Gauri Shankar & Anr. v. UOI & Anr.

13. The fourth argument advanced was, and for which -rfe-rece was made by learneounse[1] 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.268/2008 filed by the land owners APP.No.292/2008 filedby Unionofjndia, 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 2011:DHC:18624. testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agricultural produce from his lands he used to earn T[1] lakh per bigha per iñii i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said 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.268/2008 and the • respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008.

14. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for each of the notification in question the fairTharket value ought to have been determined with reference to the notification wflkh was closest in point of time whera_under minimum land value was fixed by the Government' and the notification dated 24.1.2008 where under T53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18,12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument. •

15. The last argument, which was in the alternative tothe first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.2.00 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for 5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said sale deed in the followingwords: (Refer i'ara l7oftfie decision dated 71 2010 in LAC No 11 7A/2009) "If we add stamp duty in the sale price 3,69,9061.per bigha 5,39,6901+ 70,160 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which coms to T 17, 74,109/per acre or 3,68,9061- per big/ia. Further if we give 12% increase on said amount for intervening period between the date when the sale deed was executed and the date of nüt/fication u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) 1. e. 8 months it • comes to 19,16,0371- (round off 19,16,0401-)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e; Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land_was put in Category 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the O land being comprised in KiasraN2D0 and that page No.56-57 Otthe avard would evid tht1d:omprised in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in Category. 'C'. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of fl[5].[7] lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by 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 fl[2].[3] lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the argument was. The argurnentprecisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question the samE had to Category 'C' lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands tne price naci to be increased by fl.[7] lakhs per acre for each category.

16. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflectedin • para 9 above and hence I need not repeat the same. • 17. 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 the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence my journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various subparas of para 6. above.

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

19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued. under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' •.Whi.chWöud bethy data for. fur e Ii put in a tabular form the data would be as under:- - S.

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) 5CC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. /sti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mo/id. RaUfuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.AAct 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be.special. circumstances which have led the buyer., to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay'to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any.special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area;. has understood the' topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lan'ds in the 'area. I would be failing if I do.not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by,the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. 17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes" to T61478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and T28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex,.PW-1/3, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.,, ' S themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price -and-eattedestroyeachottTeT 23..lhus,... apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21ahove_wuJb_eaddItionaI reasons to hold that the 2 saledeeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the • acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sate deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated • 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being • LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap Singh (since deceased) thru LR[5] Vs. UOT& 0,-s. It was highlighted thäfthe sale déédtherein by which L&Thad 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-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the. Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, butftithid that if the price therein was •reduced by 113rd, the price arrived at would be the same as S would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of 1,37,000/per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to 2,31,800/- which was near about the price of 2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3 rd would be deducted from the sum of 3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of the said, dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. 2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read. pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I. would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutuallV. destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair, market value. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to village....-Na.rela, 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. ' The second argument, contours whereof are to be found in para 11 of my decision 'herein above, I need to note the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. ' Page 35 of.74 • 1atet..ronouncement of the Supreme Court on the Issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UQI. 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-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and the argument was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing • Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V' formed by NH-i and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing the same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts, in paras ii to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence? ii. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications from members of the. public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: i;ivo.piot size Category Rate 'per square metre) 26 sq m Economically weaker sections Rs 100 (EWS) 32 sq m Low income grOup (LIG) Rs 125 48 sqm Low income group (LIG) Rs 150 4T60 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200

5. 90 sq m Middle income group (MlG). Rs•200 2011:DHC:18624..._...: The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the said provisional rates, should be taken as indicative of the ruling market price. 12.. On careful consideration, we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form, the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several, reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold tan'dwhereasthe allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which, the exemplar plots are situated. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first' is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the 'second is the cost: of the development works. ' For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc.. The development authority will also incur considerable ' expenditure for deVelopment of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. ' O underground drainage and sewage lines, electricity lihes and developing parks and civil -amenities, which would beaboijt-3-5%-of-the- va+tte-of-the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. •. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential 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 community facilities., • Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development wor.k would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus. the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots.. The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout. • 18. 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 very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots... • If the.acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure.will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.) 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 with reference to the price of a small plot in: an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is a4sf'1 wn that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is' much higher than the cost',inciirred' by private developers, having regard-to higher overheads and expenditure. 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- -fl ftal-Oc-industnaf a -even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the • size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community 'fac+Hties parks and playgrounds provided. Some of. the layouts formed by the statutory deitel-aprnent authot-i-ties may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself' being very wide from 20% to 75%. Second factor. DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon the economic status of the, allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and, economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, •.. plots 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 incOme groups. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying, factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be.illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacfty of applicants Third factor... S

30. It is no doubt true, as held even by -the learned Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands hadacquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in LJ Chancis case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. The third submission in the alternative was based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bed! Ram's case (supra), and the submission is as noted In para 12 herein above. The land owners require the prlce determined in Dharambits case (supra) relating to the notification dated ~M to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% per annum and lastly.by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 nátifications in question. It be highlighted that in Bed! Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date as. of the year 1959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied the progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 yeais. However, in La! Chancis case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-10- 1961 is relevant?.

47. The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired. under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation wasawarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This. Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbha/j/vanbha/ PateiiQ this Court. held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) ormatly, recourse is taken to the mode of de.ermining the market value. by providing -appropriate calation overeprovemarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by s-ale transacti-o-ns---o-r--aeqii+s+ti-ons), where there is no I evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions •r. acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasOnably -safe saie. 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 unrellable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the ahñual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices orsudden 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 circumstahces. For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the O 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 thatas it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition.."..

35. It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi R&m's--c-a-se4su-pr-a) runs in the teeth of the law declared by theSupreme Court in La! Chands case (supra)-- which decision follows--an—earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai /ivanbhai Pate!. POEMN. 2011:DHC:18624. L — Inithe__instant case there is anotherood reason nOt to follow the law laid down in Bed! Ram's case (supra) for the reason I find that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLI 650 (DB) SaraswatiDevi & Anr. Vs. UO/ & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharamb/(s case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ 2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ fl000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would have come to approximately 50,00.0/per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at 337000J- per bigha.

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, MahenderS/ncih vs., UO/ & 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 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 was determined@ 1,99,90468 bigha 'which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 2 5.7.1997 by which price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the Government was flO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 45. of 74 S determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. were to @ 9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein above, I would be holistically discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 • notifications in question. The fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who apea • •red for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are • the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning 1 lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no.proof in support of his oral testimony. The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on 4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3d week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is 2011:DHC:18624.... sown around the first week or the second week of November --..............each.. 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 thereafter earned apension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning U lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annual 1ificome-•-would befl•9 iakhs and one •.fit strange that not a penny was invested ma bank or a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined. No proo.f of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the. tubewell[1] if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned • Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of,the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has. been. rightly rejected.............. If there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as iT 1997 (1) SC 444 State of Gu/arat& Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to the yield from agricultural land, only then it would be safe to determine fair market value by applying the principle of • capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, the capitalizing being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 times as was sought to be projected. The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle be adopted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008. In para.[7] above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time •.. to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.82001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of 1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus,, there would be no: • need to •factor in the minimum price notified under the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 year awayfrom the last year with which I am concerned 1.c. he year 2003. I highlight that.reckonedw.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 closest-to—the--point for wh-i-th the mean average has to be determined.. I am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References with respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and has determined that based thereon the price as of said date works out to 17,[7] 1O9/--per a aTId--intTeaSin9-the-sa-m-e for 8 months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price would be 19,16,037/- per acre rounded off to 19,16,040/- per acre.

47. With referenceto the Award No.I0/DC(NW)/2004..05 it • is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C' land. The sale deed in question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflect fair market value of Category 'C' land. As per the learned Land Acquisition • Collector 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] S j fl Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were less vis.a-vis Category 'C' land. In other words, with reference to Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C' land would have to be reduced and vice-versa,, vis-à-vis Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land would be required to be increased suitably. - 48. Inow enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the reasoning adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the•.Iearned Reference Court, I pose the question: What should • be the fair market value of the subject lands as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000[1] 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 1 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the dates on which the notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisftion Act 1894;

49. • I have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters, • 11.5.2006, MahenderSincih vs. UOI& Ors. wherein pertaining to as of 15.11.1996 is[1],99,904.68 per bga • which equals to 9,59,542.46 per acre. The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i.e. the lands with which the Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision; rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural De-thi were identified for providing major health facfflties; schools, markets and rural • industry, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted that G T Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and that the Master Plan for Delhi notified in the year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed in the future to industrial and commercial, but had also -------- otyserved that hotwiThstardlng this, for thë7ëason no was notified as contemplated by Section hA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to • the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being known to all as being required in the future for building purposes, was found not resulting inthepotential being valued with reference to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capable. of being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so. expressly, stating, would be a propOitionThtthere is a difference between the undeveloped land having building L-A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters, • - potentiality,in presenti vis-a-vis.a land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was 9,59,542.46 per acre and which I.highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. the notification dated 25.7.1997 where-under for agricultural lands in...Del.hi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was TiO lakhs per acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Ga/ra] • Sfncih vs. (JO! & 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 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was 9,51,121/per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana It needs to be highlighted that while. determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations Of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with. reference to develQpment. work carried out in the surrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V' i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village • Singhola determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ fl,30,523/- per bigha i.e. 6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is •.repoitecLas.2004 (4) AO(DeIhi) 20 Ram Chander vs[1] (JO/and the •-.sameDivsknBench, as per the decision-°reportedas 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh vs. (JO!, pertaining_to a notification dated 14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ 71,40,230/- per bigha i.e. 6,73,104/- per acre. 50- The-afadre§Aid judgmentsnoted in the preceding • 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 bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the. year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 • minimum price was 74.65 lakhs per acre which rose to f1O lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 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 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the • next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as.. of. 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, between the year. 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ga/rats case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

51. I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Ga/rats case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Ho.lambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras.[9] to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was 95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good hrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at 9.[5] lakhs per acre. Discussing the • •second method of land pilces of comparable lands in the -------5-Ufufld+n-g-a-re-aS' including potentfaHty, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices • in • adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and instances found that based on the said sale • ftstances and gvfftg—be fft—of--irtdustrFaliiatipn the land price would come to 10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of 9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and 9,51,121/- 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. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale • transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price • notified as of 1.4.1997 at T10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was 10,03,364/- per acre.

52. The decision in Mahender Sing/i's case, pertaining to viliage.B..awana, 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 theCourt 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 lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, • the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact • • that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawanaand 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 Ga/rats case and Mahender Sing/i's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality betwen 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% 9 per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that came 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. The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful' sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the 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 19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for 5,39,690/- and 70,160/- was paid as stamp dUty would mean that 6,09,850/- (5,39,690/- + 70,160/-) were spent would yield the price 17,74,109/- per • acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. Thus, the best which could be said as the most faourable 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 17,74,109/- per acre. For 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 nQted by me hereinabove in sub-para (a)• of para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LAAppNo:266/2008 & connected matters S (e. sometimes 1.[2] Iakhs per acre, sometimes T[1].56 lakhs per acre and sometimes 1.[7] lakhs per acre from the price of Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C' as well -the price 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 ceg at is baen{y on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths -------reqii-iing--thesarne to be leveled and this would_require money • to be spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that T[1].[2] lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that T[1].56 Iakhs per acre would be spent and in some that fl.[7] Iakhs per acre would be spent? There is just no clue. In Ga/ral S/na/i's case (supra), the price differential worked out was 25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Ga/raj S/na/i's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. In Ga/ra/ Singh's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' • land the price determined was 9,51,121/- per acre andthe price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land. I thus hold that Gá/ra/ S/ncjh'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%. Thus, if fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to T17.75 iakhs per acrewcd-bthpriCefora...Category 'C'1andtriviilage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No.266/2008. & connected matters admittedly pertains to a Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land would be.18.20 lakhs per acre and for Category 'A' land would be T18.655 lakhs per acre.

59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was T13.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was T15.[7] lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the.year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at T18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per • annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately ?16.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at T15.[7] lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is 70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held gbodevidencetO work OUtTaiid price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be. a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account while determining the market value of• land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.52001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001.. 60. The argument that village Narela had always been treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of Narela was in existence since long and this was recOgnized when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, vis-àvis the adjoining villages t[2] per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambii's case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational advantage was keeping in view the realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which included areas in:North-VVest 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, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001 the land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 for the reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates could be determin&d Pertainingto the notificationdate.d 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003,the land price needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 because with refecence to atcfJj price it Is--apparent that land 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 1.4.2001. With respect to the price differential for category 'A' and Category 'B' lands., noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village • Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001) I hold that ViS-à-viS the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decrea.sing the same by 2.5% to determine the price for Category 'B'. land. Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A'. lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantially in the other, a striking note of discordant would • emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value at 22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002,:—buttmeed to highlight Tharpertatning to the same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court has determinecFthe -fajr market value at 17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village Rajapur-Kalan and Sanoth, pertainingto the notificationdated 27.1.2003 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is fl[9],16,040/- in some cases and 19,13,760/-. in a few,

73. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-E' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for. Category 'A' lands in village Narela pertaining to the notification dated 2.5:2001 in: sum of 1616,500/- per acre and as per the reference order, for Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such'appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed, as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act • 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569.shall be granted, except for'the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LAApp.No.266/2008 & cmnected matters • • interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These ortionate cost. V#tae-HoIambi Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001

74. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 ---whrei-nvittreffect-frorrr14.01....-minimum price notified per acre is f15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be' suitably updated to •reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 255.2002 wherein for Category, 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to U[7],74,109/-, rounded off to 17,75.,000/- per acre, and for • Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to t18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to refteet—the price with reference to the sale deed for.the date 22:8.2001; the mean average price for Category, 'A' lands in _village Holambi Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasingthe same by 2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 16,43,811I- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid' has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G hereinabove are dismissed.' All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of 16,74,500/- per acre and for • Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition • UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. VIllaQe All Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimu.m price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 17,74109/, rounded off to. fl[7],75,000I per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to t18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by.2.5% the prices........ comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category....'At4ands in village All Pur comes: to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl[6],32,637.50 per acre for. Category 'B' lands. Noting • that thetearned Rëfërhce Court has,-without any reasons, done away, with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre,.the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union....of-fn'da--- —"— in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-" H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any 'appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Village Holambj Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.& 2001 and with reference to the sale deed.dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land. price per acre comes to 17,74,109/-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per ac're, and for • to18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean a vefage_price.forCategoy. 'A' VL- D.11 to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. NtiñthafTffiè1èäThed Reference Court has, without any reasons dunay with Category 'B' lands a uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager ?9,000/- per acre and thus qua I Category 'B'. Inds I maintain theamountawarded by the learned Reference Court.

82. The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. 83: There shall be no order as to costs.. Village Ralapur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001

84. With reference to the notification dated, 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per • acre is fl[5].70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and withreference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 17,74,1091-, rounded off to' 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 23% the price comes to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 1.1% to reflect the price, with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price.warded is16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked • •out by rn,e,,comesto a meager 9,00.0j-....p.c....acre.and thu,s qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. -.

85 All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the •. '.'..:.. appeais:-filed bytand own-e-rslrrrespectwhereof--g4144 been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-i' hereinabove are dismissed.. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by.decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of16,74,500/- per, acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded. at 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are •. dismissed....... Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 asexplained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001 • 88. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 17,74,1O_9/-_rounded off.. to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to t18.[2] Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes-to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with • •• reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to 17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notification dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of 17,29,500/-. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-K' hereinabove are dismissed.. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in. appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of 17,29,500/- and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall S be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2002 Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by me hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at 18,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a difference of 4 days between the date of sale and the notification I maintain that fOr the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- •peracre and I highlight that as per the award all lands are in the same category. Appeals and_cross objections filed by the land owners as perthe 'GRID-L' are allowed and needless to state on, the enhanced compensation the: land owners would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as SUnder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is delay, no interest would be paid for the period of. delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded.. Appeals and cross. • objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. ViHage Shahpur Garhil Notification dated 23.[5] 2002 Pertaining' to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days I hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same • category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported'as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. ViHaQe Holambi Kalan Notification dated 23.5.2002 As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been,treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awarded., compensation in cum of ?22,14,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have held that fair market value would be 18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to 18,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, •' with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. Village All Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002 Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village All Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at 18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and, cross objections filed by Union of India as per 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to 18,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. (101 2001 (93) DLT. 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid fork the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. ViHaQe Sanoth Notification dated 27.1.2003. Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as per 'GR1D-P' pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sanôth, I note LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.:DHC:18624 •........ that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation.

96. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the -- _same with 'reference—to the sate deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to 19,43,500/- per acre and for_Category 'B' land the price çrrs to fl[8],94,[9] 12.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market valde at 19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed • in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar wOuld be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The saidappeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of. 19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shalt be paid.... except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a.delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union.. of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by med-ifyi-n--the---re1ata-bIe---deeFee--in the Reference Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to •.• •. • •18,94,912.50 per acre and for _Category 'C' land• to 18,47,539.68 per acre. Village RajaDur Kalan Notification dated 271.2003

97. For parity of reasoning as per para 96 above pertaining to village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of 19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at ?19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category A' lands -the:p comes -to 43; ---per B' land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to ?18,47,539.68 per,acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining.to Category 'A' lands.. The said.apeals and cros objections as per '.GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of 19,43,500/- per acre arid needtessto stateomthe.... nhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 3LF-56s*aIlbe paid-s-ave-cd except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Pag? 73 of 74 would not be paid for the period Of delay. Proportionate costa well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by ecking the compensation -for-- Category, 'B' land to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' land to 18,47,539.68 per acre.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE AUGUST23, 2011 mm/dk