Jai Singh v. Union of India & Anr

1. ?19.13765 for Uniform category. in some cases.

2. a[9].1604 for Uniform categorybased on' sale deed dated 25.5.2002 with n[6].99042. fl[9].13765..for Unifcrm categery. Page31 of 74 ShalipuF 16.5.2CK)1- -....... Mimrritirn-pncH-^asr -otl 4 2001 Minimum price as -Bf 1 —with" x • k a ^ W W -lU I '. ^ m w* W ^ y w 1 b I 1 compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. SJmh^jur Garhi 233.2002 Cat.'A'n[5].[7] f17.79781. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.^a.

20. 1 now propose to deal with the 5 submissions urged by learned couhse! for the land owners and the 2 submissions urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the iand owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of india).

21. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3-which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW- 1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market vaiue for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter (§> ?63.478 lakhs 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 Sura] Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC Mo.58/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious "purpose and was Being" used for a religious purpose'. The sale deed Ex.PvV-1/2 has likewise been held not to be reisabSe evidence to determine fair market value of agrlcuituraS. lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Mon Government •Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/200§ & connected matters of PW-7 Sfster Annie, the secretary of the organization stkted ha44e--^av-^the^-0ffee-ff>r t-hp qairi 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 LandAcquisition Officer Buru &Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini &Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be 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 leaser price i.e. ?17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes to ?53.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex,PW-l/3, LA.App,No.266/2008 &connected matters. Page 33 of7^.. ^ ^ themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price

23. Thus/ apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Couit, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefronn fair 4aaa^k@t-valueIol-subiecLlaads_carL-be.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 of such 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.lSlo.193/2005 Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs l/s. UPfSi Ofs. It was highlighted tnM~the sale deed 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.PV^-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, bur fouM that if the price therein was reduced by l/S'^ 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 ?1,37,000/per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the. price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average woyid was" near about the price of f[2],15,160/- per bigha, if would be deducted from the sum * of f[3],26,500/-, 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. would highlight once again, that 1 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 mutua% destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value.

24. • Thus, tlie 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- ^ view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land"p?Tc¥shGu be suitably enhaWc'ed'^uld be dealt wii-h hy mp at thp pnri whpn 1determine the fair market value of lands for the villages in question.

25. The second argument,, contours whereof are-- to' be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA.App.No,266/200S &corm^^cted Tnatters Page 35 of74 IfV Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UOI.

26. But before that I must highlight that the decision in Lai Chand'sjcase (supra) predicated a claim on a OOA brochure whereunder, on iease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for residential 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 Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnai Road and Rohtak Rpad. 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 relevarst to iodiistrial layouts, in" paras 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the DDA brochisra.Js relevant 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 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 allotnrient of plots on leasehold basis: SL No^Plot size Category Rate (per square metre)

1. 26 sq m Economically weaker sections Rs 100 ims)

2. 32 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125 1 d.R sq m Low inrnme group (UG) Rs 15.0— ~47~ 60,sq m Middle income group {M\G) Rs 200 5, 90 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200 LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters • Page 36 of74 150 per square metrp hA f-au the-sHTCi pTwI^ionai rates, should be taken as mdicatjve of tl^e ruling market price. Inch consideration, we are of the view that such aHotnaent rates of plots adopted by develoDment authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for awaS of compensation -for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several- reasons. Firstly, market value has to be deternnmed with reference to large tracts of undeveloped rai-p^^nrn ^ whereas the allotment cmffi °L authorities are with reference to small pots ma developed layout falling within urban area. f ^ statutory authorities adopt different rates ror plots mthesame area with reference to the ^ononiic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value aeterniination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. concerned with market value of freehold mm, 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 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 -faciiities), etc. • ••

15. The deveiopment 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.266/200B &connected matters Page 37of74 Lsncferground drainage and sewage facilities, Taylhq water lines, electricity lines and developing parks and rjvii developed plot The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% ofthe cost ofthe developed plot.

16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of "•dedticti&n-^for-devete^ent'—may be far less. This is lui 13 because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even ifany land is set apart, it is likeiy to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on 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 DOA plots, '

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

18. ^ The position with reference to industrial layouts wii! be different. As the industrial plots will be large {say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the si2e of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 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 development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.

19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. [Note. The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contran/.) •20. Therefore the-dedyctioo. for the "development factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction LA.App.No,266/2008 &connected matters Page 38of74 ^5 with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is als€-'#elf -knovm that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers/having regaf4-t& higher overheads and expenditure.

21. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residentiai- --Gym-€©mmeFc4a{-0f4R^ustr[4] an4^vefvamong residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community -fseilittes, parks and playgrounds provided.

22. Sonie of. the layouts formed by t^^^^ statutory develepmsnt authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%. Second fBctor•

23. DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon the economic status of the allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots naay be earmarked for persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be Rs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons beldngihg to high income groups. '

24. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. 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 authority, but upon the ^paying capacity of "the a^i^lits formallotment. • Third factor LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 39 of74 2011:DHC:15251.. 7S Some development authorities aMot Plot| freehold basis, thatjs, lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent. annual^'rertarvalufS ^ n^flthods'for long, the rent premium rate (anotm^t"pricl)charged by DDA, as being equal to the market value of the proper^. referred to

27. However, in view °f ^ rL upon the above, it is not. safe or^_ regard to the plots formed allotment rates/auction determining the market by DDA in a developed layout, ndeterminn y vLe of the adjoining undev^ DDA brochure price has thereiore w uc, not relevant." 2.^ Theevidence on the subject has been discussed by ihe learned Reference Courtand 1reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference No.ll7A/2009. The argument advance before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was:rcrdbefore me, has been noted by- l.r.~ courtwith referencetothe evidence relied upon. 1-r^^^^..W. counsel that DDA &DSIDC allotted pote m rate. Area and Narela.gy-er dated 04.01.2000 He has relied Pkt 03, Sector A-5, issued by DDA of chander at the Nareia which f which he has proved as..pre-determmed 25 05.2003 of ploi Ix. mm. Aliotment letter dated 70 Sq. no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-OS 3 metres in ''~^=,[7] hoth this and allotmen S'ifofg'of'ilstrial piot allotted by DS.DC i.e. ^ Page 40of74 • plot no^270, measuring 350 sq. yards at iMarela _ Sndustriai Complex at the rate oft650 so. metrpg whirh is Ex. PW3/1 and another allotment letter dated 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at f3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW[9] Kanwa! Singh & document Ex. PWll/1, which 1s detail of land acquired, St is apparent ^that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost -o^-d€V€iopmeR^er bigha wmild-be-d-7§44dOOOO = T248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling al-ternate plot in IMarela Residential Scheme @ ?3208 would be ?2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 - 759422 = 1771985[6] per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. ?1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only f[3],27,083/- per "fetgtraT""-^— ^ ^ ^ Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R.D, Sharma, Asstt. Manager.

DSIDC who has produced documents Ex. PW7/A (Coliy). Ld. Counsel has argued that totai expenditure incurred on development of fSlarela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is ^2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under; Total area under plots 112.47 hec I.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot ?3000/- per sq. yards Total earning == ?4083750000 Total expenditure — ^720525901 Totalprofit = ^3363223099 •?2470' per-sqrTS^" "Ot'"?247"0000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of..?2M2ai.7..per bigha ^. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ ?327083 per LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page41 of 7'* % bigha for the land in question if 2Q0% appreciation of the comes to ^§§4166. if the amount is deducted from galp • _ Mce._per bigha i.e. ?24700000, the figure comes to f1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference tp the Bawana Industrial Estate 4@v€lop€4 by DSiDC and f^arela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we,do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in Lai Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

30. It is no doubt true, as held even—fey^-the—learned- Reference Court, that with the developiment of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Marela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to v/hich the building potentiality would translate itself.

31. 1hold 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. 52." The third submission in the alternative was based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Sedl Ram's -case-tsupsd), disu the bubmission is db noted m para 12 hsrejn above. The land owners require the price determined in Dharambifs case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 42 of74 2011:DHC:15251... u; Mamurpur to be treated as the basis and progressively Increased, firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% perannum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby ^etermirte the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question.

33. It be highlighted that in case (supra), with reference to the base date as: of the year 1959, for the year 1975 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 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for ^ the remaining 3years.

34. However, in La! Chands. 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 ONCC Ltd. V. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai PatellQ. this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) "15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing — -appropriate escalation overthe~pn5wd~rnarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as e¥td€ft€€d-by-s-ale transaetmns or seqttlstttons), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 43of74 - where - — ~ sate tFaRsaetbns/aequfsitiofis precede the subject acquisition by oniy a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neigtibouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining^ the market value of a land "th^ ahnoBl 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 'i"ate' 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 vaiue, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports discJose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came 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-€ase-4su^) runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case -|sti^fa)r which decision foHcjws-wr-earlier decision of the Su^eme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. '/5. Rameshbhai Hvanbhai Patel. LA.App.No.266/2008 &.connected matters k'l 36.- gooci reason not to follow the law laid down In Bedi Rsm'^ case (supra) for the reason Ifind that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) SaraswstiPmn &Ann Vs. UP! &Ors., pertaining to agriculturai lands in village Namurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambir'z case (supra) as of the year 1953, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Namurpur- Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ f2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ ?1000/- per bigha. if Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would have come to approximately ?50,000/per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at ?33,0Q0y-per bigha.

37. That apart, as wouid 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.Mo.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 whixh I am 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,99,904.58 bigha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant ¥/ou!d 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 ?I0 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.Nb.266/2008 &connected matters Page 45.of74 determined by the Division Bencii wouid equal the minimum price notified by the Government. ' —-^M-^^^^^efe-t-d-take-^he-prrce-as—@ ' ?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 1give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason,- as assured by me herein above, I would be holisticaliy 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.IMo.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APP.ISIo.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 Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on 4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not toeing put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it Is matter of common knowledge that by the 3'"^ week of September, rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grovwn, 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 Page46of 74 s) sown "afmitTd "the first week or the second week of s^dvember....ea.ch;year.

42. But the other reasoning ofthere being no evidence led in the form of docunnents Is relevant. [Mow, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he was working as an Administrative Officer in the Nunicipai Corporation of Delhi tlH 31.3.1996 I.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a pension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning ?i lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annuaHf^eome-wotfld be fI[9] lakhs and one fimis ft strange that not-a peony was Ifwested 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 other\A/ise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined. No proof of number of workers employed., diese! purchased to run the tubewell; if any, to Irrigate the fields or electricity biils paid if the pump was eiectricaily 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 Sands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of.the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has,been rightly • •rejected. / • • ' 4^. - -ff tlT€f€ is Fellabie evidence of an independerit expert or -there is other-wis-e—r-eliable evideneeT—as—was—found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as jT'1997 (1) SC 444 State of Guiarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors.. pertaining to'the.yield from agriculturai larsd, only then it would be safe to • determine fair market value by applying the principle of LA..App.No,266/2008 &, connected matters Page47 of 74 being 10 trmes the annoat-yteW and not 20 times as was sought to be projected. 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 principie be adopted with refe^^ 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. ! highlight that the notifications with which ! 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 vypuld be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years away from, the last year with which I am concerned i.e. 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 of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given valiies, requires the 2 end, points to be the' ones which would toe cio^sest^to-^he-^oint for the mean average has to be determined. 1 am left- to deal with the last submission, as noted in -para 15 hereirratnjve,"aimforwhidi t highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification date^i 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 has determined that based thereon the price as of said toe months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price would be ?19,16,037/. per acre rounded off to n[9],16,040/- per ^ acre.. ^

47. With reference to the Award No.l0/DC{l\}W)/2004-05 It is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1bigha 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, itwould reflect fair market value of Category 'C land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collector ?l.[7] lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category *B' and further sum of ?1.[7] JakbSJOeiL^rrP whulri ha «ll Category 'C land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were Jess vis-^-vis Category;G' 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-a-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 lands 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 ofthe Land Acquisition Act 1894.

49. i have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Di\|ision Bench of this Court in LA.APP.!Slo.866/2005 decided on LA.App.No.266/2008 8cconnected matters. 11.5.2006, Mahender Siiwh -wlfage-SawamT-fetf-fn^micet^sTattje^ cfetermi as of 15.11.1996 is n,99,904.68 per hiaha whicji_eq,u_als to ?9,59,542.46 peracf^ 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 factHtresy schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was village 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 -utjserved that notwitHsTsri^mgTlTis; for the reason no zonal plarT was notified 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 ail 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 buiit upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so expressly stating, would be a propo^tlon'Th^ there is a difference between the undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page SO of 74 ^ potentiality in present! vIs-^-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_.l_991_where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was ?10 lakhs per « acre. Interestingly, the same Division B^nch had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gairai Sinoh vs. UP! & Ann, where pertaining to agricultural lands in IP village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was ?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 Holambi 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. 1would 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 valu^ as of 19.3.1993 (@ n.30,523/- per bigha i.e. t[6],26.510.40 per acre. The decision is r-eporteclas 20a[4] (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. 6^0/and the as per the decision-T^orted^ lll (2004) DLI 95 Hukum Sinoh vs. UOl pertaining to a notification dated 14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ n,40,230/-per bigha i.e. f[6],73,104/-per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 51 of74 2011:DHC:15251: "Tfie -afgf:esaIg~7udgments-^-QQtedl in the preceding paragraphs as also the varioiis notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in. para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant t# 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 flO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i,e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as, of 1.4.2001. Jt 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 Gaira/s case (supra), which 1 have discussed in para 49 above.

51. \ 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 ?95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ?9.[5] lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the —stm=©tjndmg-si=eas irjcludmgprotentfaitty7^ 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining vlliage Bhorgarh where FC! Godowns had come up and — t5asecr~on sate instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.No.266/20p[8] &connected matters Page 52 of74 5-?would come to ?10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices.Botified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and f[9],51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the poteotiafity had b@^o-W€ll-faGt0red 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 fl0,03,364/- per acre. 52.. The decision in Mahender Sinah'z.case, pertaining to viliageBawam, 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 industriai future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality/ had noted that notwithstanding the Master Pian so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the.year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtualiy 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"e~~dec1slons in Gairafs case and" 'Watrender Smalis case -highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality betwe'en 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 &connected matters Page S[3] of74 requisite momentum and the acceleration fei! to between 10% to 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 i^n 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 teamed 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 agricultura! lands would be fl9j[6],040/= per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for f[5],39,690/- and f70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ?6,09,850/- (f[5],39,690/- + ?70.160/-) were spent-would yield the price,f17,74,109/- per-" acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

54. • Thus, the best which could be said as the most' favourable situation for the land owners-would be that with •reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.20,02 for Category 'C lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would be f17,74,109/- per acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land -th^-pfics woyld—h-svs i-o be s-yita-bly ^RTranced srsd here we find another area of dispute for the reason, as noted bf me hereinabove in sub-para (a)-of. para 18 the learned Land- Act|Ufsition -Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App,No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 54of 74 sometimes fl.[2] lai<hs peracre, sometimes fl.56 lakhs per^re and sometimes ?1.[7] iakhs--per acm fromMm-^iice-^f^Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C as wett the price has been deducted further by fl.[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 4aMs-aRd4-Rete#}at categofizatton is feas-ed-^nly on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths ~fBqtftnn§-thesame 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 ?1.[2] lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ?1.56 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 Sinah's case (supra), the price differential worked out was ?25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gairai SinoUs case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. In Gairai Sinah'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 Sinofi's case should be my guiding star for pric^ 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 differentia! should be 2.5%.

58. Thus, if ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7].75 lakhs per •aCTe wcRTi^^'th'B'prlce^wa'Xrategmy 'CTan^lrr^Ha'ge Rajapur Kafan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App;No.266/2008. &connected matters Page 55 of74 admittedly pertains to a Categjory:^^' land., the price for Category 'B' land would be ?18.20 lakhs per acre and—f Xm:egDTy^W-laTTd^oi3td"&eTlB:e5S 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 fl[3].82 lakhs -af}d-a5-^^-74r-200i-the-sarRe was f 15.7- fakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at ?18.655 iakhs 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 fl[6].40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at tlb.l lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is ?70,000/- 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 tcTv^fk ouT^lalTd 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 56 of74 !.8.20<)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 locationally advantageous for the reason the township of Narela 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 ?2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambii's 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 concernecftoday, 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 "to the 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 $7 of74 toecay r^^€fke to-the-satd ssie price land price as of said date comes to more than ifdetermined 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 differential 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 v/is-^-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 ?22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, iDtft hieed to~higtitight that pertaimng to tHe same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court has det^imiiTed- the fair market value at ?17,85,240/- per acre and ! find that pertaining to village Rajapor-Kalan and Sanoth, pertaiTfmg~to~the notification dated 27.^2^3 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is ?19,16,040/- in some cases and fl[9],13,760/- in a few, LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 58of74 m mesrmw^rsb? that rnUS, lesser corr^SSsatoTl^bee.^^"^ worked out in the year 2003 vis-^-vis the compensation worker out for Hoiambi. kalan pertaining to the^ notification dated 23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Ga/ra/s case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. 7 - Villaqe'Pooth Khurd i^otificatlQn dated

54. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13.82 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 safe deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Categoiy 'C lands, land price per acre comes to fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to fl7J[5],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 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; a.nd 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 ?14,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the iearned Reference Court-has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ^14,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me -comes-to- a-meager-fi,000/- per acT-e-arsd thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference -• Court.. • •

65. Ay Land,Acquisition Appeals fiied by the Union of India and cross objections wherever fiied by Union of India in the LA.A-pp.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page59 of 74 appeals fHed by land ownemjBjsspecUtmemotw^^^ Ail Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by iinion of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands In village Pooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of fuTlS lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at fl[4],37,280/- per acre is'maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. i

67. Pertalmhg -tb such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. IJO/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. Vtliaae HolambI Kaian Motification dated 7.8.2QQQ-

68. For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 heretnabove pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village HolambI Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and, cross objections stand 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 unlforro cMmQf-^--Me-edless..fco-.state appeals filed "by^he Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections fifed by land owners are allowed, by •• —enhancing the-compensatlon to fl[4].75 Fakhs per acre together •with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 60 of74 explained in tlie judgment reported as Sunder \/s. uni. DLT 569, except for tjie--perio[4] where fel^€i^-4s-a-4efay mfiling appea! or cross objection, for wfiich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. ViiSaae Bawana Motification dated 7.R.7nnfi.._j69^ Pertaining to village Baw.ana___relating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category"^' lands is fixed at f14.75 lakhs per Category 'B' lands at fl[4],3^ 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 erstitied to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. i^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. Viliaqe Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.20QQ

70. VVith reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect fi-om 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13.82 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.-.fl7J[4],IQS/-,..._.x£!,unded.-..off tO-X17,75,000/-.per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 &connectedmatters Page61 of 74 to fl[8].[2] iakhs per acre and further ir^creasing-by 2.-prices comes to ?18,55,500/- per acre for Category 'A' iandsT^^gnd decreasing the said prices By Xl% 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 f14,83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by -2T5%7it:e©mes-"t6^-474674^3/- pef~a€fe-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 ?14,83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?14,46,413/per acre for Category 'B' lands. ! 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. £/0/2QQl (93) DLT 559 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay m 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. Vlilaae Narala Notification dated 2.5.2001

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 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 LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 62 of74 2011:DHC:15251, •. to fie.[2] lakhs per acre and further mcreasing by 2.5% the prices •decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect, the. price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Kiarela comes to ?16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it — p e r acre f©f~Gate§0F^-'-B' lands. Moting. that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away-with Category 'B' lands.and.uniform price- awarded is. f15,85,570/- per acre and since for Category 'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by ?9,000/- per acre which is a meager ' amount, I hold that for Category 'B' lands the price'determined would be as per the'reference but for Category.'A' lands the _ price stand^ej

73. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per ^GRID-E^ filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union.of india are.- allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Narela pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 in sum of fl[6],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 owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced -cpmireTi-satlon•statotorrbenefits'as'per the. Land Acquisition Act "•1B94 as expialn^'lh the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569-shall be gra.oted, except for the-period where there is a delay in•filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 63 o'f74 interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These wouiQ Be entitled te propt^tfoTO —

74. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 -wherem-^mMr-effeCi fiurn 1.4:2^1 "minimum 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 i.e. 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 a[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 fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to f18,65,500/- 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 Holambi Xaian comes to fl[6],74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl[6],32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands., Moting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ?16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager f[9],0C)0/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount a-warded by the iearned Reference Court.

75. AH 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 "prepaT€d and labeled as 'GRID-P & ^GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed.

75. Ail Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/200§ 8c connected matters Page 64 of74 Union ofIndia are allowed by decreeing connpensation p^ble for Category 'A' lands invillage Hofarntot KaIdn pertaiTrrtrg to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of n[6],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 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 of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost ViHaoe All Pur NotificatiQn dated 22.8.2QQ[1]

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 sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to f17,75,000/- 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 connes 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'.AM^nds in village Aii Pur comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' iands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page65 of 74 theteametf Reference Court away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarpTecns *««;43;8il7t-percrcTe, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager ?9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category '3' lands Imaintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID- H; hereinabove are dismissed. \ note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court.

80. There shall be no order as to costs. Villaoe Holambl KSiurd Motification dated 22.8.?nni

81. 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 syltably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 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 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 _BV£f:ag£_4M:ice--foi:-Categ^ 'A' lands-4fv-¥Ulag«HH©lafnbH^^r comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl[6],32,637.504)er.acre,lor Category 'B' lands. "1^^ifsg~tnaT TT^T^hed Reference Court has, without any reasans^dnzie_aMay with-Categ@p/-S^-iands-aRd uniform price awarded is fl[6],43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager f[9],000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/20b[8] &connected matters Page 66 of74 Category—B lands !—cnaintain-th€—arnotmt—awarded by the learned Reference Court.

82. The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRIp-l' 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. ViHaoe Rai'apur Kalan Motlfication dated 22.8.20Q[1]

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 said 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 ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7],75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to 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 f16,74,500/- 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' lands and uniform price awarded is f16,43.811/- per acre, the price differential worked out.by me comes to a meager f[9],OQOir _pfir -acra_arLd thus qua Category 'B' lands 1 maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

85. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters. Page 67 of74 - ^. TPappeai^-fHed by iand ownersin Tespect whereef-i^d-^jas-^beeB prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereinabove are dismissed.

85. 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?16,7^500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded, at fl[6],43,811'/- 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 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 of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Vinaae 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 fl[5].70 lakhs per acre and requiring saic^l 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 ?17.74.1Q9/-- rounded off to fl[7],75JlQ0/- 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 LAApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page68 of 74 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. Moting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are ofsame value i hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the •. notLficatim.,dat£d 7.12.?OQl the 'lai5d-DW{i-ef^#oul4--be 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 beenprepared-and. labeled as 'GRID-K' hereinabove are'dismissed.

90. Ail Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in. appeals fifed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of •f17,29,500/- 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 Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT ^69 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.~

91. Pertaining, to village Shahpor Garhi, as held by. me 'hereinabove the land price.m^ould have to be determined with reference to,the saie deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category "'A' lands has been determined •by me at ?18,65.500/- per acre and since-there is jost a.differen€e-Bf--4 days between, the date of sale and the notificatio.-n'I maintainthat for the notification in question dated- 16.5.20'02 the land, owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of fl[8],65,500/- LA.App.No.266/2008&coimected matters Page 69 of74 amfl highjignt that as pertfTe^wgrd"gttf^mg^er^ ail iands are in the same category. Appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowed 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 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder 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 paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Viiiaci© Shahg^yr GbvM 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 differentia! 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 fl[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 ail 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 iands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008 ffe connected matters. Page 70 of74 Coliector and the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awarded. CQCQpeasation m sum Qi_ ?22,14,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have heltf 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 ?18,65,500/- 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. Village AH Pur Motiflcation 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].65,500/- 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 fl[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 crosi objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. village Sanoth Motlfjcatton'dated 27.1.2003

95. Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as per 'GRID-P' pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sahoth, 1 note LA.App.No.266/2008 &connectedmatters Page71 of7# that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has p|a€€€i-4he4aiid-s—— irn3-xategoftes-ancH-frnd-^that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation. —

96. On the mean average basis which I have been following iRC£@asmg-tb^-4id£e.-as--af-a.4-,[2] reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the -san=re-vdth-^refer^nce-to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to fl§,43,5Q0/- per acre and for Category land the price comes to f18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ?18,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at ^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 fl[9],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. UOi 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be jDaid sWe 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 -d€efe€-4n the Reference Order Dy reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C iand to fl[8],47,539.68 per acre. Villaqe Rasapur Kagan Motiflcation dated ?7.1.200,^

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 ^9.13,765/- per acre and in some cases at fl[9],16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands! the pHee-comes^ to-^i97437506/=-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 ?18,47,539.68 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 'B' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of Jhdia 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-orrthB eTihanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2Opi:-(95h-0tT—569-shaH -i3€-patd-save—and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters Pags 73of74 _wou|d not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by -F8di^em§—the—-fef—Category 'B' land to fl[8],94,912,50 per acre and for Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.58 per acre.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 74 of74