss objectors would be zatiOn dated 9.8.2001 mum, price notified per acre is ^15.70 lakhs- per 'acre an;d Teq'uiring saii^ price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.12.2001 and with reference to.the:sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein" for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to f17,74,liI9i^lrjiuMed'. Off-..to.a[7],75JIQ.Q/- per acre, and for Category 'B! lands, increasing the s.iame by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and furtherjihcfeasing by 2.5% the prices comes-to'f18^65,500/- per acre.for C decreasing the said, prices by ll.% to LAApp.No.266/2008 &'connected matters ategory 'A' lands; and reflect the price with f t reference to the sale.deed for the average price for Categoiy 'A' 131^5 tl[7],29,500/- per acre. Noting that a date 7.12.2001; the mean in village Sanoth comes to II lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same valuehold that for. acquired lands i[1] village Sanoth for the notification.dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation, in sur

89. All Land Acquisition Appeals and cross objections wherever filed appeals filed by land owners in resp.prepared and, labeled as 'GRtD-K' hen 1 of fl[7],29,500/-. filed by the Union of India by Union of India ini the ect whereof grid has been 2inabove are dismissed.

90. All Land Acquisition Appeal^ filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the lano Union of India are allowed by grantir fl[7],29j500/- and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits, as p 1894 as explained in the judgment r owners in. appeals filed by ig compensation in sum of er the Land Acquisition Act ported as Sunder I/?. UO^ 2001.(93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal o period of delay no interest on the en be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost.; • ••Village Sfiahp.ur.GarliiiNotifibation dated 16.5.2002 91.- Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by rne hereinabove the land price would.have to be determined with reference to.'the sale deed dat^d•20;5.2002 and for which land I price for Category 'A' lands lias been determined by rne 3.t ?18,65,300/- per acre and since there is just a difference ot 4 r cross objection, for which lanced compensation shall days between, the date of sale and that for the notification in question owners are entitled to compensation LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters the notification I maintain dated- 16.5.2002 the land at the rate of ^18,65,500/per acre and ! highlight that as pdr the all lands are in the same category^ App a w a rd a n d"TlTe' reTe re nee eals and;cross objections t filed by tiie land ownersi as per jthe' ' needless to state on the enhahced (jRID-L' are "allowed and compensation the land lory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act..iq94 -as Interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 200lL(,93) I ' I.such appeais -or cross' objections filed there is delay, i^o interest! would be pai( Proportionate costs stand awarded. objections filed by Union of India are dis owners would be entitled'to.. all Istatut i r

92. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the • • i saie deed and the notification has a:differential of only 3 days I hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same i category, the land owners \A/ould.be entitled to compensation at the rate of flS,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land i Acquisition Act,1894 aS'interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569'ex|cept in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be-paid for the period costs stand awarded. All lsuch appeals land owners as per 'GRID-!V|' starid allo appeals and cross objections filed, by Union of India are dismissed. DLT 569 except that in by land owners where i for the period of delay. Appeals • and cross missed. ttf Qta}- n of delay. Proportionate and cross objections by A/ed as aforesaid and all

93. As, noted by me pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi idlan all lands have been treated in. the'same category by; the i:earne,d Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • t Collector and the -learned Refere Reference Court has avvarcLeiiL c ?22;i[4],239/- per acre; which |l;ha\ inasmuch as for-the date 23.5.2002 value would be 65,500/-,per acr cross objections filed by the land o dismissed and appeals and cross o India are allowed by modifying:the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to fl[8],65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced ' price with reference to the •award the statutory benefits already No costs. Viliaae Ali For Motiflcatlon dlatecl.23.5.2002

94. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur,.for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at ri8i65,50.0/- per acre and thus all. appeals and. cross.objections;filed 'GRlD-0' are dismissed and all appea by land owners as perisaid Griid are compensation payable to ?18,65,[5] statutory- benefits as per Land Acqui the judgment reported; as Sunder 1/ shali be - paid save and', except i objections where there lis a delay,Hnt the period of delay., Proportionate' costs as well. Village SanQtli •MQliifitatibn- dated•27.1; •; I

95. Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the iand owners and Union iOf India jas per 'GRID-P' pertaining to the notification dated 27.1,2003 relating to village Sanfrth, I note ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters ice Court. The learned bnnpensafrinn in ^iim.nf 'e found to be excessive liave lield tfiat fair market e and thus all apjDeals and wners as per 'GRID-N' are Djections filed by Union of granted stand maintained. by Union of India as per s and cross objections filed allowed by enhancing the 00/- per acre on which sition Act as- interpreted in 5.. UO! 2001 (93) DLT,569 such appeals or cross srest would not be paid fof '3 Page 71 o-f f i that the.learned- Land Acquisitioii Collector has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that, the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the la ids as of uniform category while awarding compensation.!

96. On the mean ayerageibasis which ! have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.:?001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the sa-nre—witir-Te-fer^enoe--to the;sale deBti dated 20.5.2002 and •talcing the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to n[9],43,500A-_per; acre and for Category 'fe' land the,price com_es to fl[8],94,912-.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to'flB,47,539.681 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court, has uniformly determined fair market value at ?19,13,765/- and thus such appea have been filed by land ovA/ners the in so far they pertain to Category 'E similar Would be the fate of appeals s or cross objections which same have to be dismissed ' and.Category 'C lands and and cross objections filed by, Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said-appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by landiowners pertaining to Category A lands are allowed by decreeing conhpensation payable In sum or ^19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits asl, per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgmervt reported as Sunder 1/5. UU! 2001 (9.3), DLT 569 slTair.'b'e paid.' sW^^ except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well; The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of InUid •pertaining to, Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by the Reference Ordei reducing the compensation for Category 'B land LA.App.No.2.66/2008 &connected matters.k> V CO i -fl[8],94,912.50 per acre; and | for,Category 'C land fl[8],47,559.68 per acre. ••,¥5iioc|6 Raiapur Kafan Mbtifirafinin dated 27/1.2003 • • i

97. • For parity of.reasoning as per para 96 alDove pertaining to village Sanoth, similar Corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired p 27.1.20Q[3] delating to village Raja ursuant to notification dated 3ur Kalan and.where I find that the learned Reference.Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sun^i of ?19,li765/- per acre and in some cases at fl[9],16,040/- per acre by treating ail lands of uniform ! category.. On'the; mean, ^average basis, which 1 have beer fo!lowing by increasing the;price to the notification issued: by as of 1.4.2001 with reference:he Government as also bv increasing the same with. reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and.talcing the nciean average, for Category 'A' landsi -the ptte-^m-es--tcr-f3r974575;06/-1per-acr-e-a-rrd-for•Category 'B' iand the price comes to ?18'34,912.5Q per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to fiS,47,539.68 per acre. Thus such appeals or cross •objections which have been filed by land owners the.same have to be dismissed in so far they peMiain to 'Category 'B' and Category:'G' lajnds and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands.i The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q'. are dismissed. Appeals and cross ! objection.s filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are aljowed by decreeing;'' comjiensation.payable in sum of f19,43,500/-"" per acre and'"needless"tD"'3tate-"0Tri:lTe enhanced i. • compensation statutory.benefits as pe.r the Land Acquisition /Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOi v2f):Oi--(-130^D-l:T—5r&9—!#^a^l:^3^r-pmkh-save-afld•-e in such. '• I •. appeals and" cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.N0,266/2008 & connected matters.; Pags73 of"/4 f « slay. Proportionate costs as not be paid for the period of d( w^ll. The appeals and cross^objections filed iDy Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Categ|ory 'G' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in' the.Reference Order by -FBd-wei-n-Q ntl^-e- e0'Fn-p€'Rsa-ti-efn^;-^fof^-"^--Cat'ep'dTy';' 'B' land ^to fl[8],94,912,5.0 per acre and for - Category 'C'land' to fl[8],47,539.68 per acre. 2X 2011 LA.App.No.266/2008 Sc connected matters „lti fiiit } i-l- • I •-: