Vinny Goel v. Union of India & Anr

72. and for which the argument was that when in the- pa~-·---.-· rtaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Co-urt-had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village __ Mamurpur- Nbrela by giving a. price benefit of ~2/- per sq;yd. This was I..Jbheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in ·CJA.No.4405/1997 UOI vs. Dharambir & Drs. The said decision would reveal _that the price per bigha in _sum of ~6,650/­ determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to ~16, 750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced td ~22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this urtw-as reversed by-the Supreme Court and the one rendered the Reference Court was restored. 11.. Learned counsel for the land owners seconoly urged, in th\e 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 re1sulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized andd~velop~d into residenti~l and ind~strial esta~e~, had resut~e~ in.thb subject lands havmg acqUired a bUJidmg potent1al1ty, reauired fair market value to be determined with respect to the p~ice at which DSIOC and DDA,i.e. the implementing agencies, ~. ' wmich acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed lahd in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate and _for which learned counsel took me through the ·e\Aidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court,,wmich I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged. -

12. Alternative to the second submission, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Cdurt in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram, _LAApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 24 of74 ~-- ~--. I. ! -.- ~;;_ vs. Union of India, it was permissible to determine fa!r market ~~----·· ----- - - - - - value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by· Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.I.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bedi Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6~ per annum with reference to the base price ~16, 750/- per bigha as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharamb1r's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till 31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per- annum till the various dates when the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time; and with 1 vv•"' u l_am_concerned in_ __tb_e present __appeals_. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would ·come to ~56,88, 759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the r·eason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as ()f the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged.that on the same principle market value shouJd -be assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002. and 23.5.2002.

13. The fourth argument· advanced was, and for which ---ref-er-ence was made by learned counsel 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 ------+--and LA.APP.No.292/2008 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 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 25 of74:/Yi - ·,,,, ~ r;-:; testimony of Ram Kishan to the ~_ffect that by selling agricultural, produce from his lands he used to earn ~1 Jakh per bigha per --.-- lannurri i.e. the fcilr market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition IAct 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan,and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be ~20 lakhs per bigha.. 1 ay highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by. h.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram K.ishannd others i.e. the appellants _ifl LA.APP.No.268/2008 and the espondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008.

4. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.,Kang, dvocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for ach of the notifica_tion in question the fair market-value ought. o have been determined with reference to the· notification -----------r··,____._h~icb was cJns_est in point of time where under minimum land I.•. alue was fixed by the Government and the notification dated--- 4.1.2008 where under ~53 lakhs per acre was the minimum rice fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be dopted was the precise argument.

5. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing it~ which, in some References the learned Ref~rence Court ad, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where nder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (11-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for 5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said ·ale deed in the following: words: (_Refer para 17 of ~he decision iated 7._1.2010 inLAC No.ll7A/2009): ulf we add stamp dUty in e sale price 't.3,69,9061- _per bigha ({5,3~690L:~t 70,160 =,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes.to"<17,74;109!er acre or ~3,68,9061- per bigha. Further il we give 12% A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 26 or74 J01 ' -,-,,_1' I -,-, ~ increase on said amount for intervening period between the· date when the sale deed was executed and the date of -:notificatkm tJ/5· 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003} i.e. 8 months it comes; to '{19,16,037/- (round off'{_1g16,040/}_." 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 bisw~_!~_~d was. put i~-~?_!_eQ_~!Y 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category '8' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Cat~_go~y_ 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra No.700 and tha"t p-age No.56-57 -----or- the award would evtaence -tncn--tan·a -comprised 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 '{15.[7] lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated ·9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by '{1.[7] lakhs per· acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was '{14 lakhs per -. acre and further depress the same by another '{1.[7] lakhs per Sf acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determined.=· whereof was '{12.[3] lakhs per acre. · It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the sarne had to oe for Category 'C' lands and. for Category '8' and Category 'A' lands the price naa to be increased by ~1.[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 reflected in para 9 above and hence I need not repeat: the same. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 27 of74 ~- j I.·:.i il.: I • !i ~~

7. In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I have apsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector nd the learned Reference Court pertaining -to the 8 notifications 11ssued under Secti_~n 4 ~f the Land Acquisition Att- 1894 and elatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence my journey to eal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts oted as· also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition ollector and the learned Reference Court as per various subaras of para 6 above. But before dealing with the arguments I -need toighlight various anomalies which strike the reader at the The same would be:-.· Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 wherein were- acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for Category 'B' nds, having depressions and pits, deduction effected vis-a-vis the price for Category 'A' lands is ~1.56 lacs per acre and ertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 where price' has een determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd, a-ie- -price- diff-erential has been ·worked out at ~1.2_ lacs per acre nd while determining fair market value for agricultural lands in illage Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notification ated 2.5.2001 the deduction effected is ~1. 7 lacs per acre, hich is the same figure adopted when fair market value of. gricultural land in village Holambi Kalan was determined as of the date 22.8.2001. Pertai11lng tg___ the __ noJ:llL~-~tion dated 7.1.2003 and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential n said count has again been taken at ~1. 7 lacs per acre to inter se differentia-te the.price between Category 'A', Category 'Bi and ategory ·'C' lands. In other words, the price differ~ntial has aried between ~1.[2] lacs ·per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and ~1.[7] l~cs per acre. A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page28 of74 1~ ·._ --- i -,-, --:,>, j -~ ~,.~~,-,-- ! ~-

19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 - notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition- Act 1894, 1 think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 29 of74 '3) ~/ '·. ',,II ··.1:,i I !,,:1 - -- +fac_ts, which waula--be ffiY---data f-Or- furttier ana~~-- Put in a --- - ---lta-bula~--i~-rm th~ data w~~-~-d- b~ a~-~~~-;;~~-- ---~---- ~llage Pooth khurd Date of Section 4 Notification 7~8.2000 Holambi 1 7.a.2ooo kalan ltfolambi Kalan Hfolambi Kalan - Bawana 22.8.2001 23.5.2002 7.8.2000 LAC compensation IADJ compensation (in lakhs/acre) with (in lakhs/acre") with reasons Cat. 'A' ~13.82 Cat. 'B' ~12.26 Minimum- price of 1.4.2000 reasons Cat. Uniform. ~14.3728. as---+-Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. ~13.82 ~14.12995. Minimum price as Price as in Gajrals of 1.4.2000 case as of 15.11.1996 with ~16.43811.. Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] Cat. 'B' ~14 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as 1 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a.. ~15.[7] ~22.14239. Minimum price as Price: as in Gajrals of 1.4.2001 case as of Cat. 'A' ~13.82 · Cat. 'B' ~12.62 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 - 15.11.1996 with 12% in~rease p.a. (compounded) No enhancement given. ·--- Khera ii.9.20oo Cat. 'A' ~13.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd Cat. 'B' ~12.62- ~14.40157. '' Minimum price as IMinimum price as ----+---+-------t-- ___. t of L4~20Q_Q______, of 1.4.2000 with Narela 2.5.2001 Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] 12% increasep.a. ~15.857. Minimum price as 1 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 1 of 1.4.2001 with LV\..App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 30 of74 ~1 I 2011:DHC:18660:- 'I •' ·, ' i -,- ~"I i - ~-- --- --1------- "'---- Ali Pur Ali Pur Holambi Khurd Rajapur Kalan 3-~ 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' ~15.7. ·-·-··--- --- --· ----..J. -... ··--·· ·-- ~16.43811. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a...23.5.2002 22.8.2001 22.8.2001 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ~15.[7] ~17.8524 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with. '. ~15.[7] ~16.43811 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with ~15.[7] ----------1-----------. Minimum pr~ce as _of 1.4.2001 ~16.43811 Rajapur Kalan Sanoth Sanoth I I I 27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] Cat. 'C' ~12.[3] Minimum price as ofl.4.2001

1. ~19.13765 for Uniform category~ ·1 in some cases.

2. ~19.1604 for Uniform category ·based on· sale deed dated 25.5.2002 with 7.12.2001 I ~15.[7] ~16.99042. 27.1.2003 Minimum price as IMin_imum p_rice as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] Cat. 'B' =t14. Cat. 'C' ~12.[3] Minimum price of 1.4.2001 ~19.13765 for Uniform category. Minimum prite as as 1of 1.4.2001 with LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 31 of74 I ~~- ~,~, ~,~,"""7"- -,--- Shahpur Garhi Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2001 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] Cat. 'A' ~15. 7 Minimum price as of 1.4~2001 ~17.15.3-illL.------. Minimum price as of -1.4.2001 with --- ···-··--·-·-··· compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. ~17.79781. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.~. -=f

20. I now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by learned counsel for the land owners and the 2 submissions ·--- -· ···-- -----·····--·-urged t)y the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove {pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India).

21. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW- 1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ~26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ~63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in. question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased· by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale dee.d 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 fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government · Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 32 of74 1! ···I J iI I ~ J I jj l r'; ': i...:2 I,;r,. 'i ~ '31-of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated tf::la.t--the oraanizatkm had to oav the orice for the said piece of.· land as it was the only plot of the. requisite size suitable for the requirement.of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was· a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. /sti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para· 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. RaUfuddin Vs. Land · Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section · 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an -----+---=-ar,_,e,_,a,___,_,fo~r__,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 equ-ally well informed seller without being influenced by any. special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would _be one who· has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he (_.may pay. a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if 1do 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 ~63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ~28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW~1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW;..1/3, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 33 of74 I -,-,- ·:::,,; _;_.'_,_' themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price 2~_____Thus... agart from the reasoning of the learned- Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in ara 21 above wo_uld_b_e_addiUunal reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fai.r market value of subject lands can be determined 'and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly betvveen 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 ·an sale 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.I.S.Dahiya being_ the d~cision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals,· lead matter being. LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap Sinqh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. VOl & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deealherein 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-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 p·aras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bene~, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, bur-rouna-that if the price therein. was reduced by 1/3rd, the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 34;0f74 Jb -,--,- I ~,~,,--;', - ~ 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 theaverage would ·come.to ~2.;31,800/- which was near about the price of.. ~2.15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3rd 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 t.he basis for if it ~as 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 intrinsk mutuaU;y destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market· value.

24. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market v_alue of the land, pertaining to.,. v1Hage-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 I 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 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 35 of74:>7. 2011:DHC:18660:,.,. i,,.:I ~.~.~latesf-pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La/ Chand vs. UOI. 26_. But before that I must highlight that the decision in La/ Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basjs, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and the ar_gument 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 agri_cultural lands in village Rithala are situ(}ted within the 'V' formed by NH-1 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 relevant to industrial layouts, in paras 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the DDA brochureis relevant evidence?

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

51. No: Plot size Category Rate (per square metre)

1.

2.

3. --4-.-

5. ___,______ 26 sq m 32 sq m 48 sq rr. 60 sq m 90 sq m Economically weaker sections (EWS) ------------ --- Low income group (LIG) Low income group (UG_} Middle incom~ group (MIG) Middl~ income group (MIG) LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Rs 100 Rs 125 Rs 150 Rs 200 Rs 200 Page 36 of74 · tro I ~ __i~-~ 'I:,; 'i /---- The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the said provisional rates, sh.ould 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 fo 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 to-n-et-whereas the attotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor

13. The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of · undeveloped agricultural land {with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price · of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nat"ure 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 ut_ilised 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

15. 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, A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 37 of74 · ~~ I I I I: i I!:,.! - j i I I I ':'I ~ I~~ ( '"---~ ~ underground drainage and sewage facilities;--TaYing--watef" lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil, vv.. ieh would be about 35% of the value of-the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction~ for development" and can account for as -much as 75% ofthe cost of the developed plot.

16. 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 issetapart, 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 comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of ptots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in aH 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. 17..The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout.

18. The position with reference to industrial layouts 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 siz;e of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be- incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot~ may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.

19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the~ deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure~ will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.)

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 LAI.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 38 of74 ~v i I, ~I • I I; I ~iJ I ~ I I I -......J __,. ( k) with reference to the price of a small plot _in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is atse---wett---koown that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost· incurred by private deyelopers, having rega-r:d--to. higher overheads and expenditure.

21. ·Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised- for roads, civic amenities, parks _and playgrounds may vary- with reference to the nature of layout-whether it is residential, residential- --~---+------tC:=-~::U:t-tm++-tC::tO:t-tmH+I-m-t-te~rcial or industr-ia+; aoo even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard· to the, l'size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community -------facilities; parks and playgrounds provided.

22. some:or--the ·layouts fanned by"--ff1e- --statutory 6evefepment author-ffies may have farge areas earmarked - tor 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.

23. -DDA and other statutory development- authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots In the same layout, depending upon. the economic status of the -allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle· income group, low income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots 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 berongThg to high inCome groups.

24. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the-applicantsror allotment. - -------------- - Third factor LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 39 of74 l ~, ~- -,-- ( _i_:__.I I ' -8-;· 25~ Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DDA allot plots on leasehold 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. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership)". rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very 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 tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to · the ·market value of the property.

27. However, in view of the difficulties referred to. above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." The· evidence on the subject has been· discussed by the earned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by ~xtracting rom LAC Refe·rence No.ll7A/2009. The argument advanced efore the learned Reference Court, being the same as was dvanced· before me, has been noted by the learned Reference curt with reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads:- "Ld. Counsel to_ctb.e_petitLon_erS-has further submitted. · that··DDA & DSfDC attotted plots in Nareia Residential Arei[3] and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate; He has relied upon allotment letter dated 04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5,. Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the · pre-determined rate of ~3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/l, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 ·of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring 70 Sq~ metres in which rate was fixed as ~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. A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 40 of74 lr0 -~ ~--~ I,,I c·~, I ',,:1 I I ~,):I; i i! I,I., i: ~ plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at. Narela --··Industrial Compt~x_at the rate of ~650 sq. metres which is Ex. PW3/1 and another allotment- letter dated 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at ~3000 per sq. metres.... Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW[9] Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PW11/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = ~248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ ~3208 would be ~2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized. for roa-ds, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 -759422 = 1771986[6] per bigha}. And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. ~1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only ~3,27,083/- per ~~ -'--------+----~brt.ig...-~__.n~a---.· -i ! I ' I ( "- Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R._Q~_ShaiJJ19. Asstt. Manager, DSID_C who_ has produced documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly}. Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is ~2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area under plots - 112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. ards. Price per sq. metre in - ~3000/.;. per sq. yards the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot Total earning - ~4083750000 Total expenditure - ~720526901 Total orofit - ~3363223099 ···Le. Profif comes to l2470 -p-ersq.--yaraor-~2470000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq.. yards) and the LAC has paid compensation @ ~327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of.. 'f2142917per bigha.___ Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further arg.ued that LAC has awarded compensation @ ~327083 per- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 41 of'?4 2011:DHC:18660..I ~.-.~.,-~ ', '~-- ~---~ I ~,~, bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the said price is considered..on account of land, the figure__ _ comes to ~654166. If the amount is deducted from sale Qric~ __.Per bi_g_h_a_ i.e. ~24700000, the figure comes to ~1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same.". Q. No'N, 'A'e do not have evidence· as to what was the extent of plotted land· sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we. do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in La/ Chand~s case (supra), which· render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

30. It is no doubt true, as held even by the learned Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, ·Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela - - - - - + - - -.... ·-···..........._.. Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.

31. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in La! Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evi(:Jence 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.

32. The third submission in the alternative wa_s_ based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram~s case (supra), and the submission is as noted tn para 12 here;in above. The land owners require the _i>!'Jc~_... det~rmined in Dharambir's case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. Page 42 of74 'ri ~-... -1 ' 'I r-·· I I ~ --~-~-' HI " ' 1...,"-, Ill =>""' "' "'C..L-Uy150t---per bigha for village Marnurpur 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 notifications in question.

33. It be -hi.ghlighted that in Bedi Ram's case (supra), with ···-· ·-----·-··------------·-··reference to the base date as of the- year.1959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied the progressive. increase method by firstly.. enhancing the pri~e 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 years.

34. However, in La/ Chands case ·(supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:"" "Whether the awardrelating to acquisition on 24-10- 1961 is relevant?

47. The appellants conten[9] that some ·lands in Rithala were acquired.under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was~ awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is ·that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the· acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai }ivanbhai PateLlO this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) _____________:_l~_:__Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value. by providing -+----·--·· ---·-···appr opt iate -escalation over-the-prove-crmarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by s-ale transactions or acquisitions}, where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions Qr. acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 43 of74 ~r 2011:DHC:18660: ( ' i -------::-:-=-:-----------::----------- ---- -safe u - - u ---where ------tfte:~~-~"'::-~--r-efted---ou.~nw.·_-------.:s:H::aUJfe~---'--------'-----:---

315. 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 ·laod acquired in 1992, adopting the arfnual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 _or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo - drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden. spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." (emphasis supplied). 48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three- years- prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard -escalation, satisfy Itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the- market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports disdose 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 incre~sing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will ·not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition." It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the -. ivision Bench in Bedi Rant--s-t-a-se--{supra) runs in the teeth of -s-------····· tfue law decla-red by th-euuSupreme Court in La/ Chands case '1;1Jnri=1l, which decision foHo-w-s- an earliei decision of tl1e Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. --· ·--··--··-. ameshbhai /ivanbhai Patel..App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page44 of74 I,.~.. ~.. I ~..~c ' i !

I. I

36;··-- 111 the instant case there is another good reason not to follow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's case {supra) for the reason I fi.nd that a ·co-ordinate Division 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 vHiage Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive· percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambir'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 @ ~1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's princfple was applied the price would· have come to approximately ~50,000/­ per bigha but the Jearned Division Bench determined the same at~33,000/- per higha.

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while disc:;ussing on the issue of the fair market value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of·a Division Bench of this Court in. ' LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Singh vs..· UOI & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appea1s 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 Acquisitio.n 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 determ~ned @ ~1.99,904.68 bigha ·which equals to ~9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by.which price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the · Government was ~1.0 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266i2008 & connected matters Page 45 ofi[4] ~9. ',,I. J -~~ j _!_:_____ \. determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. 138 · If I were to take the price as of 15;-tl;-l'§-96 @ ~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 forth~ moment for the reason,· as assured by me herein above, I would be ho~istically discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the anotifications in question. The.fourth argument, which was advanced oniy by h.S.Chaturvedi, ~earned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishannd others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are. he respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India· i.e..APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para. 13 above i.e. the... estimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging o the family they were earning ~1 lakh per bigha by sale of gricultural produce. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the estimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no' proof in support of is oral testimony. · The reasoning of the Court that there was no- c_rop tanding on the land when its possession was taken over on.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the -cquired lands belonging to the.family were not ·being put to gricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is falladous o doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that y the 3rd week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if v1egetabJes are grown, even they are harvested and the land is hHt fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which· is LV\.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page46 of74 '' '' 'I I... I [ I ! / [L_; I,-- _, I:':i -'I 1.,.-' -""'-- II'- ~ 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 thereafter earned a"pension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning ~i lakh per bigha, for -the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha -----------···----~---··· ·and 18 biswa, the annual income 'v\'OUid be ~19 lakhs and one -finds--it strange that not -a penny was ftweSted in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or_ dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being · effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to who·m the produce was sold has not been examined. No proof of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tube.weiL if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid -if the pump was electrically d-riven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by.canal water, no proof of ariy payment_ made to.. ' the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly ·rejected~

43. 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 JT 1997 (1) SC 444 State of Gujarat & 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 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 47 of74 _j____ ~---, I ~,, __j I capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, the capitalizing ·being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 tim.es as was sought to be projected.

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

45. In para 7 ·above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi fror:n time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 an.d 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. I.. notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 --ears away..from the last year with which I am concerned i.e. the ear 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the irst year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 ears away. The law of statistics which governs mean average s one of the recognized modes to determine a· value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the nes which would -be <:W-sest. to th€---f*)int feF w.Mn the mean· verage has to be determined. I a·m left to deal with the last submission, as noted in ara 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that the learned eference Court has, pertaining to the notification dated 7.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References ith respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under 1 igha and 13 biswa of land was ~old in village Rajapur Kalan and A.App.No.266/2008 & collD:ectedmatters Page 48 of74 J~ --- 2011:DHC:18660: I •. -1 ! "'has determined that based thereon the price as of said date works out to ~17,74,109/ per acre and -increasing the same 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 reference to the Award No.lO/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. Th~ sale deed in question pertains to the same rand 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 ~1.[7] ~---------4~4K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~»r~~~~VH~~s in. '. ' ' ·- i ': ', / 1'-_ Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were less vis-a-vis Category 'C' land. In other words, with reference to Cate-gory-'A' land,- the p~l-ce of c-at~gory 'C' land · would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-a-vis Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land would be required to be increased suitably.

48. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and _reflecting upon the reasoning adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court, I pose the question: What should -be the fair market value of the subject lands as of 7.8.2000, ! 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 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 Di"'ision - -· ---- - -- l, Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on - LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 49 of74 ~';: '~--...: ~,_)7 ~ 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinqh vs. UOI & Ors. wherein pertaining to village Bawana, fair market value determined as of 15.11.1996 _ _!_s__!~_!-~9,904.68 per big_b~ 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 Delhi were identified for providing major health facttittes; schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was viHage 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 --------+1-.,.,-;,;TC,cerved that notwithstanding th1s; for the reason no zonal pl~in___________ was n-o-HH-ed as contemplated by Section llA bf the Delhi Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 1996, any land use ·had been actually changed and put to the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant _ case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being known to all as being required in the future for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valued w1th-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 proposition that there is a difference between the undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 50 of74 [-- ~~.,~j.j:I I I '"'-. ·.. • • • ·1 ':, cU potentiality· in presenti vis-a-vis.a· land having a building ----~~--~~----~-- p.otentiality, 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 c;losest in point of time i.e. the notification dated 25.}.l9_9L_where~under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was ~10 lakhs per. acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced. another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gairaj Singh 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. ~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 ofthe Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with refe-rence to development. work carried out in the surrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V' i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ {1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. {6~26,510.40 per acre. The decision is..r:eportedas-2004 (4) AD ·(Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. UO!and the --- --- ··-- -·. ---.. -same--Di.visi-o-P.---Se-nch, as per the decistoA-:-r-epertee-as--111 (2004} DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vs. UOI, pertaining to a notification dated - -~- ---·-·---,----·-·- 14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ {1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. ~6. 73,104/- per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 51 of74 !..'..._ ---,------J,·,, ~:'.·1 ~~-.--. i ~ ~-so-; -- ---me~ aforesalO-Jl:'~_2meE__~~~f in th-e -preceding paragraphs as also the various notificati-ons issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price· for agricultural lan~s in Delhi as tabulated by m~ in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant t. determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. -As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ~4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ~10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ~5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years Which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the -~ next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. 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 Gaira/s case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

51. I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gajra/s case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on- the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ~95,000/- for multiple croppe__Q_ land anq having good _ irrigation___facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ~9-.[5] lakhs per ~ere. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the - --------·---- IC::IIFFAIIArlinn;;r.a-as-fficlud+Frg--pote-rrti-ality, in para 19 onwards the Co_urt_~_iscussed the matter wi~h reference to land prices ~in adjoining villag-e Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and t:raseaori -saTe instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 52 o£74 ~)b 2011:DHC:18660. I:: ! !.. ~· I I:I '. ' '-~-instances and giving benefit of industrialization the lat1d price would come to t10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the- prk:es~ notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average -. figure of t[9],76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and t[9],51,121/- per acre for Category '8' 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 ~10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ~10,03,364/- per acre.

52. The decision in Mahender Singh's case, pertaining to viHage Bawana[7] 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 industria! 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 Bawana ·and Holambi Kalan ·and. nobody had explqited the potentiaL As I have already highlighted in para 49 a-bove there is a gap between what would· be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Gaira/s case and Mahender Singh's case.highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality betw~en 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 53 of74.sr L'..'...__,, i -I -,--- I,,;,-:-------,~ I '----- (~--' "-equisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% er annum to 11% per annum. One reason could ---be-tha·t ~ursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large...area.came · lo be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and robably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated. The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect hereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons ot to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in aras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanci-ful· ale deeds, tg determine fair market value, we have with us theale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector ursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale eed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair arket value of agricultural lands would be ~19,16,040/- per ere as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa f land which was sold for ~5,39,690/- and ~70,160/- was paid as tamp duty would mean that ~6,09,850/- (~5,39,690/- + 70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ~17,74,109/- per· ere as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. · Thus, the best which could be said as the most favou-rable situation for the lc;tnd 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 e ~17,74,109/- per acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land the price would 'have to be suitably enhanced and here we find nother area of dispute for the reason, as noted by me ereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned Land cquisition Collector in different awards has deducted A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 54 of74 r;2 i I i I, ~ J I:I- ~ I:-:--1 ! ' I ! ( sometimes ~1.[2] lak~s per acre, sometimes ~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 wel-1--t-Ae price h-as been deducted further by ~1. 7 lakhs per acre.

55. Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what wou·ld be the money required to be spent to level the lands and I note that cateaorizat-i-on fs 6-as--ed--()fl-fy on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths -~-same to be leveted ~nd_~~is w~uld requir~_money to be spent. But on _what basis has the Land Acquisition ----- - -- ----------- ·--. ----. ---- -- - - -... - -------·- ----·-..Colle_ctor held, in some awards that ~1.[2] lakhs per acre wo.uld be spent and in some· that ~1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ~1. 7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There is just no clue.

56. In Gajraj Singh's -case (supra), the price differential worked out was ~25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove tha~ the acquisition in Gairaj Singh's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. In Gajraj 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 and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

57. I thus hold that Gajraj Singh's c9se 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°/o.

58. Thus, if ~17,74,109/-, rounded off to ~17.75 ~akhs per · acrewould be tne price fora-category 'C'I.andln vrllage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlightil]9 that the. sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No.266/2008. & connected matters - ~-- ~. '' I': ',, (~ -j r---;------ --I -,--~---~ admittedly pertains to a Category 'C' land, the price for Category '8' land would be f18.20 lakhs per_ acre and for Category 'A' land would be tl[8].655 lakhs per acre. to

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 f13.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was flS. 7 lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If. I treat Category 'A' land price at f18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per ' annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately f16.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at fl[5]. 7 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is f70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the.. ··-·-···-··. location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held goaa·evtdence to work cH.JT-alancfprice on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference. to the 5 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 56 of74 I ~ ---- ' I',. ' ' '~ j I '-'-'---- I -,-:·I ! -'I Ll I -,~,:·.;; -···--·-~' ···--- ·~~JC;,.• ··,,·;,,·,'~"'"c"c'' notifications dated· 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, ~·2.8~20-01 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.~.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001. c;

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-avis the adjoining villages f[2] per square yard price advantage was given to lands Jn 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 urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came· under plotted development which included areas in North-'West of Delhi i.e. the area with which I am 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 determined. Pertaining to the notificatiorl"s--dated 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to be.. -;determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 57 of74 I ~ --i: '. I ~--.- -~ -1 -,-, -------~-~0~--. - - - -.. ··---·-··-------------..,.--.,-- ---- ~cause--withrefereri€e·to the-s-afd·sate·pnce·itfSapparent that 1land price as of said date comes to more than if determined with · espect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum and price notified was f15.[7] lakhs per acre with· effect from.4.2001. With respect to the price differential for Category 'A' Category 'B' lands, noting that pertaining to the said otifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the 1\and acquired in village Pooth Khurd.and Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village awana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the otification dated 22.8.2001) 1.hold that vis-a-vis the said.. otifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be ffected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine the price. fbr Category 'B' land. Before I work out the compensation and since it would e evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land

I. rices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantially in the other, a s·triking note of discordant would etmerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi alan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value at f22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, ~-- t--need to highHght-ttrat-·pertaining to:. tne same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Rleference Court has det-ermined-:·the·-fair market value at tl[7],8s,240/=-- per acre ~~-d 1 fi~-d that pertaining to village Rajapuri<alan and Sanoth, perta-ining to the notification dated _________ ?f.l.2003 t~.~- fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands isl f19,16,040/- in some cases and fl[9],13,760/-. in a few, LA..App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 58 of74 bY 2011:DHC:18660, ';-;-------cL I -, -., ' !,.... J ·c;smeaning thereby that much lesser compensation. has ·be-~n -----·--·· worked out in the year 2003 vis-a-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Kala·n ·pertaining t:O ·the notification dated 23.5.2002 and the reason. for the abrasion is that in.·said notification the lan~ price determined in Gajra/s case (suprq) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12o/o per annum compounded. Village Pooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000

64. With.reference to the notification dated 9.8:2001. wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per · acre is ~13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for categOry-'ti ·lands, land price per acre comes to.~17, 74,109/-,.. rounded off to f17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category '8' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2;5% the prices comes to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in villag~ Pooth Khurd comes to fl[4].75 lakhs per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes.to. fl[4],38,125/- per acre for Category '8' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category '8' lands and uniform price awarded is ~14,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager~1.000/- per a·cre and thus qua Category '8' lands 1 maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference ·. Court.

65. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 59 of74 ·,:'1 ~ •,'' L -,- ----: '------- I 'I ppeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has beeArepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' hereinabove ar~ dismisse~:L - - - - - - - -, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ·----··-· All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners nd cross.:-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by nion of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable fbr Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertaining to the otification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of ~14.75 lakhs per acre and fbr Category_ '8' lands the compensation awarded at 14,37,280/-. per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or which pertain to Cate.gory 'B' lands are. PettaTnTiig -to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition ct 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. '01 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the periodhere there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for hich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation snail be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000

618. For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove p~rtaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-8' hereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensation to f14. 75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that as r the award and even as per the reference all subject lands ere of uniform category. Needless to state appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Alppeals and cross objections filed by land owners are allowed by -enhancing the compensation to ~14.75 fakhs per acre together ith statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 60 of74 (;l; I ! _, -- I I i I ' ! 'I 's explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. U0/2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeat or cross objection, Jar 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 Bawan·a Notification dated 7.8.2000

69. PertainiQg to village Bawana___relating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Refer~nce Court --+----'-'h'-=a_,._s.nO'tenhanced the compensation, fQr parity of reasoning, fair market value for Categor-Y 'A;·-Iands is fixed at ~14. 75 lakhs per aCre· a-ncffor Category 'B' lands at- ~14,38,125/- per acre and noting that Urtion of India has neither· filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by · fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and.. needless to_ state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to ·statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 {93) OLT ·569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be· paid. These appellants. /.. would be entitled to proportionate cost..Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000

70. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is f13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably -updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to fl[7],74,10.9J~,.r_ounded off to.-..t.l-7,75,000/,. per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 61 of74 t -,----J I '' I ~ -,~1 to f18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2:5% the prices comes to f18,65,590/- 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 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in ·village Khera Khurd comes to f14,83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to f14,46,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. 71.- All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by the. land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing.I -compensation payable for Category 'A.' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum of 'f14,83,500/- per _acre for Category 'A' lands and f14,46,413/per acre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertaining to this -notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefrts as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. U0/2001 (93) DLT 56.[9] 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. Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001

72. With reference to the _notification dated 9.8;2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is f15. 7 lakhs per acre pnd requiring said price to be suitably updated· to reach the date of the notification i.e. 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands,- land price per ~ere comes to f17,74,109/-, rounded off to f17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters _ {) 1:. I. ~I -II. I ·' i I i· i; !I '' ',., I 'I( ' 1{to ~18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices -- COmf'<> tn fl8_fiS_£)00/ APr AFF~ fnr -r~t~nnry ~"fo!----ta-nds; and ·decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Narela comes to ~16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ~15, 76,087- per acre for Category '8' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away· with Catego~y 'B' lands and uniform price awarde-d is.. ~15,85,570/- per acre and since for Category '8' lands the price worked out by me is less by ~9,000/- per acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category '8' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the -------o-+-___,.~~......_...__.__...,..w___enhanced___to__'fl[6],16,500/- per acre r'':

73. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-E' filed 9Y 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 f16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order for Category '8' 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 di~missed and the ones i.e. the appe-als 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. UOI 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 n_o LA~App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page63 of74 -,;;-,-,---.- '-'-'----- -,~~-~ ~-_j interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These - -11--L-...,.- •• i;:J h- -..-L •.&-1-:;;J.&..-.... -------Vill-age-Holambi Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001

74. ·With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 \ whPr Pin witt • pffpr I' fn11n 1 zt JOOl ·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 Le. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to f17,74,109/-, rounded off to f17,75_,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to f18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices. comes to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the.said prices by 11% ·to reflect the pfiee with reference to the sale deed for the date 22:8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in viilage Holambi Kalan - - - - j - - comes to f16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to f16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands._ Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ~16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked · out by me comes to a meager f[9],000/- per acre. and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the a·m-eunt awarded by the learned Reference Court.

75. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been ·prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed.

76. All Land Acquisition Appeals file~t by Jh_g_J~~nd owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters · Page 64 of74 cfl" • I ~:' ·, ·--l -,..___ -,---,'.Union of India are allowed by decreeing comp~nsation pay~ble for Category 'A' lan~s in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of f16, 74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at f16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category '8' lands are dismissed.

77. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the· judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 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 Ali Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001 hl

78. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 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 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to f17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7],75,000/- per acre, and for Category '8' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the ·price comes to f18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the pricescomes to f18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; ~nd.....- decreasing the said prices by 11o/o to 'reflect the price with reference to the sa1e deed for the date· 22.8.2001; the mean · average price for Category-!~nds in v!!lage A!i Pur comes to fl[6],74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it • comes to f16,32,637.50 per acre for Category '8' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 65 of74 _c_ ----,r:: ' ! -I I ~--,~ ttheiearneofrefetence Court has,-wit-twut a£l:Y feasons.l done..... --.... -·-·.. ·.::::-.~:~--~:-~·~.:.-~--· ___ ---·---- '.. way with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me omes to a meager ~9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' l~nds I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Un-ien of India ' im respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID~ ' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have ·not filled any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court._- There shall be no order as to costs. -.Village Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2001 With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 herein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per a1cre is ~15. 70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e..212.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed _dated 25.5.2002 here-in for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to ~17,74,109/-,- rounded off to ~17,75,000/- per acre, and for ategory 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes · ~18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5o/o the prices comes to ~18,65,500/- per acre for C?tegory· 'A' _lands; and ecreasing the said prices by- 11o/o to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean I:::~:~~:.:.:;: ~~~ela::;e;;~::i~;:~:m:~::u: -.So/o, it comes to fl[6],32,637.50___per.acre__for Category 'B' lands. --------ir..... ~o-t~=t-in~g...- tflar·rneTearned Reference.Court ·has, without any r~asons..... done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price yvarded is ~16,4-3,811/- per acre, the price differential worked - ut by m-e comes to a meager ~9,000/- per acre and thus qua.. A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 66 of74 ---· _J I - 1 - I ' ~---- '-'-'----- -,---: - -, I '. r:: vuu:.:~u· y II.. 10111 0 I I uaintain---the amount El'NiHded by. the ·learned Reference Court.

82. The appeal filed by the Un~on 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...-----··········-