Sat Narayan v. Union of India & Anr

NO.6771/2011. (Cos ObjectiOns), LA.APP. 112011 & CM No.12964/2011 (Cross Objectns), LA.APP. 2/2011 & CM No.6752/2011 (Cross Objections) LA.APP. 25/2011, LA,APP. 28/2011,LA.pp; 52/2011, LA.APP. 531/2011 & CM No.6766/2011 (Cross Objections), LA;APP, 73/2011 &1 CM N. 12922/2011 .(Crosc Objections), LA APP 75/2011 & M No 6775/201] (Cross Objections), LA APP 10112011, LA APP 102/2011, LA APP 11012011, LAAPP 111/201], LAAPP 112/2011 & CM No 10050/2011 (Cross Objections), LA APP 191/2011 LA APP 235/2011, LA.APP, 239/2011, LAAP. .252/2011: (Relating to Notification Ws 4 dat No 20/2003-04, ViHage-Rajapur {alan) d 2208.2001 & Award AND (GR LA.App.No.266/2008 & cunneeed matters

LA.APP. .488/2008, LA.APP, 490/2008, LAAP, 491/2008, LA APP 54912008, LA APP 755/2008, A APP 86872GO& & CM NoJ03.93/2009 (Cross Objectians); E4APP. 89612008 :& CM bjiec LA. APP. 0ol2oo8, •.• LA.APP. 587/2009; LA.AP. 591/200, LA.APP. 34/2010 & CM No7072/2010 :(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 488/2010, LAAPP. 605/2010, •LAAFrP 616/2010, LA.APP, • 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011, LA.APP. 41/2011 . . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 Idated 07J2.2001 & Award No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth) H :

1 AND (RIDL) -F LA.AP.ft. 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2 08, LA.APP. 344/2008, LA.APP.. 3.5.2/2.008,. LA.APP. 364/2008,.L.APP. 3W5/2008, LA.APP. 387/200.8, LA:APP; 445/2008, LA.A9P.. 454/2008, LA.APP. 464/2008& cM No.11333/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 465/2.008, • LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP. 468/2008& • CM:.Nq.11334/2008. (Cross Objections), LA.1APP. 469/2008, LA,APP. 470/2008, LA.APP.. 471/2008;.LA.APP. 560/2008, LA.APP. 561/2008, LA.APP. 611/2008, • LA.APP. 663/2008, LA.APP. 676/2008, LA.APP. 678/2008,.[1] •LA.AP. 679/2008, LA.APP.. 0,681/2008,' I.A.ARP. 682/2008, LAAPP. 683/2008, LA.APP. 722/2008, LA.APP.• 731/2008, LAAPP, 754/2008, LA.APP. 786/2008,, LA.APP. 825/2008,..LA.APP.. 826/2008, LA.APP. 842/2008,.LA.APP. 850/2008, LA.APP. 853/2008, LAAPP. 883/2008, • LA.APP. 903/008, LA.APP. 904/2008, LA.APP. 92.4/2008, LA.APP. 935/2008, LA.APP. 937/2008, LA.APP. 938/2008, LA.APP. 940/2008,. LA.APP. 943/2008, LA.APP. 945/2008, LA.APP. 956/2 0 08,:LA.APP. 957/2008, LA.APP. 998/2008,. LA;APP. 1001/2008, LA.APP. 1004/200,. LA.APP. • 1007/2008, LA.APR 1065/2008, •LA.AP. 10.77/2008, LA.APP. 107912008,. LA.AP.P. 106/2009 1 LA;APP. 72/2009, • LA,APP. •.. 309/2009, LA.APP.. 374/2009, LAAPP. 464/2009, LA.APP. 455/2009; LA.APP. 468/2009 0 LA.APP. 539/2009, LA.APP. 546/2009, LA.APP 547/2009, LA.APP, 565/2008, LA.APP. • 624/2009, • LA.APP.. 628/2009, •LAAPP. 630/2009, •LA.,APP.. • 3/2010,LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010,.LA.APP. 35/2010, • •A.APP. 37/2.010, LA.APP. 41/2010... -(Reta-ti-Rg tQ.Mo cattan.u/s 4 •ced 1052002 & Award NO. 29/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi). • • LA.App.No.266/2008 & cortheeted rnauer. • ANP + LA.APP. 338/2008, LA.APP;3 LA..APP. 366/2008, LA.APP. 367/200 369/2008, LA.APP. 370/2008, L 384/2008,.LA.APP..386/2008, L 389/2008,. LA.AP..P. •434/200'8; H L 436/2008, LA.A.PP. 444/2008, • No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), 467/2008. LA.APP..50/2008: & C Objections), •. LA.APP. 553/2008, 68012008, 1AAPP. 715/2008, L.720/2008, LA.APP. 723/2008, • L 760/2008; LA.APP. 767/2008, L 823/2008, LA.APP. 824/200.8, L, 908/2008, LA.APP. 909/200.8, L 1022/2008, LA.APP. 1024/2008, 1 1063/2008, LA:A.PP. 173/2009, 1 308/2009, LA.APP, 311/200;9, L 385/2009, LA.APP. 463/2009, L 540/2009, LA.APP. 542/2009, L 627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LAAPF 3/2008, LA APP 356/2008: LA.APR 368/2008, LA.APP. \.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP. \.APP. 388/2008, LA..APP. \APP. 435/2008, LAAPP. LA.APP.. 456/2008& CM LAAPP. 458/2008, LA.APP. M No 16150/2008 (Cross _A.APP. 562/2008, LA.APP. \.APP. 716/2008, LA.APP. \.APP..757/2008, LA.APP. \.APP. 793/2008, LA.APP. \.APP. 83712008, LA,APP. \.APP. 952/2008, LA,APP. -.APP. 1025/2008, LA.APP.

A.APP. 307/2009, LA.APP. \.APP. 384/2009, LA.APP. \.APP. 467/2009, LA.APP. \.APP 548/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/2010. Lm' I (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dted 23.05.200.[2] & Award No.22/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) AND (GPD. -F LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 132281200$ (Cross Objections), LA.APP. • 114/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 304/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 •. (Relating to Notification u/s L dated 23.052002 & Award NO. 16/2003-04, Village-Holambi Klan) •.. AND •. ••. • •. (GmI-) + LkAPP:379/2008, LA.AP.:31/2008, LAAPP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, LA.APP. 4991208, LA.APP 530/208, LA.APP. 836/2008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cioss flbections) LA.APP. 3 9 & CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objection), LA.APP. 782/2010, LA.APP. S Page9of[7] 8-251-2-010,_LA APP 9/2011 & CM 9960/2011 (Cross- Objections), LA APP 53/2Q11 L-AAPP 289/2011 & CM 14850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA APP. 290/2011 & CM 14852/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 381/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 3.05.2002& Award NO. 1712004:05, Village- All Pur) fl AND............ (GR::p). +. LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.235742009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 655/2008, LA.APP. 6,74/200 & CM No.7818/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 677I2008,[1] LA.JLPP. 705/2008, LA.APP, 706/2008, ILA.APP;.8o7/2008; LA.APft:808/2008 & CM N o. 7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LAfiPP. 878/2008, LAAPP • 882/2008, LA.AP. 885/2008, LAAP. 891/2008, LAAPP. 898/2008 & CM. No.235/2009' (Cross Objections), LA.APP. • 902/2008, LA.APP. 922/2008, LAAPP. 923/2008, LAJ\PP. 9.9/2008 & CM No2351/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 930/2008 & CM No7821/.2009. (Cro1ss Objections), LA.APP. 96012008,. LA.APP. 980/2008 4 CM No.855/2010 (Cross Objections), L.A.ARP. 981/2008: & CI'4 No.1261/2009 (Cross Qhj.ectjois),.LA..APP: 92/2008;.. LA.PP. 983/2008 & CM (Cross Objections), L.APP. 984/2008 I No.2347/2009 & CM N o.839/2010 (Cross Objections) LA.PP. 985/200.8, LA.APP. 997/2008,.LA.APP. 1002/2008, LAA!P. 1.006/2008, LA.APP. 1027/2008, LA.APP: 1078/2008&C[1] No.22.4712009 (Cros Objections), LA.APP. 1123/2008-, LA.PP 1127/2008 & CM No.2111/2009 (CrossObjections); LA.\PP. 1196/2008, LA.APP.: 1246/2008 & CM No10387/2009..(Crss Oblections), LA.APP.. 1257/2008, 'LA.APP.. 1258/2008 & CM No7791/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 13/2009 & •C.0 No2151/2009 (Cross •. Objections), LA.APP. 22/2009, LAAPP 83/2009, lJ. APP. 99/2009, LA.APP. 103/2009, LA.APP. 104/2009 L.APP. 107/2009, LA.APP. - 115/2009 & CM No 6482/2010 (Cross Objections), LA APP 122/2009 &. CM No.14321/2009(Crss ObjectiOns), • LA.APP. • 12312009;. •LA• 124/2009, LAAP. 128/2009, LA.APP. 17.4/2009, LA.APP. 250/2009, LA.AP.-, 260/2009; LA.APP. 26112009, LAAPP 2627O,[1] PZ64/2009, LAAPP 93l2009; LA.APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. 301/2009, • LA.APP. 302/2009, LA.APP. 303/2009, LA.AIPP. 365/2009, LA.APP. 43/2009,.. LA.APP. 449/2009, LA.APP. • 461/2009, LA.APP, • •.. 471/2009; LA.APP. 487/2009, 1LA,APP. 501/2009, LAJ\PP. 5f877009 1 LA /WP 527/2009, LA APP 530/2009 LA APP 531/2009, LA.APP. 533/2009, 1 LA.APP. 537/2009, • LA.APP. LA.App.Nb266/2008 & connected matters. PP 554/2009, 555/2009, LA.APP. 558/2009, L/LAPP.. 585/2009, LA.APP. 588/2009, LA.APP. 619/2009, LAPP,. 625/2009, LA:APP. 626/2009, LA APP 629/2009, LA' APP 649/2009, LA APP 38/2010, LA.APP. 43/2O1Q LAAPP 131/2010, LAApP; 20212010, LA.APP. 203/2010,, LA.APP. 204201O, LA.APP. 225/2010, LA.APP. 227/2010; LA.AR. 269/2010., LA.APP. 303/2010, LA.APP. 372/2010,.LA.APP. 41012010, LA.APP. 418/2010, L.A.APP. 479/2010, LAAPP 480/2010, LAAPP 482/2010, LAAPP 483/2.010, LA.APP. 484/2010:ï H LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP, 486/2010, LA.APP. 487/2010[4] LA APP. 604/2010 1 LA.APP. 606/2010 & CM E\i0.19873/70:10 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 607/2010, LA.APP., 608/2010,. LA[APP...609/2010, LA,APP. 614/2010, LA.•APP. 615/20.10, LAtAPP. 671/2010, LA.APP. 695/2010 ? LAAPP, 705/2010,:, LAIAPP. 734/2010, LA.APP. 785/2010 & CM N0.12963/2011 (qross Objections), LA.APP. 786/20.10 & CM NO.12967/2011 (qross Objections), LA.APP, 787/2010, LAAPP. •88/2010,I.. LA./PP. 789/2010 1 LA.APP, 790/2010,. LA.APP..:2O/2O10 •L& CM NO.12880/2011 (Cross Ojections), LA APP 821/2010,..14.APP. 915/2010, LA.APP. 916/2010 & CM N0.6773/211 Cross Objections), LA.APP. 14/2011 &.. CM No.6754/2011.(Coss Objections), LAAPP. 26/2011.& CM N0.6753/2011. (Cijoss Objections), LA.APP. 55/2011 & CM NoJ2894/20]ji (Cross Objections), LA.APP.

5912011.

LAAPP 63/2011. LA.APP, 69/2011, LA.APP. 70/2011. LA.APP. 72/20.11.& CM No.6777/201:1 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 76/2011. & •CM No.12974/2011. (Cross Objections), LA,APP. 114/2011..& CM No.12869/2011 (qros's Objections), LA.APP. 135/2.011 LA.APP. 136/2011H & CM N0J2971/2 (Cross Objection)011, LA.APP 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 143/2011, LI.APP. 153/2011, LA.APP. 203/2011 & ClviNoJ[2].913/2011.,. (Gross Objections), LA,APP. 273/2011. & CM No.13289/2011. (dross Objections), LA.APP. 338/2011.. (Reatng to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.012003 & Award No.11/2004-05, Village-Sanoth) AND (GD) ±. LA.APP; 336/2010 & CM I 6.24/201.0,.. LA.APP. 6.25/2010 LA 627/2.010 &. C.M. No.3853/2011:: (C 629/2010, LA.APP. 630/2010,. LA 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA PPL.14845/2011, LA.APP. APR.626/2010, LA.APP. ross ObjectiOns), L.A.APP. APP. 642/2010, LA.APP. APP. 645/2010 Sc C.M. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters: 741 I t~ • No.3587/2011 (Cross Objectioh LA.PP 646/2010, LA.APP. • 664/2010, LA.AP

1. Whether the Reporters of locl:aprs may be allowed to se the judgment?.. • 2. To be referred to Reporter oriiOt?

3. Wftt.er the iudgment should be reported in the Digest?: • •: LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected mafters I \- I,.10 villages; namely, Poodh Khurd, Holambi Kaan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Kheia Khud, Naiela, Ali Pui, Rajapu Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue Distnct (North-West) and if wesee t1he map of, the city of Delhi we would find that these villages lie in 1 he North-Western part ol Delhi They lie within an area bet we n the 'V' formed by Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 and G.T.Karnal R ad i.e. NH[4]. The DelhL Ambala railway line wns somewhat parallel to NH-i \Nher€.a[5] villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway line and.NH[1], the other villages a reon the opposite side of the railway line i.e. tovards the west of he.railway line. Narela and Shahp.ur Garhi:are, towards the easIt of the railway line. The urbanized city of Delhi.whére the colony Rohini exists has been developedon the agricultural iandsacquied post 1961 and is situated in the land within theaforesaid 'V'. Bawana industri.ai Estate came up on lands which wee acquired post 1991[6] and said lndustiial Estate is also on the lnd within the aoiescud '\/' Historicallt, except;for village Nrela, all villages have been treated as equivalent with respecttotheir location.

2. The instant deciion deCidesl the issue as to what should be the fair market value of agrcultuial lands in the said \fillages as of the dates 7.8.2000, 11 9 2000, 2 5 2001, 22 d 2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 23.52002 ard 27.1.2003. Needless to state, pursuant to notifications issed, from time to tune, on aoresatddates under Section 4 o the Land Acquisition ACL 1894, vast tracts of land in saici 10 villages were aCqUiFed and save nd except lard[3] i the Revei ue Estate of village Naiela where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential and

3. I must highlight that argrnens by learned counsel for the land owners were the same: in all.ppea!s filed by them as also cross-obj.ection.s.where\er fild.; ard similar k the position with respect to the stand taken by the inion ofindia. Sa\fe and except pertaining to village Narela 1 where an additional argument was advanced; being that the township.öf Narela had existed since pre-partition days and ths lands in Village Narela had abetter value•.and for which it wa.urged that way hack in • the year 1963 whentandsin the revenu'e estate of village Narela and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of 2I per • sq.yd. vis-àvis the price determined for lands in vifiage • Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must furthpr highlight that learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi beirg in Mamurpur: The posftion of the.awards made from time to time and the relatable notifiction under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have been detailed by..me tvhile noting the various Land Acquisition Appeals and the Cros Objections, as per the index hereinabove and thus I need notifeeat the same.

5. A perusal of all the. awards: announced from time to IAD Acq i m tion Colle cto r - has deterined compensation pay9ble with refetence to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from tififte -f-o time notifying the minimUm ra1tes for agricultural lands in Delhi and wherCver it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resuftingjnpjth having depths between LA.App.N[6].266/2008 & conhected matters:. to an this is to be found in a few awards wher e lands have been put in 2 or 3 categotie i s e Category '', Category 'B' and Categoty 'C,. S

6. A perusal of, the various dcci ions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the learned Reference Court has deteimmed fair market value on dilferent principlesand for purposes of clarity I may note the basis on w ich the learned Land Acquisition Colector and the learned Reference Court have determined the compensation payable The same would he as under:-: • A. Pertaining to the notificatio dated 7.8.2000 issued 4 o- the Land Acquisiion Act 1891 pUiSudni whereto 1372 00 10 bigha land was a qutred in village Pooth • Khurd, for the purpose of shifting indstrial units, as against fl[3] 82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and 12 26 lacs ret acre for Cateqoty 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by, adopttng the price as per the policy For minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learHd Relerence Court has adopted the same rate i e U 82 lacs er acre and has granLed increment at the rate of 12 0X0 per annum for the pet tod 1.[4] 2000 till 7 8 2000 Le the date of the notihca ion issued undei SecLiori 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined bait marfret value of land in village Pooth hurd at 11,37,280/ per acre and has ignoied that there was Caegory 'B' land for which he had to make flesay adjustreht. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7 8 2000 ursuant whet eto 211 14 higha land was acquired in village Holambi Kalan, the Land Acquisition Cpllector treated the land as of same character and determninel fair market value with reference to the policy for minimum rates in sum of 13 82 ldCs LA App No 266/2OO & connected matteis per acre which has been enhanced by the larnedReference Couit to !14,12,995/- per acie by relyinj n upo a decision of a DtsBndi -t -- rrt—r-epi td—as- Ofr-Wi --AB—Befh - 13 Ga/ta! Vs. UOI Wherein for the date•15:ll.ft996 fair market value determined was 9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and treating the said date and the said price $ the base, giving 12% per annum appreciation'for a period!Of 3 jears 8 months, and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been determined'.... Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 pursuant wheretol agricultural lands in village Bawana were acquired, the Land Acqwsition Collector ceterrnined fair market value for Categoiy 'A' lands, wth reference to the policy and fixed the same at Z13.82.lacs per acefbr Category 'A' lands a n d ?12 62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands The learned Reference Court maintained the same. D.. ' Pertaining to the nificatipn dated 11.9.2000 •ursuant whereto agricultural.landHin village Khera Khurd were aquired for 'shifting. industrial units, the Land Acquisition • Colldor ha, for Category 'A' lands d,teri.ned fair market value, with reference to the policy effetive from 1.4.2000 in • sum; of 13.82 lacs. per acre: and forCateory 'B' lands has fixed the same at T12..62.lacs per.acre. 17heard.pcec0 ut has adopted the policy w.hereiiinihirnum price. fixed as of 1.4.2000 was:U[3].82 lacs per a'cr. and for 1,28 days i.e. the number of days between 1 4 2000 till 11 9 2000, appreciating the same by 12% has deterined air market \falUe aL m 14,40,157/ and has uniformly awarded the same [or all lands Peitaining to the notification dated 2 5 2001 pursuint whereto 1140 5 8 bigha land..:Wcasl acquired in Narela for development of sectors 1 to 4, Phase I, Narela, with respect to the policy of minimum price with effct from 1.4.2001 the IA.App.No.266/2OO[8] & cOnnected matters... / q))" learned Land Acquisition Coflector det rmined fair market value in sum of Z15.[7] lacs per acre for Categ y.'A' lands i.e, the same price notified as of 1 ' 200 L and for Category 'B' lands determined the same at U[4] lacspe'ra-cre........ The learned Reference Court adopted the minim im. price notified by the Government as of 1 4 2001 and 'gave appreciation Ior a period of 1 month for the reason the notificat on under Section 4 of the. ta-ri-d-Acuuisitiury Act 2.5.2001añderihanced the compensation to fl r. 585,700/- pe acre which has. uniformly aWIdd..,..,... F.....Pertaining tothe notifi4a.ion dated 22.8.2001 wherunder 512.16 biha Band in village Holambi Katan were acquired for construction of a 100 rneer wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector. has restd. h.is decision on the minimum price notified as of 1.42Q01 i.e. U[5],[7] lacs per acre which has been. held to be the fair maket value for Category 'A' lands and for Category 'B' lands thesme has been determined at Z14 lacs per acre. The: learnet reference to the minimum rates iodfie lacs per acre has appreciated the san[1] 143 days and the price so fkedisi has been uniformly awarded..

7. ' Since the learned. Land AcquicHtion Collector as also the learned. Reference 'Court haveL.rèlie.. uoori;lthe. issued from time to time by the Gover ment of NCT Delhi, lixing • minimum price for agricull:ural lands in Delhi, let.rne therefore note hedàtes and the nhinimUrn rates notified 'frOm tiriie to time pertaining to agricultural lands in. Deini. since the same would be relevant for the present decision Thesarne would be as under - LA.App,No266/2003 & connected maers ' i• (in Iakhs/acre) mci ease per annum Notification of the pi ie 1 3 5 1990 27 4 1990 4.65 2 25 7 1997 1 4 [997 10 0 11.[5] 3 24 9 1998 1 4 1998 11.[2] 112 21J[1];2000 12.32 9..2001 1.4.1999, L 4.2000

12.16 13.82 9 8 2001 14 2001 15.[7] Ii 5 30 B 2005 30 82005 17 584 2 98 24.1.2008 1 18.122007 53.51

8. From the tabubon hereinabove noted ft would be apparent thaL after minimum price was 'ast hxed w e I S 27.4.1990 in sum of, Z[4].65 iakhs/ace it was increased alter nearly 7 years to !10 Iakhs/acre.rand the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple); The n.et year Lë. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the puce wa.sephancedby 1.1.2% toreach the figure of 71.1,[2] lakhs./acie• and thereafter w.e.f.:21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to 12.32 1 akhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9 8 2001 was issued the price was reLrospectivey enhanced w e 1 4 1999 to Z12.16 Iakhs/acre I e the puce mci eased by 11 11/o per annum with refeience to the price determined as of J_4J99J3_nd_ vude same notif:tioa.__thft price was etmospectiveIy enhanced w e f 1 4 200 to 13 82 akh/acre m e mci eased by 11% per annum vis-à-vis the previous i.e. 12.16• lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.42001.the price rOse by, 11.5% per annum vcs-àvis the previous pi mcp of Z13.82 Iakhs/acre to LA..App.No266/2008 & connected matters. - roach thefitre f 15J Jaki](cJ- i The price was next enhnced.e.f. 30.8.2005 to T171.584 lakhs/acre which gives. US an increase of only[2] 98% per annum and then the price rose to

53 Iakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 Le. increased 89.51% per annum with.referene: to the base fig re of fl7584 khs/acre and the date 301 13.2005.. 9.. Before noting the evidenC.e,: rUed:upon by the land owners and Unon of India before the lerned Reference Couit, it would be beneficial for the reader of the present deckion; as feet, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. I would highlight tht from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the alternatjv and it was urged that they would be entitled to price.deterrnin'ation as per the fhst argument, failing which as per the second argument, failihg which as per the tlird argu.rneh and s o on. Frot the side of Union of India it was urged that'the 'and price fixed by the learned....Reference Court pertaining td the notification dated •7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated 22.82001..for village 1-lolambi Kalan; the •notficatiOn dated • 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the: notifica ion dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification da1ted 2.52001 for village Narela;and the hUtificatiOn datedL22.8.0O[1] for village All Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2O03 for village Rajapur Kalan and San.oth treats as if aR landswere ofniforrn character and it was - u rcied that corrective action Is qiired by doing 2 things, Firstly, with reference to the mirimun price notified by the Government.frorn time 41 5 %Jpase per. annum and annum.... increasews ejVwfth reference to the d a t e s of the notifications under S.etio'n 4 of t h e Land Acquisition Act 1894; reqUiling the same to be rëdced to 10% per annum -- Th te [east Seconclly, the learned Rference Court was not justified in treating all lands as ofthe srnedharater. and thus • LA.App.No:266/2008 & conneciedrna1ers;. requiring further correction, by.suitably depressing the pce for such lands which were put n Category 'B' and Categoity 'C' b the Land Acquisition CoUector and In respect of which categorization it was, urged that nefther land owner h a d challenged the same by leding evidence to the contrary Le. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and • Category 1 C', on acCount of: pits and 'depressions of various • depths, as per the, awardspassed by the Land Acquisition Collector.was incorrect.:

10. Learned counsel for the land oWners firstly urged that the learned Reference.Court was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 25.3.2000 ExJW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which, is suhect rnatter of LA,APPNo.780/7010 as as rh'tdeddated 25.4.2001, ExPW4/2, in the Same LA.Appeal, Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 higha and 12 bisvva agricultural land in village Mam rpur was sold @ Z26.[7] 5, !akhs/acre and as per the sale deed E)CPW-1/2, 2 higha and 1 biswa of land was sold in the revnue estate of villacie Khere Khurd for a sum of Z32.[4] la'l,,h§ and addinaon the strnn dift,i. paid and corporation tax it was urgd that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 under ExPW-1/ would be Z28.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed EcPW-'1/2 the.land price would' be 63;478.lakhslacre. lt was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to d,et,rn- me the 'fair market \/alue ct griculturai lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000, 119 2000, 25 2001, 228200, 7 12 2001, 10 2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e the B date[5].on which notifications were issued underSection 4,0.f°the. Land Accluisition Act 1894 by suitably increasingor decreasng t he price. As an extended limb of this argument, p.eraining.tvillge Narela,, it Was urged that the price needs to be suitably enhnced:. and for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more I LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters and for:whFh, the argumentwStat w•hen..Th the pa,.... pertaining to a notification issued Ion 1 39 10 1963 unde. r Section 4 of and Acquisition Act 1894, t1ë Reference Court had given said benefit to agr.icultura lands in. viflage Mamurpur- Narel by.givingaprice beflefit ôf2- per sq;yd This vvas upheld by the Supreme COurt in its.deision dated 68J987 in C.A.No.4405/1997.UQ/ vs. Dhararnbir.&Ors. The said decision would reveal that the price per biga in sum of 6,650/deterrnird by the Land;Acquisition Col ectorwâs enhanced to 16,750/- per higha by the Reference COurt which was enhanced to 22,000/- per hiha by this Court and the decision of this COUITt was reversedby the Supreme Cout and the one rendered by the Refe.ence COut was restored. Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternativ.e tothe first, that the le rned Reference Court, having accepted that due to Bawäna lTdustrial Estate, Narela Residential Scheme and RohiniResidential Scheme having Oesulted in areas around the acquired lards being urbanized dnd developd into residentia.l'and industhal estates, had resulted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, • required fiir marke-t value to be deterrnined with respect to the price at which DSILC and DDA i.e; the implementing agencies, which acted as the Nodal Aqencies foi development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential ScIieme and Bawana lndustril Estate and....for which learned coUnsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by thC:learned Reference Court,.hich V would 'be noting. hereunde:r ¶hile dealing with the submissior urged... tethaii.ve to the: second s Ai nbiiission, being the third ubrniss,on, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgrnentreported as2001 (93) DLT 150 eq7_Rj • LA:AppJ\To.266/2008 & coirnectedmatters • Page 24 of'74 V[5] Union of India it was pe missible to determine faiir market value of acquired lands with referencO to the fair market value determined by. Courk at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market valüe the land by;percentages. ranging.heteen 6% per annum t,o 12 per a n flu rn for d i ife rent periods. Sh.LS.Dahiya, leained couñ l for some of the land owners handed over a chart, wolrkëd pon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bedi ' case (supra) as per which price iflcrease per annum till 3b.3.1965 had to be @ 6 0/q Per annum with reference to theshasejprice 16,750/- per bigha as of 30.10J963.i.e.. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in.DhararnbIr's cases (sup ra) and there a fe r @ 10% per a n n U Ti till 31.3.1973 and thereafter © 12% pe annum till the various dates whèii the 8 notificatiOns under Section 4. of l:h Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, nd with whid I m:.cncerned.i.fl.the ILpRai. So worked out, S learned counsel highlighted that as of 27 1 2003 the fair maiker value would come to 5688,759/- per acre. and I may highlight that learned couiisel had'worked out ak.aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals whee the price fixation has to be as of the notihcation dated 27 1. 2003 Other learned counsel urged that on the same priric:iple. iHarket value should be assessed for the preceding notifidationS dated 7.8.2.000, 11.9.2000; 2.5.2.001, 22.8,2001,.712.2001, 16.5.2002 and 23.5.2002.

13. '. The. fourth argument advaned was, and for v\Ihich._--..i:ie-re-nce was made by leamBd•cQu-n-eI. for. the parties in the evidehceledinLAC No.99/2005: F whiLh is subject matter of 2 cross appebiS i.e. LA.AP.P.No268!2008 filed by the land owners U...PP.NO.292/2008filedJy.Unio.IIfldia, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008 & cOnnected matters s testimony of Rarñ Kishan to thë.eect that by. s&Iing agricufturd produce from his lands he used to ea n 1 lakh per bigha per Thurn i.e. the fair market value as of 7812000•Le. the date of the notification issued under SectiOn of the [and A.cquisfti.on AF1894 was issued put suant wheret the land of Ram Kihan and others were, acquired. It was, thus. urged that the fair rnarkët'val.ue as of said date should be 720 lakhs per bigha. I may highlight that the fourth argumerit was, onty.projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who ppeared for:Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants in LA.JPP.No.268/20O[8] and the respondents in LA APP No 292/2008

14 The fifth argument advancea Was by Sh T P 5 Kang, Advocate who appeared in a 'few rnaters and urged that for each of the notification in question thd fairTharket value ought to have been deteimined with iefeince to the noti1iction which was.c1Qe5t in pointof time.. v.hfreundeL'iinimum land value was fixed by. the Government' apd the notification dated • 24.1.2008 where under Z53 Iakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18,12.2007; the' rnea average principle to be adopted was the precise argument.

15. The last argument, which as in the alternati\eto the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some Relerences he learned Reference (Quit had, with reference to a sale deed Idated 20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of ladcoLjapur pried in Khasra.No.200 (1-13) in the ievenue estate of village Kalan was sold [or 5,39,690I-, determined the fairmr+t.Vlue.aS.Per the said %5.al.e*• deed i n the following words: (J3gerøara 17.f,tUe deci$Icj dated 7.12010.1n C.No.11/2009) "If We add stamp ULy in the sale price 3,69,9061- përbIg/7a 70,1(50 6,09,850 'for 1 bigha nd 13 b/sWa):wh(c/7 corns to 1 7,74,109/per acre or 3,68,9061- per biha. FurtheE it we give 12% LA.App.No.266/2008 &connectedmaffers Page 26'of 74 • in crease 0/7, said• arnouflt for lntervng period between the date when the sale deed waseecUtëd and the date of -- 1ütffc3t/0117 u/S 4 2005 2002 to 27 01 2003) / e S 1floiit/7s IC comes to ZI[9],16,O37/- ('round off19J16,O4O/-)" The argtimen was that if we look at the award reltble to the said acquisition i.e. Award No.10/DC(NW)/20o4L05. it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land_was put inCtegory 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category. 'B" and the remainder 220 bha and 3 biswa in Category 'C' The subject sale ded clearly referied o the land being comprised in KhasraN;2d0 and that page No.56-57 orthe award,would evidte"th..at'i n.... omprisd in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha 113 biswa was placed in Category. 'C'. Whereas the Land Acquisition CoHector had determined fair market value as of date of the notifica'Uon i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of U[5].[7] lakhs per acre bsed upon the notification dated 9.8.2001 where urpder said price had been.S fi)(ed as the minimum price as OfI.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed, the same by Z[1].[7] läkhs per acre. for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was !14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another Z[1].[7] lakhs per acre for Category C' lands, lair riarket value determined whereof was fl[2].[3] lakhs per acre.: It would, be apparent what the 'argument was. The argument 1precisely was that if the market value had to be deterrninèd with respe,t to the sale deed in question, the.amë had to b Category 'c lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lnds tile price flaci to be increased, by 1.[7] lakhs. per acre.or each categdry I have already noted hereiiiaove the arguments which:Weie advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned serior counsel who •. appeared for the Union of, Indiai, and He same are reflected in • • para 9 above and hence I need not repeat the same. IA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' ' IA

1.7. In various sub-paras of.;. para 6 hereinabove, I have capsbled the reasoning of the learned Land AcquisiLion CollecLor and the learned Reference Court pertairing tothe 8 notificatIons •. issued under Section 4 of the Land 1 Acquisition At;1894 and • relatable to the 10 villages and thus I 'Onimence Vily.journey to • Jeal with the arguments advanced kdeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the larned Land AcqLiisftion Collector and the learned ReferenceCburt as per vario,us subprasofpãra[6].above...

18. But before dealing with the arguments I need to highlight various anomalies which st -ike the redder at the outset. The same would be:- A... Pertaining to the notificationdated 7.8.2000, wherein lands we're. acquired in village Pooth Khurd,' for Category 'B' lands, having depressions and itS deciçtion effected vis-à-Vis the price for Category 'A' lands: is Z[1] 1-56 lacs per acre and pertaining to the notifIcation dated 11.9.2000 where pric has been determi.(ed foragricultural la.nds in village Khera Khurd, • Ssad. pricediffrentjaJ has been worked but at Z[1].[2] lacs per acre and whHe determining fair rnrket valu for agricultural lands in village Narela which were acquired puruantto the notification dated 2.5.2001 the deduction effected • !1.7lacs per acre, • '. which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kaln was determined as of t h e date 2.2.8.2001 Pertain[ tQJ,be...nQIfic.ion dated 27 1 2003 and ielatable to village Santh the price dftfeienUal on said count has again' been takenat Z[1],1lacs per acre to inter • Se differentiate the..price between. Category.'A',Ctegory 'B' and tegory "C' lands. In other wards, tipe prié differential haS varied between 71.[2] lacs per acre, 115 lacs per acre and 1.[7] lacs per acre

19 Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 Villages aHd 8 notifications issued, under Sectio[4] of the La'nd'ACquisftion Act 1894, [think it advisable to put in a itabular form the relevant LA App No 266/2008 & connected matters Page )9 of 74 1/~ 1act,W1iidi Wud.bémy...data c.rL.further analysis. Put in a - tabular form the data wou{d be as under:- Village Date of LAC compensation ADJ compensation Section 4. (in lakh5/cre) with (in lakhs/acre) with Notification reasons reasons Pooth 7 8 2000 Cat 'A' I[3] 82 Cat Unifoi m Khurd.'.. '. Ca.'B'12.26 Z14.3728. Miriirnum.fprice.. as---Minimum price, as •,.... '. ' of 1.4.200,0 of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Holarnbi:7.82000 Z13.82. 14.12995. Kalan.. ' Minimum price as Price as in jafs of 1.4.2000. case as of 15J11996 ' with HoIrnbi 22A[3].2001 Cat 'A' fl[5] 7 Cat UniI'oi rn Kan ' Cat. 'B' Z14 fl[6].43811. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.452001 of 1.4.2001 with oil koiarnbi 23 5 2002 U[5] 7 22 14239 Kalan ' Minimum.price as Price:as in jfs of 1,4.2001 '. 'case • as. of 15.11.1996 with 12% increase pa. (compounded) Baivana 7. 8.200.0 Cat 'A' T1182 No enhancernnt Cat. 'B' M.62 given. Mhiimurnjprlce as of 1.4. 2000 - khera 11 9 2000 Cat 'A' Z 13 82 Cat Uniform Khurd, ' ' Cat. 'B 12.62 14.40157. Minimum pi-icel as Minimum price as of 1.4,2000 wjfh of 14 2,00fl. - Nar&a 2 5 2001 Cat '' 15 7 Cat Uniform Cat.'B' 14 15,857. Mi nimum price of 1 4 200] as Minimum price as of 1 4 2001 riiTh LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' I, LA.App.N.266/2008 & cmeeted maUers Fage 31 of 75 W 12% mci ease p Ah Pum 22 8.2001 Cat A' !15L[7] 16 43811 Cat:'B' 14 Minim urn price; Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 wfth of 1.412001 12% increase p.a Ati Pur 23 5 2002 7, 153 !17 8524 Minirnurn price as Minimum price as of 1.412001 of 1.4.2001 with Hoamhi 2268.2001 TF153 1 fl[6] 43811 - Khurd Minimum price as Minhrdum price a of 1.4.'2001[1] of 1.4.2001 with Rajapur 22 8 2001 Z16.4381i l(aIan Minirn1uni price as Minimum price as - of 1 4 2001 of 1 4 2001 wiw Rajapur 27.1.2003 Cat. 'A'. Z15.[7] 1913765 for Kaan Cat. '3 14 Uniform category.. Cat. 'C' 12 3 Minimum price as. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of.1.412001 12% inc:rease pa. in some cases. T19.1604 for Uii.form category based on sale deed dated 25.5.2002 vvitli • Sanoth 7 122001 !15 7 I - 16 9902 Minin- um price as Minirpurn price as of 42001 t of. L[4].2001 wiLh 12% increase p a Sanoth 27 1 2003 Cat 'A'15 7 19 13765 Cat 'B' 14 Uniform calegom Cat. 'C fl[2].[3] Minimurp pdce ar Minin1uii price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.41.2001 12% increase p,a. H Shahpur G.arhi 16 5 2001 Cat 'A' U[5] 7 MinimurflLpricë of[1].4.2O(1 aS 717 752I_69. Minimum price as of 1.4;2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a; Shahpur 23.5.200 Cat..'A' T15.[7] fl[7].79781. Garhi Minimum pri,CE as Minimum price as of 1.42001 of 142001 with compound intrst @ 11.5% p. • 20. 1 now propose to deal with the 6 s.ibmiSsions urged by learned counsel or the land owners and the 2 submissions urged by. the Union as noted in para 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertainingto• the. land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of lndia).. 21.. The first argument is prdicatd on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3. which is dated 25.3.2000, ard the. sale deed Ex.W- S112 which is dated 25 4 2001 As per the former, fair market value for the former. comes to !2675 lakhs per acre and the latter @ Z63.478 1 lakhs per acre The eained Refetence Couit • has rejected the 2 sale dds as ileliabip evidence todetermine fair marke.t value of agricultural larid, for all the \filiageS in question on the reasoning that the sle deed Ex PW-113 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan P\/V-6 who hac tendered the sale cheo in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No 68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the l9nd was purchased for religious purpose and was beingusedfor a religioupurpose. i he sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewk been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair ma ket value of agricultural lands on the reasoning. it was pulthas d by a Non Government Oiganization "Christian Organization" and as per, the testimony LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters •. of PW[7] Sister Annie, the.seretary Of the organization stated._tt.ogr4zatjon. hadtep -h-..-p4ee:fcr.:.the said piece of • land as it was the only plot of the, equisfte,ize suitable for the • requirement of the oranizatioftafld is being used for destitute • women i.e. there was a specialcircumstance,.personai to the vendee.

22. As held in the decisions: rported as 1995 (1) 5CC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru)& Org. Is. Jsti RO/7/n/ 6.Anr (Refer para[6]) and 2009 (14) 5CC 369 Mohd. RaUfUddin Vs. Land • 4cguisit/on Officer (Refer pra13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Sectiorì 51A of the L.A;Act 1894 have: not t be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true tesl is the price which a well iforrned wilJig buyer would pay to an eqially well informed seller withut being influenced by any • •.. special. circumstances or the:fancy to buy a particular piece ot land. An informed buyer would te one who has studied the market and has apprised hinielf:ofalI available land in the area; • has • understood the topology of t he area and the prevaiIinc prices. If a buyer has a fancy for particular piece of land, he • • may pay a much hiQher pi1e and this would not be a good index of fair market value ofthe lnds in the area. I would be failing If I. donot highlight that theUnion oflndJ..had relied uPon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertainig_to the notification dated ( • 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in Vilage.Rajapur Kalan was sold by an aricuIturist.tOañ agriculturistfor a much lesser • price i.e. i[7],74,109/- peracré: as against the price which comes • to 63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.FfW-.1/2 and 28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/, • • • • LA.AppNo.266/2008 & connected rnatèrs • • Page 33 of T. I circumstances which themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciftil puce ricle - fd Lie d etroactrother

23 Thus apaifrom the reasoning ol the leaned Relerence Court, with which I concur, afore-noted tesons in para 21 •abQ _wo_uJJ_e_ftdditiona!: reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not bet; good evidence wherefrom lair market value of subjecf lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under varibu5award[5]: nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have beer acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an are, it wbuld make all the more.a • reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction beinq the result of a Fancy of ftc • buyer.I wquld be failinQ not t:o note an ' unreported decion cited by learned counsel Sh.LS.Dahiya Ibeing the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of abatc,h of apeals; lead matter being •.. LA.Ap.N.o;19312006 Pratal 5!ngh (SInce. thru LRzY, • VU! Or.. It Washighlg.hted thfte sale deéd theiein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expan'ion of its factoy vvhich had been ugnoied by the learned Reference Court On the ground. that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price i,refIeted therein could not be treated as a good.evidene of value Of land in the area, was rCjected hy.the Court and the price in question, with suitab'e dedLuction on account of the pacel at land. being. large, was • accepted by the Court and thus even in, the in.tant cases the 2 sale deedS in question i.e. Ex.PWF1/2 a nd Ex.PW-113 should be reaed as the basis to determine fir market value The.%arurnent ignores the reasoning in the decision of the livision • Bench in p,aras 37 to 38 whereir,i the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on st1s own logic as indicaLive of the market value, but fOUffr1that f the: price therein was reduced by 113rd, the price arrived et: would be the same as LA.App.No266/2008 & connected nmtters. Page 3.[4] of 74 1, ) would be price arrived at with refereice to the avet age vaLe of the sale deeds produced bythe Unionof India i.e,the sale deeds • produced:by the Government were gving a price of 1,37,OOO/per bigha and the sale deed under whch L&T had purchased the land gave the..price.3,26,6OO/- Øer biha and the vra e woild come Jo 231,80.0/- which was dear about the price of 2,15,160/- per bigh, if 1/3rd would be deducted from the sum of 3,26,600/-. It. may further be hiqhliqhted tht in the said judmen.t the year of the aleiwas IL993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acqui.itio Act was dated 247d995 and 16.11.1995 andthe Court deterrrined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. 2,I[5],160/-. In other words, the reasoning.of the Division Bench is not to.be.read.pedanticIly but meaingfuHy. It is not that: the Courttreated the sale deed in qUestibn as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be gken. • would highlight once again that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction iin the value of the Iwid price as per the 2 sale deeds and this it elf is intrinsic mutuafly destructive evidence of the 2 sale deds reflecting fair market value. • 24. • Thus, the first argum.en,t as r1ioted in para lu anove s • rejected and I immediately highliht that the exterded limb of the argument that after acceptingthe said deeds as indicative of the fair market vIue f the Iand:p( -taining to /iltage...-Narela, in view of the decision in Dharamhirs case (ura), land price should be suitabIyenhanced would be dealt vith by me at the end when I determiTe the fair market value of lands for the Vi lla.ges in question.:

25. The scofld argument, cHours whereof are to be found in para 11 of my decision hereid above I need to note the • LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • • Page 3S of 74 latest pronouncement of the Supremé.tourt on the. issue as per Uie decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC769 La! Chand vs UQI

26. But before that I must highliI1t that the..decision in Lal Chands case (supra) predicated: a claim on a DOA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residntial plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and tie ar-gurnentt was being considered for fiatiOn of fair rnarket value of aricuftural lands in village Rithala, where further land were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohi'ni Residential Housing Scheme'. l.hihlight that agricultural lands in village Rfthala are situted within the 'V 1 formed by NH-i and NH-lU i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road. • 27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing the ame and transferring perpetual iease-hId rights, which obsevations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts, ip: pars 11 to 27, the Supreme S Court ohser\/ed and held as under:- "Whther the DDA.hrochwe..i,llevant eWdenc&

11 The DDA biochure (Ext X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an inyitation seeking applications frbm members of the • public for allotment of plots, on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brOchure stated that the plots were in a layout fcrmed/to be foirned in Rithala and the surrounding villags. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: SI. NoPIotsize Category R

1. 26sqm 32 sq 48sqm 60sqm 5., 9Osqm Economically wea EWSL±____ Low income grou Low income g rour Middle incomegri Middle incone. gri e(per square metre) sections Rs 100 (LI G) Rs 125 (LIG) Rs 150 up (MIG) Rs 200 up (MIG). Rs,[2] 00 LA.App.No.266/2008 & coimected matters VI The appellants contend that RsT 150 per square mehe which is the average of the saidprovisional rates, should •.be taken as indi.ca.tiv.e.f th rulinb market price. On carefuL Consideration' ve are of the view that such allotment rates Of plots aiopted by development authorities like DDA cannot. forn- the basis for award of compensation for.acq.uisftion of unde\feloped lands 'For several reasons Firstly, market value has to be deLerminecl with reference o larçetiacts of undeveloped agricultural lands in 0 ruraliar.éa whereasthe allotment 'rates, of development.authorjde are with' reference to small plots in a' developed l,yoüt falling wfthin' urban area. Secondly, DDA and other. statytory authorities adopt different rates for plots 'in the. area with reference to the economic capacftyof the bUIer, making it difficult to ascertain the real mrketvaIue, whereas market value determination for acquisitidns.. is uniform and does not depend upon the econorrc I sttus. of the land' loser. Thirdly, we are COncerned With rarket value of freehold "rats" in the DDA brochure refer tp the initial premium iayale on allotrhent of plots on lesehoId' basis. We may elaborate on these three factors... First ffactor ' • The percentage of '.'deduct on for development" to be made to arrive:t the. mar(et value of large tracts of undeveldped agricultural land (with potential for development, With referene'to the sale price of small developed plot,varies betweerì20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, thepercntage depending upon the nature of deveIoprneht of the layout in which the exemplarplotsaresftuated

14 Th Veference w e "deduction for dveloment' consists of to components. • The first Is' with to the area • required to be Litilis'ed for developmental works and the • • second is the cost of the d velopment works. ' For example, if a residential laydut is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority., it may utilise around 40% of the land area. ifl the !ayoijt, fo roads, drains, parks, • playgrounds and cMc arnenfties (community 'facilities), • etc. • 15.. The deveIoment, authdrity will also incur considerable: ependiture for development of undeveloped land into a dévëldpeØ layout, wich includes h the cost of levellinthe lajrid, cbst.of providing roads, LA.AppNo.266/200'8 & ëonnecied mafters ' underground drainage and sewage facities,Iayinjfr lines, electricity hnes and developing parks and ci\nl developed plot, The two factor$takn together would be the 41 deduction for development" and can account for as • much as.75% of the cost of the deVelped plot; On the other hahd, if t:he resdential. plot is in an.unauthori.sed private residentia.1ayout, the percentage of • "deduction for. development" may I Pe fa.r less. This is • because in an unauthorised laybut uuallyn.oland will be set. apart for, parks, playgrounds and comm.unity facilfties. • Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drainsw•ill also be nrrowr, just adequate for • movement of vehicles. The amount sent on development • work would also be co.m.parativly Ic. s and minimal. ThLIS the deduction On account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorkd layouts, woUld be only about 20°/b • plus 20% in alL 40% as against 75(o in regard to DDA • lots.. The "deduction for developmeit" with reference to prices of plots in authorised privatq residential layouts may range •betv.een. 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layOut. The position with reference to industrial layouts will S.be different. As the industri& plots yvill be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots rneasurin 1 100 sq m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area 1:0 he set aart for development:(for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will !Je •far less; and the cost to he incurred for development will a!so be rnarqinally less, with the reslt the deduction to he rnade.'frorn the cost of an industrial. plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrastted from 65% to 75% for residential plots. •.. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban urea, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may: be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some baic.infrastructure.will already be available. (Note: The jerentages mentioned above are tentative stai dards and. sUbject to proof to thE contrary.) Therefore. the deduction. for the "developnent fctor"tô be made with eference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to ar lye at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more ithan the deduction LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters.. of a small plot in an ran industrial layout. It is eloprnentcOst incurred by jher than the cost incurred reçrd-.tc. higher overheads and expenditure. 21.. Even among the Iayuts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised foi roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may iry with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residential- Cu-ffine-ucr-id+Jtfja-l-; nd--even-:among residentiai layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots,, width of the roads, extent of community - +t''parl<s and playgrounds_provided.

2. Some d.th'e. layoutformed by the statutory d-ement authorfts ma have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatrnent.pla.nts, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playg ounds and corn,munfty/civic: amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction f i r development" Factor is a variable percentage and the irange of percentage itseft being very wide from 20% to 7%. SecOnd factor. I S

23. DDA and other statutor adopt different rates for allot layout, depending upon the Uottees, classifying them as income group, low income weaker sections. As a cOnsCq plots. may be earmarked f economically weakerl sedions 100 sq IT[1], whereas the price/pi 150 per square metre for 'rien Rs 200 per square metre for p income group and Rs 20 per blh l ing to high inme'grou

24. The ratio Of sitCs ma Ia LIG and EWS may. also Vary, • reflect in the 'rates for allotrnei the average of the aflotnent r of those plots does not dépen DDAstatutory authoçft, but L the _ • Third factor • with reference to the pric un.authorised private layotiit ( aI-weI+*n*n that the de statutory agencies is much hi • by private developers, having development authorit:ies ient of plots in the same economic status of the ugh income group, middle group, and eonomicaHy eiice, in the same layout, )i persons belonuing to at a price/premium of Rs erniurh charged may heRs bers of low income group, rsons belonging to middle square metre for persons 'out reserved for HFG, MIG, All these varying factors It will be illogical to take tes, as the 'market value' upon the cost incurred by pon the paying capacity of ~4 ) LA.App.NO266/2008 & connected matters. Page 39 7,11 tt 25 Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by vay 4f absolute Sale. Some developmenL authorities hke DDA allot pluuoiasruid basis. Some have premium which IS almost equal to sale pi ice, with a nominal annual ren, whereas others have lesser premium, and.more substanal annual rent. 26.. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value. with refere 'ce to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determiffing the Value of freehold (ownership) rights with reference to the annual rental in 'ome in regular leases. But it is very, difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a • leasehold plot allotted by DDA. A the period of lease is • long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a • tendency among the public to eqate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by pDA, as being equal to • the mrkét valUe of the property.' I

27. rHoWever, in VieW of the difficulties referred to above it is not. safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in recard to the plots fotined by DDA in a developed layout, in ietermining the market • value of the adjoining undereloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has theréfoie o be excluded as being •. not.re.levanL" 28-. The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference No.117A/2009.. The argument ad\/anced before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned ReferencC Court wfthreference to the evidence Hued UOfl It reads:- "Ld. Counsel trtheftetitae,rsas.: further..S.UbtflEtted thatDDA&DSIDC iiotted plots in Narela Residential Area and Narelaindustrial Area 6t much higher rate. He has relied upon allotmentlet'er dated 04,01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, %. Narela.. which was allotted tO: Sh. Hem Chander at the pie-determined rate of 3028/- wl1ich he has proved as Ex. PW6II, Allotment lletterj. dated 26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, 'Sectoi-05 area measuring 70 Sq. i. metres in which rate Was, fixed as fl,989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this andallothient lettei •.., dated 09.0790 of industriaH plot 011otted by DSIDC i.e. LA.A.pp.No.266/2008 & connected matters. •.. plot no.2.70, measuring. •::.ndustrial Complex at the ratE is Ex. PW3/1 and another •. 25.04.2000 of ifldustria 'plot was sold at Z3000 per sq. met • Further.Ld. Counselj has statement of PW[9] Ka.nwal; PVV1I/1, which is detail flan that total land acquired is72 of dévlophient. per biia 248911 whereas Ld,.Côunse by selling alternate plot inNai 208 would be 253 1408/-pc And if 30% of the tota park,. drain etc. total area COr price, of per bigha would,cbm 1771986[6] per bigha,): development charges from' s !771986 - 24911 = 1523'.petitioher has.' been given r Sirrillarly he has tried t earned by DSIDC. He has reli R.DShr,sstt.Mflg documents Ex. PW7/A. (Colly). that total expenditure incus $. Narela Project by DSIDC. Was total area of plots WithDSlD 1361250 sq. yard. The refore, 2..142917 per bigha, Calculati( 0 sq.. yards at. Narela of650 sq. metres which • llotment letter dated ivhich. is Ex. PW3/2, which e s. submitted that frorn the Singh & document Ex. i acquired. It is apparent J[9] bigha. 'Thus total cost iould be 1794400000 = has submitted that DDA cia Residential Scheme © r bigha. I area utilized, for roads, es for sale is 70% so the.to (2531408 - 759422 = And after deducting le price of one bigha i.e. )75 per big.ha, where as te only !3,27,083/ per demonstrate the jJrofits d upon testimony of PSIDC who has produced Ld. Counsel has argued red on development of 720526901 till 2001 and was 11247 hectare i.e. total earning of DSIDC is n is as under: Total' area under plots =.L_rds.

112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. Price per sq. rnetre..in the year 2000 at = which.SlDC. sod plot...000i per sq. yards Total earning. '=- 4083750000 Total expenditure. • 20526901 Total profit Hz 363223099 i.e. Profit comes to 247ff sq adThf2470 000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and theLAC has paid comensation @ Z327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSID,C has earned, a profit of !2i[4]:9JJ.perbigha................. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded con- pensation @ fl27083 per' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected. matters bigha for the landin questiOn if 20% appreciation of the said price is consIderedQn accqunt of land, the figure comes to 654166. If the arnOur*:isdeducted from se price per bigha i e 24700000 the ligure comes to 118 15834 per bigha & petitiohr i entitled for the sarne" w---we--do--no-t---have:ëvidence as.to what Was the exten.of plot:ted lnd sold by QSIDC or DDA with.rèference tQ • the Bawana Industrial Estate dévelo ed. by DSIDC and Narela • Residential Scheme developed bi DDI. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoateevidence has iesulLed in the same factors; being 3 in nühiber which were rioted by t h e Supreme Court in La! Chand's case (upra), which render' this evidence as most unreliable to determinethe value of land in rthe subject cases 'U It is no doLrbt true, as hed even he---leafned Reference Court, that with the develooment of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residentia Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject: lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would Hwhat vvould be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself. [hold that the learned Reférece Court, keeping in view the observation and the lindings of the Supreme Court in j/ chand's case (supra) has iighUy rejected said evidence as reliable On the issue of potentiality rlating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decisin 1 to 1eal with the same while I shll be discussing as to what should e the fair market value of the lands. The third submission in the all rnati\/e was based uporr the observations of a Dhision Bnch this Court in Bed!_Ram's case (suprá), and the submission is noted In para 12 herejn above. • The land owners require he price determined in DIarambIr's case (supra) relating • ) the' notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & coimeeted matters • 3IL10J963Jn.iiü,j Ma m u rp u r to be treated as the basis and progresively increased, fiitly by 6% per annum, then by 10% per anrurn and lastly by 12% per • Ia annum for different periods:1dHthereb determine the fair market value for the 8 notificationsin question..33. ft be highlihted that in 'Beat.Ra,Ys case (supra), wfth reference to the base date as:;..of the yea r 1959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of U-iis • Court applied, the::pogressive..Hincrease method by firstly enhancing the price per annun by % till the year 1965 and then bi 10% p• annum tifi the year 973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years.

34 However, n La! chancts case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the awatd re/a tin to ac 7uisition on 24-1 O 1961/s relevant?.. 47.. The appellants coneiid that some lands in Rithala, were acqUired underSe tion 4(1) Notification dated 2440-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was awaded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is ithat as the. present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determiied with reference o the market value determined for, the 1961 acquisibcn by providIng an, pprdprit increase • at the • cumulative/compOunded rate of 2% per annum, This Court had Occasion to exari1ne His issue recently. In O/VGC Ltd v Rarneshfhai Jivanb iai Pate/1Q- this CoLn L • held: (SCC.p. 751, para 15) ••: • "75 Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing ----aproprratrescatation..o\1erU1pToye1tmarket • •: • value of nearby land.s. HY previous years (as • -• eeedysle • •• where • there •. is. • no evidence of any • contemporaneous sle transactions • qr • acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said mthod is reasonably •: LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters —sate H t•ransac•tioh•s/•acqui•sftions pre acquisition byonlya few year to five years.. Beyond thAt it u if it re/ales to a neighbouring a reliable standard if the ga, years, May becOme unsai standard Where.th.é gaq k Ia for.determinig; the rarket acquiied in 1992, adopting ti method with refeience to a s 1970 or, 1980 may have ma because, over the course of annual. increase may itself change apart from the HkeIiho varying periods of stag iiätiOn I spurts in prices affecting the increase." • -on____.. -;ede the subject that is, up to four ay be unsafe, even 'and. What may he, is of only a few ' and unreliable ger. For example, value Of a land e ahñual increase le or acquisition in iy pitfalls. This k ears, the 'rate' of undergo drastic d of occurrence of n prices or sudden very standard of (emphasis supplied).48. Even if the relied UOfl tranaction is only two to three yearspriorto the acquisjtidn, the court should, before adoptin..a..stahdad.ecaiaton satisfy itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market v based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing qn increase'of 12% or 15% per year,. as the newspaper eports discidse that the price of, immovable properties in most areas of t h e, country came down by more than L0% to 50% from the 2007 rates. Caution. is.therefori necessary before increasing the pnce with' refrence to the old transactjons....Be':that as it mast. It is clearthat the award rnade.'in regard toa 1961 acquisition wifl 'not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition." 35.. It is apparentthat the tjo of law laid down by 1:he Division Bench in Bedi sea) runs in the teeLh of • the law'declared by the Suprerr'eurt in La! C"hancls case which decision foIioV — rlier decision of the Supreme court reported as 2008: (I[4]) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Rameshhha///vanb17a/ Fate!. LA.AppJ\IO.2662008 & coected matters • Page 44 of. 74 '4 in Llltf uIsLdEu cE15-etnere sanotr reãöff not to follow the law laid d o w n.inBed//aTh'scase.(sLIpra) for the ieason I find that a Co-oidinate Diviian Bench of this Cou, ui the decision repoited as 88 (2000) LT 650 (DB) 5araswatiDev &Anr. Vs. UOI..& Ors,peiainin.toagricultural lands in village Marnurpur Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase lwith reference to the price determined in Dhararnb/r's case (supra) as of the year 1963 w iih. would have resulted in the land price•being.determjned in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.3.198() (. 20101- per annun per bigha and gave the increase @ Z1000/- per bigha If Bedi Rants principle was applied the price would have come Lo approximately 50,000[per bigha but the learned Division B n c h determined the same at 33 7 0OflJ- er thgha.

37. That apa, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue:of.the fair market value of subject lands, in the unreported dedsion of. Division Bnch of this Court in LA.APP.NO866/2005 dedded or11..2006, Mahe17der511_]cy17 vs.

1. J0I& Ors. andconnect.ed Land Acqui. ition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana[1] and I highlight that one village with which 1 am dealing is viIlage Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued 6nderSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act whereunder 3604.bigha and 18 bi.swa• of agriultural land in village Bawna was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. BaWana Industrial Etate, he fair market value as of 15.11.1.96 was determined @.199,904.6.[8] bigha which equals to 959,542.46 per acre andreievant woul.d it be for me to highlight that if the notification date 25 7 1997 by which pnce for agricultural land being the mirìimirn price determined by the Government was.flO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters, Page 45f76 • determined by the Division Renh.Would equal the minimum price notified by theGOvernrnent. - —as---of----1-5 1 996 @ 9,59,542.46 per acre, pertainihg.tO the notifications with vvhich I am concerned, the price would be apiroximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Cou rt if I give benefil of progressiveincrease:by 10%pernnurn. But,.Fleave it at that foi the moment for the reason, as assuHd by me herein above, I would be holisticaIIy discusng the subjed. while. opining upon The fair market value.ofthë subject: lads as on date of the 8 • notifications in question; 39... The.fo..Ur.th..arg.ument which was advanced only h •. ShS,Chaturvedi, learned cduhsei who.a'peared for Ram Kishan •. and others,1.the appellants in LA.APRNo 268/2008 and who are •. the respondents in.the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e.. LA.APP.N292/2008, is as noted in iiara.13 above i.e. the testimony. of.Ram Kishan that frorri the subject lands belonging to the family they were ea. rnlng. ~I.: lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce

40. The learned Reference COurt has not accepted t:he testimony of Ram Kishan because h gave noproof in support of his oral testimony.... 41.. The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop • tanding on the land when its possession was taken over on 4.10.2000 would require an infer.l]ce to be drawn that the quired lands belonging to the.:farnily were not 'being put to agricultural use and growhg 3 to'4crop per year, is fallacious doubt, for the reason1t. k matte1r. of. cdmmon knowledge that • • • 1y the 3rd week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if • vegetables are çro.wr[1], even they.a:reHharvested and the land is left falow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008 & eminected matters •.. • sown around the fist week dr the second vveek of November..eah. ye -.......:,

42. But the othr: reasoning Of there being no evidence led in the fom of documents is.relevanfl. Now, as per the teJrnony of Ram Kishan he.was workirg as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal. Corporation of iOelhi Hl 31,.1.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and theeafter earned a pension. If the family, as claimedby him, was E arning.!1lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the fmily, which admeasure 18 bicjha and 18 biswa, theannUaj.n.e ouId he Z19•lakhs and one...find......i-t....strange that flot apenriy..vras..trwested in a b a n k or a security wherefrom interest or c i\idend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof ofSuch high volume of sales beinq effected in the local Mandi or:Otherwise. The trader to whom the produce was, sold has nO't'ben. examined. No proof of number of workers ernpIoyeddjee I purchased to run the tube-wel[1] 1 if any, to irrigte the I:iëlds or 'electricity bills paid if th pump was electricaHy driven has been furrished and if the.l:i (c c were irrigated bycanal water[1]::no prf of any payment made to the irrigation department has ben furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in ot adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same to determine the fair market value of lands. There. is no reliable evidene on the issue of the yield and the self serving deposftiori Of am Kishan has been rightly • rejected.

43. If thereis relib.le evidence of an independedt expert or there. is 'qtherwise reliable eviderce, as was found in the decision of the Supreme co u rt reperted as,jT 1997 (1) SC 444 State Vs RarnaPna& pert Ors, aining to th yield fromagricultural land, I only I then it would be safe to • determine, fair market value by apply,ing the principle o[ LA.App.No,.266/2008..& cOnnected mafte's ' ' capitahzing on the yieldbasis and being 10 times the annual yield:nd: to be projected The fifth argument whh. hereinabove in pra 14, by Sh.T.RS. the mean average principle be.ädot notification dal:ed 24.1.20.08. lat too, the capftaiizing L20.times as was sought is advanced, as. rioted ang,.Advocate was that d with reference to the In parä.[7] above, I have Out in a tabular form, the minimum piices notified for agricul1uraj land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that the nOtifications with which I am concerned are dated 782000, 1L920100, 252001, 2282001, 7.12200,1, 16,5.2002 25.5.2002.ahd. 27..L2003 i.e the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 Fr1om the tablein paia 7 above, we find that minimum prices ave been notified as of

1.4. 2. 00.9., 1 l 2001 and 30 8 2005 Thus, theie would he no need to factor in the minimum pi ice notified under the notification dated 24 1 2008 which is e f 8 12 2007 i e $ gears away from the last year with whHh I am concerned the year 2003 I highlight that reckoned w e 1 the year 2000 ke, the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statistiOs which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to deteirnine a value, in beteen 2 gwen ialues, require the 2 end points to be the ones which would be dos-es 4o-4he_p mt fo-r whi-ch the mean average has to be determined 415 I am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in paia 15 herein above, and for which' I highlight that the teamed %leference Couit has, perta i ning to the notification dated 27.1.2003,determined thefair market value in some References with respect to a sale deed dated 20 5 2002 where under 1 bigha and 13 bisvva of Ind was sdldih village Rajapur Kalan and LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected rnaters. -. has determined that based thereon the price as of s a i d daU- 16, 5 r months b'.12% per anrum,.for t1e date 27.12003 the price would be !1916,037/-pér ae:rOuded.ff to 19,16,040/- per acre...

4.7. With reference:to théAwa is apparent that Jan.d comprisdiih. 1 bigha.and 13 biswa was a (tegor question pertains.to the same land a if said sale deed had to be accepted value of Category 'C' land. As per t No10IDC(Nw)/2000[5] ft hasra No200 admeasurinc 'C' land. The sale deed in nd indeed there is logic that it wouId reflect fair market e learned Land Acquisition UHLLUI L.I iai<ns per acre would.be required to fill LIP the depressions for land in Category '' and further sum of T[1].[7] Categor.y 'C' Iand,.••meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were less vIsà-vis Cateqoiy 'C' land In other worik, wTh - reference to Cateoiy 'A' land; the price Of Category 'C' land would have to be ~ reduced and vice- versa, vi-à-vis Category 'C' land, the price for Ctgory 's!. Ian and for Category 'A' land would be required to be increased suitably 48.. now e nter the:finalsage f my discussion. In view of the evidence hereinbove hdted and reflecting upon the reasoning adopted by the learned Lapd AcquisitionCollector and the learned Reference Courl, pose the question \NhaL houlcJ be the fair market value ofIthesuject lands as of 713.2000, • 11.9.2000, 25.2001, 22.8•2Q01,.7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 1 -- 25.5.20.. 02 and 27 1 2003 ie the dates on which th e notifications were issued under.5ection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894..... -... -

9 I hve, in para 37 above, nc tedadecision of a Di\/Isio Bench of this COurt in.LAAPPNO 866/2005 decided on LA.App.No26612008 &coirnccted rnallet. rage 49 of 74 11.5.2006, er.51i[7] jjj/5,Q/ brs. wherein pertaining to determinod., as of 15 11 1996 isl,99,904 68 per bigha which equals to !9,59,542 46 per acre The said decision Would bereleVnt on the issue of potentiality, an issue whichjhaveprornisecl.to:djscuss The decision notes thai the subject18nds ' Le.the lands with which the Di\nsIOfl Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiahty Inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25. to 28 ôfthe.dcisio, rural areas in the Union Territory:of. Delhi was attractipg migrants Based on population growth,, 5. villages ir:;ruralDe4hj were identified for providing major health ifacThties - schools, markets and iutal industry, one of which was village Bavana It was noted that G T Karnal Road and Rohtak Roadwereproviding good access to village Bawana and that the Mastei Plan for Delhi notifiedui the year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed • Th the future to industrial and;corpmercial, but had also served thatflotwith Thfflsforthe reason no zonal. p ai........ $ was noed as contemlated 0Y;.section hA of the Delhi Dveloprnent Act 1957, the lans cntinued. to be used for agricultural purposes and there:Ws no evidence that till i:he year 1996, any land use had beeInctually changed and pu to theuse contemplate& by the Mstr Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lnds Were continuously put to •. agricufturj.usesame ws the case ntéd in theaid decision. To put it pithily, the potential Usëdf te lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to fhe area being known to all as being required in the future for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential beipg valued with reervnce o the potentiality i e the lands beng, in the near futuie capable of being built upon To puL it differenly, the decision, Ihough • not so expressly stating, would be. piropoitibh -tthere is difference bel:ween the. undeveidped land:havng building LAA p I\T 1) K K /1) Wo & cotmectedmat-ters po[entiahty in presenti VIS àvis a land having a building pOtentiality, in futuro As already noIed by me in pata 36 above, as of the date 15 11 1996, fair marketvalue deterrnjrucj w !9,59,542 46 per acre and which I highlightonce again Is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest 1.in point of time i e the notilication dated 25 7 1997 whee-undei for agricuftu al lands in DJhi minimum • price fixed.by the Government S. of 1.4.1997 was Z10 lakhs per acre. Interestingly, the same DivisIon Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 200 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gaj where pértaini1ng to agriculural lands in village Holarnbi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was ac.quire.d pursuaiit to the sarn e notiication dated 15.11.1996, fair market value detrmined for Category 'A' lands was 9,7,121/- per acre a n d for Category 'B' lands was 9,51,121/• per acre i.e. near approximat€ to the fair market, value of lands irt viUage Bawana It needs to be highlighted that ht- S determining the fair market \iajue a of 15.11.1996 in village • Holambi Kalan, e\Iidenced frornfthe observations Of the Court: in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with rejerence to development work carried out in the suirounding lands was considered;'. I woudLhighljght that another DMsion Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same r e between G T Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Srngho;a determined fair rnaiiket v lue as of 19 3 1993 © 1,30,523/- per bigha i e 6,26 1510 40 per acre The decision is re.poJeas..2,00.4:(4) A"(Delhj) 0am Qanoler vs.. VOl a n d t h e rne DruIsoriench, as per t 1ie'decrs oftr-epoited a-s 111 (2004) DLI 95 Hukum 5/ngI[7] V.[5] IP!, oertainrn to a notrfrcation dated 14 1 1994 for village Srnghola detem'jnnecl fair market value © 1,40,230/- per bihaj.e.:633104/ 9er acre. 11A.App.Nó.266/2008 & connected mailers - - The afore judgmennd in the - pi ecethng - paragraphs as also the vanous notifcat ons issued from time to tlme by the Government of NCT Delhi, ¶otifyng minimum price for agiicuftuial lands in Delhi as tab9lated by me in paia 7 above bring out two very inp.ortt.'facs revant tO determine • he growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over 1:he • iears.: commencing from the. y.arH 1990;. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was T[4].65 lakhs P acre whic,h rose to 10 lakhs • per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the iicrease is Z[5].35 lakhs spread over 7 years which giVes us a 115054°/ increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise • ever the next 1 year is by 11.[2] 0/a and tereafter by 11% for the • next 2. years. and 11.5% for the nextyer i.e as.'of. 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, 'between the year. 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly: sharply an good corroborativ.e - e\/iden.ce for this would be the deision of the Division Bench of this Court in a!tafs case (supr),..:which I have discussed H -para 49 above...

51. I fledto elaborate a little, more with respect to the • decision in GjraJs case. Discussing.the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agriculturalland in iiilage Ho.Iambi KaIn as of 15.11.1996, in.paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the. basis of agricultural ieFd and found that the gross return, per acre per arnuii was 95000/- for multiple ciopped land and having good 'ngaion faciliLies and Ilius capit.alizd the land price at ?9'.5'lkhs er acre. Discussing the 'second method Of land.:pces._of. cmparable lands in the -- mclud-uigpot-enti+rt 1-in-paa 19 onvvaids the Cowt discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where. ClGodowns had come up and 'tasedn.... instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.N.o.266/2008 & connected.rnatters in'stances and andprk:e WoUld come to 10,O[3],36Ll/ pei acre (Refer para 31) The C0LrI then considered the prics-notftied by the Government as per policy dated.1.4.1997 and thus. wor<ed out the mean average figure of 9,76.,12I/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and 9,51,121/-. per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highhghts that the potentiality had Deen wellfactored in whcn the Governmeiit issued the rtinirnum price notification w.e:L 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price: notified as of L[4].1997 at lakhs per acre, sale. instances vvere highlighting that the price was fl0,03,364/- per acre. 52.. The decision in Mahendér ~Inqh's case, pertaining v1J1ag-e-.-B-an-a[1] refe-rre-d to. by me in para 49 above hiqhligh.; with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Masrer Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Cou[1] which was piojecting tesidential, commercial and indusW J $ future exploitation of agricultural larid in Delhi and on 'ft issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so, projecting and the lands theoretftfally acquiring a poenLialiL", th e same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e th0 da tef the notification with which the Division Bench was concerfled, 111,irtually no development had taken place in village Bawn and Holambi Kalan and nobod' had exploited the u potenal ci As I have already highhqhte in para 49 aboVe there is a gapibetween what.would he expected to be the market growth andi wha the market adually giow The decisions in,Gajraf s c s e a d Mahçjr S//7QzL's cae highlight that potentiality translatec1l itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997when pricesrØsebyabout16.S'% per annum and thereafter the etended poteritialitjy did not translate with the Pagc 53 of 74 requisite momentum and the accelertion fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annumne reason coLlid he that -______Pi1LsllauLtoasteEPIaflIos_D.Ji1L1g9fQ_a_faJJiy_jarg a di ea c a me to be developed, both residential, comerdai and industrial and • probably there was enOugh avilabilii of devloped land and the hunger of the markelgot saturated

53. The empiricai evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon. bythe land owners, in respect whereof 'the learned Reference1Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for Which::l hav given fuher reasons in paras2l and 22 hereinabove for not rlying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market alue, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the lerned Land Acquisition Coflector pursuant whereto in some refeeces in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has beld that as per the said sale deed ExR2as of thedate of the 91e i.e 2052002 the fair market value of agricultural latid vould he 19,16,04Q/. per S acie as of 27 12003 on the reasoning that 1 higha and 13 Lswa of iand which was sold fr 5,39690/ and ?70,T60/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ?6 09,8501- (5,39,690/- VO,160/-) were spent would yield t e price U[7],74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i e 20 512002

54. ' Thus, the best which could he said as the most favourable situation for the land owpers would he that with reference to the sale deed dated 265.2002 for Category 'C' lands the price i e fair market value f lands in the area would • be 17,74,109/- per acre, For Ca -eor, 'B' and Category 'A' land the puce would have to be suitably eihanced and here we Find 'another area of dispue for the rason, as noted by me hereinabove In subpara (a). of paa 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector indifferent awards has deducted LA AppNo.266/2og & connected matters somEtimes !1.[2] lakhs per acre 5oetimes T[1].56 lakhs per acre and sometimes !1;7 Iakhs per acre fohi the price of Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' arids and wherever lands were in Categry '' as well - the price has been deducted further by !1.[7] lakhs per are,

55. Now,meither side ha brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money reqiired to be speilt to level the - —n's d#-ne-tha-t categ-&rz-at+n -s 'b-as-ed- ün-Iy on the basis of ceajn land's having pits and deression of various depths......................same to be leveled' ad this wduld require money to be spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards. that 12 lakhs per acre would he spent and in some that fl.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that Z[1].[7] lakhs per acre w9uld be spent? There is ju;t no clue.. 56, In LSinh's case (s9pra), the price differntial worked out was V[5],000/- per are. I have noted hereinabove $ that the acquisition in Gair,31jq' case pertained to the daLe • 15.11.1996. In / jS/nah's.cse the price for Category 'A' land determined was 9,76,121/-. per acre and for Category 'B' • land the price determined was 951,121/- per acre and the •. price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the phce of Category 'A land. I thus hold, that Gairdi. 5/nQh's cse should be my •. guiding star for price differential In he instant cases as well and thus F hold that wherever. Category 'A', Category 'B' a n d C:ategory 'C:' have to be differentiaed on price, the differential should be 2.[5] 0%. Thus, if.17,74,109/- rouned off to Z17.75 lakhs per aCT Wool tfl pricel Oary 'C' ndiriviHage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlihtihg that the sale deed Ex,R-. LA.App.No.266/2008, & cormected matters ' '5~ admittedly pertains to a Ctgoy 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land would be 18.20 Jakhs per acre und 1c Ctegory 'A' land wOuld be Z18.65 akhs per acre. I

59. Taking the IoicaI re_a.sohing a lfttle further it assumes importance that as per the rrlinirnurn price notified by the Government as of 1;4:2000 th per acre price was 13..82 lakhs and as of 1 4 2001 the same was J15 7 lakhs per acre i e the percentage increase between the year was 11 5% per annum if I treat Category 'A' liid priteat 1.6551akhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex,112:, dedbcting the price by 11% per annum, the puce as of 1 4 2001 wuld come to appioximatei 16.40,.!akhs per acre and 1this ouId highflght that when contrastedwfth. the minimum Price inotifid by the Government at !15.[7] lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is 70,000/- per acre Le. 4.46%. Sine exactness can never be achieved while determining faft ma.rlet value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc, of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5% What I wish 0 highlight is that even the sale deed iii question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by thGo vèrnme nt has an element of rationality and acceptbilfty•..Ht neds to be highlighted that though under normal circumsthnces a sale on a particular date is normally not heid good dencetwork outJãTid price on ci date prior theieto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, fr the ieason a pnce on particular date is the tesulc oPl. market forces/conditions having aheady impacted the land pice and it would he difficuft to fathom e the existenc of, marke forces/conditions w 'i alkin backwards But, in the instant care, with teference to the 5 LA.App.No.26612008 & Oonnedted maftet 2-Q9-1 22.842001 and 7.12..2001, [lie differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 255202 and thus in the pecuhar facts of the instant case, the sale ded in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be.. a relevant piece • of evidence to be taken into ccoukt vhile.::detIining the • market value of.land as on the dtes 7.82000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,22J[3]:2001 and 7.12.201. • 60. The argumnt that vi{age 'Jarla had akiays been treated locationally advantageous for the, reason the township of • Narela was in existence since long and this was reoqnized • when, pursuant to a notification•1 isued in the year 1963, vis-à- • vis theadjoiriing villages ?2 per Square yard price advantage • was given to lands in vilage Nar& i Dhararnh/(s case, looses sight of the fact that the pric.e diffrential due to locational • advantage was keeping in \fCW, the: realities in the year 1963, $ Over the period of time,.as urbh.ilatin took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under p otted develQpment vvhich included areas in 'NorthWest ofDelhi i.e. the area with which I am concerned tOday, the price differertiaI faded and by the year.2000 and Onward, it has become non-xistent. •

61. I thus hold that, pertaining o the notifications dated 7.8.2000., 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001J 22.82'001 and 7:12.2001 the • land prices would have':t.o bedeterniried on the basis of the miiiimurn pricey notified by theH Gvernment 'as also vvfth reference to the sale deed dated for the reason I find no other cogenL evidence wherefrom l[and Price as on said dates couldbe deteiind. •' Pertairiin ti the notificatidli's.... dated 16.5.2002, 23.52002 and 27.1.2003he land price needs to be determined with respect to the sate deed dated 25.5.2002 - because with refer& t-s-i le it rent-tnLland price as of said date comes to more than if determined with respect to the notification datedl 9 8 2001 wherein minimum land price notified was fl[5] 7 lakhs pe acre with effect fiorn 1.42001.

62 With respect to the price diffei ential br Category 7-V and Category 4 B' lands., noting. that pertaining to the said notificatons categorization has been done only pertaining to We land acquired in village Pooth.11(hurd and H'olambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Aliur (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001) I hold tiat vis-àvis the said notifications, after increasing the price fthr the date diffeiential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands deduction has to be effected by decreasingthe same by, 2.[5] 1/d to determine the price fo r Category 'B', [and. Obe

63. Before I work out the compensation and since it would evidenced that pertaining to Categ9ry 'A' lands, the land prices would ' rnarinally increase in a few cases and substantiafly in the other, a striking nose of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price d€termined pertaining to the notification dated 23 5 2002 pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference CotLirt has determined the fair market value at 22,14,23,90O/ - per acre as of 23.5.2002, ~bbt tiTgiTtight'thatpertaTh11T dth same noUfication dated 23 5 2002 in ielation to villagb Alipur the learned Reference Court has deteriin - the_ir market value at %1 7,85,240/- per acre and I find that peitaining to village Raja-pur- Kalan and Sanoth, pertaining toHthe notification dated --

27.1. 2003 the fair market value assessed br Category 'A' lancis is 19,16,040/- in some cases and 19,13,760/-. in a few, LA.App.No.266/200•8 & coinected matters ' '. '. meanng thereby that much lsser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 Viäl the compensation worked • out for Holambi Kalanpet-taining tD the, notification dated 23.5.2002 and the reaori for the 3brasion is that in said notftic.tion the land pre deterrrin'êd in jLa' case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken arid increased at the rate of 12% • per apnum cömo'undèd. VWge P00th Khurd No.fictio'dated_7.8.2000' • 64. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 • wherein with effect.frorn' 1.4.2000 miimum pice notified per acre is 13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to. be sUitably updated to reach the.date of the notiication i.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2.002 wherein for CatCgC' lands; land:price per acr comes' to.17,74,109/, rounded off to !17,75,000/- per acre and for Cateory 'B' lands increasing the.srne by 2.5% therice comes to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and fUrther. increasing by: 2.5% •the prices cotnes to 18,65,5O0/- per acre:IOr Ca[1]:egor' A' lands; and decreasinq the said prices by 11% to reflect the Ørice Jvidi reference to the sale deed for the date • 7.8.2000;, the rrean average price for. Cateuory 'A' lands in \'illaae PoothKhud comes to14.75 lakhs • • per acre and, decreasing the: sahie by 2.5%, it comes to 14,38,125/ per acre for. Category:: 1 B lands. Noting that the •. •.. learned Reference Court has, wiUhout reaons, done away with Category 'B' lands and H.uni4rm price awarded is •.. • 14,37,280/ per acre the prica difrntiaF'worked out by me comes to a mea.gr ?1,000/ pércre 'aid thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awaded Py the learned Reference Court. • •... •

5. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever:fild by Union ofl India in the LA.App.No.266/2008 & com.ected matters • appeals filed by land owiers in espedt whereof grid has b.e.n:: prepared and Iabele.d as IGRlDAhereir1above are dismissed. AU Land Acquisition Appals iIed by the land owners a nd crossobjectons filed by thelnd.olivnersin;appeak filed by Union of India are allowed by dëreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in villagePooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated: 1.4.2000 in sum of:14.75 Iakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the comensation awarded at r14,37,280/- per acre is.rnaintaired ai1id thus sUch appeals or cross references: which pertain to category '' lands are • • dkrnissed. Pëthiing:to such appeal wiere the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explai ned in the:judgment reported as UO/ 2001 (93) bLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the: appeaI or cross objedtion, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced com pensa ti on $ shall be paid. These ap:pellants or doss objectors would be •:: entitiedto propOrtionate Cost. Wlaqe:K&an No:tifiction dated 7R700 For the reasoning given 10 pars 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (sate) daed 7.8.2000 relatinq to village Holambi • Kalan, all appeals as pr 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objectiOns stahd disposd of enhancing the compensation to ?14.75 Iakhs P.er.ac re and 1 highlight that as per the award and even as per therefrenceall subject landS were of uniform category.: Needle:s to state a pea ls f:iledby the Union of, India and cross objections:wherver filed are dismissed. and crossobJection filed:byIand owners are allowed by • enli ancinc::tfle:cornpnsation to T14,75 takfS per acre together with statutory benefits as per the:Land Acquisition Act 1894 as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected rnaters: •!:: explained in the judgment ieported as Sundet Vs U012001 (93 1) DLI 569,except for the perio•d,:where,.there is a delay in fihnq -----•peaI Qr cross Objedion, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compenaUon sha be p1iicl The' appeHantsorcross objectors voUId be entftled to proportionate cost. TI n dted[7]

69 Pertaining tovfflag Bawana relating to the same notification dated 7 8 2000 where the learned Reference COUIi h..nQt.enhnced the compenSatia,for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A' lands is fixed at T14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category. 'B' lailds at 14,38,125/- per. acre and noting that Union of India has neiter filed any appeal or cross •. objection, appeals as per GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by •. fixing the compeilsation as heteinbefore mentioned and •. needless to state on the enhanced Lompensation the appellant; shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in thejudr)ient reported as SL117LYCr_'c U012001 (93)QLT 569, except.for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for whirl period of delay no inteiet on the enhanced compensatiOn shall be paid. These appellants. would be entitled to propowonatec9st VoUqe Khera Khura Notifcaikon dated 11 9 2000

70. With.. reference to the riotification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1 4 2000 m price nolilied pei •. • are iS'13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to he suitably updated to reach the dte of the notificalion I e.11.9.2000 andwithrëferenCe.1to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lars; land price per acre comes to:i77410/:..,....rounded....off t.1775,00Q/.-...pe.r acre, arid for Category 'B lands mci easing the same by 2 5% the puce comes LA App No 266/2008 & connected matters,11 to 18.[2] lakhs per acre and fuher increasing by 2.5% the prices C~ 'A --lands; and decreasing the said prices by.11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean a\/erage price for Category 'A' lands in viUageNarela comes to 16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it •. comes to 15,76,057- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference COurt hasp without any reaons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price, awarded is U[5],85,570/- per acre and since for Category 'B"lands the price worked out by me is less by 9,000/ per. acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Ca,tegory.'B.' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the

73. All Land Acquisition Appealas per 'GRID-E.' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing • compensation payabte for Cateory W. lands in village Narela pertaining to the notification: dated 2.5.2001 in sum of 16,16,5.00/- per acre and as per the reference order for Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as • also cross objections filed by UnFon of India as also such apeals which relate to Category 'B' lnds filed by land owners are dismissed an.d the ones i.e: thO 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 conpensation statutory ben,fits as per the Land Acquisition /-\ct 1894 as eplained in the judrnent reported as Sunder Vs. £101 2001 (93) DLT 569.shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in'filing the appeaL for which period of delay no LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected mars to 718.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2 5% the prices comes to 18 65,500/- per acre for Categoly 'A' lands and decreasing the said prices byti% io reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' Iands in viflage Khera Khurd comes to 14,83,500/ per acreand decreasing the same by 2%, it comes to 14,46,413/-• per.acre for Category 'B' lands. 7L AH Land Aquisitio.n Appals a per 'GRID-D' filed by the land owners and cross-objections fileJ by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India ar allowed by decreeing cornpnsation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notifical:ion ded 11.9.2000 in sum of 14,83,500/- per acre for Category Al' ' lands and !14,46,413/per acre for Category 'B lnds. I note that pertining to this •. notification and the villacje, the Union of tio India has not filed any • appeal. On the ehhahced comeñsanstatutory benefits as per the Land Acuisition Act 1894 as exp!ained in the judgment $ reported as Sunder V[5] UO/2001 (93) ELT 569 shall be gianted, exept for the period where there is a belay in filing the appeal, • for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. TheseapelIants would be entitled to proportionate cost Villle Nre Notfiction dated 252001

72. With reference to the notiication dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect fronr 1.4.2001 miiirnum pdce notified per acre is !15.[7] Iakh per acre 'and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach thel date of the notification i.e. 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed, dated 25.5.002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, Aalnd price per acre comes to 17,74,'109/-, rounded off to 1775,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing thesamd by 2.5% the price comes LA.AppNo.266/2008 & connected matters interest on the enhanced cornpehsation shall be paid. These cost. - dated 218.200

74. With reference to the 'notifictjon dated 9.8.2001 • vthereTtftr_effect_fronY 142ooILrninimum price notified per • acre is f15.70 lakhs per acre an requiring said price to be suitably updated to'each the cate of the notilication 22.8.2001 and with reference to th sale deed dated 25.5.2002 vvherein for •Categoy, 'C. lands, lahd price per acre comes to 17,74,109/-, rounded off 1:0: 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Catego 'B' lands increa -Sifinc gthe sarne by 2.5% the price comes to V18.[2] lakhs per acre:and further i1creasin by 2.5°/b theprice • comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; arid decreasing the said prices b. 11 to refet--the price with P I '4 reference Lo the sale deed for thel date 228.2001; the mean average, price for Category 'A' lans in village Holmhi Kalan comes to 16,74,500/ per acre and decreaing the same by 2.5%, it cdrnes to 716,32,637.50:pe acre for Category 'EV lands. Noting that the learned Reerence Court has, \Nfthout any reasons,, done away with Catcjory 'B' lands and uniform price awaded is !16,43,[8] 11/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meaQer 9,000/- per ac.re.and't-hLis qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the, ambünt awarded by the learned Reference Court, All Land Acquisition Appal filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of lhdia in the app,oalsjiled by land ovvnei-s in resect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' 'GRlDG' hereinabove are dismissed. All Land Acquisition Appeal filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA.APP.No.266/2008 & connected maers • Union of.. India are aUoied by. decre thing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holanbi I(alan pertainiiiq to We notification dated 228;2001in sum Of fl[6],74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/- per acre is mainthired and thus such appeals or cross references which perl:a.in.. toCategory 'B'. lands are dismissed.. Pertainin[9] to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisitior Act 1894 as explained in the Jtgrnent reported as Sunder V. (JOy 2001 (93) DLT 569 shaH he grarted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the apeal orcross objection, for which period of de(ay rio interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellahtsz or cross objectors would be ntitled to.proportionate cost. •ijLj!9jLe mui ruo fluicin.utea 2.UUl With reference to the Lnotification dated 9.8:2001 $ wherein with effect from 1 4 2001 minimum price notiFied pc acre is T15 70 lakhs pe r acre and equiring said puce to be suRably updated to reach the.dat,e of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to thehale deed dated 25.5.2002 wnerein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre coine to.17,74,109/-, rounded off to: 17,75,000/ r per ace, and for Category 'B'.l.ands increasing th i e Same by 2.5% the:prlce comes to 182 lakhs pr acre and further inreasing by 2.5% the p[1].ces comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for, Category 'A' lands, and decreasing the said piices byl 11% to reflect the puce with relerence Lo the sale deed for the date 22 8 2001; the mean average price for Catego.ry.-.,nds in village Au P.ur corrie to U[6],74,500/- per acre and dereasiig the same by 2.5%, it comes to i[6],32,637.50 per ache for. ategory 'B' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters... that theJe ned ftërëice C ourt_LawiUiout any reasons, Jniie way, with Category 'B'. lands •.nd u iforrn price awarded is 16,43,311/- per acre,.the rice differential worked out by me cQrnes to a meager 9,000/ per acre ad.thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount a irdd y the learned Reference Court.. •.. 79, All Land Acquisition Appeals fiId by the Union ofindiain respct whereof grid hasbeenepaded and labejed as 'GRID- H' hereinabove are dismissed, I note that land 6wners have not flied any appeal challenging the dcisIorof the Reference Court. There shall be no order as to co!sts. dated 22M.2001. With reference to the. notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs p er acre and Ireuiring- said price to be suitably updated to reach the •date of the notification i.e. 22..8.2001 and with.referehce to the sale deed.dated 25.5.2002 I wherein for Category 'C' lands; land price per ache comes to rounded off to T17,75,00/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to18.[2] lkhs per acre and further; incresing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/-: per acre for atégory. 'A' lands; and decreasing the said p1ces by 11% t reflect the price wfth reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean 'A' -Ia 4v oImbHthud-comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre àd decreasing the s a m e by 2.5%, it comes to acrfor Category 'B' lands. Ntrn - Thäf 1äined Peference qourLhas, without any rea15 uniform price awaided is Z16,43,811/- per acrej therice differential vvoiked out by me comes to a meager !9 1000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App No.266/2008 & comcted iflatters ~r LaLteoi'ajancjs man[au-. tIe nout_warded by the learned Reference •Court... • 82.. The appeal thed by the UTion of India in respect whereof grid has been prepared nd labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. I not.ethat lnd owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of t Reference Court. 83.. There shall be no orderas to c1osts. VfflaqRrjçn_Noth1cation dathd 222001 84,.. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 •., wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is 15.7() lakhs per acre and rquiring said price • be suitably updated to reach thei date of the notifIcation i.e. 22.8.20.01 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to 1774,1091­0 rounded off to 17,75,0OO/- per acre, and for Category 'B lands increasing the:samgl by 2.5% the price comes to iZ18.[2] lakhs,p.er acre and further incrasing by 2.5%the prices • comes to T18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A'. lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% io reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the dte 22.82001; the mean average price for CategOry 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to ?16,74,500/- per acreLand Idecreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to T1632,637.50 per adre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Refernce lCourt has; without any reasons, done away with Category '13`1 lands and LInh1orn PHCC awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the' prce d1ferental wo ked out by me comes to a meager 9,000'I- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Cout.

85. All Land Acquisition Appeals fiIed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the •. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.. 5eaIs--f-rIed by1nd own-enin Tespecif whereog--Le€-nprepared and labeled as 'GRD-J' hernaboe are dismissed. AM Land AcquisitionAppIs filed by the land Qwners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are. allowed bydecreeinaj comJensati.on.oava.ble fOr Category 'A lands in village Raiaurj Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.82001 in sum of 16,74,500/- per acre and for Category B' lands. the •cornensation awarded at fl[6],43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such.ppeals or cross refernces which pertain to Category lands are dismissed. Pertaining to such appeal. w1ere the compensation stands enhanced statutoryhenefits as er the Land AcqLlisftion Act 1894 as explained in the jUdg,rnent reported as Sunder Vs, 00/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing theappel or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhahced compensation shall be paid. Thes.e appellants lor cross objectors would he entitled to proportionatecost, Vaq,noth Iotflficon thted 7 12 2001 88 With reference to the notifiation dated 9 8 2001 wheein with effect from 1 1 2001 minimum price notihod per ace is Z15.70 lakhs per ace and requiring saiçl price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.122001• and with reference tothe sale deed date.d 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land pice per acre comes to _kL14109±roujided f.öI17,75obo/- per acre, a n d for cateor 'B' lands mci easing the same 2 5% the price comes to TU[8].[2] lakhsp•r acre and furtherincresing by 2.5% the prices ces..t6' 1865,500/- per acre.for Category 'A' !ands; and decreasing the said prices by 110 tu reflect the price with LA..App.No.266/2008 & conected maers Page68 of 74 reference to the sale deed for thedte 7.12.2001; the mean average pre foi Categoiy 'A' 1aids in village Sanoui comes to • 17,29,500/. per acre. Noting that all lands in villageSanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold [hat, for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notification dated 7.122001 the land owners would beentftjec;i to the enhanced compensatioi] uu1su rh of!17,y,5OQ/ All Land Ac,uisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross Objections wherever filed by Union of India in i:he appeals filed by land owners in resdect whereof grid has been •.prepared.and. labeled as 'GRiD-IK' hereinabove are dismissed. All Lad Acquisitioll Appeal filed by the land owners and cros-objectjons filed by the land Owners in appeals fiIe by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in Sum of 17,29500/ and needless to 'state on the enhanced Compensation statutory. benefft.as.per the Land Acquisition Act: 1894 as explained in the judgment eported a nderV,t!' 'I 2001(93) DLT 569 shall be grarted, Oxcept for the period where there is a delay in filing the apeal or cross objection, for which periodof deiay no interest on the enhanced cornpensa[joi shall be paid. These appellants or qross 6bjectors would be entitled to proportionate host, dated 16.52002 •.. Pertaining to viflge Shahur Garhi, as held by me • hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with • ' ' referei]ce tO,the sale deed dtd 20!5 2002 and for which land price for Category "A' lands has ben determined by me a: 4 U[8],65,500/ per acre and since thee is just a differenc€ of ' days btween the date of sale and the notification I maintain that for the notification in quesdon dated 16.5.2002 the land ovvners are entitled to cornpensatjonatthe rate of !18,65,50Q/i[2] LA.App.NO,266/2008 & Connected matters'. Page 69 of '7 peracreand I highlight that as per the awdrd adffi.eference all lands are in the same categbry als_andcrôss objections hled by the land owners as per the 'RID-L' are allowed and needless to state on the enhanced compensation the land owners would be entitled to all:statutQry benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeak. or cross Ubjection filed by land owners where theie is delay, no inte,est would be paid for the period 01 delay, Propoonate costs stand awarded.[1] Appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed

92. Pertaining to the rmtifiction dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village ShahpLir Garhi, no1ng that the date of the sale deed and the notification has adifterential ofonly 3 days I • hold that pertaining to this notificatio, since land is of same category, the land owners would be enitled to coltpensation at the rate of !18,65,50/ with statutOry benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 asinterpreted in the decision reportedas • 5w7diysoI 2001 (93) DLI 569 exept in such appeals or cross objections filed by Jnd owners were there is a deia,, no interest would be paid for the period f delay. ProportionEiLe costs stand awarded All suchappealsland cioss objection by land owners as per 'GRIDM' stand alloed as aforesaid and all appeals and cross objections filed lly Union of India are dismissed 110 Y_,aiaprp Notlificatli6rD dated 23-5.200 9,

93. As. noted by me pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating:t0 village Holambi Klan all lands have been • treated in the same category by the larned Land Acquisition LA.App.NO266/2008 & connected matters Coflector and the leained Referepce Court. The learned Reference Court has avvarded dom ?2214.,239/- per acre which 11 hae found to be excessive.asmuchas for.the date 23.5:2002 have held that fair markeL value woul.d be 18 1 65,500/-. per ac and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRJD-N' are dismissed and appealsand cross objections fild by Union of India are allowed by rnodifyin the inpugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and rducing the compensation payable to U[8],65,500f per acre or which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced pice with reference to the award the statutory benefits alreadygranted stand maintained. No costs. Ll Vk!gLPgJr NotifkaUàn da ted..52OO[2]

94. Pertaining to the notificatioi dated 23.5.2002 relatinn to village Ali Purfo.r, parity of reasos qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan ändShahpLJr Garhi I determine fair market value payable at T, 1865,00/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross.objectiohs filed by Union of India as per 'GRID-Or are dismissed and all appeais and cross objections filed by land owners as per.::said Grid arel alloed by enhancing the compensation payable to 18 1 65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per: Land Acquiition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported,: as Sunder V., £101 2001 (93) DLI 569 shafl be paid save ancexcept in such appeals or cross objections where there is a delay;: ifl+ rest would not be paid fo the period ol delay Proportionate costs as well Vfllage NotIc thg dat%L27.1.2010[3]

95. Pertaining to the appeals ad cross objections by the land owners a n d Union of India as per GRID-P ertahiing to the notification dated 27.1,2003 relati•n to village SanOth, I note LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected mattet's Psge 71 of'/4 that the learned Land Acquisitior Cllector has pced the lands in 3 categories and I lind chdt the Ipained Refetence Couit has without any discussion, held the latids as of uniform category while awarding compensation...____....

96 On the mean averagebasiswhich I have been followinq by increasing the Price as of 1.4.001 with reference to the notification issued by the GUvenmnt as also by increasing the -ed the sale de. datd 20.5.2002 and taking the rnen average, for' Categ'thry 'A' lands the price comes to 1 719,43,5, 00/- per acre and for ategoiy '' land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per acre ard for Category 'C.' lands the price comes to 1B,47,539.68 per cre. L find that the learned Reference 'Court has uniformly det€brrnined fair market \/alue at U[9],13,765/- and thus such appeas or cross objections whic:h have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far theypertainto Category '' and Category 'C' lands and imiiar Would be th fate of àppeals and cross objections filed by I.. Union of India. pertaining to Categoy 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objetions as per 'GRID-P( are dismissed. Appeals and cross oLjections filed.by landowners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing con5pensafion payable in sum of ?19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the eiihancr compensation statutory benefits a per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 'as interpreted in the.judgrneit reported a 5unc/e" 1/s. 2001 (93) DLT 569 EIIãIL be a........ãVë hd except in such appeals and cross o:bjections whdre there is a delay, interest would not bepaid for the priOd fdelay. Propbrtionate costs;ss * well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of lnd pertaining to Category 'B' and Cathgory 'C' lands are allowed.l:\.".mjifyithei:eIatae the Reference Order reducing the compensation far. Category 'B' land to LA.App.No.266t2008 & connected matters ' Page 72 of '/. 18,99 150 per acre and for CategOry err land tr • !18,47,539.68 per acre. Ø • 97. For parity of reasoning as per para 96 above pertainftir) • to village Sanoth, sirniar corretivectibn is o be required peaining to lands acquired pursuant to notification dated 27.12003 relating to village Rajaur Ikalan and where I find that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awade •. compensation in s u mi of 19,13,765/ per acre and in some cases at 19,16,040/ per acre by treating all lands 0.1: unifo categQry.. On the: mean..average basis. which I have beer followin.g by increasing thepriceas of 1.42001 with to the notification issued by the Government as also dv.refer.nce to the sale deed dated 20-52002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lancL the acrdfr Category ' land the price comes to i894,91250 per acre and for rcaLeqopi ' 'C' lands the price comes to ?i8147,53968 per acre. Thus suci appeals or cross objections.:whch have been filed by owners the same have to be disnissed in so far they pefi:ain ic Category 'B' and Category lnds and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objedtions filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands • The said appeals nd cror objections as per 'GRID-Q'. are dismissed. Appeals and c:mos objections filed by land owners pertaining to Categor 'A' lands are,aHowed by decreeing comnsation •pyable in sum oT 19,43,5001 per acre and needless- 1 tate -o-rr-the enhanced compensation statutory benefits sper the Land Acquisition /-\ct 1894 as interpreted in the judgrnnt reported as Sunder 115,, (101' 200 13 BL - T 5g-- hfl -be - es--ae-. except in s u c appeals and cross objections whete there is a delay, intei Page 73 of 'i[4] • wou!d paid for the perdOf day.. Propoonate cot as welL The appea's and crossohjections filed by Utiion of India prtain.ing to Category'B' and Category 'CHands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by n tn -for - Cat ego ry U' I n d o 18,94,91250 per acre and for.• Category 'C' land •to 18,47,539.68 per acre,. •... II I 1 II...........................................• (PLRADEP ADRAJOG) •. •. • JUDGE • AUGUST23, 2011 •.. •. m m/d k. • •..