Union of India v. Satbir

13. biswa of agricultur& land comprised, in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for 1539,690/. •.. •. 7. Since the learned. Land Acquisition CoUector as also the •. learned Reference -Court have relied upon the notifications issued. from time to time by the Government of NCT.D&hi, fi*ing mnmum pnce for agncu1turt tnds in Delhi, let me therefore n.ote,thedates and the minimum rates notified from time to tim.e pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same woidbe ••.......reevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- SNQ (in akhs/acre) '1 I increase per annum Notification ____ _11±Ei11 of the price 1.. 3.5.1990 27.4.1990 4.65 •2.. 25.7.1991[1].1997 1 10.0 111.[5] 24.9J998 1.•4.1998 11.2.. 11.[2] 21.11:2000 -. 12.32..5. 9.8.2001 1.4.2000 1.4.1999.12.16 13,82

6. 19.8.2001 1.4.2001 15.[7] 11.5.7. 30.8.200 302005 17.84 2.98 1 24.1.2008 18.12.2007 1 53 18 9.51

8. From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would he apparent that after minimum price ws ias.t fixed w.e.f, 27.4.1990 in sum of Z[4].55 lakhs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to TIO lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of !I[1].[2] lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to U[2].32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. H 1.4.1999 to Z12.16 Iakhs/acre i.e, the price increased by 11% per annum wfth. reference to the pd.ce. determined as of 141998 and vide same notfcaun the pnce was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to T 13.82 lakhs/ac. i.e. increased by 11% per annum vjs-à-vis the previous i..

12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-à-vis the previous price of 13.82 lakhs/acreto LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.. - eacJi the f1uj5J I'as next enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to !17.584 lakhs/acre whithjves üi and then the price rose to 53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annum with reference to the base figure of Z17.584. lakhs/acre andthe date 30 82005.............the....evidence relied 'upon by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court, it would be beneficial Sor the reader of the present decision; as I feel, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the &temative and it was urged that they would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, faUi g which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by the 'earned Reference Court pertanng to the notificati on dated 7.8.2000 forvillage Pooth KhUrd; the notification dated 22.8.2001.. for village Holambi Kalán; the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.52001 for villa ge Narela;and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for viUage AU Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2003: for village Rjapur Kalàn and Sanoth treats as if all lands were of.uniforrn character and it aur t corrective action ied by doing 2 things, Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, 11.5%lncrease per annum and 'increase—ws e ssivwfth reference to the dates of the notifications underSection 4of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; requiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annum in the least. Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.NO.266/2008 & connected matters. ' requinng fuher correction by suitably depressing the pncr such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C' by the Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of whic.h categorization it was urged that neither land. owner had challenged the same byleading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C', on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed, by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect......

10. Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference Court was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 25.3.2000. Ex.PW-1/3, in Land AcquisitioA Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also Th sat'de dated 25.4.2001, ExRW412 in the same LA,Appe&., Vide sae deed Ex.PW-1/3,, 33 bigha and 12 biswa •... agricuftural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ Z26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-112, 2 bigha and 19. biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of.vivage.Khera Khurd for a sum of Z32.[4] iakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acreland price, as of 25.3.2000 nder Ex.PW-113 would be 7,28,89 lakhs/acre and pertninq to the sale deed Ex.PW11"2 the land price would be 63478 lak, s/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market v lue of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 vifiages as of 7.8.2000,', 11.9.2000, 2,5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.52002 1 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003Le. the 8 dates on which notificatiOns. were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. by suitabiy increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument, pertaining to village Nar&a, it was urged tha the price needs to be suitably' enhanced and for which lernd counsel submitted that the same should be at least.10% mor' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters '..' ' and for which the argument was that when.in. 1...... pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisftion Act: 1894, the ReferenceCourt had given said benefit to agricultural lands in. viU.age Mamurpur- Narela by,giving a.. price benefit of 2/ per sq;yd. This was upheld by the. Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UOI vs; D/iarambir & Ors. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in sum of 6,650/7. determined by the Land Acquisftioii CoHectór was enhanced to '16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to 22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this urt -was r&je-rsed - by--the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored.. Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the aLternative to the first, that the learned Reference Cour± having accepted that due to Bawana industrial Estate, Narea Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resufted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized ahd developed into residential and industrial estates, had resufted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiaifty, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the pnce at which DSIDC and DDA i e the implementing agences, which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini

2 Residenti& Scheme and Bawana IndusU-jal Area, sold develbped land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana lndustri& Estate and for which learned, counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged.... Alternative to the second submission, being the third submission, it was.urged that asheldby a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bed! Ram. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters:. •.... (\)O -vs1Jn-/o,7- of/rJdfa it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. ShJ.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bed! Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum tlil 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6% per annum with, reference to the base price \ 16130/- per bigh as of 30.10J9631.e.. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Qhararnb/rs case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum tUl 31.3.1973, and thereafter @ 12% per annum thT the various tësWhh the 8 notificaTions undir3ëdion 4, f the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with I----------which.Lam.concerned inthe pies tppeaIs. So: worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value.would come to T56,88,759/- per acre. and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he.was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle market value should. b.e assessed: for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 712.2001. 1.5.2002 and 23.5.2002... •.. • 13.. The fourth argument advanced was, and for which s madeby learned—counsel for the parties in the evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which issubjectmatter of 2 cross appeals i.e..APP.N[6].268/2008 filed by the land owners A.PP.No.292/2008 filediDy Union..oflndia, that fair market value should have been assessed on. yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • testimony. of Ram Kishant U effect that byse.fflng agcultf_ - produce_fcamIs_1an_hj-sed to earn U lakh per gha per annurn ii. the fair market v&ue as of 7.82000 i.e.the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquiiti.on Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be-20 lakhs per bigha.. I may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants in LAAPP.No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292J2008..14. The fifth argument advanced, was by ShJ.P.S.Kahg, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for each of the notification in question the faiTharket'&ue ouht • to have been determined with reference to the notification whIci was.ctQs.est_inpoint of time where_uader...rninimwn. land. 1 value was fixed by the Governmentand the notification dated. 24.1.2008 where under T53. iakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 1812.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument.. •. 15. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing. with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where under I bigha and 13 bwa of land comprised in JKhasra No.2.00 (1-13) in the revenue estate of viflae Rajapur K&an was sold for 539,6OJ-, determined the fair market value, as per the..said. ale deed 1hfoUowiwords: Rfera 17 ofe /an dated 7 fl-rn-L[4] 4A20O9' "if we add stamp 4u[4] the safe priceT[3],69,9061 5,39,690j-.+ 7O,160 = 6,09,850 for I bigha and 13 biswa) which comes to T 17, 74109/per acre or 3, 68, 906/- per higha. furtliet if we give 12% LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters -. increase on said amount for intervening period betwèeh thes. • date when the sale deed..was...executed1and th date of; -. -- tiffct/on u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 2701.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes to 19,16,O371- (mund off 19,16,0401-)" The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition •... i.e:Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reve& that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land:was put in Category'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C'; The subject sale deed carly referred to.the land being comprised in Khasra N200and that page No.56-57 Otthaward would evid- Once 18ijidomprised. in Khasra. No 200 ad-measuring 1 bgha and 13 hswa was placed in Category. 4C.. Whereas the Land Atquisftion Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of 15.[7] lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ZI.[7] iakhs per acre for Category aBl lands, fair market value determined whereof was Z14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another Z[1].[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determined • • • • • whereof was 712.[3] lakhs per acre. • it would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if fhe market value had to be determined with respect to the sate., deed in question, the aniE had tO be for: Category iCr lands and • for Category 'B' and Category 'A'. lands tfle price ha to De. increased by Z[1].[7] lakhs per acre for each category.. • •• • • 16.. • I have already noted hereinabove the arguments wl,,ch were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar. earned senior counsel who • appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in •. • para 9 above andhence [need not repeat the same. • I • LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • Page 27of 74 / 17... In various sub pr of para 6 hernabove, I have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisfton. -a d_th 4e3medR€fereie_Ceurt pertaining tothj 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 and relatable to the 10 vWages and thus I commence Vny.journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning.ofthelearned Land Acquishdn Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various subparasofpara[6].above..

18. But before dealing with the arguments I. need to highlight various anom&ies which stilke the reader at the outset. The sarnewould be;- A.... Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 wherein lands were acquired in viflage Pooth Khurd, for Cateqor 'B' lands, having depressions and pfts, deduction effected visà-Vi the price for Category 'A' lands is U.56 lacs per acre and pertaining to the notification dated 11.92000 where price has I.been determined for agricultural lands in vUlage Khera Khurd, sa4d[7] -price- di fferential has been worked out at Z[1].[2] lacs per acre and while determining fair market value for agricultural lands in village Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 2.5.2001 the deduction effected is 1.[7] lacs per acre, which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of agricultural land invUlage Holambi Kalan was determined as of the date 22.8.2001. Pertainjg to the nqitction datd 27.1.2003 and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential'. on said count has again been taken at 71.[7] lacs per acre to inter Se differentiate the price between. Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands. mother words, the price differentiai has varied between Z[1].[2] lacs per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and 71.[7] lacs per acre.. LA..App.No266/2008 & connected matters I

1. simpie pr annum for the former notification and at the rate of 12% compounded per annum for the latter., Whereas for the notification dated 27.1.2003 the learned Reference Court, in some references has determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 and has given appredation, in some cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale deed dated 20.5.2002.

19. Since l am dealing with acquisitions in 10 viHages and 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionA.::t 1894, 1 think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant FLK facts Which woUld be my data for further analysis Put in a 1' tabular form the data woud.be as under:-, Vifiage Date of LAC. compensation ADJ cómpensaton Section 4 (in akhs/acre)wfth (in lakhs/acre') with Notification reasons reasons Pooth. 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' i[3].82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd,. Cat. 'B'12.26 T14.3728. Minimum price a--Minirnum price as of 1.4.2000 ' of. 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Hoambi I 7.820O0 T13.82... 14.12995. Kalan... Minimum' price as Price as in/[s of 1.42000 ' case as of 15,11.1996 With 12% increase p.a. Hoambi 22.8.2001 ' Cat. 'A' 715.[7] ' Cat. Uniform. Kalan, Cat. 'B' t14 ', 716.43811. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.20.01 with 12,%inréasep.a. Hoambi 23.5.2002 T15.[7] ' '. 22.14239. K&an. Minimum price as Price'as in Gairafs of 1.4.2001 case., as, of. 15.11.1996' with 12% increase p. (compounded) Bawna 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' T13.82. I.Cat. No enhancement 'B' 12.62 given. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000" Khera'. 11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' fl382 Cat. Uniform. Khurd Cat. 'B' 12.62 14.40157. 12% increase'p.a. Narela ' I 2.5.2001 Cat.'A' fl[5].[7] Cat. Uniform. Cat. 'B' T14, ' 15.857. -.---'. price as Fw m of 1.4.2001. of 1.4.2001 with LA,App.No.26612008 & connected matters, (çc - - 1. & connected mtr 16 - A -C-i57 2' compound nte - 5t ® u. % ic --- fr;onneeed as I of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated 'hd& the rth said piece of land as it was the only plot of the, requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women'i,e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee. /

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer E/uru & Ors. Vs. Jsti RohinJ&Anr. (Refer' para'6) and 2009 (14) 5CC 369 Mohd. RaUfuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para13) sale transactions e'1denced. in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there rnav be special, circumstances which have led the buyer, to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a. well informed wiHng buyer would pay to an üàlly well informed sefler withoUt being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would., be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. if a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would: be failing if I donot highlight.that the Union of India had.re.lied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the lëárned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated,' 27.1.2003 'where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist fora much l&;er price i.e. i774,109/-peracre as against the price which comes to T63.478 iak.hs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and t28.89 iakhs per, 'acre for Ex.PW'-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-11/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. ',' ". themselves are having intrinsic eVideiicef the fanciful price —d stroyehotrreT.Th0S;.....partf.w the reasoning. of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in rL2thoquJbe_additionaI reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence whérefromfáir jae bedeter.rnin.ed and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7 1000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sate deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahia being the. deciion dated 1912.2008 disposing of abatçh of appeals, lead matter being. LA.App.No.193/2006 Prataingh s/nce deceaseQ±ru LRs Vs. uor&_Oiif was highlighted thäfthe sale died Therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory whi.ch had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good..evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by.the Court and the price in question, with suitabie deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2. sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-.1/3 should be. treated as the basis to determine fair market value.. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the. Division Bench in paras37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic, as indicat.ve of the market value, but Ud"that if the price therein was reduced by 113rd, the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.. would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India Le:the sale deeds • produced by the Government were giving a price of fl37,O00/per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave theprice ?3,26,600/-. per bigha and theaverage would cometo--28GO/- which wasnear about he puce of ?2,15F160/ per bha, if 113rd would be deducted from the sUm of 3,26,600f-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 247J995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market v&ue as • of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid I.e. 2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench • is not tobe read.pedanticaflybiit meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in questiOn as the basis for if it was so, the appre'ciation for 2 years had requfted to be gven, would highlight once again, that l have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sate deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutuRi destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair, market value. •..

24. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and i immediately highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative Of the fair market vaue of the land, pertaining to.... i.11ag'-Nre in view of the decisiOn in Oharambir's case be suitably enhanced would be dealt with by me at the nd when I determine thefaifmarktv1aiue of lands for the villages in question. • 25. The second argument, contours whereof are to be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA.AppNo,26612008 & connected matters Page 35 of.74 -.... latest pi nounc_emenLof_tlieSupreme Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) 5CC 769 La! ChandyjQj. But before that I must highlight that the decision in çhand's...case (supra) predicated a claim on a.bDA brochure: whereunder, on $ease-hod basis, residential plots were allotted for residentaI housing scheme and the_argument was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands,. in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housin,g Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V 1 formed by NH-I and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Kar.nai Road and Rohtak Road. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring á'gric"UtturaF' lands, developing the same and. transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to indutriai layouts, in paras Ilto 27. the Supreme Court observed and held as Under:- Whether the DDA brochure is reIvant evidence?

11. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking 'applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the RohiniResidéntial Housing Scheme..The brochure stated that the plots were in. a layout formed/to be formed in Rithála and the surrounding viflages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis:.

I. No Plot size Category Rate ''per square metre)

2. 32 sq m Low income group (LIG)

3.43 sq rn I nw income gpup (LIG) 4 0 sq rn Middle income group (MIG)

5. 90 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 100 Rs 125 Rs 150,......... Rs200 Rs200 LAApp.No.24$/2008 & connected matters I ---- The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the — rates- should • be taken as indicative of•the ruling market price.

12. On careful consideration we are of the view that • such allotment rates of'plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several, reasons. Firstly, market value has to be detérmin.edwfth reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates, of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it thfficu'lt to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value' determination for acquisitions, is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold lan'd; - whereas' the" allotment "rates'1 in the DDA brochure refer to the inftia premium paa'bie on aDotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may, elaborate on these three factors. First factor ' The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped griculturaI land (with potential for development, with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of developmeht of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. ' The "deduction for development" consists of twa components. The first Is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the, second is the cost of the development works. For example, if'a 'residential 'layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise aroUnd 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facflities), etc. The development authority will also incur considerable ' expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed.layout,.which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost.of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/200'8 & connected matters ' underground dramage and sewage factes, Tayrng wátër lines, electricity lines and developing parks and developed, plot. The two facthrs• taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. • 16. On the other hand, if theresidential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of far less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually.no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. • Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on[5] development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account.of the two factors in respect of • plots in....unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus. 20% in all 40% as against.75% in regard to DDA plots,... The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between. 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout.. The position with reference to industrial layouts WiH be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or,two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residerEtial plots measuring 100 sq mta 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be 'incurred for developmentwill also be marginally less, with the result the deducti'on.to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to '55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.,. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, %. as little. as 25% to 40%,.S some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to prdof "Co the contrary.). Therefore the deduction, for the "development factor" to be made with réference to the price of a smaU plot in •a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undev&oped land, will be far more than the deduction • •, • LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • • with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is also--weff-known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard-tc. higher overheads and expenditure. Even among the layouts form'ed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic 'amenfties, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residentialan[4] even ani o ng reside nti a I layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of coft'munity....................... -fad+ftFs,'parks and playgrounds_provided. Some of, the layouts formed by the statutory authores- may have farge areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for, roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic anenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage, and the range of percer'tage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%., Second factor. DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for aUotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon the economic., status of the &iottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker As a consequence, in t:'ie same layout,,ections. ots nay be earmarked fOr aersons belongng to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be:Rs 150per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons b&onging to middle income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons belong...fly to high Frme groups. 24; The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HJG, MIG, LIG and EWS may..atso vary. All these varying factors. reflect in the rates for aflotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authorfty, but upon the paying capacity of the appUcants for allotment. Third factor. LA.App.NO.266/2008 & connected 'matters,' Page 39 of ' Some development authorities allot plots on • freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale Some • development authoritie Uke ODA ai1otp0tSO 0 basis. Some have premium which is a'most equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others, have !sser1iremiUm, and more substantial annual rent. There are standard methods for determining the • annual rental valUe with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownershiP) rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very, difflCult to arrive at the market value of a freehold propertY with reference to the premium for a • leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the market value of the property. • 27. HoweVer, in view of the difficulties referred to • above, It is not safe or advisable to. rely upon the allotment rates/auctiofl rates in regard to the plots formed by ODA in a developed layout, in determining the market •. ' 'value of the adjoining undevelOPed freehold lands. The ODA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being •. not relevant." The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference No.117A12009. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court being the same as was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court with reference to the evidence retied upon it reads:- "Ld. Counsel fuersUtt. • I that'DDA & DSIDC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area and' Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate. He has relied upon aUotmeflt letter dated 04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, • Nar&a which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the •.predetermifled rate of 3028I- which he has 'proved as • • Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of plot • no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring 70 Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as fl,989 per sq. • • • metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. LA.App.NO.26I2008 & connected maers • • • • ploho.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela lndustrial Complex at the rate of650 sq. metres which IS Ex PW3/1 and another aflotment letter dated 25.04.2000 of industrial plotwhich is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at T3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW[9] Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PWII/1, which is detafl of land acquired. It is apparent • that total land acquired is 7209 big ha. Thus total cost........... fv ter bigha H 0000 = •.. •. 248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by sefling afternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ 3208 would be 2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized for rOads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price, of per bigha would.corne. to (2531408 - 759422 = -.... 1771986[6] per bigha). And after 'deducting development charges from sale price of one.bigha i.e. 1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioher has been given rate only !3,27,083/- per 'Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits •.... earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] I,............. Ass._Manager,_DSIDC who has produced docurnents.Ex. PW7/A (CoHy). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is 21429I[7] per bigha, calculation is as under: [To't& area under plots = 112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards.. Price per sq. metre in the year. 2000 at which DSJDC sold plot = I.3000/- per sq. yards Total earning 4083750000 Total expenditure I T720526901.,, • I Tot& profit '.per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and the I AC haaid cornpent _@ per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSID.0 has earned, a profit of..U17..perbigha....__________________-.• Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ T[3].27083 per LA.App.No,266/2008& connected matters.: big.ha for the landln question if 200% appreciation of the. ount is deducted from_s..' once per bigha i.e. T24700000, the figure comes to 71815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled, for the same." NOw-we do not-have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate de.velope4by DSIDC and Narela' Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was.20% or 75%, wedo not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors; being 3 in nUmber which were noted by the Supreme Court in La l Chand[5] cáe(supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the vaue of land in the subject cases.... It is no doubt true, as held Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Schem the subject lands had acquired a. bu Uding potentiality, but the question would be what would he the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself..[1] hold that the learned.Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lal C7iands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence, as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same whHe I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market vaiye of the lands.. The third submission in the alter-native w. based upon -- theobservations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bed/Ram's ca5e- (supta), 11J the submissiunis-asnoted n para 12 hrein above. The land owners require the prce determined. in Oha ramblEs case (supra) relating to the notification dated Ma mu rp u r to be treated as the basis and pgrsively increased, firstly. by.6% per annum, then by 10% Perannum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periOds and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question. •. 33. It be highlighted that in Bed/Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base, date as of the year.1959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied, the progressive. increase method by firstiy enhancing the price per annum by 6% flU the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining'3 years.

34. However, in LI CYiana9s case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under: I I % "Whether the 8ward relating to acquisition on 24-10- 1951 is relevant?. • 47... The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired. under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and. compensation wasawarded at the rate of Rs 7000. •. per big ha. Their contention is that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an. appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This. Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In O/VGC Ltd. v. Rameshbha/ Jivanbhai PateiiQ this Court. held: (5CC p. 751, para 15) "15 Normafly, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value. by providing •. apcaation over vedrnarket value of, nearby lands in previous years (as eveneed by—s-ai e tra nsatiois-oi-ac-q-uFs-it-fons), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably -sawhere- •t'ransactiofl'slaccuj'sitjons precede the subj ec aCquisition by ojy.a few years that is, up to fotir to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if/tre/atestoaneigflbour/ng/àf What may be a rellable standard if the gap is of only a. few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is large,-. For example, for determining the market value of a land - ual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in • 1970 or 1980. may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo '. drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of •. •'. varying periods of stagnation: in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." (emphasis suppUed)

48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itelf that there were no adverse circumstances. For éxampe, theacquisition is of this. year 2009,, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per, year,. as the newspaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the

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

35. It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi Rs-ca-se-(-spca) runs in the 'teeth of the law declared by theSupren- e Court in Lal chancis case which decision follows--au--earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Lrd V Rames/ib/iaf Iivanhhai Patel. LA.App.No.266/2008 &. connected matters ' Page 44 of'74 to • follow the law laid down in Bedi Rrn's case (supra) for the •. reason I find that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in • the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLI 650 (DB) 5arswatJDev/ &Anr. Vs. (iO/& Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage • increase with reference to the price determined in Dharamb/r's case (supra) a,s of the year 1963, which would have resufted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ !2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the •. increase @. 100O/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price wouldhave come to approximately ?50,000/- •. per bigha but the !earned Division Bench determined the same at 3300-0-J- per bigh.a...... That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while I discussing on the issue of the fair rnarket.value of subject lands, In the unreioted decun of a Divsion Bench of this Court in •. LA.APP.No.86612005 decided on 11.5.2006, MahenderS/nghvs.I (10/ & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricuiturai lands Jr, viHage Bawana, and I highlight that one • vUlage with whch 1 am deaUno. is ViaQ:e Bawana, pertaining to a S notification dated 15.1L1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604 • bigha and 18 biswa: of agricufturai land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial. • estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as.of 15.11.196 was determined @ fl,99,904.68 bigha which equals to 9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to • highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which prkce • • for agricultural land beinq the minimum price determined by the •. Government was 71.0 iakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the Ørice LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • • Page 45.of 74 determined by the Division Bench would equ& the minimum price notified by the Government. • 38.' - e—o±a ±he—pice--as--of-- 5ji.'196 9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which

I. am concerned, the price would be apØroximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if. I give benefit, of progressive increase by 10/o per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein above, I. would be holistically discussing the subject while opining upon, the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8' notifications in question. 39... The fo.urth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kfsha.n and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of india Le.. LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the testimony of..Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning T[1] iakh per bigha by s&e of • agricultural produce;. 40'. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave noproof in support of • •hisoral testimony. •,. '• 41., The reasoning of the Court that there, was no crop standing on the land whenits possession.was taken over on 4.10.2000 would require, an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4. crops per year, is falladous no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 31d week of September. rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are hatvested and the Land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.2661'2008 & connected matters. ' Page' 46 of 74 sownu'the first week or the second week of November.,..

42. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he.. was working as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation, of Delhi tUl 313.1996 i.e. was.nht tiUer himself till said period and thereafter earned a pension. f the family as dámed by him, was earning 71'iakh per big ha, for the land,s belonging to the family, which cadmeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annuat4n€o-me--weud be 7.19 iakhs and one. fin-dstt-strange that no...-a penny w•as....nested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales bein effected in the local Mandi or otherwise'. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined.. No proof of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tubewell if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if.the pump was &ectricafly driven has been furnished and if the field's were irrigated by.ca'nai water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fuUy justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been righty relected....43-..............if there is reliable evidence of an independert expert or -t-hece---is othewi-se--reHable eviderce -s---wa-s----fouhd in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (1) SC 444 State of Gu,iatat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to the yield from agrkultural land, only then it would be safe to determine fair market value by applying the. principle of LA.App.No266t2008 & connected matters - 3 ~' y 5i[ng iOthi,es. the annualytetd and not 20 time as was sought to be. projected..

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

45 In para.[7] above, I have put in. a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricuftural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which t am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the tabie in para. 7 above; we find that minimum pices have been notified as of 1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005, Thus, there would be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the notiflcation dated 24.1.2008 which is v.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years away from the last year with which I am concerned year 2003. I. highlight that reckoned w.e.f, the year.000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statisbcs which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 endpoints to be the ones which would -be cio-se-st---te he–peint f-o-r whkh the mean average has to be determmed. 4&_.............. äm. left to de& with the last submission, as noted in — 1ar 15 hereiitabove;and for which thighHght that the learned Reference Court has, pertaininq to the notification dated - 27.1.2003 determined the fair marketvaiue in some References With.repect to a sale deed dated, 20.5.2002 where under higha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village.Rajapur Kallan and has determined that based thereon the price as ol said dair ii- nsi-ng[1]...e-sanre for J months by. ]2% per aanum,:.forl,tIje date 2.7.1.2003 the prk:e would be !1916,037/- pr ar,e kOuhded off to 19,16,040/- per •a C re.........

47 With reference: to the Awa is apparent. that Jan.d comprised;: ih 1.blghaand 13biswavas a Catego question pertains to the same land if said sale dëd had to be acceptec value of Categ.oy 'C'. land. As p r Collector !I.[7] lãkhs per acre wout depressions for land in Category N0JO/DC(NIW)/2004-05 it (hasra. No.200 adrneasUrhic y 'C' land. The safe deed in nd indeed there is logic that it would reflect fair market e learned Land Acquisit:ion be required to fill up the and further sum of T[1]. 7 --p—uie—a-epfe&sions in category 'C' land,.•rneaning thereby depressions in Cateçjory 'B land were less vkà-vis Cateqdryc' Iand In other words, with reference to Category 'A' land 1 the price of Category 'C' land wbufd.have be. and vice-versa, vis-à-vis Cateqory 'C' land, the price for Cateiory 'B fan and for Category 'A' land would be required.to be increased suitably. 48.. I now enter the finaf:sage f my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above hüted. and, reflecting UOfl the reasoning adopted by the fearned;LaM AcquisitionCollector and the learned Reference Courl, pose the question \/Vhat $houk be the lair market valueL ofthe.suject lands as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000,. 2.2001,. 22.8200.[1] 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 1 25.5.20.02 and..2712003.ie:tpe dates on which the % !otifictiofls were issued under:Setin.[4] of the Land Acquisition Act 1894;... -. 49.. have; in par 37 abOe..Hted deCision of a Divisloil Bench of this Court inLAPP.No.866/2005 decided on LA.App.No266/2008 & connected matters I • 11.52006, Mahender.S/rigji V[5].LL01:&Qrs vherein pertaining to d et rm i ned as of 15 11 1996 is - 1,99,904 68 per bigha which equals to 9,59,542 46 per acre The said decision Would berelevarit on the issue of potentiality, an issue.which.Vhave prom ised.todis:uss. The decision notes thaI the subject lands i e the lands with which the Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiahty inasmuch as, • as discussed in paras 25 to 28 ôfthe.dcision; rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attiacti 1 ig migrants Based on population giowth, 5 villages in rural De-Thi were identilied for providing major cih health faties[7] schools, markets and iuial industry, one of which was village Ba,ana It was noted that G T Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and that the M a sfterj Plan for Delhi notified in the year 1990 had indicated the land use in the ara tO be changed in the future to industrial and corpmercial 1 but had also — ouserved that nor thstiiThng t,forthe reason no zonáiplan Was notif-ied as cobtemplated.IyL Section •11A Of the Delhi • Development Act. 1957, the Ian•s c.ontiñued to be used for agricultural pUrposes and there ws np evidence that till 1:he • year 1996, anyland use:had. bee;ctyally.change.d and put to n the use contemplated by the Master Plan As in the instani. case, where all subject lands Were continuously pul:: to agricultural use, same:ws. the cas e l nted in the aid decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of te lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to he area being known to • all as being • reuir.ed in the future f otl huiling purposes, was found not resulting in the: potenthl1bIeig:va:uecl with reference to the potentiality i e the lands being, in the near futuie capable of being bUilt upon. TOut it difrenly, the. decision, though not so expressly stating, would be a pI[opitTonthät theie is a • • • difference bel:ween the LIndeveiope land having building potenuality in presenti vis avis a land having a building potentiality, in futuro As already noled by me in para 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was !9,59,542 46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as would be determined With reference to the notftication being closest in point.of time 1 e., the notification dated 25 7 1997 where-undei for agncuftu al lands in Deihi minimum price fixed.by the Governments:of:.4.1997 was Z10 lakhs per are. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 200ip IV AD (Delhi) 13 S/ncih vs;.UOf & /Inr. Where pértaining to agricultural lands in village Holarnbi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same nothcation dated 15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands Was !9,7,121/-per acre and for Category 'B' lands was 9,51,121/per acie i e near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to e highlighted that white determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in yi!lage.Holambi Kalain, evidenced fromthe observations Of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with ielerence to development work carrid out in the suirounding lands was considered I would highlight that another Division Bench of this COurt, in another djoining village in the same i e between G T Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i e village Singhola determinedfair maiket vlue as of 19 3 1993 © 1,30,523/- per bigha i e 6 126,510 4 per acre The decision is reportedas 2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 2() Ran Chander vs UQ( a n d Lhe %sirne Dw'son-Bench, asi, per thedecis1oflr-epoited a-s 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sincih vs UO/, pertaining_toa notification dated 14.1.1994. for village Songhola detern'rned fair market value @ 1,40,230/- per bigha i e 6 73,104/- ei acre LA App No 266/2008 & connected matters I The aTore idJud9menIs_4cttTh in the piecethng paragraphs as also the vaious notificat ons issued from time to •irn'e by the Government of, NCT elhi otifying minimum price for agricuftuial lands in Delhi as tabLlated by me in para[7] above bring out two very, import8tht.facts ielevant tb determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the • yeas. commencing from the yar 190; As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was T[4].65 lakhs pér which rose to ZIO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is 15.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115O54°/ increase in 7 years and the average price increase• wo.U1d be 16.436%. The price rise' over the next 1 year is by 11.[2] 0/0 andreafter by 11% for the •nCxt 2 years. and 11.5% fr the next:yer i.e.;as.of. 1.4.2001. It • shows that due to urbanization,.betwen the yeah 1990 and 1997 pricesqrows fairly sharply.,.akd good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of I this Court in Gas case (supra), which I have discussed n para 49 above.

51. I need to elaborate a littIe more with respect to the decision inftaJ[5] case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agriculturalland in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, • in •paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the. basis ofaqricu.lturãl ield and found that the gross return per acre per anminp.:was 95,000/- for muftiple ciopped land and having good irnga1tion facilities and thus capft.alized the land: price at 9.5lk.hs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices iof comparable lands in the ----%--sufro-b19-d-rngale8s mcltjckrr potn-t-tahty paia 19 onvvaids the COUt discussed the matter with reference to land pces fl:djining villageBhorgarhwhere:.CI Godowns had come up and tiasedDn.... ãl instances found. that Ibased on the said sale instances and gi-ving--hen oii,Fustrtittiitheia nd —pu would come to lO,O[3],364/- pei acre (Refer para 31) The C0Lri then considered the prices notihed by the Government as € policy dated 1 4 1997 and thus wor ed out the mean avera figure of k[9],76.,12I/- per acre br Category 'A' lands and 9,51,121I- per acre for Category 'B' lands The decisini highlights that the potentiality had een wellfactored in when the Governmeht issued the rtiinirnurn price notification w.e.t. •. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum pr;u notified as of t[4].1997 at"1O lakh pr acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was 10,03,364I- per acre. 52.. The decision in Mahendër ingh's case, pertaining tn •.. vWage.Bawatiar.feSre-d to. by me in para 49 above.highligh wfth reference to para 28 to 31 of te decision that the Maste Plan for Delhi 1990 had been ptaker 'into account by the COUL which was projecting resideitii, commercial and industhal future exploitation of agricultural lar?d in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that. notwthtanding the Master lan •. so projecting and the lands theôretially acquiring a potentiality the same had not translated iito a reality evidenced by the iJ that tiilthë year 1996 i.e. th date f the notification with whkih the Division Bench was concerned, irtualLy no development had taken place in village Bawnnd Holambi Kalan and nobodi had exploited the potential As I have already hiqhliqhteci in para 49 above there is a ap between what would he epectai to be the market growth andilkwN[3] the market actually growa The decisions in Qjijafs case and MahenLUiQii:a highhght that potentialftv translatec itself into a,eality between 1990 and 1997 when prces rdsebyahOut16.5% per annum and •. thereafter the extended potentialiy did not translate with the Page §3 of 74 requisite momentum and the accelertton fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum One reason could be thaL ivaLto.iasJPtan_fnrUeJbj 1 g g 0_a_f yJaEg E ai e a c a me to be developed, both residential, con mrcial and industrial and probably theie was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated • 51 The empirical evidencein th instant ca.e, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon:bythe land owners, in respect • whereof the learned ReferenceCourt has given good reasons not to rely upon and for Which:l have given further reasons in paras2l and 22 hereinabove for not lying upon, being fanciful • sale deeds, to determine fair market 'Jalue, we have with us the Sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursLlant whereto in some refeiences in village Rajapur Valaii the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed E R-2 as of the dare of the sle e 20 5 2002 the Iaii. market value of agricuftuial lands would he 19,16,040/ per acie as of 27 1 2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa • of land which Was sold for 5 39.:6OI and 70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that Z[6] 09,850/- (Z[5],39,690/- -I- 70,160/-) were spent would yield t e price 17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i e 20 512002

54 Thus, the best which could be said as the mosi favourable situation for the land owpers would he that with reference to the sale deed dated 2 5 2002 for Categoiy 'C' lands the price i e fair market value f lands in the area would be fl[7],74,109/- per acre For Ceor 'B' and Category. 'A' land the pricewould have tote suitbly ethancedand here we find nothèr area of dispute for the rason, as noted by me hereinabove in sub-pára (a) - of para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector In different awards h a s deducted LA, App No.266/20.08 & connected matters • sometimes T[1].[2] lakhs per acre, sonetimes156 lakhs per acre and sometimes T[1].[7] lakhs per acre from the puce of Categov 'A' lands to deteimine the price hr Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in'Categcry '' as w.eIl•-t-heprice has been deducted further by T[1].[7] lakhsi per are,.. Now, neither side habrough't any evidence on record as to what would be the monei réqirèd to be spent to level the Ct€ sasUftty on the basis of certain lands having pits and dedressions of various depths ieveed'.add this would_require money o be: spent. But on !: baisisl has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that 1.[2] lakhs per acre would be. spent and in some that t[1].56lakhs per, acre would be spent and in some that fl.[7] lakhs"perare':wuld be spet? There is just no clue. In Qjj Sing/is 'cae'• (sqpra), the price dftferential worked out was 25,'000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabo\e that the acquisition in.'jj.LSIngh' case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. In' the price for Category land determined was 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category T' V land the price deteimuned was 951,121I- pet acre and Lh price differential comes to aboUt 2.5% with reference to price of Category 'A land. ' I thus hold. that Gjraj,Inqbs case should be my guiding star for price differential in he instant cases as well and thus F. hold that wherever. Category 'A', 'Category 'B' and j. Category 'C' have to be differentiatjed on pnce,'the differential should be 25 0/1..... Thus, if.17,7:4,109/ rounëd off to 17.75 iakhs per 'Categr[7] ''tam trv dIlage Rajapu Kalän as of 20.5.2002 and highIightig that the sale deed Ex.F&-2 LA.App.No266/2008.& connected rn'attes admittedly pertains Lo a Categoi[y C' land, the puce for Category 'B' land would be.;!18.20:.Jakhs per acre and_for Category 'A' land wOuld be !18.655 akhs per acre.

59. Taking the loicä I reasouiin a little further it assumes importancip that as per the rriuiimum price notified by the Government asof 1.4:2000 thO pr acre price was M..82 lakhs and as of 1 4 2001 the same was Z15.[7] Iakhs per acre i e the percentage increase between the year was 11 5% per annum 11 I treat Category W. land pruce'at 655 lakhs as of 20 5 2002 based.on the sale deedExR[2], dedLcting the price by 11% per annum, the puce as of 1 4 2001 would come to approximately ?16.40, Iakhs per acre and this ould highlight that when contrastedwith the minimum priceinotifid by the Go\/ernrnent at 715.[7] lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is 70,000/- per acre i.e.4.46%..Sine e)actnesS can never be achieved while determining faftrnarIet value of a large chUnk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason eyen within a colony, the size, the location, the Irontage etc of apiece of land would vaiy the puce by plu's or minus 5%:WI1atljsh'a highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumsthnces a sale on a particular date is normally not held good Vidence ti work ou[1] ãTãiid price on u date prior theieto but may be used as evidence to deteu mine land price on subsequent dates, fr the ieason a price on particular date is the tesuft of varios market forces/couriitious having alt eady impacted the land pice and it would he dftficuk to fathom the existence of, marke1t foices/conditions waIkiii backwards. But in the instanticae, with reference to the 5 LA.AppNo.266/2008 & connected mattr 00 22.8.2001 t and 7.12..200.1, the differential period is smafl inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25..52092 and thus in the pecuhar fcts ofthe instant.case, the. sale de d 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 accouht whiledetermining the market value of.Iand as on the dtes 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,22.8:2001 and 7.12.2001.

60. The argument that viage 'Jarela had aEvays been treated locationally advantageou.s.for the reason the township of • Narela ws in existence since long and this was recognized • when, pursuant to a notificationi isue 1d in the year 1963, vis-à-.vis the adjoining villaes T[2] per square yard price advantage as given to lands in vilage Narela i DhararnbIts case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational • 1 advantage was keeping in view the: realities. in the year 1963. Over the period Of tirne,as urban.izati?n took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under p otted development which • included areas in NorthWest of.Delh r i i.e. the aea with which I • am concerned tOday, the price differetial faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has becomenon-xiSteflt.

61. I thus hold that pertaiipg o the notifications dated 7.8.2000., 11.9,2000, 2,5.2001,[1] 22.82001 nd 7J[2] the land prices would have to be deternpined on the basis o the minimum price notified by the GJvernment as also vviLh ' refeience to the sale deed dated 25 52002 fot the reason I find no othercogent evidence wherefrom lnd price as on said dates • • 16.5.2002, 23.52002 and 27.1.2003,the land price nees to be determined with respect to the sae deed dated 25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008 & cofinected maters • Page S[7] of 7 because -with reLfeferK& to-the-s- s-ale rce it s prent-tna • land price as of said date comes tornorethan.:if dte.rmined with iespect to the notification dated 9 8 2001 wherein minimum • land price notified was T.1,53 lakhs pe acre with. effect from 1.4.2001. •

62 With respect to the price' diffetential br Category 'A' • and Category 1 B' lands, rioting that pertaining to the said • notificatjons categohzation has ben done only pertaining to the • land acquired in village Pooth.:Khurd and Holambi Kalan • (pertaining to the notification dated 2.8,2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Aliibur (pertaining to rite • notification dated 22.8.2001) I hold 9iat vis-à-vis the said notifications, after increasing the price fthr the date differential, • fixing' the same for Category 'A'.lands deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2 5°/ to determine the price •. forCategory'B' land....

53. Before I work out the compensation and since it would • be evidenced that pertaining to Categc1ry 'A' lands, the land prices would rnarinalIy increase in a few cases and sLibstantially in the other, a striking note of discordant \NOUId...... emerge with respect to the land.price: dtermined pertaining to the notification daled 23 5 2002 pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Cort has determined tne fair, market value at 2214,23,900- per acre as of 23.5.2002, - - t- nd tGJmignt that- perta the same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to villagb Alipur the learned *\, eference Court has deten1Tin& thefair market value at T85,24o/- peu acre and I find that peitaining to village - Rajaptrr- Kalan and Sanoth, prtaining mthe notification dated -- 12003 the fair mat ket value assessed for Category 'A' lanos •.. is 19,16,040I- in some cases and T 19,13,760/- in a few, LA.App.No266/2008 & eonected matters. I.. meaning thereby that much.lsser cornpenstion •. has been r vvurKeu out in me year 2003 VLs-ã-.Vis the compensation worked CD / out for Holambi Kala.npertainihg to the, notification dated 23.5.2002 and the reason for 'Ithe brasion. is that in sa[1] notfictior the laid pri(e.determin ed in Ga/raft case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and iflceased at the rate of 12% per apnum compounded.. VWqe POOth,.Khud Notifica, tion dated 7.8.2000' 64.', With reference to the. notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 ml limum puce notified per acre is T 1182 iakhs and req uidng sid price to be sUitably updated to reach the.date of the notiication i.e..8.2000 and with reference to the sale deeft dated 25.5.2002 wherein for CatégôC"1and.s land price per acr comes to,17,74,109/, rotinded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Cateory 'B' lands increasing the same by 25% thprice comes to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and fU* rther. increasing by: 2.[5] Jo the prices comes to '18,65,500/- per acre:ocategor 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price Jvith reference to the sale deed for the datC 7.8.2000; themean average price for Category 'A' lands in village PoothKhud comes to T14.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing the' same by 2.5%,. it come[5] to 14,38,125f per.acre for. Category::'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, withdut bny reaons, done away with Category 'B'. lands and..u.nif?rm price awarded is 14c37r280/ per acre, the pride: differntial 'worked out b me /. comes to a mea.ger.11000/ percreahd thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain t h e amount awaded Iy the learned Reference Court.

65. All Land. AcquisftiQn App.e&sfiIed by the Union of it and cross objections whereverfled by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008 &'con'eeted:rnatters... ' I. appeals flIed •by land owpers i n.:. espedt whereof grid has hee.n. prepared and labele.d as lRlDKhe.reiboveardismissed.

66. AM Land.Acqukftjon Ap.a1s.iled by the land owners • ad cross-objections filed by the.lhd. ovners inz appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decieeing compensation payable • for CategOry 'A' lands in viltagePooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 in 'su.n'.of?14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the cdmensation awarded at fl[4],37,280/- per acre is.maintai.ned and thus such appeals or •..:. cross references which' pertain lJo C ategory 'B' lands are •dkrnissed...67: PertThihg to such appeal where the compensation • stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land AcqLiisition Act 1894 as explaihed in the Judm.ent reported as pderj(s UQi 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the.appeal or cross objedion, for • which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid These ap.pellantsor coss objectors would be entitled to prOportionate cost. VWage Holnibi. K. oUFiction.dte.d 7'2O00 • 68. For the reasoning, given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove •, pertaining to the notification (sae)daed 7.8.2000 relating to • village.Holahibi Kalan, all appeals as I i GRID-B' hereinabove • and cross objections staild disposed of enhancing the • compensation to !14.75 lakhs per: acre and I highlight that as per the award.and even' as per.therefrence all subject lands 'were of uniform category; Needléssto sLate apeals filed by the • '.•• • • Union of. India and cross objecflon • s.wherpver f!Iled are disrnissd. • ' Appeals and rossobjection filed byIand owners a re allowed by • enhancing:t'he compensation to 14.75 takhs per acre together • with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as • '. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. • • explained in the judgment rprted as SUnder Vs. U01.2001 (93) DLI 569, excpt for the period:where.there is a delay in fihinq eal or, cross objeon, for which period of delay. no interest. on the enhanced copipenationshalIbe paid. These • appeHa.nts or cross objectors.vo.uId be entitled to proportionate cost.... •.. VWge BaWaraoU.fi.caUàn dated.72000.

69. Pertaining to_vinagL B.wan...reLating to the same •. notification dated 7,8.2000 where I he learned Reference Court.--. has ftt nhnced the compensatior, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A' 1ands is fixedat T.14.75 lakhs per • acre a nd for Category. 'B' landsat 14,38,125/- per. acre a n d noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objedion, appeals as per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned, and needles to state on the enhanced compensation the appellants • shall be entitled tostatutory benefits as per the LandAcquisition Act 1894 as explained in the.judgnent reported as SLI17der_1/. 1101 2001 (93) DLT 569, excéjt.. for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for mihich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensatiOn sha I be paid. These appellants •. •.•. 71 would be entitled to proportionate c9st. Vaae Khera.KhürarOtiflCaUOfl dated 11.92000 vj

70. With reference to the rotification dated 9.E.[2] 00] wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 m price notified per acre IS T[1],31.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to he suitably upated to reach the dte of the notification i.e. 11.9.2000 and ithrèferenCetoth sale deed dated 25.5.2002 whrein for Category 'C' lands land price per acre comes to i[7],741.09i..,....munde.d...off to 1775000/.- per acr'e, arid for Category 'B' lands increasing Ihe same by 2.5% the price comes S -. • • LA.App.No.266/2008 & conncted mttrs... to 18.[2] lakhs per acre and fuher increasing by 2.5% the prices (04 A----Fands; and • decreasing the said prices by.1.1% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' laridsin village Narela comes to ?16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 15,76,087- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference COurt hasp without any reaons, done • away with Category 'B' lands ahd uniform price awarded is • U[5].,85,570/- per acre and since for Category 'B' lands the price • worked out byrne is less by 9,000/- per. acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category 'B.' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the........ • 73. All Land Acquisition Appeal s per 'GRID-E' filed by the land owners and cioss-objections filed by the land owners in - apoeals hied by Union of India are allowed by decreeing •. compensation pay.able for Category 'A lands in village Narela pertaining to the notification, dated 2.5.2001 in sum of 16,16,500/- per acre and as r.. per the reference oder for Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such appeals which relate •to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. 1the appaIs and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are • allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced coritipensation statutory benefits a.per the Land Acquisition At 1894 as e)(plaifled. in the judrn.ent reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569.shall be ganted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.AppJ\To.266/2008 & connected matters 'I to 718.[2] laklis per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18 65,5001- per acre for Category 'A' lands and decreasing the said prices by 11 1 /o to ref!ect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category £A::l a ds in village. Khera Khurd comes to14,83,500/ per acreapd decreasing the same by 2.%, ft comes to 14,46,413I-• per.acre for Category 'B' lands.

71. All LandAcquisitio.n Appeals as per 'GRlD-D filed by the land owners an.d cross-objection file1l by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India: are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dted 11.92.00 in sum of U[4],83,500/- per acre for Category.: 'A' lands and 14,46,413/per acre for Category 'B' l nd s. I noe that pertin.ing to this.notifiation and the village, the Union bf India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced com,ensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judcjrnent reported as Sunder Vs. (16/2001 (93) Ii)LT 56.[9] shall be granted, except for the period where there is a I elay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no intrest on the enhanced compensation shall be picl. TheseapellantS would be eni:itled to proportionate cost I VMage Naeki Notifit.atiojLated 22001

72. With reference to the[1], notiication dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 mihirnum price notified per acre is T15.[7] lakhs per, acre and requiring said pnce to be suitably updated' to reach thel date of the notification i.e. 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sle deed..dated 255.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands1aind price per acre comes to 17,74,109/-, rounded oft to fl775,000!- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the'samd by 2,5% the price comes LA.App:No.266/2008 & connected mates interest on the enhanced cpmpe.hsation shall be paid. Thesu •appeUts would be entitled to prooionate cost.. ___ tifidation dated 218.2001 74: With reference to the notifictjon dated 9.8.2001 -wheretrrwfth--efUect—ftorrr-1-42ooiLrniflirnum price notftied per acre is Z15.70 lakhs per acre an requiting saId price be suitably updated. to reach the ate of the: notification Lu. 22.8.2001 and. with referenceto th sale deed dated 25,5.2002 wherein for •Catego. 'C. Jands lad price per acre comes Lu 17,7.4,109/, rounded off 1:0, 17,75,,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasinq thésarne by 2.5% the price comes: to 718.[2] lakhs per acre and fuher icreasi.ng by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/-. - • er acre fbr Catecrnrv 'A' I - •;•_,J,.••_)J,_J, t_luIL.,' decreasing the said prices by 111/0 to refet--the price with reference to the salel deed for thel date 228.2001; the mean • avrage price for Category 'AHaiis in village Holambi Kalan comes to 1-6,74,500/- per are and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637,50 pe acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reerence Court has, without any reasons,, done away with CatclOry 'B' lands and uniform price •. awarded is 16,43,81I/- per aCre, the price dftferential worked • out by me- comes to a. meager !:9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I: maintain thd, amoUnt awarded by the learned Reference Court, AIlLand Acquisition AppeaI filed by the Union of India and 'cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appäls. filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' 61 'GRID-G' hereinabove ate dismissed.. AU Land Acquisition Appeal' filed 'by the land owners and cross-objections filed bythe land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters'. ' Union of. India are allowed by. 1ecrecing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Hola'nbi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22 8 2001 in sum of ?16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 716,43,811/-. per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which perl:ain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. 77; Pertainin[9] to such apel where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits s per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the jUdgment reported as 5u17c.Ie1- Vs. UQI 2001. (93) ULT 569. shaH be rarted except for the period where there is a delay in filing the a9peal or cross objection, for which period of delay n interest, onthe enhanced compensation shaH be. paid. These ppellar,ts or cross objectors would be entitled to.proportionate cost. VllAlli:.P.ur Notiikàtion dated 228.2OO[1] 7/ 1 78 With reIeience to Ihe notification dated 9 8 2001 wheiein with effect from 1 4 2001 minimum price notiFied pe acre is !]5 70 lakhs per acre land equinng said puce to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notlflcatirffl 22.8.2001 and with reference to the bale deed dated 25.5.2002 wnerein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre coine to.?17,74,109/, rounded off to. i[7],7,000/ per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the saHe by 2.5% the price comes to 718.[2] lkhs per acre and further inreasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 1B,65,500/ per ate'fo Category A' lands; and decreasing the said piices by 11% to reflect the puce with reference to the Sale deed for. the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for village. All P.ur comes to fl[6],7,500/- per acre and decreasig the same by 2 5%, H comes to fl[6],32,637.50 per acre for. ategory 'B' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008 & cormecled matters:. that thtea ned RërTice C ourt_has,_w4thout any reasons, doiie way. with Category '' lands •ahduihiforrn price awarded is 16,43,811/7 per acre, the price çlifferential Worked out by me cQrnes to a meager !9,000/ per are ard. thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount aiaded ty the learned Reference Court.. All Land Acquisition AppalS fild by the Union incflain respect whereof grid has been éared andiabeled as 'GRID H' hereinabove are dismissed F note that land owners have not filed any appeal chaflenging the décisior of the Reference Court. There shall be no order as to costs. dated 222001. With reference to the •. notification dated 9.8. 2 001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minirnum price notified per acre is 15.70 lakhs per acre and reuiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the Hdate of the notification i.e.. 22.8.2001 and with.referehce to the sale deed.dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to • 17,74,109f-, rounded off to T[1].71 75,0OO/-per acre, a nd for Category 'B' !ands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increbsi.ng by 2.5% the prices •: comes to 18,65,500/-. per acre for lategory. 'A' lands; and • decreasing the said prices by: 11% tc reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the dae 22.8.2001; the mean 'A' FRd-s vfl FoinbiHthurdcomes to 16,74,500/ per acre 'nd decreasing the same by it comes to 716,32,637.50 per....acr..f.or Category B' lands.. Referñce qourL has, without any reasons,doiieiway. w.Lthr..ory..':B' ands a-rid uniform price awaded is 16,43,811/- -per acrei therice differential woiked I out by me:comes to a mager !9,000/ per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • • I ______Categniy±B__Lands__L_mainta the4mountawarded by the 'earned Reference Court

8.2. The appeal filed by the Union of India. in respect • whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRDDT hereinabove is dismissed, I noteithat IHd owners have not filed any appeal challenging Lhe decision of the Reference Court 83.. There shall be no order as to costs. VfflaqjeRaipur K&n Notihcation dated 22.6.2001 • 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() Oakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably update to reach theLdate of the notification i.e. 22 82001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 5 5 2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre tomes to 17r74r109I, rounded offto 17;75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B lands increasing the.saMJ by 2.5% thel price comes to 718,[2] lakhs.per acre and further incrasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500[- per acre for Category 'A'. lands; and • decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the dte 22.8.2001; the mean average price for CategOry 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acrel and decreasing the same by 2 5%, it comes to 16,32,637 50 per acre for Categoty 'B' hinds Noting that the learned reference Court has withoul anj reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and unifoim puce wardedis 16,43,811/- per acre, thei price differential wouked %..Qu.t.. by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by Lhe learned Reference Couot - • 85.. All Land Acquisition AppEals fliled by the Union of India and cross objctions wherever filed by Union of India in the • LA;App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 7 of 74.. Page -- — appeals--f-rEed by tand owrrem rrTespect where -gad-h-as-been---prepared and labeled as 'GRlDJ' hereinabove are dismissed • 86. All Land AcquisftionAppeals fi'ed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the lnd oners in àppeáls filed by Union of India are allowed bydecreeing compensation payable fOr Category 'A' lands in village Rjpu Kalan pertaining to the notifiction dated 22.8.2001 in Sum of !16,74,500/ per acre and for Category 'B' lands.. the corndensation awarded at !16,43,811/- per acre is niaintained..!and thus such..ppeaIs or cross references which pertain tb Category B' lands are dismksed.

87. Pertaining to such appaLwhere the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisilton Act 941.as explained in the jUdrnent reported as Sunder UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there isdelay in filing theappeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no intereston the 6nhahced compensation shall be paid These appellants or crss objectois woLild he entitled to proportionate cost. Vfflae Snoth N otficaton dated 7 12 2001 88 With reference to the notifiation dated 9 8 2001 wheiein with effect from 1.4-.2001[1] minimum price notified per acre is Z15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saiq price to be uitbly updated to reach the dte of the notification i.e. 7 122001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25 5 2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to jki 17,74iQ9L_rounded off. to U775000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing thesame ly 2 5% the price comes to Z18.[2] lakhs per acre and further1iricresing by 2.5% the prFces cones....to' !18,65,500/- per acre.for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 1170 tq reflect the price with LA.AppJ\Jo.266/2008 & connected matters eferenceto the sale deed for thedate 7 12 2001 the mean average pre for Categoiy 'A' lands in village SanoLh comes Lo 17,29,500/.. per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value • I hold that: for acquired laiids in village Sanoth for the nOtification dated 7.122001 the land owners would be entftleci • to the enhanced compensation insudi of17,29,5OO/-,

89. AU Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections whereier filec by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in resect whereof grid has been prepared and, labeled as 'GRiD-K' herinabove are dismissed.

90 All Land Acquisition Appeal filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals hIed hy Union of India are allowed by grantig compensation in sum o •Z 17,29500/ and needless "to' state on the enhanced cOmpensation statutory benefits as.per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 aS explained in the judqrnent 'reported as rJs. L'O • 2001(93) DLT 569 shafl be grarted, xcept for the period where • there Is a delay in fiIinc the appeal or cross objection, for which • period ofdelay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appeflants or dross èbjector[5] would be erftitleci to proportionate cost. • • • VHgie5hahgur.Garh1NOtification dated 1652002 91; • Pertaining to vifiage Shahpur Garhi, as held by me hereinabove the Iard price would have to be determined with 'reference.to.the sale deed datd:20 5.2002 and for w h i c h land • price for Category 'A' land has been determined 4me at 18,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a difference of 4 days h.tween the date of sale and the notificatio.n I maintain • that 'fOr. the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land •, • owners are entitled to compensation:at the rate of 18,65,500/- LA.App.No;266/2008 & connected rnaers • ' peracreand I highlight that as per the award aiidth fëence r all lands are in the same category Appals.andcmss objections filed by the lnd ownersLäs per the: 'RlD.-L' are allowe,d and needless to state on the enhanced compensation the land owners wOuld be entitled to., all statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 asinterpreted in the judgment reported asSünder Vs..UOI 2001(93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is delay, no interest would be paiJ for the period of delay. • Proportionate cost.s stand awardd. Appels and cross ••.•.. objections filed by Union of India a,redisissed. JThLtn • 92. Pertaining to the n6tificalion dated 23.5200.[2] pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has adifferential of only 3 days I hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the land owners would be enitled to cornpensation at the rate of i[8],65,500/ with statutOry benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpretd in the decision reported as under Vs. UOL 2001 (93) DLT 569 exept in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. ProportionaLe costs stand awarded All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand alloyved as aforesaid and all appeals and cross objeofions filed. y Union of India are dismissed.. vm iige H&mbF Kallag ll©t tthi dte 35UU 93 As noted by me pertaining to the notification daced 23.5.2002 relating to village Hol.arnhi KIan all lands have been treated in the samecategory bythe larned Land Accluistion LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters '. Coflector and the leaned Refetence Court The learned Reference Court has awadeft..:'. j _ 2214.239/- per acre which:1 have found to be excessive tnasmuch as for the date 23 5 2002 have held that fair niarkel value wo.uI.d be ?1865,500/, per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRlD-N' are dismissed and appealsand cross oJjections filed by Union of India are allowed by rnodifyinq the irnpugried decree passed by the learned Reference Court and rducing the compensation payable to 18,65,500/- per acre or which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced pice with reference to the award the statutbry benefits already granted stand maintained, No costs... VUle All Fur Ntificatin dated 2352002 94.. Pertaining to the notificatiotil dated 23.5.2002 relating to village All Pur, fot parity of.reàsors qua the said notification relating to viIlge Holambi Kalan ándShahpur Garhi I determine fair markeL value payable at 1865,00I- per acre and thus all appeals and cross. objections filed by Union of India as per, 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appea's and cross objections filed by landowners as persad Gdd arell allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to T18,65,5,00/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquiition Act as interpreted in the judgrnentreportdjas Swkler vs. 1)01 2001 (93) DLI. 569 • shall be paid save and ec.pt i such appeals or cro.s objections where.thereis a delay, intrest would not be paid fo the period at delay. Proportionate costs as well •. VfflaaeSanoth Notfflatihn dated 27;1.2003 • •. 95. Pertaining to the appealand cross objections by the land owners and Union of india as per 'GRID-P' pertaitling to the I notification dated 27.12003 relatinq to viflage SanOth, I note • that the learned Land Acquisition Cluector has pced the lands in 3 categones and I [md thati the learned Refemence Couit has without any discussion held the Iads as of uniform category,while awarding compensation. H............... • 96. On the mean average:basiswhich I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.?001 with reference • the notification issued by the Governmnt as also by increasing the the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Categcry 'A' lands the price comes to ?19/13,5001- per acre arid for Categomy '' land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per acre ard for Category 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68 per acre. ifind that the learned Reference Court hasuniforrhI' detrrnined fair markel: value at I[9],1,3,765I and thus such appeas or cross objections which I, 101, have been filed by land owners th, same have to be dismissed in so far theypertainto Category '' and Category 'C' lands and • Similar Would be the fate of appealsl and cross object:ions filed by Unibo of India pertaining to Categoy 'A' lands. The said appeals • and cross objections as per 'GRID-P[1] are dismissed. Appeals and cross object ns filed, by Iand r oWnrs ertaining to Categoy lands ae allowed by decreeiilg con5pensaton payable in sum of 19,43,500I- per acre and needIes to state on the e,nhan.cec compensation statutory benefits a per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the.judgmet repoited as Sui7cleir' Vs. L/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 SIIãIF be Ptfld - and except in suc:h appeals and cross objections whdre there is a delay, interest • would hot be paid for the period of,delay. Proportionate costs as welL The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India • pertaining to Category 'B' and Cat gory 'C' lands are• allowed by the Reference Order reducing the • compensatioft for Category 'B' land to LA. App No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 72 of "I l819479l[2].SO per acre and for CategorysCr nd tn 1 18,47,539.68 per acre. Milla.ge dated 2712003

97. For parity of reasoning as per. para 96 abo\/e pertaininu m to village Sanoth, siilar correEtive action is to be rcquui pertainrng to lands acquired pursuant to notification dated 27 1 2003 relating to \/illaqe Rajaur Kalan and wheie I find Lhd the learned Reference Court has in some cases awaide • compensation in scurn of 19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at ?19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of unifo rio category. On the mean average basis which I have befollowin.g by ihcreang thepticejas of 1.4.2001 With refrence to the notification vsued by the Government as also h' • increasing the same with refernce to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lard ri arndfr Category 'B'. land the price comes to iB,94,9]j[2].5Q per acre andfoi' Cateqory 'C' lands the price cOmes to 18,47,539.63 per acre. Thus such appeals or cross Objections.whch have beer filed by nd owners the same have to be disnissed in so far they pertain Le. •. Category 'B' and Category 'C' lnds and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objedtions filed by Union of lndta pertaining to Category 'At lands.. The said appeals and cross Objections as per 'GRlDQ'. are dismissed. Appeals and cru objections filed by land owners prtainlng to Category 'A' lands • are allowed by decreeing: comnsation payable in sum of • 19,43,500/- per acre andfléedlss stateom-the enhanceL • compensation statutory benefits spe.rthe Land Acquisition Act. • 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder. Vs. (10/ - - 2U01 --9-3) DL-T-5-&9-- -h-afl -b -ai-d—s-a-ve--a-nd except in E ucH appeals andcross oblections whete there is a delay, intet LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. Page 73 ofI[4] would not be paid for the period of delay ProportionaLe coL well. The appea's and cross objections filed k y Utlion of India prtain.ing to Category'B' a n d.Category 'C'iands are allowed by •. rnodftying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by - Ca[egory. 13' ldnd Lo i[8],94,9i25O per acre and for. Category 'C'. land to • 18,47,53968 per acre... •.. ••. • (P J IpUDGE AUGUST23, 2011 • im/dk • •.. - •________ LA.App.No266/2008 & connected matters;... •