Union of India v. Kali Ram & Ors.

4. 21.11.2000 -

12.32

5. 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 12.16.. 11 1.4.2000 13.82 11.

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

7. 30.8.2005 30.8.2005 17.584 2.98

8. 24.1.2008 18.12.2007 53 89.51

8. From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum price was last fixed w.e.f. 27.4.1990, in sum of ?4.55 lakhs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to ?10 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 fll.[2] lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to ?12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to ?12.15 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% ^ P§r annym with reference to the price determined as of _0.1998 and vide, same notification the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to fl[3].82 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis the previous i.e. ?12.15 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-a-vis the previous price of n[3].82 lakhs/acre to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters the, ffgwe.of..was" enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ?i[7].584 lakhs/acre wmcf. gives ik ' 3n iii^-ease-oronly 2.yB%-^nnum 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 ?17.584 iaichs/acre and the date 30.8.2005. 4:te-8v[^^ by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court, it would be beneficial,for the reader of the present decision, as I feel, that argunnents advanced on either side may be noted. ! would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the alternative and it was urged that they would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, faili|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 Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Hoiambi Kaian; the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5;2Q01 for village Marela;'and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village All Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands were of uniform character and it -ms uTQM tjTat_mrrective_.a_ction l&j:e_qiiir.ed by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, 11.5% increase per annum and -ir^per-BTTmimiTicrease^^^^ exces^ive-wfth reference to the •...M^,otthe notifications under Section 4of Land Acquisition • Act 1894; requifihg the same to be reduced to 10% per annum In least. Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not Justified in treating ail lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No.266/2008 &connectedmatters Page22 of74 requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by the Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of which categorization It was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary I.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C, on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect

10. Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference Court was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also "deex! dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ ?26.75 !akhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of ?32.[4] lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 smder Ex.PW-1/3 would be ^28.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PV^-1/2 the land price would be ?53.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds v\fou!d be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act1894 by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument, pertaining to village Narela, it was-urged that the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters 23 of74 and for which the argument was that when in past, pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act~l894. the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur- Narela by giving a. price benefit of f2/- per sq.yd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 5.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UP! i^s. Dharambir & Ors. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in sum of ?6,650/determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to ?16,750/- per, bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to ?22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored.

11. • Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSIDC and DDA i.e. the implementing agencies, which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate and for which learned counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which ! would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission; urged. ".. 12= Alternative to the second siLhmisslo.n, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court In the judgment reported as 2001 (.93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram.LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. Page24 of 74 ^i/sr -Unmn of India, it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired lands mth reference to the fair market value determined by Coirrts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable Increase in the market value ofthe land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsei, with reference to the decision in Bed!Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum tili 30.3.1965 had to be @ per annum with reference to the base price f16,750/- per bigha as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till 31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various dates wfTen the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with which i.am.concerned in.lhe pcesent.appe.als. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to ?56,88,759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsei had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle market value should, be assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16=5.2002 and 23.5.2002. • r.

13. The fourth argument advanced was, and for which 4:efe-re4^Ge was made by learoed-cojiflsel for the parties in the evidence led in LAC IMo,99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.NoT2"68/2008 filed by the land owners and LA.APP.NO.292./200B filed_J3y UnioD_citJndia, that fair market value should have been assessed on. yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was- the LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 25 of74 test-ffnoRy of Ram K-isfrafi t-Q' the effect that by selling aqrlcuitural 4)rcHjijjce-JKHrubis4aQds-4^e 4j-sed to earn X\ lakh per bigha per annum i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000 I.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said dat€ should i3e^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 LA.APP.Mo.258/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.Mo.292/2008.

14. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for each of the notification in question the fair market value ought to have been determined with reference to the notification which was closest in ooint of time where under minimum land value was fixed by the Government and the notification dated 24.1.2008 where under ?53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18,12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument,

15. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sate deed dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra IMo.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for f[5],3§,6#0jf-, determined the fair market value as per tlie-said sale deed ln~the following words: (Refer oara 17 of the decision _dateiiJJ^20W-ia-LAC-M&MM/2009); "!f we add stamp duty inthe sale price 13.69.906/- per bigha (k[5].39.690/-' -f 7'0J60 = 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes to tl[7],74/109/per acre or 13,68,906/- per'bigha. Further if we give 12% LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters' Page 2S of74 2011:DHC:13279: = "2^ increase on said amount for intervening period between the" date when the safe deed exeajted-^^nd the date of ratification u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003} i.e. 8 months it comes to^l[9],16,037/- (round offX19,16,040/-)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e. Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land was put ln_C^^ory 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra i^.200 and that page No.56-57 of"the award would evidence thaTHandcp Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in Category 'C. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification 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 tl.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was fl[4] lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another tl.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value determined whereof was f 12.[3] lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the same had to be for Category 'C lands and, for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price had to be increased by ^1.[7] iakhs per acre for each category. 16.. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced by Sh.Saniay Poddar, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above and hence I need not repeat the same. 2011:DHC:13279. • ^

17. In various sub-paras of para fa li^inabove. I have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Gollectof^- —and-tbe4eamed-RefeFeB€e-€etift pertaining to~the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus Icommence Pny Journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various subparas,of para 6 above.

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

19. Since \ am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 29 of74 "tacts, -¥*/1iich: WMId.he ^t^for Put in a taisular form the data would.be as under:- Village Date of Section 4 Notification LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons ADJ compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000 Cat.'A' n[3].82 Cat. 'B' n[2].26 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 Cat. Uniform. ?14.3728. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi Kalan 7.8.2000 a[3].82 Minimum price as of 1.4,2000 m.l2995. Price as in Ga/rafs case as of 15.11.1996 with Holannbi Kalan 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' fl[5].[7] Cat. 'B' ?14 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform.,n[6].43811. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 fl5J ?22.14239. Price as in Gairafs case, as of 15.11.1996 with (compounded) Bawana 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' n[3].82 Cat. 'B'a[2].62 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 No enhancement given. Khera Khurd •i 11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' n[3].82 Cat 'B'n[2].52. Minimum price as oii[4].20QD fl[4].40157. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a.. Narela 2.5.2001 Cat. 'A' n[5].[7] Cat. 'B' fl[4] fl[5].857. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page30 of 74 Ali Pur Ali Pur Holambi Khurd Rajapur Kalan Rajapur Kalan Sanoth Sanoth 22.8.2001 23.5.2002 22.8.2001 22.8.2001 27.1.2003 7.12.2001 2" Cat. 'A' ?15.[7] Cat'B'fM Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as ?15.[7] Ninimum price of 1.4.2001 as ?15.[7] as ?15.[7] Ntntmum price of 1.4.2001 as Cat. 'A' ?1$.[7] Cat. 'B' ?14 Cat. 'C ?12.[3] n[5].[7] ^4inimum price of 1.4.2001 Cat. ?15.[7] •Cat.".S/n[4]. • Cat. 'C n23 as as LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters ?16.43811. Ninimum price as of 1.4.2001 with ?17.8524 Minimum price as w i:4:2''00i with 12% increase p.s. ?16.43811 Mininium price as of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a= fl[6].43811

1. n[9].13765 for Uniform category. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 witii in some cases.

2. ?19.1604 for Uniform category based on' sale deed dated 25.5.2002 with n[6].99042.. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 With fi[9].13765 UnsTcrrn 12% increase p.a..for ite§ery. Page31 of 74. ShahpuF 16.5.2^1 r€atvW-?15.[7] ji M-i——a- • » Mimmtim—pnce-as' of 1 4 2001 Minimum price as WI-. W { L M compound interest @11.5%p.a. ShaJipur Garhi 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' ?15v[7] fi?.79^78i. minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.p.

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

21. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW- 1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001.. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to f26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ?63.478 iakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultuFal lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-5 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC IMo.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious "purpose and was BeTng used for a religious purposer The sale deed Ex.PVV-1/2 has likewise been heid not to be reliable evidence- to determine fair market value of agricultural lands.on the.reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/2008 &, connected nialiers "i: UP of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated ha^-to-aav-^-wee-for the 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 Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 l^ohd. RaUfuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if i do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated: 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ?17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes "to f63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and t28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App,No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 33 of7^: themselves are having intrinsic evidejice_of the fanciful price Va\ Ttfus7~~apsrt from—the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 71 ahnvp wnulri hf:* ariditinnal reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair 4P.ai:fc@t-vai4ie-4>f-sub^ecL^ ba determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is ofsuch large an area, It would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sal^ deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.Wo.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs l/s. ~UUr& Ors. It was hiqhilgnted tn^the sale dee^therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good.evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PVV-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but founcT that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3'^ the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008 &connectedmatters Page34of74 would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the.sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the safe deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of fl.37.000/per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price f[3],26,600/- per bigha and the average woyld which wa5~nBar""about"^e price of f[2],15.160/- per bigha, if 1/3'^'^ would be deducted from the sum of f[3],26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. f[2].15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had. required to be given. • I. would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually 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 value of the land, pertaining to village ^arela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case ^•""""lsupra)J^d~"^Tc¥s]i'oiild be suitably enhanced would be dealt wit-h hy mp at- fhga whpn 1determine the fair m.arket value' of lands for the villages in question.

25. The second argument, contours whereof are^ to' be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA,Anp.No.266/2008 &connected Riatter; Page 35of.74 iatest -pmrtQoncement of-the''''Siipr Cotirt' on the.Issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UOl. •

26. But before that 1 must highlight that the decisioh In Lai Chaad's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA broGhure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and the-acgument 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 Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands In village Rithala are situated within the 'V formed by ISIH-1 and NH-IO i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road.

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

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

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│       SL No-Plot size         Category            Rate (per square metre)                             │
│       3.    •• 25 sq m.        Economically weaker sections           Rs 100. .                       │
│                                (EWSV                                                                  │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│       2.       32 sq m         Low income group (LIG)                 Rs 125                          │
│       1        &H        m    Li.ow incnme qroupJjJG)                 Rs 1SCL„                        │
│       ~4'7' ' 60,s,q-m         Middle income group (M!G)              Rs 200                          │
│        5.     90 sq m          Middle income group (MIG) •            Rs-2Q0 •                        │
│  LA;App.No.266/2008 &connected matters             -     ,        " Page 36 of 74'                    │
│                                                                 2011:DHC:13279                        │
│       The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre                                             │
│       hp Sir                                                                                          │
│       be  taken as indicative of                                                                      │
│                               of the-sairf                                                            │
│                                  the rulingpywsionai  rates, should                                   │
│                                             market price.                                             │
│       3.?;^ allotment rates                                                                           │
│       such               consideration,    we are of                                                  │
│                                of plots adopted   by the  view that                                   │
│                                                       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                                                │
│                                                      "^^eveloped                                      │
│      agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the    allotment                                     │
│      rates of developn^ent 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 ^onornic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to                                       │
│      ascertain the real market value, whereas market value                                            │
│      determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not                                           │
│      depend upon the economic status of the land loser                                                │
│                         concerned with market value of freehold                                       │
│      iandr whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure                                          │
│      refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots                                       │
│      on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three                                              │
│      factors.                                                                                         │
│      First factor                                                                                     │
│     -13. The percentage of "deduction for development" to                                             │
│      be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of                                         │
│      undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for                                                │
│      development), with reference to the sale price of small                                          │
│      developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price                                          │
│      of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon                                           │
│      the nature of development of the layout in which the                                             │
│      exemplar plots are situated.                                                                     │
│      14.    The "deduction for development" consists of two                                           │
│      components. The first Js with reference to the area                                              │
│     required to be utilised for developmental works and the                                           │
│     secoad is the cost of the development works. For                                                  │
│     example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or                                              │
│     similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of                                         │
│     the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks,                                            │
│     playgrounds and civic amenities (community -facilities),                                          │
│     etc.                                            ' ,   •                                           │
│     15. • The developfnent authority will also .incur                                                 │
│     considerable    expenditure     for   development     of                                          │
│     undeveloped land rnto a developed layout,,which includes                                          │
│     the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads,                                          │
│ LA.App.No.266/200S &connected matters                     Page 37 of74                                │
│                                                                                      2011:DHC:13279   │
│      underground drainage and sewage faci 1ities,Taviriq water                                        │
│      lines, electricity lines and developing parks and cML                                            │
│                  I   - - •              W   ^   X \J   I   WB i   V W4 I U   W   t    i w             │
│      developed plot The two factors taken together would be                                           │
│      the "deduction for development" and can account for as                                           │
│      much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.                                                   │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

30. It is no doubt true, as held everh-^-the—[earned- 4- Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana industrial Area, -Rohlni Residential Scheme and Narela • Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired- a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.

31. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Laf Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. 3Z. The third submission in the alternative was_ based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram's -ease (supra)/and Ihe suljrnission is as noted in para 12- herein above. The land owners require the price determined in Dharambif's case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 connected matters Page 42of 74 -31Ll£lJSfi3ja-sum_om-6^750A--per^ Namurpur to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum, then by iO% per annum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby 4et-ermme the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question.

33. It be highlighted that in Bedi 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 firstly enhancing the price per annum by 5% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for •the remaining 3 years.

34. However, in Lai Chancfs case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-^10- 1961 is relevant?

47. The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was'awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value 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 ONGC Ltd. V. Rameshbhai Jivanbha! Patella this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) _'!iA_Norrnally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing -appropriate escalation over-thB~prowd~market value of nearby lands in previous years (as where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters Page 43 of74 _safe tfarisaetjons/acquisitions precede the stffeject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to fOTn to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ifit relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of oniy a few years, may become unsafe and unreiiabie standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land aeqttirad-trrt&§2ra^dopmg th^e am increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970, or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may Itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." (emphasis supplied)

48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of 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 discJose 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 will not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition."

35. ft is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi /?a^s-Gasfi-4-sofira) runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court m Lai Chands, case (sti^FaV which decision foHe^-aft—earlier decision of the Su^eme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. 1/5. Rameshbhai iivanbhai Patpl. LA.App.No.266/2008 &.connected matters Page 44 of74

36. hTirheinstantxase-ltiere is anoffler good reason not to follow the law laid down in Bed! Ram'^ case (supra) for the reason 1find that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Dpw &Ann Vs. UP! &Ors,, pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price deternnined in DharamMs case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ ?2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ flOOO/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would have come to approximately t50,000fper bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at ?33,0-00/-per laigha.

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinah vs. UP! & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one village with which 1am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of 15.11.1§§6 was determined @ n,99,904.68 bigha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which price for agricultural land being the minimum, price determined by the Government was flO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 45.oi: 74 determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. ———If—j—were—to—take—th€—pnce—as—of—i[5].ii.i§§^6 @ ?9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason,- as assured by me herein above, 1 would be hoiisticaliy 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 fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedl, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning fl jakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce.

40. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no'proof in support of his oral testimony.

41. The reasoning of the Cpurt that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on 4,10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family v^ere not being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the week of September, rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page46 of74 y" sown around the first week or the second week of November...each; year,.

42. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he was working as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi til! 313.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a pension. If thefamily, as claimed by him. was eaTning n lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annual be fl[9] lakhs and one find^ it strange that not ~a penny w^as tiwested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or othenA'ise. 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 biils paid if the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the.fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has. been rightly •rejected. 43". -. |f there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or -feh^re—is—Bt-henvi-se—feliable evtdenc-er-as—was—found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 {1) SC 444 Stats of Guiarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors.. pertaining to the yield from agricultural land, only then it would be safe to determine fair market value by applying the principle of l.A..App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page47 of 74 capitiaiizing" being 10 trmes the annoat^reltl and not 20 times 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 b^_aj^_opted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008.

45. In para 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of 1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would be no need to factor In the minimum price notified under the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years away from the last year with which I am concerned;.c. the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would be cl^sest-to-the-^int the mean average has to be determined. i am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in 5^^ -p^fa~3:5-fweTTral30V'e,~aTrd"'ror which t tilghilght that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 determined the fair market value In some References with respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 48 of74 2011:DHC:13279. • 4p has determined that based thereon the price as of said date -wofks out to ^17J47l09^-pef B€fe-Bft€hifrcreasmttthesar^ S months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price would be n[9],16,037/- per acre rounded off to ^9,16,040/- per • acre. •

47. With reference to the Award IMo.l0/DC(IMW)/2004-05 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring • 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C land. The sale deed in question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflect fair market value of Category 'C land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collectom.[7] lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum of ?1.[7] Category 'C land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' j^nd were less vis-^-yis Category 'C' land. In other words, with reference to Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C land would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-^-vis Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land would be required to be increased suitably.

48. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the reasoning adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and theJearned Reference Court, I pose the question: What should be the fair market value of the subject glands as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, i e- the dates on which the notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

49. }have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.Mo.866/2005 decided on LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 49 of74, 11.5.2005, Mahender Sinah vSr-IJQi-Sr-Grs. wherein pettaming to -village-^^wamT-^atf-iTiafke^vattTe^Q'eterniined as of 15.11.1996 ]s^l.99.9Q[4].68 per biqha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre. The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality. an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i.e. the lands with which the Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural De4hi were identified for providing major health facrHtfesr schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was vHlage Bawana. It was noted that G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and that the Master Plan for Delhi notified in the year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed in the future to industrial and commercial, but had also -utfserved that notwittetsiTd^mgTiTis; for the reason no zonal plan" was netted as contemplated by Section llA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use. same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being known to all as being required In the future for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capable of being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so expressly stating, would be a propo^lcTriThat there is difference between the undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page SO of 74 potentiality in present! vis-a-vis a land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair 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 notification being closest in point of time I.e. the notification dated 25,7,19„91_where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was f 10 lakhs per acre. Interestingly, the same Division B6nch had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gairai Sinah vs. UP! & Ann where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Hoiambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was f[9],76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ?9,51,121/per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands In village• Bawana.' It needs to be highlighted' that, while, determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Hoiambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development work carried out in the, surrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola determined fair market vaiu^ as of 19.3.1993 @ fl,30,523/- per bigha i.e. f[6],26,510.40 per acre. The decision is ^ reported-as 2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. UO!and the same DMsion-BenGh, as per the decision-Feported-as 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vs. UOl pertaining to a notification dated 14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ f[1],40,230/-per bigha i.e. ?6,73,104/-per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 51 of74 rr "Tfie amresaI5~7^dgments-^-QQted- In the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifieations issued from time to time by the Government of MCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands In Delhi as tabulated by imp in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant tl determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was t[4].65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.20D[1]. It shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ga/rafs case (supra), which 1 have discussed in para 49 above.

51. I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gairafs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was f95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at f[9].[5] lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the —stHTmiftfHftg-afeas tficludmgpot^ii^fcfaiTt^^ para 19 onwards the Court_discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and ~ t5'ased~on sa^^^ Instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 52 of74 mstances and yivniy wcucritx—oi-nnfraTjsxrrmtzstiwrtiie-taTKfiJrtce^ would come to fl0,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the-prices-notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of f[9],76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?9,51.121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the iiotentiality had beeo-ivall-factored in when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with' respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price' notified as of 1.4.1997 atflO lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was f10,03,364/- per acre. 52.. The decision in Mahender Sinah'z case, pertaining to villageBawaoa, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court. which was projecting residential, commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Naster Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that til! the.year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had. taken place in village Bawana-and Holambi Kalan'and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what "would be expected •'-to 'be the'market growth and what the market actually grows. ""Th^B^ifedslms Ill' 'Gairafs case and' "Mwhericter Sinaiis case •highlight that potentiafitv translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum.and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the- LA.App.No,266/2008 & connectedmatters ' Page 53'of 74 requisite momentum and the acceleration feif to betv^/een 10% •ilTEIfflvto be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

53. The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the-leamed Reference Court has held that as per the-said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale- le: 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands VA/ould be f19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 blswa of land which was sold for f[5],39,590/- and f70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that f[6],09,850/- {?5,39,690/- + f70,160/-} were spent would yield the price.f17,74,109/- peracre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

54. ' Thus, the best which could be said as the most favourable sltoation for the land owners-would be that with -reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.20:02 for Category 'C lands the price Le. fair market value of lands in the area would be fl[7],74,109/- per acre. For Category/ 'B' and Category 'A' land and here we find another area of dispute for the reason, as noted bf me hereinabove m sub-para {a) of para 18, the learned Land- Actfursition -Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App,No.266/20.08 &connected matters Page S[4] of74 w\ ' ":. • bV sometimes fl.[2] iakhs per acre, sometimes fl,56 lakhs per acre and sometimes fl.[7] iakbs_per aa® from^^ths-pwce-^^Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C as we^r t4ie price has been deducted further by ?1.[7] lakhs per acre.

55. Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the laT5^s-aPrd-l-fTOte-tJ^at categoftz^ton Is feased-oftiy on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths Feqtmw^-the^ame to be leveled and this would require money to be spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that fl.[2] lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that fl.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that fl.[7] lakhs per acre would be spent? There is just no clue.

56. In Gairai Singh's case (supra), the price differential worked out was ?25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gairai Singh's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. In Gairai Singh's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was f[9],76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was ?9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

57. I thus hold that Gairai Singh's case should be my guiding star for pricfe differential in the instant cases as well and thus I hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C have to be differentiated on price, the differential should be 2.5%.

58. Thus, if ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7].75 lakhs per acre woumj^the price^tor a Categ^ 'C^teTTd-trrvlflage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page55 of 74 admittedly pertains to a Catpgnry 'C ianri, th.e price for Category 'B' land would be ?18.20 lakhs per acre and—for- Xategory 'A' laTTdnroT!td"b^r8T&5'5 lakhs per acre.

59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was ?13.82 lakhs -aBd-a5-©f-^r^-20Oi-the-same-was-fl§r[7] lakhs-per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum, if I treat Category 'A' land price at f18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately ?16.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at fl[5].[7] lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is f70.000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held good evidence t6~woTk oijT"a~lan~d price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 56of 74 1.^ —potmcations-^dated 7.8.2000, li^SL^^OOOr-^T^T^OOiT- 22.8.2OO[1] and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be.a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account while determining the market value of♦ land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000/ 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001. ^

60. The argument that village Narela had always been treated locationaliy advantageous for the reason the township of Marela was in existence since long and this was recognized when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, vis-a vis the adjoining villages f[2] per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambifs case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational advantage was keeping in view the realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which included areas in North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with which I am concernea^today, the price differential faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.

61. I thus hold that pertaining to the notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001 the land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with • ' reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 for the reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates could be determined. Pertaining'lo^he notifications "dated 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 57 of74 2011:DHC:13279._. Ijeicaus^ witli ref^ence t©-#}€-s-atd s@le pnceit4s-sppsFefst#}atland price as of said date comes to more than if determined with respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was ?15.[7] lakhs per acre with effect from 1.4.2001.

62. With respect to the price differentia! for Category 'A' and Category 'B' lands, noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalan {pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001) I hold that vis-^-vis the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine the price for Category'B'land. ?

63. Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantially in the other, a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value at f22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, HDtrt hieed to~higtrrrght that pertaiTTmgTo the same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court has detertnmed- the fair market value at ^17,85,240/- per acre and i find that pertaining to village - RajapOT-Kalan and Sanoth, pertaiiTmg~tD~tlie notification dated 27.^2003 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is fl[9],16,040/- in some cases and fl[9],13,760/- in a few, nTewTm^tieTetJy that much lesser compensatiorT has be^n'"' worked out in the year 2003 vis-a-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Kafan pertaining to the^ notification dated 23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Gajrafs case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. 7 Viflaqe Pooth Khurd Motificatioo dated 7.8.?onn

64. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is fl[3].82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification I.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to,?17,74,l09/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ?18,55,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands In village Pooth Khurd comes to ?14.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing the; same by 2.5%, it comes,to. fl[4],38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. KSoting that the learned Reference Court has, withouf any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ^14,31,280/- per acre, th.e price ^differential worked out by me xomes±o-ajiiea^i:^l,000/- per ac-r^-aM^hys-qya.. Category'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference •• Court.

65. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India • and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA,App.No.266/200§ &connected matters Page 59 of74 appeals ffled by fand owners Tn

66. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in apjjeais filed by Unkm of India are allowed by decreeing compensatfon payable for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of fiXvs lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the connpensation awarded at n[4],37,280/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed...i

57. PeftaTriing-to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI2001 (93) DLT 559 shail be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shail be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. -Viliaoe Holambi Kalan ^otifigation dated 7.8.2000

68. For the reasoning given in paras 54 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GR!D-B' hereinabove and. cross objections stand disposed of enhancing' the compensation to ?14.75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that as per the award and even as per the reference all subject lands were of uniform cMe^oiv._Meediess-.to-State appeals fifed byThe Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections fifed by land owners are allowed.by •• -__enhancmg the-compensatfon to ?14.75 Fakfis per.acre together •with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as ' LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters,. Page 60 of74 — te expfained in the judgment reported as Sunder \/s. um 7nm (93) DLT 569, except for the.period where thefe-fs-a-delay fn filing ^the- appeal 0f cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2QQQ Pertaining to viliage Bawana^relating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court _Ms. aot enhs_nced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category~V\'l^n"dsIslixed at f14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands at ^ per acre and noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C hereinabove are allowed by fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and needless to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be efititled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled'to proportionate cost. Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000

70. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein v/ith effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is fl[3].82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 11.9.2000 and with reference to.the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ^?17J[4],Iua/-,.._..ro.unded....o.ff ta-XlJJ[5],000/r..per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/20b[8] &connected matters Page 61 of74 to fl[8].[2] iakhs per acre and further Incpeasmg-by p^rices comes to f18,55,500/- per acre for Category 'A' iands;-and' decreasing the said prices by Tl% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to fl[4],83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by -2T5%7ir:e0mes^e-f4-474€74-l-3/--per-aeFe-for-Category 'B' lands.

71. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum of fl[4],83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and fl[4],46,413/per acre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertaining to this notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI2Q01 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, i for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Villaae Narela Notification dated 2.5.20Q[1]

72. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.[7] lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 ^7,74,109/-, rounded off to f17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 62 of74 ^18.[2] lakhs per acre and further mcreasing by 2.5% the prices -€Gm^s-fe^-fl8^50W--#eF-aefe-^ decreasing the said prices by lio/^ to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average, price for Category 'A' lands In village Marela comes to fl[6],16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it „cmnes_tQ-515a6^.- per acre fof-GategoFy- lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is fl[5],85,570/- per acre and since for Category 'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by f[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 —Pngg-Stands enhanced t-n /^nn/- por prr^

73. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-E' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals fifed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A- lands In village Narela pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 in sum of ?16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order for Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land ov»/ners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced coTTiireTisation statutory-ljenefiK as per the Land Acquisition Act as explam^Hh the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shsil be grantfidr PXTPpt fnr thp-ppTinri where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA;App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 63 o'f74 interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These -dppg-ilBfi-trS- w^c^i^be entiWiBd^t'O-pfc^poftfongte'Xust. ' —' r-"""""-"••

74. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 rfynr-Mr^&Ol rnininriuni price notified per acre is fl[5].70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date.^f the notification Le. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to fl[7].74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ?r[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reffeet—the price with reference to the safe deed for the date 22:8.2001; the mean ^rage price for Category 'A' lands in -viliage Holambi Kalan • comes to fl[6],74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to f16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ?15,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked • out by me comes to a meager ?9,G00/- per acre., and thus qua Category 'B' lands rmaintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

75. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the -a-p^^ea4s filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has bem —prepBTSd and iat3eled as 'GRID-P &;griD-G' hereinabove are dismissed.

76. ^ Ail Land Acquisition Appeals filed by th^Jand owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners In appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters • Page 64 of74 Union of India are allowed by decreeing conapensatlon payabl^^ for Category 'A' lands in vtifage ffofarnbt KaIan perts^lTTiTTg to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of?16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at ?16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

77. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. UQl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period ofdelay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village All Pur Notlfscation dated 22.8.2Q01

78. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i,e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the saie deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to n[7],75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices - — comes to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category.A4i-lands in village Ali Pur comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ^15,32,537.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008 & connccted matters Page-65 of 74 J itielearned R^fence Coujl away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is -?ie74378tt/n3'e7-a-cre, the price dPfferential worked out by me comes to a meager f[9],000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. _za—-^lU.a«d^<^€quisitiBfl~Appeals filed-by t in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID- H; hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision ofthe Reference Court.

80. There shall be no order as to costs. Vjllaae Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2QQ[1]

81. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is fl[5].70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.: ^7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7],75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices. comes to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean avei:ag-e-4mce.-foii--Cat-egory 'A' isB4s4f$^-¥Hja§e-H0tembH<htird—comes to ne,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl[5],32,637.50 _per.acrelor Category 'B' lands. iWrn^tnaT the T^ned Reference Court has, without any reasoas_^ uniform price awarded is fl[6],43,811/- per acre, the price differentia! worked out by me comes to a meager f[9],000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 66 of74 ••.i;.. Category 'R' lands \ p^iaintam by-the learned Reference Court.

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

83. There shall be no order as to costs. Viilaae Ratapur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001

84. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring sajd price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to n[7].74,109/-, rounded off to n?,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the sanae by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing 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 date 22.8.2001; the mean average price®for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to fl[6],74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' la'nds and uniform price awarded is f16.43,811/- per acre, the price differeintial worked out by me comes to a meager ?9,0Q0i-per-acra-aod thus qua Category 'B' lands 1 maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

85. Ail Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008 &connectedmatters.. Page 67 of74 appeai^^ed byiand ownersirrTespect whereef-fffd-has^^eeivprepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereinabove are dismissed..

86. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by.decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur 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 ?16,43,8117- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

87. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001

88. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saic^ price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to fl[7].74.1Q9/-.. rounded off to fl[7].75J100/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes-to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with LAApp.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 68 of74 reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to fl[7],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 lands in village Sanoth for the nQtj.fi.cation_dated 7.12.2001 the iand-ojiAq^eFS-JAtoul4^ entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of fl[7],29,500/-. «

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

90. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners In appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of ?17,29,500/- and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shail be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall ^ be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2Q02

91. Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by.me hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category ''A' lands has been determined by me at fl[8],65,500/- per acre and since^iere is just a.d8ffefen-£e-0f-4 days between the date of sale and the nQtificatio: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 & connectedmatters 2011:DHC:13279:^=p^^ef^aii<rrfitffTI1gM'tliatas pertfTe^wirtf^^TOfiWfef^ aij lands are in the same categol^Appeals andTross objections filed by tbe land owners as per the 'GR!D-L' are allowed and needless to state on, the enhanced connpensation the land owners would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpr^ed in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross objections fifed by Union of India are dismissed. Viiiacge Slialiour Gariii f^Qtifigation dated 23.5.20Q[2]

92. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days I hold that pertaining to this notification/since land is of same category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of ?I[8],55,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision.reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-!^' stand allowed as aforesaid and all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are.. dismissed.

93. As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters. Page 70 of74 n • nS Collector and the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awarded. CDiripeiisatkiD in sum oi ^ ?22,14,239/- per acre which ! have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have heiti that fair market value would be ?18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to fl[8],55,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. Viilaoe Aii Pur i^otlfication dated 23.5.2002

94. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at fl[8],55,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India as per 'GRID-0' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to ^8,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 559 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or crosS objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period ofdelay. Proportionate costs as well. Village Sanoth Motification dated 27/1.2003 95., Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by theland owners and Union of India as per 'GRID-P' pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sanoth, 1 note LA.App.No.266/2008 &connectedmatters Page 71 of7^ that the learned Land Acquisition Coliector has p{a€€^h€4afi4s in 3 categones-and-timd-itr^ the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compefisation. -

96. On the mean average basis which I have been following -t>y_4TO:easiRg-J:he-pite~^ reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the -saiTre-iwth-"fefeferrce-to the sale deext dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to fl§,43.500/- per acre and for Category 'i' land the price comes to ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to fl[8],47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at n[9],13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of ?19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 559 shall be paid save and except in such appeals and cross objections where 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 Category 'C lands are allowed by m©dlfyffvg---the--relata^!e -deefee—m the R^erence Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 72 of74 V / ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C iand to f18,47,539.68 per acre. Vilfaqe Ralapur KaSan Notification dated 27.1.2QQ[3]

97. For parity of reasoning as per para 96 above pertaining to village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where Ifind that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of ?19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at ?19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform; category. On the mean average basis which [ have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands th€ pft€e-€om€S^-to-f[3]:9743,500/- per acre-and-for Category 'B' land the price comes to ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ri[8],47,539.68 per acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'I' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross ! objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of fl[9],43,500/- per acre and needless" to state-arrthe enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOf 2001 -(93i-BLT--5§9-sha^l -be-p^td—save—and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters. Page 73of74 t jwould not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate cosS as weli. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by -Fedw€ifJ§——e©mpei=isatt©iT—for—Category 'B' land to ?18,94,912,50 per acre and for Category 'C land to fl[8],47,539.68 per acre.

(PEADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.App.No.266/2008 ^ connected matters