Union of India v. Narender Kumar & Anr

5. 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 1.4.2000 L[2].L[6]

13.82

6. 9.8.2001 L.4.200L t[5].[7] 11.[5]

7. 30.8.2005 30.8.2005 L[7].584 2.98

8. 24.L.2008 L[8].12.2007 53 89.51

8. From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum price was las! fixed q.e.f. 27.4.1990 in sum of T[4].65 lakhs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to T10 takhs/acre and the annual increa'se comes. to Ll-.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. L.4.1998 the price was enhanced by lL.z% to reach the figure of tl-1.[2] lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.Ll.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12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001.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 t12.1-6 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by LL6/o. p-ej annum with reference to the price determined as of 4"-'. ---f*4-1-998----and---vtde- same notification - the- --p-l'ice was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to t13;82 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by Ll% per annum vis.i-vis the previous i.e. t12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. L.4.200I the price rbse by, 11.5% per annum vis-b-vis the previous price of t13.82 lakhs/acre to Page2l of74 ?/f an increase of only 2S8% per annum and then the price rose to t53 lakhs/acre as of L[8].12.2007 i.e. increased 89.5i.% per annum with reference to the base figure"of t17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005.

9. Before noting the evidence relied upon by the land owners and Union of India before the tearned Reference Court, it would be beneficial for the reader of the present d.ecision, as I feei, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. I would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument.was in the alternative and it was urggd that they would be entitled to price determination as per the fifst argument, failing which as per the second argument, faililO 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 learned. Reference Court pertaining !o the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated 22.8.200L for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for vilfage Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2,5,2A0L for village Nareta;'and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for vitlage Ali Pur; and the notification dated 27.L 2003'for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands were of uniform character and it was u.!'ged that corr:ectiv-e-a-ction is reqirired by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to_ !ing. L.J5%_increase per annum and - 'increase-was e*c-essive--with reference to the _d_ates.gf_the notifications under Seciion 4 qf the Land Acquisition Act 1894; reqrjiiing the same to be reduced to 10% per annum in th-e -l,east.-secondty, the learned Reference Court was not Justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.N o.266 12008 & connected matters Page22 of74 H requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category'B'and Category'C'by the Land Acquisition Coilector 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 Cat€gory 'C', on account of pits and depressions of various depth[5], as per the awards passed by the La'nd Acquisition Collector was incorrect. L0. 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 aiso th-g-safe'deed dated 25.4,2001, Ex.PW-U[2], in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-L/3, 33 bigha and !2 biswa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ <26.75 f akhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-L 12, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera kfrurO for a sum of t32.[4] lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 would be t28.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be t63.478 lakhs/acre. lt was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2009, 2.5.200L, 22.8.2001, 7.L[2].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 Act 1894 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 l0% more Pagel[3] of14 LA.App.N o.266/2008 & connected matters a-P and for which the argument was that when.in the-+asb--pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section Court fraO given said benefit to agricultural lands in village. Mamurpur- Nareta by.giving a.price benefit of 721- per sq:yd. This was upheld by,the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C.A.N o.440511997 lJOl vs. Dharambir & Or$. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in. sum of T[6],6501determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to T16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to T22,000/- 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 counset 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 agqncies I which acted as the Nodai Agencies for d'evelopment of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate bnd.for which learned counsel took me through the 'evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court,..which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged. L[2]. Alternative to the seconsl suhmission, 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.266l2008 & connected matters Page24 of74.i 1l vs. union of lndia, it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 60/o per annum to L2% per annum for different periods. sh.l.s.Dahiya, tearned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bedi Rarn's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6Ze per annum with reference to the base price T16,750/- per bighd as of 30.L0.L963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% pbr annum till 3L.3.L973 and thereafter @ L2% per. annum till the various dates-Wheh the 8 notificffition 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, a,nd lriith.. which lam.concerned inlhe preqent appeals So:worked out, f earned counsel highlighted that as bf 27.1.2QO[3] the fair market vafue would'come to T56,88,7591- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such'appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other tearned counsel urged that on 'the same principle. market value should be assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.200L, 22.8.2001, 7.L[2].2001, 16.5.2002 and 23.5.2002. r

13. The fourth argument advanced was, and for which re-fe.rence was made by learned-eounsel for the parties in the evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.No.26Bl2008 filed by the land owners and IAAPP.No.29 2]}OOB filed-by Union-of-lndia, 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 Page2l of74 LA.App.N o.266/2008 & connected matiers \L- / testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agricultural,.----------_' prbduce from his lands he used to earn tl lakh per bigha per annum i.b-, TneTai7-ffiark-ei value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition hereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. lt was.thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be t20 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.No.26812008 and the respondents in LA.APP.N o.29212008. - L[4]. The fifth argument advanced was by 5h.T.P.S.Kang, Advoiate 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 referdnce to the notification was dores@ where under--minimum land value was fixed by the Government'and the notification dated ', 24.1.2008 where under T53 takhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be. adoPted was the Precise argument. L[5]. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.L.2A03, dealing. with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20'5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for. t[5],3g,6g0/-, determined the fair market value as per the said sale deed in the foltowing'',words: Gefer para U of the ae tn LAC No,117A n): "lf we add stamp dlrty in. O, K[5],39,69a/:l 70,760 = 6,09,850 for L bigha and 13 biswa) which comes io[1].17,74,109/per acre or 73,68,906/- per bigha, Futthel if we give J2% Page26 of74 LA.App.No.26 612008 & connected matters " 1> ' increase on said amount for intervening period between the' date when the sale deed was executed and the date of noffiicatioit u/s 4 (20.05.mo[2] tu 27.01.2003) i.e. I months it comes;to T19,76,037/- (round otr<!grl_Q9!4). " The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition. i.e. Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which L922 bigha and 18 biswa land.was put in Category 'A',45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa 4_qe!g.g!.ly_-'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprlsed in Kh-asra-No.200 and thait Bage No.56-57 of-thc--award would evi(fdllce *tfiaillitnd -comprised in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring l bigha and L[3] 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.L 2003 in sum of T15.[7] lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minirrrum price as of 1.4.200L, and thereafter had depressed the same by t[1].7'lakhs per'acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was t14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another T[1].[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market valUe determined whereof was t12.[3] lakhs per acre. lt 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 prlce nad to oe increased by t[1].[7] lakhs per acre for each category..

16. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, tearned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the para 9 above and hence I need not repeat !A,App.N o.26612008 & connected matters same are reflected in the same. Page}7 of74 \,Li L[7]. In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court pertaining to ffi issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence hy 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:-

27. L.2A[8] and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential on said count has again been taken att[1].[7] lacs per acre to inter se differentia'te the"price between Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands. In.other words, the price differential has varied between t[1].[2] lacs pei acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and T[1].[7] lacs per acre. / Page28 of.l[4] / j\ The learned Land__Acquisition collector has_adopted the minimum price notified closest in point of time to the date when Section 4 notification was issued without appreciating the lahd price with reference to the date of the Section 4 notification i.e. no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has been g iven. G;--:'-- The{earned Reference Court has adopted the minimum price notified and has given appreciation ranging between LL.s% per annum and L2% per annum and In some cases has compounded the same and in some given said benefit at the simple rate. D, Pertaining.to village Holambj Kafan.Where acquisitions were made pursuant to the notifications dated 7.8.2000 and 23.5.2002'the tearned Reference Court has adopted the pric.e determined by this Court in Gairals cbse (supra) as of 15.11.1996 and has given appreciation at the rate of 'L2o/o simple per annum for the former notification and at the rate of L2% compounded per annum for the latter. E, Whereas for the notification dated 27.L 2003 the tearned Reference Court, in some references has determined. notified as of L.4.z}AL.and has given appreciation, in some cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale deed dated,20.5.2002

19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 noiifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition'Act 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matteis Page29 of 74 B. 3c -"-fac_tf, -which itonrd - be my_:{g_ta f9l._fgfther _ana]ysis. Put in q tabular 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' T13.82 Cat. 'B' <L[2].26 Minimunr price asof 1.4.2000 Cat. Uniform. <t[4].3728. -Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with L2% increase p.a. Holambi Kalan 7.8.2000 T13.82 Minimum price as T14. L2995. Price as in Gaira.f s case as of 15.11.1996 with LZo/o increase p.a. Holambi Kalan 22.8.200t Cat. 'A'T15.[7] Cat. 'B'{14 of 1.4.2001 T16.43811. of L,4.200I with L2o/o increase p.a.. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 T15.[7] <22,L4239, Price;os in Gaira.f s case as of 15.11.1996 with 12% increase p,a. (compounded ) Bawana 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A't13.82 Cat. 'B'<L[2].62 ' No enhancement g iven. Khera Khurd r.1.9.2000 Cat. 'A' t13.82 Cat. 'B'{12.62. t14.40157. of 1.4.2000 with Narela 2.s.2001 Cat. 'A'tl[5].[7] Cat. 'B'T14 of 1.4,2001 Cat. Uniform, 115.857. of 1.4.2001 with LA.App.N o.266 12008 & connected matters. Page 30 of74 j) LzYo increase p.a. Ali Pur 22.8.200L Cat. 'A'{15.[7] of L.4.200L T16.43811. of L.4.2001, with L2% increase p.a.. Ali Pur 23.5.2002 {15.[7] of L.4.2001 <L[7].8524 of L.4.ZOO:J, with Holambi Khurd 22.8.200L T15.[7] T16.43811 Mininium price as of L.4.2OOL with Raja pu r Kalan 22.8.2001 t15.[7] <16.43811 of 1.4.2001 with L2o/o increase p.a. Raja pu r Kalan

27. L.2003 Cat,A' t[1].[7] Cat. 'C'{L[2].[3]

1. <19.13765 for Uniform category. of L.4.200L with 12% increase p.'a. in some cases.

2. {19.1604 for Uniform category based on sale deed dated 25.5.2002 with 12% increase P.a. Sanoth L[2].2001 t15.[7] 116.99042. L2% increase P.a. Sanoth 27.!.2003 Cat. 'A't15.[7] Cat. 'B't14 Cat. 'C'{L[2].[3] Minimum Price as of L.4.2001 t19.13765 ror Uniform categorY. Minimum Price as L2o/o increase P.a. LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page 31 of74 >{ Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2001 Cat. 'A'{15.[7] of L.4.200L <17.75369--.--- ---. of L.4,zgOL with compound interest @ 11.5o/o p.a. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A't15.[7] <L[7].[7] 97 8L. of L.4.200I with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a.

20. t now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by learned couhset for the land owners and the 2 submissions _.:._ _-.._-urged by the Union as noted in paras L0 to L[5] hereinabove. (pertaining to the land owners) and para I above (pertaining to Union of India) 2L.. 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 t26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ t63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court hab rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultur:al lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-Ll[3] was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Saisang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 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, PW-1/2 has likewise been.held not to be reliable evidence to determine fbir 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.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page32 of74. r_ of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated - -ihaethe-org€r+izetion @pri€e-fur 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 Acauisition Officer Eluru & Ors, Vs..lsti Rohini 6( Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raafuddin 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 exemptar sate deed to determine the market value of land in an area for _the reason there @1. 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 gf land. An informed buyer would.be one who has studied the rnarket and has apprised himself of all available lan.d in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. lf 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 lan'ds in the area. I would be failing if t do not highlight that the Union of India had relled upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which'*ur'accepted by the lebrned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated

27. L.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,L091- per acre as against the price which comes to t63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-ltz and t28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-112 and Ex.PW-U[3], LA.AppN o.266 12008 & connected matters Page33 of 74, LLthemselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price - ?3.--- -Ihus-- apant--from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in, para,2l a-bove w-o-uld--Le-actd.i-ti-o.nal reasons to hold that the 2: sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason l find that under various awards nearly between. '7,000 tb s;000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the mol:e a. reason to be circumspect on' sa-le 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.Dahiy? being-the decision dated Lg.L[2].2008 disposing of a batch of appeals,'lead matter being. LA.App.No. Lg3lzOOG Pratap Sinoh Gince deceased' ihru LRs. Vs.. iQht-edTh at-the sdle -cleejil'therei n 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.PW-Ll[2] and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value' Thq 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, buf fd-uhd that if the price therein was reduced by Tl3'd, the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page34 pf74 4t at with reference to tne jverage rate of the sale deeds produced by the union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Governmeht were giving a price of Tr,37,000/per bigha'and the sale deed under which L&T had pirrchased the land gave ihe.price-t[3],26,600/- per bigha and the average would 'come.to t[2];31,800/- which wqs.near about the price of {2,15,L601- per bigha, if Ll3'd would be deducted from the sum of <3,26,600/-. lt 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. T[2],15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division' Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. lt is not that th.e Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was So, the appreciation far 2 years had required to be Eiven.' ! 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 t 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., vif fage -Narela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced.would be dealt with by me at the end when l determine the fair market value of lands for the Villages in question.

25. The second argument, Contours whereof are' to be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the Page 35 of74 Qvlateit pronouncement of the supreme court on the..issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) scc 769 Lal chand vs. uot

26. But before that I must highlight that the decision in Lal chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hofd 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 Residehtial Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the'V'formed by NH-l and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal 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 retevant to industrlal layouts, in paras 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the DDA brochure is 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 brochu're 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: S/. Alo. Plot size Catego.ry Rate (per square metre)

7. 26 sq m Economically weaker sections Rs 100

2. 32 sq m Low income group (LlG) Rs 125

3. 48 sq_p Low income sroup (l-lG) Rs 150

4. 60 sq m Middle income group (MlG) Rs 200-

5. 90 sq m Middle income group (MlG) Rs 200 LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page36 of74 ?. The appellant[5] contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the said provision.al rates, should betakenasindicativeoftheru|ingmarketprice. L[2]. on'careful consideration, w€ are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped.lands for several" reasons. Firstly, -market value has to be determined'with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of devblopment authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas.market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend uBon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold hn* wfrereas.the"aflotment "rates" in the DDA brochuie 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 bgricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small devefoped plots, varies between 20% to 75Yo 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 simifar statutory authority, it may utilise 'around 4A% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc.

15. The development authority will also ' incul' 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.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page37 of74 underground drainage and sewage facilities, Tayin0--wekl: lines, electricity lines and developing palks and civil ' amenities; whieh would be about 35% of the Value strthe developed ptot. The two factors'taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as l^.:'n T^'?'[ ",i,1[?;".'ffj ff 1"[]lf""ri,3'l"l'., is i n a n unauthorised private iesidential layout, the percentage of ' "deduction for development" may be far less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and comrnunity facilities Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for' ' movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparativety less and minimal. Thus,. the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of pfots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20o/o ptus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. L[7]. The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65a/o depending upon the standards and quality of the layout. i.8. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of 'one or twO acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq m); and as there will be vgry limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (foi robds, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be ' far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marg.inally 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 75To for residential plots.

19. lf the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for devetopment may be as much less, that is, as little as 25%o to 40o/o, as some basic infrastructure.will af ready be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contra ry. )

20. Therefore the deduction 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.N o.266 12008 & connected matters Page 38 of74 7( with reference to the price Of a 'small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. lt is also-well-known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost'incurred by private developers, having regar4to higher overheads and expenditure 2L. '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, residential-, eum eemmercial er industrjal-; andeven arnong residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard' to the size'of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community --faei+ities; pa rks a n d p I ayg ro un d s p rovi d ed.

22. Somei of the lE-youtf-Tormed b/ -the statutory devetepm€nt 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 20o/o to 75o/o. Second factor

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. aliottees, ciassifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequerice, in the same layout, plots may 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 belonging to high inCbme groups.

24. The ratio of sites in a layout reserued for HlG, MlG, LIG and EWS may. also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. lt will be illogical to take the average of the attotment 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-applkantsTor allotm-eft. - Third factor Page39 of74 qG

25. Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some dev.elopment authorities like DDA allot basis. Some have premium which is'almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent.

26. Thdre are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership)" rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases' But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold.plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is.very nominal, sometimes 'there is a tenbency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment -price) charged by.DDA, as being equal to the'market value of the Property.

27. However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the ' allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA ih a developed layout, in dele-rmining the market 'vilre of the adjoining undeveloped. freehold lands. The DDA brochure piice has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." 28-:- The evidence on the subject has been discussed by t!" learned Referencb Court and I reproduce the same by extractinrg from LAC Reference No.117A l2OO[9]. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court, being the Same aS was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court with reference to the evidence relied upon. lt reads:- "Ld. Cou nsel f-o-r- -tb-e-p-etltloners-las furtkrer -sub.mitted that DDA & DSIDC aliotted plots in Narela Residential Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher r?te. He has relied upon allotment letter dated 04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A:1,, Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the'.pre-determined rate of {3028/- which,!t[9] -has proved as Ex. pW6/1, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, sector-Q$ area measuring 70 sq: metres in which rate was fixed as T[3],989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter' dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i'e' LA.AppN o.266 12008 & cornected matters Page 40 of74 plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela Industrial Complex_at the-rate of-t650 sq.. metres which is-Oc pWyf and another allotment letter dated 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at t3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PWg Kanwal Singh & document 'Ex. PWl1/1, which is detail of land acquired. lt is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = T248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ {3208 would be t253L4081- 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: 177"1986[6] per bigha). And after deducting devetopment charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. <L771986 - 2489LL: 1523075 per bigha, Where as petitioner has been given rate only t[3],22,083/- per ' Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R.Q,- Shain-a, Asstt. Marlaqer, DSf D-Q who:h.a.s produced doAmenti--Ex. PWTln (Cotty). Ld. Counsel has argued that total.expenditure incurred on development of ---F-- <2L429L[7] per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area under Plots ttZ.qt hec i.e. 1361250 sq, vards. Price per sq. metre in the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot T3000/- per sq. Yards Total earning T4083750000 Total expenditure 1720s26901 Total profit {3363223099 i.e. Profit-comes to t247[-per sq" yar'd orT247A0OO p.ef Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and totaf area -of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361"250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is Oiglt. (i.e. 3363223099 divided by L361250 sq. yards) uriO tt " LAC has paid compensation @ {327083 per bjOha;;t, meaning thereby ttrat DSIDC has earned a prqfit of <2J'429-77 Per bigha. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has that LAC h.tt awarded compensation @ LA.App.N o.266 12008 & connected matters further argued t327083 Per t: Page 4t of74 \rl" bigha for the land'in question if 200% apprec.iation of th-e siid price is considered -o.n account of land, the figure comes to t654166Jf the amount is deducted from sale g r;5f3"; r?iP *il r ""i I 3 * li 3: 3: i; "'*i., Jf 15,.",,.,'"" *?,l " lP 29- New, we do net hav-e evidence as to what was the. extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference !A the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and.Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was.20o/o or 75o/o, we do lnot know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in l-al Chands cdse (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

30. lt is no doubt true, as held eve#)r--tSe--teaFfte+- Reference court, that with the development of - Bawana lntlustriai Ar"u, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela lnesiOential 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 Lal Chandscase(supra)hasright|yrejectedsaidevidenceas 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.

32. The third submission in the alternative w.a-s-.based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this court in Bedi RamS case (supra), and the submission is as noted ln para 12 herejn above. The land owners require the -pdqg-i-glqrmined in o I { Dharambifs case (supra) relating to the notification dated 7S0/-@ Mamurpur ' to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6%o per annum, then by Lo% per.annum and lastly by L2yo per annum for different 'periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question.

33. lt be highlighted that in Bedi Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date as of the year L959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning L[7] 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 l0% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by l2o/o for the remaining 3 years.

34. However, in Lal Chands case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-1.0- 1.961. is relevant?

47. The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-L0-L961 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 L2% per annum, This. Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai PateN. this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) "-25_.N-ormally, recourse is taken to the mode of r' Gttiimining the market value by providing " _- -- appropriate--esca I ati o n overthe-proved- m a rket value of nearby lands in previous years (as le transa@bns), 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.N o.26.612008 & connected matters transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even, if it relates to a neighbouring 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 acquired in L992, adopting the aririual intrease. method with reference to a sale or acquisition in

1970. or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the iourse of years, the 'iate' 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 l2o/o or L5% per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the. ' country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the. 2007. rates. Caution is.therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old " transactions. Be that as it may. lt 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. lt is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi Ran*s-ease{suBra) runs in the teeth of tfre taw OeclareO by the -Suprenle Court in Lal Chands case (supra)r which decision follows--?n---earlier decision of tlie Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Ra mesh bha i Jiva n bha i Pa tel. LA.App.N o.26612008 & cohnected matters Page 44 of74 (/ -io'---t-ffe-i @ooJ.o folfow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's case (supra) for the reason I fi.nd that a- Co-ordinate Oiuision Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati.Devi & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive'percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambils case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of L[4].3.1980 @ T2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ T1000/- per bigha. lf Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would'have come to approximately T50,000/per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at t33,000/- per bigha.

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market.valub of subject lands, in the unrepbrted decision of 'a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.86612005 decided on 11.5,2006, Mahender Sinah vs. LlOl & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana; and I highlight that one. village with which I am dealing is village. Bawana, pertaining tO a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued urider 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 E'state, the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 was determined @ T[1],99,904.68 bigha'which equals to t[9],59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me io highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.L997 by.which price for agricultural tand being the minimum price determined by the: Government was {10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.L997, the price LA.App.N o.266i20A[8] & connected matters Page 45.of 74 determined by the Division Bench would price notified by the Governmeht. 4-+f iee---as-oH5-.11.1996 @ t[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 lO% per annum. But. I leave it at that ' for the moment for the reason,'as assured by me herein above, I. would be holisticatly 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.Chaturvedi, 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,N o.292120O[8], 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 {1 lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce.

40. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no'prgof in support of his oral testimony. 4L... The reasoning of the Court tha.t there.was standing on the land when its possession was taken 4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not being put to agricultural use and grdwing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3'd week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables aie grown, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.N o.?66D0AB & connected matters ^r\ )t/ equal !h" mi1]mgm no. crop over on Page 46 of74 t> 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 till 31.3.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and theieafter eained a.pension. lf ffiimed by him, was e-rning t[1] lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, 'which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annual 'ineen+e+ret+ld be TL[9] lakhs and one. finds it strange that not-a penny was invested 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 tocal Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined.. No proof of number of workers employed, diesel purchased tO run the tubewell, if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if the purnp was electrically diiven 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 tands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly rejected

43. lf there is reliable evidence of an independerit expert or there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT L997 (l.'t SC 444, pertaining to the yield from agricultural determine fair market LA.App.N o.266120A[8] & connected matters land, only tfren it value by apPlYing would be safe to the princiPle of Page 41"of 74 capitalizing on the yield basis and that being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 to be. projected. too, the 'capitalizing times as was sought

44. The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted herein abbve in para L[4], by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle be adopted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008.

45. ln para 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhl from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.200L, 22.8,200L,

7. L[2].2001-, 16.5.2002, ?5.5.2OOZ and 27.L.2003 i,e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the tabie in FOra 7 above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of 1.4.2000, L.4,}OAL and 30.8.2005. Thus, there wguld be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the notification dated 24,L2008 which is w.e.f. 8.L[2].2007 i.e. is 4 yeHrs away from the last year with which I am concerned i.-. 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 elesest to the-point f€f- whi€h the mean average has to be determined.

46. l am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which l highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification dated

27. L 2003 determined the fair market value in some References with respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2OOZ where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and LA.App.N o.ZAA,DOOS & connected matters Page 48 of74 / \) has determined that based thereon the price as of said date t_ werks.or*%aere-and arneforg months by L2o/o per annum, for the date 27.L 2003 the price woufd be t19,L[6],0371- per acre rounded off to T19,16,040/- per acre.

47. with reference to the Award No.10/Dc(Nw)t2004-05 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bigha and r-3 biswa was a category'c'tand. The sare 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 Collector T[1].[7] lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in category;B' and further sum of t[1].[7] lakhs per acre woul@t-up+fre-Oepressisns in Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category,8, land were tess vis-b-vis category 'c' land. In other words, with -_ rererence to cai"g;ry T-land; the p;i." "f c"legory,c, tand would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-ir-vis category 'c' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category,A, land would be required to be increased suitabty

48. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. ln view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the reasoning adopted by the leArned Land Acquisition Collector and the. learned Reference court, I pose the question: what should be the fair market value of the subject,lands as of 7.8.2000, 1L.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.9.2001, 7.L[2].2001, 16.5.2A02, 25.5.2002 and 27.L.2003 i.e. the dates on which the notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894

49. I have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a DiVisiort I Bench of this Court i in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided Paee./ "Z-. LA.App.N o.266120A[8] & connected matters tA" 11.5.20A[6], Mahender Sinah us. tlOl & Ors. wherein pertaining to -- village Bawana; fair market value-determined as of 15.11.1996 is {L,99,904.68 per bi-q_ha which equals to t[9],59,542.46 per acre. ' The said decision would be retevant on the issue of potentiality, a_n issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes I that the subject lands i.e. the la'nds 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 Delhi were identified for providing major health facilittes; schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was village Bawana. lt was noted that G:T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and that the Master Plan for Delhi noliflsd_rnlbe year,1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed in the future to industrial' and commercial, but had also #erved that nofwithstantfi-nETnig fo r thffipiah- - - -was notified as contemplated by Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act L957, the lands 'continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 1996, any land use had been actuatly changed and put to' the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the i case, where all subject lands were continuously puf I i agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said To put it pithily, thg potential use of the lands giving potential land value with reference to the area being all as being _ required in the future fo'r building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valuedl wJth 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 propb-SitidnThat there is a ditference between the undeveioped land having building decision, birth to a known to LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page 50 of74 potentiality in )') presenti vis-it-vis.a land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date L[5].1L.1996, fair market value determined was T[9],59,542.46 per acre and which t.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. L997 -where-under for agricultural lands in.Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.L997 was T10 lakhs per acre. Interestingiy, the same Division B€nch. had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 tV AD (Delhi) 13 Cegi Sinah vs, UOI & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in 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 T[9],76,L211- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was t[9],5L,L2L1per acre i.e. near approximate to.the fair market value of lands in village Bawanq. lt 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, tocation and potentiality with reference to develo.pment work carried out in the.surrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining viltage in the same 'V' i.e. between G.T.Karnat Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. villagg Singhola deterhrined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ {1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. T[6],26,51-0.40 per acre. The decision is.".reportedas 2004 (4) nO'(Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. UOI and the same.Divlsion-Bench, as per the decisio+ reported-as 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinqh vs, llOL pertaining to a notification dated L[4],L1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ T[1],40,230/- per bigha i.e. t[6],73,LO4l- per acre., Page 51 of74.."2 --,./ \T. 50:. -Ttie aForeidE- r"he- precEOiiig paragraphs as also the various 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 b.ring out two very important facts relevant tQ determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 19g0.. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was t[4].65 lakhs per acre which rose to Tl0 lakhs per acre as of L.4.Lgg[7] i.e. the increase is T[5].35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.4360/o. The price rise over the next 1 year is by Ll,z% and thereafter by 1l-7o for the next 2 years and 1L.sy" for the next year i.e. as"of 1.4.2001. lt shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1gg0 and L997 prices grows fairly. sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Gajrals case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

51. I need to elaborate a little.more with'respect to the decision in Gairals 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 L[7] the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was t95,000 l- for muttiple qgpgeq la.nd an{ having good -irrigatiOn-*facilities and thus capitalized the land price at t9'.[5] lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the - surrounding areas'includingrpoterrtialiff;in para L[9] onwards the court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and baed-En-5d1€ instances found that based on the said sale Page 52 of74. LA.App.N o.26612A08 & connected matters '-'instances and giving-beftefiffi ice woufd come to T10,03,3041- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices-notified by the Government as per poficy dated L.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean averaEe figure of..t[9],76,l2]-l- per acre for Category,A, lands anrJ t[9],5L,L2Ll- per acre for category 'B' lands.. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in when the Government issued the minimum price notification'w.e.f.

1.4. L997, 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.L997 at t10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was T10,03,3641- per acre.

52. The decision in Mahender sinqh's iase, pertaining to village-Bawana, 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 Master Plan so projecting and the tands 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, 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, The decisions in Gaira.fs case and Mahender Sinoh's case.highlight that potentiality 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 Page 53 of74 LA.App.N o.266D408 & connected matters a requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between LO% per annum to LL% per annum. One reason could -Oe that Juurstrant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large.area-calne 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 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 de.eds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sal'e deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be {L[9],16,0401- per acre as of 27.L 2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of f and which was sold for t[5],39,690/- and T70,L6Ol- was paid as stamp duty would mean that T[6],09,850/- (T[5],39,690/- + t70,160/-) were.spent woutd yield the price <!7,74,109/- 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 20.5.2002 for Category 'C' lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would be t17,74,L091- per acre. Fof Category 'B' and Category 'A' land the'price would'have to be suitably enhanced and here we find another area of dispute for the reason, as noted by me hereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App,N o.26612A08 & connected matters Pa-ge 54 of 74 (t sometimes T[1].[2] lakhs per acre, sometimes T[1].56 lakhs per acre and sometimes t[1].[7] lakhs per acre from the price of Category -- tA' iJnos to oetermine the price for cbtegory 'B' tands and wherever lands were in Category 'C' as well the pr.ice has been deducted further by t[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 te-that categrorizatien is base*enty on the basis of ' certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths same to be leveled and this would require money !-" !,_e__.9_q9nt. But on.ryf'9t basis h99 tfe Land Acquisition Collector lreld, in some awards that tL.[2] lakhs per acre would be spent and in some'that t[1].56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that r1".[7] lakhs per acre would be spent? There is just no clue.

56. fn Gairai.Sinqh's case (supra), the price differi:ntial worked out was T25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gairaj Sinah's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. ln Gajrai Sinah's case the price for Category '4' land determined was T[9],76,L2I1- per acre and for Category 'B' fand the price determin'ed was T[9],51,L211- 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 Sinqh's case should be my guiding star for pricE 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 <L[7],74,LOgl-, rounded off to T17.75 lakhs per a cT-er oukfbe-fftc' pri c e-for a CatcgDry' C*laRcrTn-vi I l a g e R a j a p u r Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.N o.26612008. & connected matters admittedly pertains to a Category,C, land, the Category 'B' f and wouf d be t1g.20 lakhs pel_ _ category 'A' rand woufd be T1g.655 rakhs 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 L.4.2000 the per acre price was il.3.g[2] rakhs and as of L.4.2001 the same was T15.[7] fakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the ye?r was 11.s%.per annum. lf f treat Category,A, land price at T1g.655 fakhs as of 20.S.ZOO[2] based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 1Lo/o pr.r annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approxim.ately T16.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at 115.[7] rakhs per acre as of L.4.zoor, the price differentiar is T70;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 sare deeds where smail parcers 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 5Yo. what I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yierds to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of,r rationality and acceptabirity. rt needs.to be highrighted that though under normar circumstances a sare on a particurar date is normally not held goocf Evid6nec-t.-wdrk oUTilTdh-d price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine ' land pflce 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 warking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 acre / \-----' \e price for and for e /t' t -... notifie ations--dated-J=S-2000, -Z.Z;B,ZAAL and 7.L[2].2OO1', the differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deeil 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 wfriie betermining 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 Nbrela had always bebn 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-bvis the adjoining villages t[2] per square yard price advantage - was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambils 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 urbinization 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 concerned 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, 2.5.2OOL, 22.8,2001 and 7:I[2].2001 thel land, prices would lave to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with € !gfg-qlg.g.!o thg g?!e deed dated 2s.szggz=_f_qf.![_e_J-gason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates. Pertaininijffif'?ated 16.5.2A02,23.5.2OO[2] and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 LA.App.N o.266120A[8] & connected matters Page57 of74 tand 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 T15.[7] lakhs per acre with effect from 1.4.200L

62. With respect to the price differentiat 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 22.8.200L only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur' (pertaining to the notification dated 22,8.2001) I hold that vis-ir-vis the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differentiai, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2,5o/o 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 23.5.2OO[2] pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determineci the fair market value at <22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23,5.2002, "-tut fneed to t-igtrlight that pertamirigi-to-th€ same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court has deter"mined--the"-fair market value at <L[7],85,2401- per acre and I find that pertaining to village Rajapur-Kalan and Sanoth, pertainlnigto--the notification dated 27.1.2003 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is T19,L[6],0401- in some cases and {19,13,760/- in few, Page 58 of74 (^ (( meaning thereby that worked out in the year 2003 vis-b-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Kalan p6"rtaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pnd the reason for the abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Ga.iraJs case (suprg) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of rz% per annum compounded

64. with reference to the notification dated 9.9:2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is t13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be stritably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.s.2ooz wherein for Categciry'C''lands, land price per acre comes to T17,74,L091:, rounded off to {17,75,000/- per acre, and for Cate$ory 'B' lands. increasing tl.u same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.[2] Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 2,5o/o the prices comes to {18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by L1-% 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 t14.75 lakhs per acre. and.decreasing the same by 2.5Vo, it comes. to T14,38,1251- 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 <L[4],37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager t[1],000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

65. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed and cross objections wherever filed by by the Union of lndia Union of India in the Page59 of 74 (E F appeals filed by land owners in respect whereor grio has been. prepared and labeled as'GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed. "--i - I I I { i

66. All Land Acquisition Appeals fired by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by union of Indid are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for category 'A' lands in village pooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated L.4.2000 in sum of t14.75 lakhs per acre and for category. 'B' lands the compensation awarded at <L[4],37,2a0r per acre is maintained and thus such appeals' or cross references which. pertain to category '8, lands are dismissed. ! 67: Pertaihirig:to such appeat where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as sunder.vs. uol2001 (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.

68. For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.g.2000 qelating to village Holambi Kalan, all appqals as per 'GRID-B, hereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of. enhancing the. compensation to t14.75 lakhs per acre and t highlight that as per the award and.even as per the reference.all subject lands were of uniform category. Needless to state appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are allowed by enhancing the compensation to T14.75 lakhs per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1g94 as LA.App.N o.ZeAiZOOt & connected matters Page 60 of74 t? f', expfained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. tJOl 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing -----+he 'appeal or cross objection, for whieh 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 7.8.2000

69. Pertaining to village Bawana-__relating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court.. - has.not enha-nced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category n;lanOs is fixed at 1L[4].75 lakhs per acle antl for Category 'B; landd af <r+,sa,Lzsl- per acre and noting, that Union of lndia has neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by fixing the compen'sation as hereinbefore mentioned and needless to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shaf l be entitled to statutory beinefits as per the Land Acquisiticn Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI2001 (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. Villaqe Khera Khura Notification dated 1L.9.2000

70. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect fiom L.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 25.5.20A[2] wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to T17,74,i0.9f=, -rounded.off to T1-7,75,000i- per acre, and for Category'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.N o.266120.08 & connected matters Page 6l of74 I to t18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to t18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and -decreasing the said prices by L7-% 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 T[1],4,83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2,5o/o, it comes to t14,46,4L31- per acre for Category 'B' lands. 7L. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeats filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.20p0 in.sum of T14,83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and T14,46,4131per 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. tJOl2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost.

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 priie to be suitabty updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2042 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to <L[7],74,LAgl-, rounded off to T17,75,000i- per acre, and for Category'B'lands increasing the same bV 2.5% the price comes t \ Page 62 of74 1-' i'o {19.[2] raichs per acre anc{ further increasing by 2.5% tkrE prices @*59sts-pe'*-ae*e-br €artegrery'A-.--Janr!s; a i-id oecreasing the saicr prices lry rr% to refiect the prire vr:lih neference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the rne::jn average price fon cate9ory 'A, lands in village Narela c*rnes io qL[6],L[6],500/- per acre and decreasing the same by z.5o/o, it comes to Tr-5,76,097- fier acre for.category,8, rarrds. trro,ti..rE t''hat the lear'necl Reference Court has, without any,reasons, dc;r.le evvay with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awai-cied is iiL[5],85,570/- per acre and since for category,8, lands fl"re pni:e '.t'orl<ed out i:y rne is less by Tg,000/- per acre which is a nneoq.:r amournt, I hold that ior category,8, lands the price cletermined ''"'''oLl!d !:e as pbr- the reference but fcr Categc'y,A,.!ai.:ds t,-ie iaieesianc{s..enhanced_fa.il6" i 6, 5 00/- per acre,3. r\ii ranci ncquisition Appeals as per 'GR!D-E, flied Qy the iaild ovrners and cross-objections filed by the lancl owrjers in *onreals filed by Union of India are allowecl by cleci.eeii-,g.**O*nsatisn UtO*'- lr"aurugory 'A' lands in villagre iilareia +.:;elta!nr!ng to the notir'ication dated 2.5.200 j- in si-it.rl.;.i:'-i 6,16,5c0/- per acre and as !.rer the reference orcier i'.;i- -ategQry 'B' lands. Thus, appea!s filed by ilre Union r,,.i lr,dia e,s;.lso cross objections r'ited by Union of.!ndia as also sLrch acpeeis 'ri*lrich relate to Category 'B' lancis filed by land orryne{s ei,-.: c.isnrisded anci the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objr:ctior:s i-ted by the land owt"lers periainlng to Category 'A' lands a:"=:ltowed as aforesaicl and needless to state on the eni-iance:l compensa'cion statutory irenefits as per the l_and Acquisiticn A.,_:t r.894 as exnrlained 'in the lra'E*t r"rrort"J u, sunder vE, b,:jl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall tre granted, { -! 'i-rrei'est on the enhanced compei'isation shall be --_=----5:,-T_=L OrtiOnate cost. 7'1 These T{,. \ /ith reference to the notification dated 9.8.20CI"f i-eirwith--eiFeEt-rffi--Z00L -mini mum price notiftecl per 3.ci-e is {15.70 lal<hs per acre and requriring said price to h'B sr-ll'ia.i:ly updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.:".i.'i.2001 ancl with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2AC[2] 'u.,hei;eitt for CateEory 'C' lands, tand price per acre comeS 'iO "f {i-7,T[4],LAEI-, routrded off to {17,75,000/- per acre, and for At'i-:^iCIry 'B' lands increaslng the sut* by 2.5% the price con'les. ) \':' L':! t: {'ii..Z lal<hs per acre and funther increasing by 2.5% the prices 'cci1-;€s to <18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' iancis; arrd cie,:r:easing the.said prices lry LLa/o to refleeHne price with:'ei'€.t',.*l"lce to 'Lhe sale deed for the date 22.8.20A[7]; the mean' a'..: i'e.Oe pi"ice loi' eategory 'A' iands in village Holambi J(alan rt;ri,{:,s to Tl-6,74,5001- per acre and clecreasing the same try,.,I.a. it conres to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category'B' lands';.1:,t':-; tha'L tkre leartreci Reference Court hal,.without drr5i t'rlf,SCt'tS, cJOne avu'Ay with Category 'B' lands and unifOrm nrriCe rrva':*ed is (16,/i[3],S11/- per acre, the price differential worked r:'-:t !:y me comes io a rneager {9,000/- per acre and thus qura i,r.t,:--;ory 'E' lands I mairrtain the amount awarded by tl're,':a rl,-:eci Re'ierence Cou rt.

15. All [-ancl Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of'lnoia eirci ci'oss objections wherever filed by l"inion of India iir'tl',e a[1]:1:'ea[s filed iry,lancl owners in respect whereof grid has been nl-eiiared and talceleri as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinabove ai'e.-I !-r^- ianar{ JL:t l.:>>Etl,t. -l I.; paid. I t; n- {*. rb 1'(.i "l:,t',il:,,.;.,,i I'--t r' '.ll t! tl,,[1] ?,"1 t-r,!on oi'India are arlowed by d*.ru"ing compensation payabre 'Fcr categ.ory 'A' rands in viffage Hofambi Kafan pertaininE to the rrstifrcatiorr dated 22.9.2001 in sum of t16,[7] 4,sa,,/_ per acre ancl r'i.r Category,8, lands the compensation awarded at v*6,43,8LJ-r-.per acre is maintained and thus, such appears or c;,.'ss references which pertain to category,8, f ands are ci!snnissed. FeftalninE to such appeal where tlre compensation stands enhanced staiutony benefits as per the Land Acquisfi:ion '*'ct LE94 as explainecl in the judgment reported as Su,cler vsr ao{ 2001" (93} p11 56g shail be granied, except for the period where there is a deray in firing ihe appear or cross pbjeciion, for ''l:'llh period o;'ceia"- no intei'es'L on the enhanced coi^niie*sation shaii lre paid. These appeilants or cross objectors wo,rd be errti'."led to propor.lionate cost. with refere'ce to the notification dated g.g.2CIOr_ vvherern with e'i-fect from L.4.z,ar minimum price notified ller ecis is T15.70 !a!<hs per acre and reqr-riring said price to be ' siri':ebry updatu-d tc reach the date of the notification i.e.;2":.2001 and with reference ro the sare deed dated zs,s,zfraz vuire:'ein for category 'c' iancls, rand price per acre comes to {'1::,7tv,7agb, rounded,:ir to T17,75,000/- per acre, and fcr calegory 'B' lands ihcreasing the same by 2.5% the'price cornes::r:-:-3'2 !akhs p€r 6gps and funther !ncreasing by 2,5"16 the prices:L-r-ies to <19,65,500r- per acre for category,A, rancrs; aird '' c'ecu'easing the said prices by n% io refrect the price wi.irr i'efei"ence 'to the sare deecr. ir:r the date 22.8.2a0i; the r.l.lean il','e -age pi"ice roi- Ca.ieQortri.,.At_!ands !r-r viilage Aii pur ccmes i ll {t a br" '. r I"r 'r'l ' i tl *.L{.{ L_--., -'ti---\ ! tai t': ';,1.' -' I r;' G\i' I 1., ti-rei. i:he tearneci ff€fr:refice-C neasons;fiu su'Jay witlr Caregory 'B' iands and uniform price awardei is {'i[6],43,81-U- per acre, tl-le price differential wor!<ed out !:y ine cCIrrles to a rneager {9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'E' laricis ! nra!ntain the amoun'L awarded by the learned Rer'erence !..?E. Af ! [-ano Acquisition Appeals filed by the union of--l'iiulia-- --'-"ilt respect whereof Erid has been prepared and labeled as 'GF.iD- [{' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not;i!ec any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference eourt. 8C. There shall be no order as to costs. Villaqe Fto{amhi Khurd ${ptifieation dated 22,8.2001 Ei.. Wi'th reference to the, notification dated 9.8.2001 irrr',€i'€ih with efi"ect from L.4.200L minimum price notified per ec'e is T15.70 lal<hs per acre and requiring said price to be si-riiably updated to reach the date of the notification !.e. 7?-.8.2001" ar:d v.rith i'efei"ence to ihe saie cJeeci.daieci 25.5.2402 '.r,ne::ein for Category 'C' lancls, land price per acre comes to 11."i "7d-,109/-, naunded off to tL[7],75,000/- per acre, and for i*,alegory 'B' laircfs iricreasinE the same by 2.5% the price corfies i:o ii.-8,[2] lakhs pes'ac!"e and furiher increas!ng by 2.5% the prices ccrfles to <18,65,500/- ller acre for Category 'A' lands; and ciec'leasing the sa!C prices try LL% to reflect the price ',l"'ith i"efer'ence to the sale deed for the date 27.8.20A[1]; the mean -,Eye r.:agejrrice -'Eo+ -Ca-tegory 'A.' -!aR4s-in- viltagrFlelantb'i-i(-ttu rd--,----cc'Ties to <16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the sarne by ' '?-.?tA, it comes to {i[6],32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands, i;:C.fiiEI t'l1a=r Ulb-leAilled-Refetence Court has, witholtt a;ny i3estfl-s-* oo-a-e*a"utarl uri'ch{ai:eger:r,e-:E-ie-nds-+,r+el uniform price \ r -rtF C- Category 'R' lancLq ! r-{'lalntain...t-he amsunt awarded bv lea nrned Reference Court.

92. The aptreal 'fi|ed ity the Union tryhereof grid lras iceen prepat:ed and. hereinabove is disrinlssed. I note that land any appeal chailenElnE the decision of the oi India in respect labeled as'G[1$il-l' oyJners have i'lot fliecl Reference Court.

83. There shall lce no onder as to costs. Vifilaere Ra.trapun [(a[an Ntotitication dated 2Z.E,Z00t

84. with neference to the rrotification dated 91.B.2Lr,,il wherein with effect 'iromr 1.4.200L minimum price notii'iecJ iier acre !s q15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said pr,ice to,le suitately upoated to neach the date of the notification i.e.

22.8. VA}L atrd with"i'eference to the sale cleed clatecl 25.5.2C[1],12 u'rlrerein for category 'c' lands, land price per acre ccmes co <L[7],74,,LA91-, rsuncled off to tl[7],75,000/- per acre,. ernd,,otcateEory 'B' lancls increas!ng the same by 2,5% the price cos.-i:1,:s 'io R18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices.;omes to t18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lancjs; alicl rlecreasing the said prices by Ll% to reflect the price ur,ii:ir;'efereirce tc the sale deed for the date Z[2].B.zaa]; ihe me:ln sverage price 'ior Category 'A' lands in villaEe Rajapul:" l(a!:-rn:on'les to {L[6],74",50CI/- Fler acre and decreasing the same lry '.7.5o/o, it comes to {L[5],37,637.50 per acre for Categortrr 'E' lanr's. r!u-titrE tha'i the !eal'necl Reference Court has, ',nithcilt fr.,11/.^easoris, dorre alffair with Category 'B' lands and unitorrn pr,,;e q!rirA5_ded__is T16,43,83.tr/- per acre, tl're price differentla! worleed:"' -"'! r-' ^^!11'^' '!-n a '*1aoer q[9],0001- ogL. acr:g.-anci ti-rus cr';a JUL u\r tilC Lutillcs LU d tlte r ___.,. lategrory 'B' lands I rnaintain the amount awarded.lty 'i::re 'earnecl Rei'erence Cou rt. 1") '-r tE I \I 1r {.r 't; {t':il tl 'rl r\lr':_) lv '2- 1t ----"':- irerestrgr+d#ft------ --.',=alql-filed b1i iand onit-"reTE in"'-espect \ry' e,P.Pii?!S -nltu tJY rsr:u ffi*noffi; *,o*'"-i' hereinabove are dismissed'

86. A|tLandAcquisitionAppea|sfi|edbythelandowne'is ariocross-ohjectionsfi|edbythe|andownersinappea|sfl|edby Unian of [ndia are allowed by "decreeing' compensation"payable icrCatesorv'A'landsinvltlaseR'aiapurlt9iT:il^:totlre i.,atificationdated72.8.200].insumof{1.6,7.+,sool-peracreaird frr CateEory 'B' lancls the compensation awarded at i,=16,4-3,811/- fier acre is rnaintained and thus such appeals or Crossreferences'whichpertaintoCategory",B'|andsare I f;;:{r '. r i.-\:';*'tt"iunu,*,nn ro such appeal where rhe compensation s.tandsenhancedstatutorybenefiGaspertheLandAcquisition A.ci 1gg[4] as explair.led in the, judginent reported as s@eLw gl2001.(93)DLT569sha|lbegranted,exceptfortheperiod,:*iiere tlrere is a delay irr filing the appeal or cross objection' for tthiclrperiodo.fdelaynointerestontheenhancedcompenseition '' oo T''"t-:'"^::^;'^n'. or cross obiectors would be s,:iallbefcaid'Theseappellahtsol:crossobiectors\r\ I i..l eriiltledto proportionate cost' |j[8].Withi-eferencetothenotificationdatedg.S.200:" li,.,nereii.t with effect flom 1.4'2001 minimum price notlfied pe!. ?cre is r15.70 lakhs per acre:":^::o::''?:"'iLllii"-','*'::Lil-l'-";- ",; '-'*-* -ql':-,#5;:lT#:#-

7. L2'200L ano wi[tr- reference to the sale c nar acFF conres i:c ilil:J;JT#*;;'lcl'uno'' rand price per acre conres i:o _tuJg$e-t=-_ro-un.oeda.rr]m*ar;:cr.oo.peracreo.airdfi.;r iaresory'B' iands increasiry tt"--t:!v.:: nT:ilnT,T:: iategOfy'E lcirrL!) rilL..vui-,.'.:-: - *---.---=,ng by Z.5oh the pfiCeS per' acre ancl 'ir-irther increast t' tl ' I l--/ =>-r.*\ '. i au L*.*ii" "il \ refei"ence to the sale deed for the date T.!2.2001; the m:a,n averaEe price for cateEory 'A' lands in village Sanoth comei; to <17,29,5001- per acre. Noting that all lands in village sanot!"i as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of sayile veilue I hold that. for acquired lands in village sanoth for ihe notificaticn dated 7.1,2.2001 the land owners wourld.be ent[.[.led to the enhanced compensation in sum of t17,Zg,50Ol-.

89. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the uniorr of fi-idia and cross objections wherever filed by union of lndia in 'ihe appeals 'iiled by land owners in respect w.hereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-|(' hereinabove are dismisseci. 9CI. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the lanci owners and cross-objectiors filed by the land owners in appeals filecl by union of lndia are allowed by granting compensaiion in sur:-r of (17,29,500i- and needless to state cn the enhariceci compensation siatutory benefits as per the Lancj Acquisition "tct 1894 as explained in tffe judgment reported as Sunder Vs. !,tol 200L (93) D!-T 569 shall be glanted, except for the period where there !s a cielay in 'iiling the appeal or cross objectiqn, fon w','i;ch lrerlod cf delay no lnterest on the enhanced compensatlon snall [:e pa[d. These apilellanis or cross objectors would ire entiiiied to proportionate cost. V[filaqe Shahpur Garhi Nlotificatlon dated ].6.5.2002 Fer'taii'rinE to viliaEe Shahpur Garhi, as helci by,'rie hereirraborie the land price wor-rlc! have to he deter"m!ned ''.'irlt refenence to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which lsrnd prlce for Category 'A' lanCs has been de'iernnineci b:' ffle a'i (18,65,50C/- per acre and since there is just a differeirce e,'i 4 { 91..ili;t11:iil. '.'i;: tifi;,: i::,;i;,{) ^:-' I L-ile!' acre and I highlight that as per the award and'the r€i-erence _a,ii tands are | 4gp-ei[--Ud-qfqLs objeclions filed by the land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowed anci rreedless to state on the enhanced compensation the lano o'r(rners would be entitled'to all statutory benefits as pe'r the Land Acquisition Act L894 as interpreted in the judgiirent rerrorted as S-uadet \/s,-UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in srlch appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where tt-iere is deta,v, no interest would be paid for the period of clelay. Frcportionate costs stand, awarded. Appeals' and cross objections'filed by [-lnion of India are dismissed. Vi[laoe Shahpnqq Garhr ilIotifieatflonlnated ?3'5.3Q@e -:2. Peftaining to the. notification dated 23.5.2004 i:erlaining to villaEe Shahpur Garhi, noting that thb date o'i the s,aie deed ancj the notification has a differential of only i Cays I i,rild that perLaining to this notification, since land is of same categorSr, t,h" larrd owners would be entitled to compensation at ti:e rate of (18,65,500/- with statutoty benefits as per the Lanci.acquisition Act -1894 as inteipreted in the deLision reported as SW z}al (93) DLT 569 except in such apgreals or *"css objections filu=d by land owners where there is a cjeialr,', no i:'rterest lvouid be paio forihe period of delay. ProporLicnate cos'ls s'iand arryarded. All such appeals and cross objections b5r [and owners aS per'GRID-lVi'stancj aliowed as aforesaici ar-rd aii anpeals ald cross objections, filed by Union of India are clismiss€d. Vi!fieqre HQ8arnhf Ka8am Notsfiqatgorl d,ated 23"5r?0.[9] -l' ---\. '^-/ I ir tt[3]. ':r' \ l-/' '/'?f[1]. ') [ ccllector and ihe learned Reference court' The lea'rneil F.eference Court has awardqd- corqp-ensation in sllm n'i 172,L[4].,23g1- per acre which I have found to' be ' excessive i'nasmuchasforihecjate23,S,2002|havehe|dthatfairmar|<et value would be t18'65'5001- per acre ?nd thus all appeals anci Ci.ossobjectiorrs.fileclbythelandownersaSper,GRID.N!,are ci:smissed a*d appea|s and cross objections filed lry Union o.l irrdiaarea|lowedbymodifyingiheimpugnedcjecreepassedbi; tire|earnedReferenceCourtandreducingthecompensatictn i:ayableto{18'65'500/-peracreonwhich'needlesstostate' withreferencetotheenhancedpricewithreferencetothe arrvard the statutory benefits arready grantgd stand maintaineci' [{o costs...t" '\\ I \i i:...---

94. HerLdrrrrtrv Lv I the said notificatinn to village Aii Pur' for parity of reasons qua t:l=-:""';';";.relatirrg to viIlage Holambi l(aIan and Shahpur Garhi I cle.iermi;-le.tair market value payabre at {r.8,65,500/- per ai:re ar-ld 'ihus all appealsandcrossobjectionsfiledbyUnionoflrrdiaaSper.,GRlD-o,aredismissedandal|appealsandcrossolrjecticinsfilecj by rand o\niners as per said Grid are. a'owed by enhancing 'iire compensa,lionpayabletotl[8],65,500/-peracreon.wilich statu.Lory beuefits as pe' Land Acquisition Act as interprete;l in theiudsmeirt'*q?I:-qZ.ffi2001(e[3])Dl-rr6e shatl,oe paid,av; _Jnu eicept in such appeals 0r c;os$ obiectionswheretlrereisadelav'intere::::.:l'notbepaicifot Perfaininrg to the notification dated 23'5 '::i,j-.:li:]:: U L)1r-u ut " the pericrci of cetay' l-luP,,rL'v'vr n A+.4, a - r.e.rr -a{-i^n r{ai'6fl.l I " L e[5]., FertaininE to the appeals and jf,:t*:::::: J[3]., ri:rLL'!'r'. - rr.n:rr3-p, 'iio:rs b'' 'the r; the,"'H.n -, u' I t-"-,,: J. t/ that the learned l-and Acquisition Collector in 3 categories and I find that the learned without any discussion held the lands as has piaced Reference of uniform the !ands Couri has categiory 'f' l:*1llii*]" a while awarding conlpensation.

96. Cn the mean average basis which I have been following lcy increasing the price as of L,4.ZOOL with nefererlce to the notification issued by the Government as also by itrcreasing the ---sanrs-$ilitfi-r"efuren"es-ts the.sale deed dated 20.5.200? and 'talcing the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes fo t19,43,q0-q/.- p.q! acre and ig1-cAlegory'B-'iand the price qo_m-gg to {18,94,9L[2].50 per acre and for Category'C' lancls the price comes to (18,47,539.68 peq acre.. I find that the leetrned Re'Ference Court tras uniformly determined fair market value at {19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objectlons which have been filed by land owners the same have to be disn'iissed. in so far they pertain to Categ ory ' B' and Category 'C' lanCs and sirnilar would be the fate of appeals and Cross objectiens filed by Ljnlon of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said'appeals and cnos[5] objeciisns as per'GRID-P' are dismissed. Appeais and Cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Categel-y 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation p'ayable in s:-im of t19,4.3,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhflnceci cor1pensation statutory trenefits as per the Land Acqutisiti0n Act X894 as lnte!'preied in the judgment repgrLed as Suncler ltS, UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid sbve and exceirt in such appeals and cross'objections vuhere there is a delay, irri:erest would not be paicl for the period of delay. Pro'pbrtiona'le cnsts as weli. -i-he appeals and cross objections filed by Union ci'india pertaining to ca'iegory'8', and category '$' lands are allotr,'eci b}r { r' '1,...t[7] L>"/ {Lg,94,g12.50 per acre and for CateEony 'C' iend (L[8],47,539.68 per acre. 97 " For parity of reasoning as per para 96,bou" pertaining to village sanoth, sirnirar corrective action is to be requirecr pertairring to rands acquired. pursuant.to notification dated 27 'L 2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that the learned Reference.court has in 'some cases awarded co!"npensation in sum of tLg, 13,765/- per acre and iir some cases at t19,L[6],04ar- per acre by treating ail rancls of uniform cateEory. on the mean average basis which ! have been followinE by increasing the price as of r_.4.2001 with reference y_jh"_l-:_1,.1'!t"" 'rISg _ Ov the Governrnenr as atso try increasing the same with referenc" t" t-h" *r" -ouurr dated 20.5.2002 and takinE the mean average, for cateEory,A",rancrsi - 'ihe prieerontes-to-Ftg;43,S0$F-per affirTd.fsr Category,8, land the price comes to t1g,[9] 4,gL[2].50 per acre and.r"or category 'c' lancis the price cornes to T18,47,53g.68 per acre. T'hr.rs such appeals or cross objections which have been fired liy rand owners rhe same have to be dismissed in so far they pe:-iain to category 'B' and category 'c' lands and sirnilar would ire ihe fate of appeals and cross objections filed by union oi. India perfaining to cateEory 'A' lands. The said appeals anc cross objections as pen 'GRtD-e, are dismissed. Appeais ancj cross oh.iectior-ls filed by land owners pertainlng to categcry,A, lands are allowed by 't1eo'eeing compensatlon payable in surn of <19,43,5001- per acre arid' needtess to statron-the enlianced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Accluisitlen Act l-894 as interpreted in 'the judgment reported as sundeilrs. ug! I { \ -* r,l c- (1, 7, t,rr'l. 'itt[1] would not lfg-pAldjq-L'ihe- period of deiay' Froportionate o"'=-'u 3t wel|.Theappea|sandcrossobjectionsfiiedbyUnioir'ofit.idia peftainingtoCategory,B,andCategory,C'|andsare,ai|owed.by r.nrodiiyingthere|atab|edecreeintheReference.order.by ht r^*^l.*n f oti,i;,, rt J r. r:2 -- --*---*e ".idT"r.,* -Eu*,puir-tiun -fsr- -'eategory '*', land to <18,94,9L?'.saperacreandforCategory,c,|aqdto {18,47,539.68 Per acre ---."^t*fr (PRADEEP hlA$I DRA.$OG ) JtIDGE At[GtDsT 23, 20x3mr,rnidte if^ \( 4..t,