Satbir v. Union of India & Anr

2. The instant decision decidesjthe issue as to what should be the fair market value of agricultui'al lands in the said villages as of the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, ony Rohini exists has been acquired post 1961 and is 5aid 'V. Bawana industrial e acquired post 1996 and d 27.1.2003. Needless to e.d, from time to time, on 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 ar state, pursuant to notifications issL afoTesaKi"dates under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, vast tracts of land in said 10 save. and. except lands in the Rever where the purpose of acquisition partly industrial, in the other.villag villages were acquired and ue Estate of village Narela was partly residential and es, acquisition was' for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a i I LA.App.No.266/2008 &comiecl.ed matters i Page 13 of /4 road or freight complex. The reason why such, large tracts of lands were needed was to set up an industrial estate pursuant to a decision tal<en to shift a!!: industries operating in nonconforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas.'

3. ! must highlight,that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in all appe.ais..filed by them as also cross-objections wherever filed, ar|id similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and ex,cept pertaining to village Narela argument was advanced; being that, th existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Mareia had a better value.and for which lit waf^ urged that way back in the year 1963 when lands in the revenu and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and M lands in village Narela were given a. pri where an additional 2 township.of Nareia had estate of village Mareia amurpur were acquired, e advantage of ?2/- per sq.yd. vis-a-vis the price determined for lands in village Bhorgarh and MamUrpur. I must, furth counsel conceded that village Narela a sr highlight that learned nd Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi beir g in Mamurpur.-

4. The position ofthe awards madie from time to time and the relatable notification under Section Act 1894 have been detailed by me Land Acquisition Appeals and the Croj 4 of the Land Acquisition while noting the various s Objections as per the index hereinabove and thus 1 need not repeat the same.

5. A perusal of all the awards announced from time to timp \f\fniilfi rpv/pnl that the learned-Lanfi...Acquisition Collector has deterniined compensation. payable with reference to nment of NCT Delhi from tes for agricultural lands notifications/orders issued by the.Gover fmne TO time notifying the minimum ra in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting,in pits having depths between LA.App.N[6].266/2008 & connected matters ' 1 ' 4' to b', the land value has been appropriately depressed^'nd e lands have been put in egory 'B' and Category this is to be found in a few awards wher 2 or 3 categdries'T;e. Category 'A', Cat

I. Pertaining to the same Inotifi' pursuant whereto agricultural lands in were acquired the reasoning a,nd tl determined by the learned LAC and the 1 is the same as adopted for village HolamI LAC and the learned ed is the same as has' lation dated 22.8.2001 village Rajapur Kalan le fair market value 'darned Reference Court bi Kalan, Holambi Khurd a';nd Alipur save and^ except in this village the acquired land was of uniform category.

7. Since the learned Land Acquit learned Reference Court have relie issued from time to time by the Cover minimum price for agricultural lands note the dStes and the minimum! rates pertaining to agricultural lands in Delh relevant for the present decisioni The LA.App.No,266/2003 & connected matters, 9,13,765/- per acre which me references pertaining ned Reference Court has reference to a sale deed whereunder 1 bigha and ition Collector as also the d upon the notifications nment of MCT Delhi, fixing in Delhi, let me therefore notified from time to time i since the same would be same would be as under:- SlMo. EffeefelArf^g ate- -PFi-ee- % Notification of the price (in ial<hs/acre) increase per annum 3.5.1990 25.7.1997 3 24.9.1998 21.11.2000 9.8.2001 9.8.2001 30.8.2005 24.1.2008 27.4.1990 1.4.1997 1.4.1998 1.4.1999 1.4.2000 1.4.2001 30.8.2005 18.12.2007

8. From the tabulation hereina apparent that after minimum" pric 27.4.1990 in sum of ^4.65 lal<hs/acr nearly 7 years to ^10 lakhs/acre and t to 11.5% per annuim (simple): The ne) the price was enhanced by 11.2% to iakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21 enhanced • to fl[2].32 lakhs/acre, superseded, inasmuch as vi/hen the n

4.65 10.0 11.[2] 12.32 12.16.13.82 15.[7] 17.584 11.[5] 11.[2] 11.[5] 2.98

89.51 bove noted it would be was last fixed w.e.f. e it was increased after le annual increase comes ct year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 reach the figure of ^11,2,11.2000 the price was which notification was 3tification dated 9.8.2001 was issued the price,was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to tl[2].16 lakhs/acre i.e. the l^er annum with reference to; the price increased by 11% price determined as of 1.4.1998 and vide same nQtifiGatLOJi„__the_l....p_rice was "etrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 11.4.[2] 300 to fl[3].82 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis the previous i.e. ^12.15 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1,4^2001 the price rose by. 11.5% per annum vis-a-vis the previous price of ?13.82 iakhs/acre to V) -reach th-e. figure...of \15;J. lai<±i.5/a:crg;---Ttie p-rice was next enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ?17'584 lakhs/acre which gives us an increase of only 2.98% per annum ai ?53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.200,[7] i.e. annum with reference to the basie figu and the date 30.8.2005.

9. Before noting the evidence relied upon by the land I owners and Union of India before the learned:Reference Court, it nd then the price rose to increased 89.51% per re of,^17.584 lakhs/acre would be beneficial -for the reader of t le present decision, as I feel, that arguments advanced oh either side may be noted. 1 would highlight that from the side of argument was in- the alternative^ and would be entitled to price determin the land owners, each it was urged that they ation as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, failing which as per the third argument and s Union of India it was urged that the learned Reference Court pertaining tc 7.8.2000. for village Pooth Khurd; 22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5.2001 for village Narela;'and the notification dated!22.8.2001 for village Ali Pur; o on. From the side of and price fixed by the the notification dated the notification dated and the notification dated 27.1.2003-fo • and Sanoth treats as if all lands were of was urged that corrective' action required by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, 111.5% increase per annum and 'iz75- pel dTTrrnm^ increaserwas e)ccessive"with reference to the r village Rajapur Kalan uniform character and it dates of the notifications under Section^ Act 1894; requiring the same to be redi In tTie Feast. Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not justified in treating ali lands as ofjthe same character and thus ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & coimecled mailers i • _of the Land Acquisition ced to 10% per annum il 3bly depressing the price for requiring further correction by suit such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by the Land Acquisition Collector categorization it was urged tha challenged the same by leading ev and in respect of which: neither land owner had dence to the contrary i.e. l;o show that such lands which wene 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 la the learned Reference Court was n( sale deeds dated 25.3.2000; Ex.PW-1/3, in Land /Acquisition Reference which is subject matte' of LA.APP.No.780/2010 a;;, also the"'"SBTe""r!e"eTJ dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, • in the same L/-\.Appeal.- Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswd agricultural land in village IviamUrpur was sold @ ^26.7!-; lakhs/acre and as per the sale deesi Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khei j Khurd for a sum of ^32.[4] lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 woujld be ^28.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed E:x.PW-l/2 the land price would be ^63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urgi^d that the said 2 sale deeds would be. good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.200:., 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications were issued under Section 4 of the _and Acquisition Act 1894 by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb nd owners firstly urged that ot justified in ignoring the 2 of this argument, pertaining to ville the price needs to be suitably enhcounsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters ' j Page 23 of/'! ge Narela, it was• urged that anced and for which learned and for which the argument was th pertaining to a notification issued Ion 3C 4~W"the Land Acquisition Act 1894, th given said benefit to agricultural! land; Narela by giving a., price benefit of f2/ • upheld by the Supreme Court in its dec C.A.No.4405/1997 UP! i/s. Dharambir & at when in the--past,-.10.1963 under Section e Reference Court had > in village Mamurpur- - per sq.yd.. This was ision dated 6.8.1987 in Ors. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigfia in. sum of ^6,650/determined by the Land Acquisitio^n Col ector was enhanced to •?16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to ?22,000/- per bigha by this Court a • • Court was reversed bythe Supreme Cou by the Reference Court was restored. 11.. Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due to Bawana ir.Residential Scheme and Rohini i Resio Resulted in areas around the acquired Ian developed into residential and industrial the subject lands having acquired a nd the decision of i:his t and the one rendered idustrial Estate, iXlareia ential Scheme having ds being urbanized and estates, had resulted in building potentiality, required fair market value to be determiped with respect to the price at which DSIDC and DDA j.e. the 1 which acted as the IModal Agencies for Residential Scheme and Bawana Industri land in the. Rohini Residential Sci7eme Estate and for which learned counsel evidence led ^nd as noted by the lee Ihich 1 would be noting hereunder v/hile dealing with the submission urged. ". >

12. Ailemative to the^ second! s.iihniissLon, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2001 1(93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected mailers i Page24 of 74 nplementing agencies, development of Rohini al Area, sold developed and Bawana industrial took me through the rned Reference Court, vs. Union 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 suitable increase in the market value o[1] ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for differenl; periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked point of time by giving f the land by percentages jpon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision m Bedi Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum till 3C per annum with reference to the base as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmecj by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till 31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various.3.1965 had to be @ 6% price ^16,750/-- per bigha dates wfien the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued fron time to- time, a^nd with !._am..XQncerned. in.liie present.appetals. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to ^56,88,759/- per that learned counsel had worked out a he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.20(33. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle.- ijnarket value should be. I assessed for the preceding notifiijations dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2.001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 and 23.5.2002.;,

13. The fourth argument' advanced was, and for which -ref&r&nce was made by learned-CQ^nsel for the parties in the evidence led in LAC No,99/2005., which is subject niatter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.Mo.268/2008 filed by the land owners.and LA,APP.No.292/2008 filedJDyLlniori_D±J.ndia, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008 & comiecled matters I acre and I may highlight s aforesaid for the reason testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect t produce from his lands he used to ea ai^um i.e. the fair market value as of the notification issued under Section ^ ~Act 1894 was issued pursuant wheretcj the land of Rarn Kishan nat by selling agricultural m lakh per bigha per 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of • of the Land Acquisition and others were acquired. It was,t market value as of said date should b' may highlight that the fourth argumer Tus urged that the fair 5 ?20 lakhs per bigha. I t was, only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel ^who appeared for Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008.

14. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang,:ters and urged that for fair market value ought Advocate who appeared in a few mat each of the notification in question the to have been determined with reference to the notification wiiLch was rinsest in point of time whi?re_uiid.eji_m]jiim.um land value was fixed by the Government' and the notification dated 24.1.2008 where under ?53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument.

15. The last argument, which wasj in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification cjated 27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some References, the had, with reference to a sale deed earned Reference Court dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village F f[5],39,690/-, determined the fairi mark ajapur Kalan was sold for et value as per the said sale deed in the following words:; (Refer 03rd 17 Of tjie decibion If we add stamp duty in (^5,3gmOA.^_+ 70,160 = dated 7.1.2010 in LAC No.ll7A72009). the sale price ^3,69,9067- 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which com&s to%17,74,1097per acre or 13,68,9067- per bigha. \Further if we give 12% LA.App.No.266/2008 &comiecled matters ! Page 26 of74 / increase on said amount for intervening period ijetween the date when the sale deed' was e^ 'notifi-cntioh u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27 comes to "^19,16,037/- (round offX19, 'ecuted and the date of 01.2003) i.e. 8 mionths it 16..040/-)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e. Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05, • award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 bigha and 18 biswa land was put in Ca i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of ^15.[7] lakhs t would reveal that the biswa land, of which 1922 it^oj-y 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C. The subject sale dqed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Kha5ra~N'o.2IjO and that page I\lo.56-57 of "the award would evidence thaT ' land comprised in Khasra r\lo.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in Category 'C. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification per acre based upon the notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ^1.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was ^14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another ^1.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value determined whereof was fl[2].[3] lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the argument v/vas. The argument market value had to be determined deed in question, the same had to be for Category 'B' and Category 'A' la increased by '['1.[7] lakhs per acre for ea(

16. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced bv Sh.Saniav Poddar, learned senior counsel who -. I...1. appeared for the Union of Indiai and para 9 above and hence 1 need not rep LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters precisely was that if the with respect to the sale for Category 'C lands and nds the price had to De ch category.:he same are reflected in eat the same.

17. In various suiD-paras of; para 6 hereinabove, I have Capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court pertaining to the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land A( relatable to the 10 villages and thus pfeal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the fact;: noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various subparas of para 6 above.

18. But before dealing with the highlight various anonnalies which st outset. The same would be;-

19. notifications issued, under Section 4 ol 1894, ! think it advisable to put in a itabular form the relevant j LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters i • Since 1 am dealing with acqui iitions in,10 villages and 8 f the Land Acquisition Act tacts', wllich would.be"'m dat^f-or--fmtber analysis. Put in a tabuiar form the data would be as unden- Village Pootli Khurd Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan Bawana Khera Khurd N a re fa Date Section 4 Notification 7.8.2000 7.8.2000 of 22.8.2001 23.5.2002 7.8.2000 11.9.2000 2.5.2001 LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Cat. 'A' ^13.82 Cat. 'B' n[2].26 Minimum | price of 1.4.2000 as- ^13.82. Minimum ' price of 1.4.2000 Cat. 'A' n:5.[7] Cat. 'B' ?I[4] Minimum 1price of 1.4.2001 fl[5].[7] Minimum ' price of 1.4.2001 Cat. 'A' n[3].82. Cat. 'B' ?12.52 Minimum iprice of 1.4.2000 ~ Cat. 'A' n[3].82 Cat. 'B' ^2.62. I Minimum ' price of.l.4..20QD_. Cat. 'A' ^=1|5.[7] Cat. 'B' t1|4. Minimum 'price of 1.4.2001 as ADJ compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Cat. Uniform. fl[4].3728. -Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. ?14.12995. Price as in Ga/rafs case as of 15.11.1996 with ^16.43811. •Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with ?22.14239. Price-as in Gairai case as of 15.11.1996 with 12% increase p,a. (compounded) ^s I'^o enhancement given. ?14.40157. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with ^15.857. Mini mum price as of 1.4.2001 with Lf ••,, AN Pur 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' TiS: Cat 'B'a[4] Ninim'um pi of 1.4;2001 1 ! nee as ^16.43811. Minimum price bs of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a, A!i Pur 23.5.2002 ^15.[7] i Minimum pi of 1.[4] 2001 rice as ^17.8524 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a, Ho Iambi Khurd 22.8.2001 fl[5].[7] Minim|Um p of 1.4;2001 rice as ^6.43811 Mininrium price a:, of 1.4.2001 with Rajapur Kalan 22.8.2001 ^5.[7] ! M!nim,um p of 1.4:2001 i i rice as a-6.43811 Rajapur Kaian 27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' ?1S Cat. 'B' n[4] Cat. 'C' n[2] Minimum p of 1.4i2001 rice as

1. ^19.13765 fos- Uniform category, Minimum, price as of 1.4.2001 with in some cases.

2. ?19.1604 for Uniform category •based on sale deed dated 25.5.2002 with Sanoth 7.12.2001 ^15.7] Minimum | of 1.41200] i i price as fl[6].99042. 12%.increase p.a. Sanoth 27.1.2003 Cat 'A' tit Cat. 'B' Cat. 'C n: Minimum of 1.4.200; j.[7] I price as fl[9].13765 • for Uniform category Minimum price as; of 1.4.2001 with ' 12% increase p.a. LA.App."Np.266/2008 & connectedmatters Page 31 of /4 Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2001 Cat. 'A' ^15.[7] Minimum 1 price of 1.4.2001 ! as ^17.7_53j5l9-..-.- - - Minimum price as of 1.4.-2001 With compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' -^15.[7] Minimum' price of 1.4:2001 as ^17.79781. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with compound interest (a) 11.5% p.a.

20. 1 now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by learned counsel for the land owners and the 2 submissions urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India).

21. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.FW- 1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per value for the former comes to ^26.75 latter @ ^63.478 lakhs per acre.:.The has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliabl fair market vaiue of agricultural |lands, for ail the villages in question on the reasoning that the SEile deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the the former, fair market lakhs per acre and the earned Reference Court 2 evidence to determine name of 'Radha Swam! Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who hac^ tendered the sale deed n LAC No.68/2005 had nd was purchased for for a religious purpose. 2 been held not to be ket value of agricultural d by a Non Government in evidence, while deposing in Court stated that to his knowledge the Ic religious purpose and was being jused The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likeWis reliable evidence to determine fair mai lands on the reasoning it was purchase Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/2008 & comiected maUers y of the organization stated of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretar -th^-t-tb-e-QFg-aniz-a[4]:ion, had-to-p^iy-^i-l^-pr-i-ee-for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the. "equisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) 5CC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru:Si Ors. Vs. /sli Rohini SiAnn (Refer have led the buyer, to pay a jhighe price which a well informed wllli equally well informed seller witho special circumstances or the fancy land. An informed buyer would t market and has apprised himself of has understood the topology of 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 llnion 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 was sold by an agriculturist to an a price i.e. ?17,74,109/- per acre as a to f63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.F para 6) and 2009 (14) 5CC 369 Motid. Raufuddin !/5. 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 tb be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there ma5L_b£_spedLaI circumstances which price. The true tesi: is the ng buyer would pay to an ut being influenced by any to buy a particular piece or le one who has studied the all available land in the area; he area and the prevailing land in village Rajapur Kalan griculturist for a much lesser gainst the price which comes W-1/2 and t28.89 lakhs pci^r acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matterf ''' themselves are having intrinsic evide -a-iTd~i?7c-raLie uestruye^ch^tfreT 2^, Thus, apart from the! reas ice of the fanciful price oning of, the learned afore-noted reasons in Reference Court, with which ! cbhcur para 21 above wou_l_dJb_e-aiJ-dJ-ti-0-nal reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be, good market value of subject lands can be c for the reason 1 find that under various evidence wherefrom fair etermined and more so awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area,' it w reason to be circumspect on sale evidence of-the transaction being the buyer. I would be failing not to note cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of ap LA.App.iM.o.193/2006 Pratap 5inah\ fsino 3uld make all the more a deeds having intrinsic result of a fancy of the an unreported decision jeinq the decision dated )eals, lead matter being ? deceased) thru LRs 1/s. UU! •& Ofs. It was highlighted^that tli which LScT had purchased 8 bigh;a anc land for expansion of its factory vvhich Seamed Reference Court on the ground the said land and hence the priceireflec treated as a good..evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price ir deduction on account of the parcel o e sale deed therein by 9 biswa of agricultural lad been ignored by the that L&T had a fancy for ted therein could not be question, with suitable land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2;ale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 a nd Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the accept the value in the sale deed on it of the market value, but f(5uha"ithat reduced by l/S"', the price arrived at LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters decision of the Division Division Bench, did not 5 own logic as indicative f the price therein was would be the same as w"o"ukl~be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the.sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Government were giy/ing a price of fl,37,000/per bigha and the sale deed under wh ch LSfT had purchased the land gave the price 26,600/- per bigha and the average would conne to f[2],31,800/- which was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3''^ would be deducted from the sum of f[3],26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the Sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitioh Act was dated 24,7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court detern of the said dates at the same sum a ?2,15,160/-. In other words, the reaso is not to be read pedantically but rnea ined fair market value as rrived at as aforesaid i.e. ning of the Division Bench lingfully. It is not th.;il: the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if ii; was so, the appreciation for 2 years had would highlight once again, that 1 hi noted the inherent contradiction,in the per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value. i

24. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and ! immediately 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 !. village-Warela, in view of the; decision in Dliarambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced would be dealt with by me at the.end when i determine the fair market value of lands for the villages in question.

25. The second argument, contours whereof are-- to be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA.App.No.266/2008 & comiected mailers required to be given. 1 ave hereinbefore already value of the land price as __ I- latest pronouncennent of the Supneme, (lourt on tiie.issue as per tlie decisioii reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 Lai Chand vs. UOI. 26, But before tliat 1must highiigfit that the decision in IM Cl^iand's case (supra) predicated: a clainn on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basis,:resid(Bntial plots were allotted for residential housing schenne and tie ar-gumentwas being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands in village Rithala, where further; lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohi Scheme'. ! highlight that agricultural la situated within the 'V formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal 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 obser.relevant to industrial layouts, in. paras Court observed and held as under:- " Whether the DDA bmchimm ss r

11. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1 invitation seeking applications fr public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives # the following provisional rates for leasehold basis; ni Residential Housing nds in village Ritliala are vations would equally be 11 to 27, the Supreme etevaet ewdeimee? dated 9-2-1981 is an om members of the allotment of plots on Si No. Plot size Category R Bte (per square metre)

1. 26 sq m Economically wea <er sections Rs 100 (EWS)

2. 32 sq m Low income;groui; (LIG) Rs 125

3. 48 sq m Low incomeiqrout: (LIG) Rs 150

4. 60 sq m Middle income grclup (|V1!G) Rs 200

5. 90 sq m Middle income grc>up (MIG) Rs 200 LA.App.No,266/2008 & comiected matlers The appellants contend, that Ks which is the average of the said be taken as indicative of the rulin

12. On careful consideration, such allotment rates of plots aiJopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition, of undeveloped lands for several- reasons. Firstly, jmarket value has to be determined with reference tio larce tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rurall area rates, of development authorities small plots in a developed layout 1 Secondly, DDA and other' stati different rates for plots in the saiT the economic capacity: of the buy ascertain the real market value, determination for acquisitions is depend upon the economic status of the land' loser. Thirdly, we are concerned vyith n^arket value of freehold landr"whereas the allotment "rate refer tp the initial premium payat on leasehold basis. We may ela factors.

13. Th(2 percentage of "deduct be made to arrive at the. market undeveloped agricultural !land development)', with reference to developed plots, varies between ^ of such developed plots, the perc the nature of development; of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. I

14. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with required to be utilised for develo second is the cost of the de example, if a residential layout 150, per square metre provisional rates, should 3 marlcet price. /ve are of the view that whereas the allotment are with reference to ailing within' urban area. Jtory authorities adopt e area with reference to er, making it difficult to whereas market value uniform and does not s" In the DDA brochure lie on allotment of plots borate on these three on for development" to value of large tracts of (with potential for the sale price of small:0% to 75% of the price Bntage depending upon reference to the area pmental works and the velopment works. For is formed by DD/A or similar statutory authority, It may utilise around 40% of r roads, drains, parks, (community facilities), the land area in the layout, fo playgrounds and civic ame|nities etc.

15. The development autho considerable expenditure' fo rity will also incur r development of undeveloped land into a developepl layout,,which includes the cost of levelling' the laind, c ost of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/2008 & cormected matters underground drainage and sewage facilities/Taymg'water ing jDarks and civil lines, electricity lines and develop -^mGiT-i-ti€S7-wl^€n^-w^tHd-b€-ab&ijt-3-5Yo-o-'K4^^ developed plot. The two factors taken together.would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.

16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential; layout, the percentage of "deduction' for development" may be far less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and [community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains- will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount sf v/v/ork would also be comparatively les the deduction on account of the two plots in unauthorised layouts, would ent on development s and minimal. Thus factors in respect of be only about 20% plus 20%'in all 40% a Idiots.

17. The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised privat^ residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% c standards and quality of the layout.

18. The position with reference to i be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the si^ie of residential plots measuring m), and as there will be very limited no playgrounds, the area to be set a|: (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far.less; and the cost to be incurred for development wi!! 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 15% for residential plots.

19. If the acquired land is-in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the against 75% in regard to DDA epending upon the ndustrial layouts deduction for development may be a as little as 25% to 40%, as sorne bas already be available. {Note: The per above are tentative standards a.nd su contrary.) '

20. Therefore the deduction for factor" to be made with reference to 100 sq m to 200 sq civic amenities and art for development 5 much less, that is, ic infrastructure will:entages mentioned bject to proof to the the "development the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped' land, will be far more than the deduction LA.App.No.266/2008 & comiected matters with reference to the pric<b of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout c a-teo--well -knoYiffi that the dev statutory agencies is much hi by private developers, having and expenditure.

21. Even among the layc percentage of land utilised parks and playgrounds, may nature of layout—whether it e-FC-ia l-e Nad u^^triat-; r an industrial layout. It is elopment cost incurred by gher than the cost incurred regard-to higher overheads uts formed by DDA, the 'or roads, civic amenities, i/ary with reference to the is residential, residentialan-d-ev-en among residential layouts, the percentage'will differ having regard' to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community fatriiit-i^, parks and playgrounds provided.

22. Some of. the layouts formed by the statutory dev-e-k>pment authori-ti-es may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 7 5%. Second factor

23. DDA and other statutoi-y development authorities adopt different rates for allot •layout, depending upon the 'allottees, classifying them as income group, low income weaker sections. As a conseqi plots may be earmarked f;or persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be Rs Tient of plots in the same economic status of the ligh income group, middle group, and economically jerice, in the same layout, 150 per square metre for men P\S 200 per square metre for p income group and Rs 25,0 per belonging to high income!grouf)5.

24. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may.also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" ibers of low income group, ersons belonging to middle square metre for persons of those plots does not depenc DDA statutory authority, but u the a p"^ica ntsotment. Third factor LA.App.No.266/2008 & cDimected matters upon the cost incurred by i3on the paying capacity of m

25. Some cleveloiDment authorities allot plots on freehoid basis, that is, by way c development authorities !ike DDA basis. Some have premium which price, with a nominal annual rent lesser premium, and more substan

26. There are standard methods for determining the f absolute sale. Some allot "plutsm II 1 ed"S"G"hT) id~ is almost equal to sale whereas others have:ial annual rent. annual ' rental value with referer freehold property. There are also determining the value of freehold ce to the value of a standard methods for (ownership), rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at freehold property with reference the market value of a to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is sometimes there Is a ate the lease premium DDA, as being equal to long, the rent is very nominal, tendency among the public to eqi rate (allotment price) charged by the market value of the property.

27. However, in view of the abovei it is not safe or advisal allotment rates/auction rates.in rec by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." difficulties referred to ble to rely upon the ard to the plots formed 28". The evidence on the subject h as been discussed by the learned Reference Court and 1 reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference No.ll7A/2009. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was advanced before me, has been noted Court with reference to the evidence re "Ld. Counsel foj:_the__p_eti_tj_o_D_er.s_± that DDA & DSIDC allotted plots ^ Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate. He has relied upon allotment letl issued by DDA of the plot no.52 i^arela which was al,lotted to. Sh. pre-determined rate of "3028/- wf LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters oy the learned Reference lied upon. It reads:as. furth-er s.ubmitted in Narela Residential er dated 04,01.2000 Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Hem Chander at the jch he has proved as Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter' dated 26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-OS area measuring 70 Sq. metres in \/vhich rate was' fixed as ^3,989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both thijs and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial:plot ^Hotted by DSIDC i.e. Page 4# of 74 plot no.270, measuring 3^0 sq. yards at Narela !ndustriai Complex at the rate of ^650 sq. metres whicli is Ex. PW3/1 and another 25.04.2000 of industrial' plot allotment letter dated which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at?3000 persq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel; has statement of PW[9] Kanwal PWll/1, which is detail pf Ian that total land acquired! is 72 submitted that from the Singh Si document Ex. li acquired. It is apparent 39 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = ^248911 whereas Ld. Counse by selling alternate plot in Nar ^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[6] per bigha): And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. ?1771986 - 2489il == '1523675 per bigha, where as has submitted that DDA ela Residential Scheme @ petitioner has. been given "btghi57 ' Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] DSIDC who has produced Ld. Counsel has argued red on development of 720526901 till 2001 and C was 11247 hectare i.e. total earning of DSIDC is ate only ^3,27,083/-- per R.D, Sharma, Asstt. Manager, documents Ex. PV\/7/A (Colly). that total expenditure incuf Narela Project by DSIDC was total area of plots with^DSiD 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore T2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area under plots • = 1] y£.2.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. irds. Price per sq. metre,in the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot ^3 000/- per sq. yards Total earning == Total expenditure: = ^7 20526901 Total profit 1 = i.e. Profit "comes to ^2470"'pe bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divic and the LAC has paid co.mpen only, meaning- thereby that C t214Z9J.I.per bigha Ld. Counsel for the pet that LAC has awarded coit LA.App.No.266/2008 & comiected matters r sq. yara or ^z4/uuuu per ed by 1361250 sq. yards) sation @ ^327083 per bigha SIDC has earned a profit of itioners has further argued pensation (§) ^327083 per • U bigha for the land in question if 2 said price is considered on accb comes to ^654166. If the amoun price_per big_ha i.e. ^24700000 1^1815834 per bigha & petitioner is 30% appreciation of the unt of land, the figure t is deducted from sale the figure comes to entitled for the same." ?Q nee as to what was the or DDA with reference to ed by DSIDC and Marela we—do—no-Mi ave ev id e extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC the Bawana Industrial Estate develop Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% o 75%, we.do not know. The inchoate the same factors, being 3 in number Supreme Court in La! Chanel's Case ( evidence as most unreliable to deterr "'the subject cases.

30. It is no doubt true, as he Reference Court, that with the c industrial Area, Rohini Residentia evidence has resulted in which were noted by the supra), which render this nine the value of land in d even—by—the—l-earnedevelopment of Bawana Scheme and Marela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be to which the building potentiality would

31. i.hoid that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in La! Chancts case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while shall be discussing as to what should qe the fair market value of the lands.

32. The third submission in the alternative was based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram's case (supra), and the submission is a above. The land owners require what would be the value translate itself. 5 noted fn para 12 hcM'ein che price determined in Dharambir'^ case (supra) relating to the notification dated m

5 Qi/--Jpjeji-b-i-g.h-a-fc^^ll-la-'ge Ma m urp u to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum,- then by 10% p^r.iannum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods ajnc! ^thereby determine the fair marl<et value for the 8 notifications in question.

33. It be highlighted that in Bed/ Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date a[5];;of th 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years Court applied, the progressive inc enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1 the remaining 3 years.

34. However, in Laf Chancfs ce Court categorically opined as under:s year 1959, for the year the Division Bench of this rease method by firstly 973 and finally by 12% for se (supra), the Supreme "Whether the award reiatrng^ to acquisition t 1961 is relevant?;

47. The appellants contend that some land: in Rithala, were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was-awarded, at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is acquisition is in the.year 1981, th acquired land should be determi the market value determined for by providing an appropriate cumulative/compounded rate !of Court had occasion to examine QNGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai jivanb held: (SCC p. 751, para 15] Normally, recourse is ta determining the marl<et. v appro{jriHte--Bscalation •over that as the present e market value of the led with reference to the 1961 acquisition increase at the 12%- per annum. This ihis issue recently. In hai PateilQ- this Court ken to the mode of alue by providing tlTe-^TDved- ma rket value of nearby lands in previous years (as -ev-id-e-R-eed^b-y-^a[1] e tra asa-et-Ferns-o-r—aeq-uteitio ns), where there is n'p € contemporaneous sale acquisitions of comparab vidence of any transactions qr e lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably -safe -wher-e- 4:h-©- ' i^eH-ed-oo- _saJ-e transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few: years to five years. Beyond that it m if it relates to a neighbouring a reliable standard if the ga^ years, may become \Unsal standard where the gap^ is ia for determining, the market acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference tb a sale or acquisition in 1970' or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may.itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affectmg the increase." ".48. Even if the relied upon trans three years prior to the acq!uisitic before adopting a standard escalat there were no adverse circumstar the acquisition is of this year 2 possible to determine the- market 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing e 15% per year, as the newspaper the price of immovable properties country came down by more than ^0% to 50% from the

2007. rates.^ Caution is therefon^ 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 acquisition.", that is, up to four ay be unsafe, even land. What may be D is of only a ' few and unreliable rgen For example, value of a land very standard of (emphasis supplied) •action is only two to n, the court should, ion, satisfy itself that ces. For example, tf 309, it may not be value, based on the n increase of 12% or "eports disclose that in most areas of the value for a 1981

35. It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi__R^'-s--Gi^se-[~^\:i the law declared by the Suprerhe Co (aupra;- which decision follows;—a-n—earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) Rameshbhaiiivanhhai LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matlers 3fa) runs in the teeth of Lirt in La! Chands case see 745 ONGC Ltd. 1,'s. /I 36.-- iTrtiieiTrsLdriL anotlier good reason" hot to follow the law laid down in Bedi Rsm's case' (supra) for th reason 1 fi.nd that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2.000). DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi & Ann Vs. UOl & Ors.. pertaining to agricultural lands in village SVIamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the;price determined in Dharambirs case (supra) as of the year 1963, which, would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur- Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ T2010/- per annun'i per bigha and gave the increase @ ^1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was t applied the price would have Come to approximately T-50,000/per bigha but the learned Division B at ?33,0.0i3/-,p-er higha. 37, That apart, as would be note discussing on the issue of the fair ma in the unreported decision of a DiviE LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.[5] UOl & Ors. and connected Land Acqui agricultural lands in village Bawana village with which 1 am dealing is villa 2nch determined the same d herein after by me, while rket. value of subject lands, ion Bench of this Court in 2006, Mahender Siiioh sition Appeals pertaining to and I highlight that one ge Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604. agricultural land in village Bawaina wa LA.App.No.266/2008 & comiecled matters bigha and 18 biswa of s acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, •:he fair market value as of 15.11.19-96 was determined @ tl,99,904:68 bigha which equals to ^9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification|dated 25.7.1997 by which price for agricultural land being the minimim price determined by the Government was tlO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997,. the price cietermined •by the Division Benc,h would equal the minirnumi price notified by the Government. ^—IfH—ti3—^l^e—th^i—pri-ce-^^^s—of^-5;11.i 9 96 f[9],59,542.46 per acre, pertaining'to the I am concerned, the price would be app notifications with which roximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive incf-ease by 10% per annum for the moment for the reason,- as assure I would be hol-istically discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value, of the subject lands as. on date of the 8 notifications in question.

39. The -fo-Urth. argument, which wias advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Rani Kishan and others,, the appellants in LA.APP.No the respondents in the Cross Appeal file 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 ^il lak agricultural produce.

40. The learned ' Reference Court testimony of Ram Kishan because h^e gav his oral testimony.

41. The reasoning of the Court th standing on the land when its possessi 4.10.2000 would require an inference acquired lands belonging to the family agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crop. But, I leave it at that d^by me herein above, I 268/2008 and who are d by Union of India i.e. T per bigha by sale of has not accepted the e no'proof in support of at there was no crop on was taken over on to be drawn that the were not being put to 5 per year, is fallaci,ous o doubt, for the reason it'is matter of common knowledge that by the 3'"'^ week of September rice! is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are haiVested and the land is I left.fallow for some time, to be realdied to grow wheat which is n sown around the first week. or. the each year,

42. But the other reasoning of in the fornn of docunnents is reievan of Ram Kishan he.was working as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi tiller himself till said period and the the family, as claimed by him, was e the lands belonging to the family, and 18 biswa, the annual meQPf\e-M finds ft strange that not a- penny v security wherefrom interest or c B^esides, there Is no proof of;Such effected in the local Mandi ori othe the produce was sold has not,be(=n examined. No proof of number of workers employed,;diese well, if any, to irrigate the fields o second week of November there being no evidence led. Now, as per the testimony an Administrative Officer in till 31.3.1996 i.e. was not a eafter earned a pension, if arning ^l lakh per bigha, for which admeasure 18 bigha i/mHd be ?19 lakhs and one i-as- invested in a bank or a ividend could be earned, high volume of sales being rwise. The trader to whom purchased to run the tubeelectricity bills paid if the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by.canal water, Ino pn^of of any payment made to i the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial judge is fully justified in| riot Eidopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determin lands. There is no reliable eividen and the self serving deposition of R[am Kishan has been rightly ' rejected. I

43. If there is reliabje evidence of an.independent expert or i there is otherwise reliable evidernce, as was found in the e the fair market value of ze on the issue of the yield decision of the Supreme Court repc rted as JT 1997 (1) SC 444 State of Gujarat & Ors. |/5. Rama Rana & (?r[5]... pertaining to the yield from agricultural land, i only determine fair market value by LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters then it would be safe to applying the principle of LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters capitalizing. on tine yield basis and that too, the capitalizing i being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 times as was sought to be projected.

44. The fifth argument whjch was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle be adopted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008.

45. In para 7 above, I have put minimum prices notified for agricultura to time. I highlight that the notifications with which 1 am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,. 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002'and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 above, we find that minimunri prices have been notified as of 1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would be no need to factor in the miinimum price notified under the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is years.away Trom the last year witb whic year 2003. I highlight that reckon,ed w. first year with which I am concerned, th years away. The law of statistics; which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would-be clg-se-st-to-the-p^eint f&r--which the mean I average has to be determined.; i

46. ! am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which 1highlight that the learned I Reference Court has, pertaining.^to 27.1.2003 determined the fair market \ with respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land v/vas sdid in village Rajapur Kalan and in a tabular form, the land in Dellii from time /v.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 h I am concerned the B.f. the year 2000 i.e, the e notification would be 7 the notification dated alue in some References m has determined that based thereo n the price as of said date -w-Q-r-l<-&-Q^17,747-1-9airre-aiid-increasirig-tlie-saiTiH for o months by 12% per annum, ifor th would be ^19,16,037/- per acrie rou acre. e date 27.1.2003 the price nded off to n[9],16,040/- per

47. With reference to the Awai'd No.l0/DC{NW)/2004-05 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring I 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C land. The sale deed in question pertains to the same land a if said sale deed had to be accepted value of Category 'C land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collectoi' ?1.[7] lakhs per acre 'would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum of ^1.[7] JMdis_pej:^ajCi:B--4fljmiJjd-J3^e-4;eq-u|p^ 3-41-1-1—up-tl:ie-d-ep^Fe&sions ir) depressions in Category 'B' land. In other words, with nd indeed there is logic that, it would, reflect fair market Category 'C land, meaning thereby land were less vis-a-vis Category 'C reference to Categoi"y 'A' land, the price of Category 'C land would have to be reduced and^vice-versa, vis-a-vis Category 'C land, the price for Category 'B' la,nc would be required to be increased su

48. 1 now enter the final stage o •the evidence herein above noted reasoning adopted by the learned La the.learned Reference Court, II pose I and for Category 'A' land itably. f my discussion. In view of and reflecting upon the nd Acquisition Collector and the question: What should be the fair market value of'the subject lands 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 dates on which the notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

49. 1have, in para! 37 above, noji Bench of this Court in LA.APP. ted a decision of a Division iMo.866/2005 decided oi) •LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters si; 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinali vs. UOl & Ors. wherein pertaining to deterrnined as of 15.11.1996 to ?9,59,542.46 per acre, the issue of potentiality, [:uss. The decision notes with which- the Division potentiality inasmuch as, ecision, rural areas in the s_51^,99,9M.68 per bigha which eiqqals The said decision would be relevant or an issue which I have promised, to 'dis that the, subject lands i.e. the lands i, ' Bench was concerned, had acquired a as discussed in paras 25 to 28 ofithe d Union Territory of Delhi; was attracting migrants. Based on De-Mii were identified for Dols, markets and rural vana. lt_was noted that providing good access to n for Delhi notified in the ^ the area to be changed Tmercial, but had also population growth,,[5] villages in rural i3roviding major health faci1i[1]:i"es7'sch industry, one of which was village |Ba) G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Roadiwere village Bawana- and. that the Master'Pla year 1990 had indicated the land.^use ii I in the future to industrial and cor -TJDserved that notwithstancTing this, for was notified as contemplated by: Se Development Act 1957, the lan^ds: co agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that til! the year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to the use contemplated by the Master case, where all subject lands wer agricultural use, same was the case nc To put it pithily, the potential use of th potential land value with reference |to all as being required in the futurei for found not resulting in the potential Jbei to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capable of being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so. expressly stating, would be a pi|"opd^EToh~that there is a difference between the undevel6pe(| land having building LA.App.No.26'6/2008 &connected matters Page 50 of74 the reason no zon^"pIa n ction llA of the Delhi ntinued to be used for Plan. As in the instant e continuously put to ited in the said decision, le lands giving birth to a;he area being known to • building purposes, was ig valued with reference potentiality in presenti vis-a;-vi[5].a' land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already no as of the date 15.11.1996, fair ma ?9,59,542.46 per acre and which I. same as would be determined iwith r I being closest in point of time 1 25.7.1997_.Where-und,er for agricuitu price fixed by the Government as of acre. Interestingly, the same Divis another judgment reported as 200 Singh vs, UP/ & Ann where pertain village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996, fair market value determined for ^9,7^,121/- per acre and for Categor per acre i.e. near approximate to the in village Bawana. It needs' to be highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from ithe observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decisioii, location and potentiality with reference to development work carried out in the surrounding lands was considered. I would: highlight that another Division I Bench of this Court, in another adjoinling village in the same 'V i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola determined fair market vLlue as of 19.3.1993 @ ^1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. ^6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is xeportecLas..2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. (7(7/and the sa'me-DivislQn-B^nGh, as^ per the idecisiGR-'r-eported-a-s 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh i/5. UOl,' pertainina to a notification dated:ed by me in para 36 above, "ket value determined was lighlight once again is the eference to the notitication e. the notification dated al lands in Delhi minimum L.4.1997 was ^10 lakhs per on Bench had pronounced 5 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gairai ng to agricultural lands in Category 'A' lands was f 'B' lands was ?9,51,121/fair market value of lands 14.1.1994 for village Singhola detern-iined fair market value ^1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. ^6_,73,1;04/- jzeracre. 5tf: Tile aTore^iri'l-udgroeots-^-actid- in •• th-e preceding paragraphs as also the. various notifications issued from time to I:ime by the Governnnent of NCT Delhi notifying nninimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as: tabijlated by nne in para 7 above bring out two very important facis relevant tk determine iihe growth/rise in the prices of agricultu'al land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was f[4].65 lakhs per acre which rose to flO lakhs per acre as of 1,4.1997 i.e. the increase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115;054°/c increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as.of 1.4.2001. it shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply a i • evidence for this would be the decision t this Court in Gairafs case (supra), wh para 49 above.

51. 1 need to elaborate a little'm decision in Gairafs case. Discussing th fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of• agricultural vi^lci and found that the gross return per acre per annurji was f95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good iirrigation facilities.and thus capitalized the land price at ?9'.[5] lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the s-itPimjfidmg-ai=^-?as-tncludiiig pQtent+af^^ 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land- prices in id good corroborative of the Division Bench of ch I have discussed in ore with respect to the 2 evidence pertaining to adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and l3"as^d~on sale instances found that based on the said sale LA,App.No.266/2008 & connected matters instances and g4vmg—l!^neftt-©fHntfi:istrra+ixati-orr-tl"re—i^and" price (Refer para 31). The Court by the Government as pe r <ed out the mean average Category 'A' lands atid 'B' lands. The decision Deen well-factored in when would come to ^10,03,364/- per acre then considered the prices- notified policy dated 1.4.1997 and thua w.or figure of f-9,76,121/- per acre for f[9],51,121/- per acre for Category highlights that the potentiality! had the Government issued the nainimum price notification w.e.f- 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact tha transactions the Court found that as notified as of 1.4.1997 atflO lalchs p highlighting that the price was ^10,o: 52.. The decision in Mahender t even with respect to sale against the minimum price sr acre, sale instances were,364/- per acre. Singh's case, pertaining tc viija-ge.-Ba-Wiiaa, refe^rred to. by me ii para 49 above, highlighS::.:with reference to para 28 to 31 of t Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taker i whi.ch was projecting resideiiitial. ne decision that the Masler into account by the Courl commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notw thstanding the Master Plan so, projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a rjeality evidenced by the fac that till the year 1996 i.e. the date Cff the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, \ taken place in village Bawana and had exploited the potential.:As I irtually no development hed Holambi Kalan and nobody have already highlighted m para 49 above there is a gap ibetween what would bo expectec. the market actually grows. nd MRhRnder SiiiQh's highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between to be the market growth, and; what The decisions in Gairsfs case a 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by thereafter the extended potehtialit LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters:ase about 16.5% per annum and y did not translate with the Psgc 53 of' r requisite momentum and tlie acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One- reason could be that Q-a fairly—larg-a ajrea came __i2ji£siiaiitJxi_M.a5tpr Plan for DeJUi 19R paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not r to be developed, both residential, corrjmercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

53. The empirical evidenceUn the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference iCourt has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which ! have given further reasons in flying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R~2 as of the date of the sale- i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands v\ acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning of land which was sold for l'5,39i690/stamp duty would mean that. ould be fl[9],16,040/- per that 1 bigha and 13 biswa and f70,160/- was paid as 09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + f70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ^17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e: 2,0.5.2002.

54. ' Thus, the best which could be said as the most favourable situation for the land, owners would be that with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C lands the price i.e. fair rharket value of lands in the area would be fl[7],74,109/- per acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land •the price would have to be suitably enhanced and here we find another area of dispute for the Reason, as noted by me hereinabove in sub-para (a) of.para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App,No.266/20.08 & connected matters sometimes fl.[2] iaklis per acre, sometimes ^1.56 lakhs per acre and sometimes ?1.[7] lakhs per acre from the price of Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C deducted further by ^1.[7] lakhsiper a

55. Now, neither side ha:^ brou as to what would be the money reqL 4a n45-afl^-4-Re%e-that; ca-tegc^f-izatkm i certain lands having pits and dep -fe€|-i:itrm§'-the-5ame to be leveled ar to be spent. But on what basis Collector held, in some awards, that ' as well-the price has been ere. ght any evidence on record lired to be spent to level the s iD-as-ed-ci-n-ly on the basis of ressions of various depths d this would require money has the Land Acquisition 11.[2] lakhs per acre would be spent and in some-that f 1.56 iakhs per acre would be spent and uld be spent? There is just in some that fl.[7] lakhs per acre wc no clue.

56. In Gairai Sinolis case (sl worked out was f25,000/- per acre that the acquisition in Gairai Sinoh's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. !n Gairai Singh's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was f[9],76,12:1/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was ^9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

57. I thus hold, that Gairai Singh's case should be my pra), the price differentia! I have noted hereinabove guiding star for price differentialln the instant cases as well and ory 'A', Category 'B' and ed on price, the differential thus I hold that wherever Categ Category 'C have to be differentiat should be 2.5%.

58. Thus, if fl[7],74,109/-,j roun Jed off to tl[7].75 lakhs per jr acre'wOTJi^b^tne priceTor aXjategdry 'C lancTm-village Rajapu Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighti ng that the sale deed Ex.F(-2 LA.App.No.266/2008. & connected matters ii admittedly pertains to a Category 'C land, the price for Category '13' land would be: ^'18.20 lakhs per acre and for Category 'A' land would be fl[8].(555

59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was ?13.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was fl[5].[7] lakhs per acre i.e. the akhs per acre. percentage increase between the ye 1treat Category 'A' land price'at tl based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, ded ar was 11.5% per annum, it 3.655'lakhs as of 20.5.2002 jcting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately ^16.40, lakhs per acre and this contrasted with the minimum price vould highlight that when notified by the Government at fl[5].[7] lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is t70,000/~ per acre i.e. 4.46%j Sin achieved while determining fair marl-:e exactness can never be:et value of a large chunk of land with reference to. a few sale deeds where small parcels o land are sold for the reason eyen w location, the frontage etc. of a piece 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 the sale deed in. question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability, i it ne though under normal circumstances i •is normally not held good Wi73ence T: date prior thereto but may be usec land price on subsequent dates, fc particular date is the result oflvario having already impacted the land pr LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters eds to be highlighted that a sale on a part.icular date 3 work o"uT,^l"aiicl price on a as evidence to determine r the reason a price on a us. market forces/conditions ice and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 ^ jijQtiliicatlofts—dated—]IX^;200^—2n5-r2-0-Q-1rr- 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of market value of land as on said (date, of evidence to be tal<en into accou market value of• land as on the da 2.5.2001,-22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001. 60, The argument that village treated locationally advantageous fort l\!are!a was in existence since long when, pursuant to a notification; issue vis the adjoining villages ^2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambir's case, looses sight of the fact that the price diff(jrential 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 i am concerned today, the price differerlitial faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.

61. i thus hold that pertaining to the notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,! 22.[8] 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 he reason the township of and this was recognized d in the year 1963, vis-aotted development which i.e. the area with which I 2001 and 7.12.2001 the land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the G reference to the sale deed dated 25.[5] no other cogent evidence wherefrom and price as on said dates Dvernment as also with.2002 for the reason I find could be determined. Pertaining t 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, determined with respect to the sa LA,App.No.266/2008 & comiected matters D the notifications dated the land price needs to be e deed dated 25.5.2002 hecause--With refefenGe-te-^he-s-a^Fd -sale • land price as of said date comes toimore respect to the notification dated; 9.8.[2] land price notified was ?15.[7] lal<hs per 1.4.2001.

62. With respect to the price' diffe priire•it-.-fe--a^a-F0nt- th at-than If determined with 001 wherein minimum acre with effect from ential for Category 'A' • and Category 'B' lands, noting, that Dertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001) 1 hold that vis-a-vis the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing- the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% for Category 'B' land.

63. Before 1 work out the cornpensa be evidenced that pertaining to Categc prices would marginally' increase in substantially in the other, a striking no I emerge with respect to the land price dqtermined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi JCalan wherein the learned Reference Coiiirt has determined the fair market value at ?22,14,23,900/- per to determine the price tion and since it would ry 'A' lands, the land a few cases and:e of discordant would acre as of 23.5.2002, -, ^btrthieHd toiTtg-hrlght that perta'nTiTTg~to the same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to viliag Reference Court; has determin-ed-i-the ''17,85,240/- per acre and 1 find! that Rajapur-Kalan and Sanoth, pertaini,ng t 27.^2^3 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' land is fl[9],16,040/- in some cases and fl[9],13,760/- in a few, LA. App.No.266/2008 & connected matters e Alipur the learned fair market value at pertaining to village he notification dated meaning thereby that much lesser worked out in the year 2003 vis4-vis out for Hoiambi Kalan pertaining t 23.5.2002 and the reason for |the notification the land price deterniined of 15.11.1996 has been tal<en and incr per annum compounded. Viilaae Pooth Khurd IMotification dated 7.8.2000

64. With reference to the' notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is fl[3].82 lakhs and requiring 5[ I updated to reach the. date of the noti with reference to the sale deed^ dated 25.5.2002 wherein for 'I Category 'C lands; land price per acre comes to,?17,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, a increasing the same by 2.5% the price acre and further increasing by; ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date •7.8.2000; the nriean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Poo'th Khu per acre and decreasing the same fl[4],38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' • • I learned Reference Court has, without with Category 'B'. lands and, uniform price awarded is fl[4],37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me • comes to a meager fl,00p/- per acre a lands ! maintain the amount awai|ded ^ Court.. I ^ 1-

65. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008 8c connected matters compensation has been the compensation worlcecl D the notification dated abrasion, is that in said n Gairafs case (supra) as eased at the rate of 12% aid price to be suitably ication i.e. 7.8.2000 and nd for Category 'B' lands omes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per ^0 the prices comes to •d comes to ^14.75 lakhs by 2.5%, it comes to lands. Noting that the any reasons, done away id thus qua Category 'B' y the learned Reference appeals filed by land owners in rjespect whereof..grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' hereir

66. All Land Acquisition Appeals f and cross-objectjons filed by the land o above are dismissed. led by the land owners ifl/ners in^ appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing connpensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 In sum of ?:.4.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the •compensation awarded at fl[4],37,280/-. per acre is. maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain, to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

67. Pertaining -to such appeal wiere the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as Der the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 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 period of delay no interest on the shall be paid. These appellants or ci entitled to proportionate cost. Village Holambi Kalan Motification c

68. For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals! as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections stand dispos<E:d of enhancing the compensation to tl[4].75 lakhs per acre per the award and even as per the ref were of uniform category, r^eedless to s Union of India and cross objections wher Appeals and cross objections filed by Ian enhancing the compensation to fl[4].75 with statutory benefits as per the1_and LA.App.No.266/2008 & coimected matters enhanced compensation oss objectors would be ated 7.8.2000 and 1 highlight that as Brence ail subject lands tate appeals filed by the 2ver filed are dismissed, d owners are allowed by fakhs per acre together Acquisition Act 1894 as n explained in the judgment reported as Sunder i/s. <!y(9/2(301 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing —=this- a|:>|3eal or cross objection, for interest on the enhanced compens appellants or cross objectors would cost.

69. Pertaining to village^ Baw which period of delay no ation shall be paid. These be entitled to proportionate n 7J ana.__relating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court has not enhanced the compensatior, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A' lands acre and for Category 'B' lands at noting that Union of India has neitt objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C fixing the compensation as hei needless to, state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to.statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisitior; Act 1894 as explained in the judgm i/a/2001 (93) DLT 569, except for delay in filing the appeal, for^whicf on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants /-• ! would be'entitled to propoitionate cost. Viilaae Khera Khura •Motification dated 11.9.2Q0Q

70. With reference to the r\otification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect fi^om 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is fl[3].82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 11.9.2000 and with reference'to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 i wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to is fixed at ?14.75 lakhs per fl[4],38,125/- per acre and er filed any appeal or cross hereinabove are allowed by -einbefore mentioned and lent reported as Sunder lA. the period where there is a period of delay no interest 11:17,.74^10-9-/-,... XO.unded off tQu-^L[7], Category 'B' lands increasing the sa LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters 75,000/-.. p.er acr'e, a nd foi' me by 2.5% the price comes c- I to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices -GGm-e-s-t-Q^-Syg^S-OW—per- aer-e-f&r-ea-t-egory 'A^-iands; a nd decreasing the said prices by 11% 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 san-ie 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 fl[5],85,570/- per acre and since fqr Category 'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by f[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 _.pjic_e_5jaDd_5_e.niia.Dj:£d.J:D..OJ[5],l[6],5L£m/=4).eii^

73. Ail Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GPxID-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 filed by the Union of India a;3 also cross objections filed by Unipn of India,as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are ( allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced coniipensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1854 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.No,266/2008 & coimected matters - Page63 oT 7^! to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for decreasing the said prices by 11% t Category 'A' lands; and 0 reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands comes to fl[4],83,500/- per acre:and 2.5%, it comes to ^14,46,413/- per acre

71. All Land Acquisition Appeals as land owners and cross7objections 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 in village Khera Khurd decreasing the same by for Category 'B' lands, per 'GRID-D' filed by the Khurd pertaining to the notification dc fl[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 compiensat per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as e ted 11.9.2000 in sum of ' lands and ^14,46,413/-:e that pertaining to this Df India has not filed any on statutory benefits as xplained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. ^g/2001,(93) DLT 559 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Viilaqe Morelo iMotification dated 2.5.2001

72. fication dated 9.8.2001 limum price •notified per quiring said price to be of the notification i.e. le deed dated 25.5.2002 price per acre comes to 000/- per acre, and for by 2.5% the price comes With reference to the; not! wherein with effect from 1.4.20G[1] mi acre is ?15.[7] lakhs per acre and' re suitably updated - to reach thel date 2.5.2001 and with reference to the Sc I wherein for Category 'C lands, land ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7],75. Category 'B' lands increasing the;same LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. ¥t-!-lag€-l40tembi-Katen IMotification dated 22.8.2001

74. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 -whereiiTnwith^-effecMiTjnT-lrT^vzt^ 1 "minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the c^ate of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference'to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Categon/ 'C lands, la =ri7J[4],109/-, rounded off to ^17, Categon/ 'B' lands increasing the sa to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further i comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the.said prices by 11% to ref-teet—the price wit!' 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 reference to the sale deed for the date 22:8.2001; the mean _average price for Gategory 'A' lands in village Holambi Kale comes to f16,74,500/- per acre arid decreasing the same by 2.5°/o, it comes to fl[6],32,637.50 pe("| acre for Category 'Er lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ^16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager ^9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the iearned Reference Court. I

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

76. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the landi owners in appeals filed by 1 1 Union of, India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category/ 'A' lands in village Hola notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum o tibi' Kalan pertaining to the f ?16,74,500/'- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at fl[6],43,811/-. per acre is maintained cross references which pertain to dismissed.

77. Pertaining to such appeal stands enhanced statutory benefits e Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on tl shall be paid. These appellants or entitled to proportionate cost.

78. With reference to the nol wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 m acre is fl[5];-70 lakhs per acre and suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 an.d with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands; land price per acre comes to f17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7],75,000/- per acre, and for and thus such appeals or Category 'B' lands are where the compensation s per the Land Acquisition le enhanced compensation cross objectors would be tification dated 9.8.2001 linimum price notified per equiring said price to be Category 'B' lands increasing the sam e by 2.5% the price comes to ^18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre foi decreasing the said prices by 11% Category 'A' lands; and to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date• 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category-''A^lands ! ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasi in village Ali Pur comes to Tg the same by 2.5%, it comes to ti[6],32,b3/.50 per acr,e for. pategory 'B' lands. Noting •th-atthgj^-garned'-'ff^fgn.ce Court.:ha-s,--W4-t[-iay-t any feasonsT done away, with Category 'B' lands and, uniform price awarded is ne,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worlced out by me qgrnes to a meager f[9],000/- per acre a lands 1 maintain the amount awarded !;; Court.. I

79. All Land Acquisition Appei^als fil in respect whereof grid has been prepar H'. hereinabove are dismissed. I npte tffiled any^appeal challenging the decisioi

80. There shall be no order as to costs. •Villaae Holambi Khyrcl l^totifacatiort dated 22.8.2001

81. With reference to the notifi,cation dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minjimum price notified per id-thus qua Category 'B' y the learned Reference ed by the Union of Indiaed and labeled as 'GRIDat land owners have not of the Reference Court. acre is fl[5].70 lakhs per acre and rec suitably updated to reach the bate uiring said price to be of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed.dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land p fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,0 rice per acre comes to 00/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and furtherMncre comes to fl[8],65,500/- • per acre for C decreasing the said prices byai% tc reference to the sale deed for the dat 3sing by 2.5% the prices ategory. 'A' lands; and reflect the price with e 22.8.2001; the mean _.,mLer£Lg_e_pjiceJox.-Ca±egor^^ 'A' la4i4s-i-Fi----v#teg<s-4i0tefflbi--l^hLirdcomes to fl[6],74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl[6],32,637.50,_p.er..acrp.for Category 'B' lands. ' the learned: Reference C reasons. awarded is fl[6],43,811/- per acre,] the |:j)rice differential worked per acre and thus qua out by me comes to a meager ^9j,000/ LA.App.No.2.66/2008 & comiected matters ourt has, without any uniform price JlaiegiiQ/ 'R'..I^^OLds i maintain-i-t ! I learned Reference Court.

82. The appeal filed by, tlie Union of India in respect whereof grid has - been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. 1note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of

83. There shall be no order as to c; yTioufl-t-a-wa-FGl-ed by -t!ie the Reference Court, osts. Notification dated 22.e.2QQl V

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 requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the; date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and withYeference to [the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, Hand price per acre comes to fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to'fl[7],75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the sanrta by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further incr ^^1^ comes to fl[3],65,500/- per acre for decreasing the said prices by 11% aasing by 2.5% the prices Category 'A' lands; and:o reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean •: j average price for Category 'A' lands |in village Rajapur Kalan comes to fl[6],74,500/- per acre! and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl[6],32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. IMoting that the learned Reference jcourt has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B'! lands and uniform price I ^ awarded is fl[6],43.811/- per acre, thej price differential worked out by me comes to a meager'f[9],0QD/- p.er...;a_cre.._aQd. thus qua Category 'B' lands 1 maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

85. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the ajapLeaJsr-filed by iBnd-"Owrrer5"Tn"i"e5peGt prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereina

86. All Land Acquisition Appeals fi and cross-objections filed by the land ov Union of India are allowed by.decreeinc for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur notification dated 22.8.2001 in sunn of ^16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands, the compensation awarded at fl[6],43,811/- per acre is maintained an cross references which pertain to C dismissed.

87. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgiment 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 period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation wh e reef-g4€!-h£iHS-lE>eeebove are dismissed. ed by the land Qwners /ners In appeals filed by compensation payable Kalan pertaining to the d thus such appeals or ategory 'B' lands are shall be paid. These appellants 'Or cr entitled to proportionate, cost. Viliaae Sanoth Notification'dat 88. Dss objectors would be 712.2001 With reference to the motifii wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minijmum, price notified per acre is ^15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring sai^ 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 pnce per acre comes to ?17,74,1Oil(:i^-_ro_ui),ded off.to ?17,75.J1I}0/- per acre, and for Category 'B! lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes:ation dated 9.8.2001 to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further,increasing by 2.5% the prices canq-es-to'fl[8],55,500/- per acre |for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with LA.App.No.266/2008 & coimected matters reference to the sale deed for the average price for Category 'A' lands ^17,29,500/- 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 value 1 hold that for acquired lands \i village Sanoth for the notification, dated 7.12.2001 the lanci owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in surp of ?17,29,500A.

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

90. Ail Land Acquisition Appeal! and cross-objections filed by the lane filed by the land owners owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum oi f 17,29,500/- and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgnnent reported as Sunder l/s;. UO' 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal oi period of delay no interest on the en be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. I I Village Stiahpur GarhiTtotification dated 16.5.20Q[2]

91. Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by me hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with reference to the sale deed dated 20 5.2002 and for which land I price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at ?18,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a difference of 4 days between the date of sale and ithe notification I maintain that for the notification in question owners are entitled to compensation LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters r cross objection, for which Tanced compensation shall dated 16.5.2002 the land at the rate of f18,65,500/- Pagc 69 of 14 per acre and ! highlight that as per the all lands are in the same category. App filed by the land owners as per;the ' needless to state on the enhanced ! owners would be entitled to all Istatutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as iinterpjreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 200ll.(93) such appeals or cross objections filed award ahd'TlTe reference eals and cross objections jRID-L' are allowed and compensation the land DLT 569 except that in by land owners where there is delay, no interest-would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded, objections filed by Union of India are dis

92. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the I sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days 1 hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the land owners vA/ould be entitled to compensation at the rate of fl[8],65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 expept in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate I costs stand awarded. All such appeals!and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and all appeals and cross' objections filed by Union • of India are dismissed. Appeal missed. and cross i ^ ¥i§ia€ji0 HQiesTibi iCaiam Mi©tifficat5oEi dated ZBHSaZOOiZ

93. As noted by me pertaining tcb the notification dated I 23.5.2002 relating to village Holarnbi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA, App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 7^ % m Cojiector and the learned Refere ice Court. The learned Reference Court has awarcLejj^ compRnsRtinn in gum _qj: f22;i[4],239/- per acre which 'l have found to be excessive •' • I inasmuch as for.the date 23.5.2002 \ have held that fair n-iarl<elvalue would be ?18,65,500/-. per acre and thus all appeals and 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 • j payable to C18,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced' prjice with reference to the award the statutory benefits already!granted stand maintained. P\!o costs. I Village Ail Pur Motificatidn dated 23.5.2002 I 94., Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification wners as per 'GRID-N' are Djections filed by Union of relating to village Holarnbi Kalan and fair market value payable at ^n.8,65, appeals and cross objections filed 'GRlD-0' are dismissed and ail appea by land owners as per said Grid are compensation payable to fl[8],65,[5] Shahpur Garhi I determine 500/- per acre and thus all by Union of India as per s and cross objections filed allowed by enhancing the 00/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder UOf 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid save and except objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. VSilage Sanoth Motificati

95. Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as pe notification dated 27.1,2003 relatinc LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected raalters 1 such appeals or cross 30 dated 27.1„2QiQ.l r 'GRID-P' pertaining to the to village Sanoth, I note that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has pjaced the lands in 3 categories and 1find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation.;

96. On the mean average'basis which 1have been following by Increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the with-^"-€f&"ence--tt[3] the sale deTed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to n[9],43,500/-jDer acre and for Category land the price com_es to fl[8],94,912.50 per acre arpd for Category 'C lands the price comes to ^18,47,539.68' per ^cre. !find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at n[9],13,765/- and thus such appea s or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appealsjand cross objections filed by I Union of India pertaining to Categorjy 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed. Appeals and Cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing conipensation payable in sum of fl[9],43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land A\cquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgmeiivt reported as Sunder l/s. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be pai;d "save and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would hot be paid for the period ofjdelay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by fi=iod]f-yi-'ftg—the—relatable -deeree-H-n the Reference Order:,.y reducing the compensadon for Category 'B' land i,.C) LA.App,No.266/2008 & coimecled matters:DHC:18697 -fl[8],94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C land fl[8],47,539.68 per acre. MilM^e_Ea|apur Kafan NotSficatinn dated 27„:L2003 i

97. For parity of reasoning ak per para 96 alDove pertaining to village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Raja^ur Kalan and wliere Ifind thai: the learned Reference.Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of ?19,13:,765/- per acre and in some cases at fl[9],16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of unifon-p category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the:price|as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' land.ji i-he Pi^e^-eo-m-es-to-^-l-9743,-5-06/^pe'r aerts—crrrd for Category 'B' land the price comes to fl[8],94,91j[2].5Q per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ^18,^7,539.68 per acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be disnjiissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C lalnds and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands.; The said appeals and crosL, objections as per 'GR1D-Q>' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' land;:, are allowed by decreeing. com[j)ensation payable in sum of f19,43,500/- per acre and •needless" to-istate-o-n-tiTe enhanced I compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition /Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. UOi 2f>01--{-9^3-)--B^l:T—5r69—-jsiml1-be—pmtd—sa-ve—afl-d• except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters; Pag;-73 of'/-'i _would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in" the.Reference •Order by -red-y-ei-n-g neh-e ee-m-peR-ss-t-i-o-iT—-Category- 'B' land to ^18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.68 per acre.,11'? • -1 r. T23, LA.App.No,266/2008 Sc. comiected matters