Attar Singh v. UOI & Anr

5 base date as 1 year and 45 ould be at the r the learned Bd 23.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired the learned LAC and the learned R have determined same compensation as per Bference Court the reasoning pertaining to the same village for the notification dated 16.5.2002 and I find that sinceithere is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision of the Reference Court comes to?17,79,781.78 pe -Mr. Peftmmng^^-the same notificatiort^a pursuant whereto 445.81 bigha land in village was acquired, the learned LAC has determined fai racre. ted-23.5.2002 Holambi Kalan " market value in sunn of ?15.[7] lacs per acre which is the same as per minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopted the same reasoning as was adopted while determining the fair n which were 30 i.e. adopted sion in Gairai's 0 compounded market value of lands in village Holambi Kala acquired pursuant to the notification dated 7.8.20 the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the deci case (supra) and appreciating the same by 12 70 LU per annum the price determined is ^22,14,239/- per acre. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.5.2002 N. pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land i were acquired the learned Lan^d Acquisition awarded compensation at the rate of ^15.[7] lacs on the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which brice has been adopted as the base l3y the learned Reference Court and after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters n village Alipur Collector has Der acre based annum w.e.f. 1.4.2001 till 23.5.2Q02, the price determined is ^17 acre. Q.- Pertaining to the notification dateo pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha land in village:2^^.03 bigha-laTTd-m village Rajapur Kalan "were e 85,240/- per 27.1.2003 Sanoth and cquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the saTie value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages i.e. ?15.[7] lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of ?14 lacs per acre and for Category 'C lands in sum of ?]2.[3] lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different reasoning in some impugned decision and different n a few. In some decisjons the learned Reference Court has adopted the minimum price in sum of ?15.[7] lacs per acre as ofp[4].2001 and appreciating the same by 12% per annum for a period of 666 days has fixed fair marl<et value at ^19,13,765/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder:l bigha and 13 biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra N().200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was puj ?5,39,690/-.

7. Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector •chased for as also the learned Reference "Court have relied upon the notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi, let nn note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same would be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Delhi, fixing e therefore Page20 of 74

8. %-S —Date-of— Notification - Effeetive-Dateof the price PFif (ir lakhs/< re— )cre) • % increase per annum

1. 3.5.1990 27.4,1990 4.65

2. 25.7.1997 1.4.1997 10.0 11.[5]

3. 24.9.1998 1.4.1998 11.[2] 11.[2]

4. 21.11.2000 -

12.32

5. 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 1.4.2000

12.16 13.82

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

7. 30.8.2005 30.8.2005 17.584!

2.98 8- 24.1.2008 18.12.2007 53 89.51 From the tabulation hereinabove noteo it would be apparent that after minimum price was last fixed vv.e.f. 27.4.1990 in sum of ?4.65 lakhs/acre it was ir creased after nearly 7 years to ?10 lakhs/acre and the annual ir crease comes to 11.5% per annum (simple), The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the f gure of m.[2] lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to ?12.32 lakhs/acre, which notfication was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e,f. 1.4.1999 to ?12.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% per annum with reference to the price dete 1.4.1998 and vide same notification the retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to ?13 i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis the ?12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price r per annum vis-a-vis the previous price of ?13.82 •mined as of Zpjlce was 82 lakhs/acre previous i.e. ose by, 11.5% lakhs/acre to figure: ^ enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ?17.584 lal<hs/acre which gives us an increase of oniy 2.98% per annum and then the f)rice rose to ^53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 39.51% per annum with reference to the base figure of ?17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005.

9. Before noting the evidence refied upon by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Refere would be beneficial for the reader of the present d feel, that arguments advanced on either side may would highlight that from the side of the land o\ argument was in the alternative and it was urge would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, faijifig which as per the third argument and so on. From Union of India it was urged that the land price f ieamed Reference Court pertaining to the notific 7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; the notificc 22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated IL.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5^200;. for village Narela;'and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Ali Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands were of uniform character and it was urged that corrective action is rpquirpd by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price noti Government from time to time, 11.5% increase per ^:2%-per annum~iTicrease~was excessive with refer dates of the notifications under Section 4 of the Lane Act 1894; requiring the same to be reduced to 10% in tTieleast. Secondly, the learned Reference Co w Ttie- price was next ice Court, it ecision, as ! oe noted. I vners, eacin i that tiiey the side of xed by the stion dated tion dated led by the annum and ence to the Acquisition per annum Jrt was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 22 of74 such lands which were put in Category 'B' and the Land Acquisition Collector and^ B resp requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for:ategory 'C by ect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary I.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C, on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect

10. Learned counsel for the land owners fir the learned Reference Court was not justified in stiy urged that ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APR.N O.780/2010 as arso the~sate 7}eed dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha agricultural land in village Mamurpur was s and 12 biswa old @ ^26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate c f village Khera Khurd for a sum of t32A lakhs and adding on the stamp duty "e land price as lakhs/acre and price would be id 2 sale deeds paid and corporation tax it was urged that per ac of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 would be ?28.89 pertaining to the sale deed Ex.pW-1/2 the land ^63;478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the sa would be good evidence to determine the fair rparket value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.200^, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on wh were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisit ch notifications on Act 1894 by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument, pertaining to village Narela, it the price needs to be suitably enhanced and fo was urged that " which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page23 of74 and for which the argument was that when pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 i 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur- Narela by giving a. price benefit of f2/- per sq.yd. this was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in in the- -past,nder Section aid decision of T[6].650/- C.A.No.4405/1997 UO! vs. Dharambir & Ors. The £ would reveal that the price per bigha in.sum determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to ?16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to ?22,000/- per bigha. by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court and the oie rendered by the Reference Court was restored.

11. • Learned counsel for the land owners seconc the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed into residential and industrial estates, had the subject lands having acquired a building f ly urged, in resulted in otentiality, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSIDC and DDA i.e. the implementing agencies, which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Estate and for which learned counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged.

12. Alternative to the second submission, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Betich of this developed Industrial Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram 'age 24 of74 1/5. Union of India, it was permissible to determine fajr 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 vaiue of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with, reference to the decision in Bedi Ram's case which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 ha per annum with reference to the base price ?16,[7] (supra) as per d to be @ 6Vq 50/- per bigha as of 30.10.1953 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% oer annum till 31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per annum ti I the various of the Land me, a^nd with dates wfieh the 8 notifications under Section A Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to t which 1. am concerned inJ±Le prpspnt apppais. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to T56,88,759/- per acre and 1 that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other iearned counsel urged that on the same principle market value should be assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 and 23.5.2002. i

13. The fourth argument advanced was, and for which reference was made by learned counsel for the parties in the may highlight or the reason evidence led in LAC Wo,99/2005, which is subject cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.No.268/2008 filed by the and LA.APP.No.292/2008 filed__by Union_Qtlndia, the value should have been assessed on yield basis b) the yield for a period of 20 years and the evide LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters matter of 2 land owners t fair market annualizing nee was the 7^., testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agricultural: produce from his lands he used to earn n lakh per bigha per annum i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8,2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of and others were acquired. It was thus urged market value as of said date should be ?20 lakhs may highlight that the fourth argument was only Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for and others i.e. the appellants in LA,APP.No.268/2 respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008.

14. The fifth argument advanced was by S Advocate who appeared in a few matters and ur each of the notification in question the fair market to have been determined with reference to the which was closest in point of time where under m Ram Kishan l:hat the fair per bigha. I projected by Ram Kishan 308 and the i.T.P.S.Kang, ged that for value ought notification nimum land value was fixed by the Government and the notifi 24.1.2008 where under ?53 lakhs per acre was t price fixed as of 18,12.2007; the mean average pr adopted was the precise argument.

15. The last argument, which was in the alter first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.[2] 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.2b0 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kaiar ^5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as cation dated ie minimum jnciple to be lative to the 003, dealing was sold for per the said sale deed in the following words: (Refer oara 17 of the decision dated 7.1.2010 in LAC No.ll7A/2009): "if we add stamp duty in the sale price 13.69.906/- per biaha R[5].39.690/- +, 70,160 ^ 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which com^s to %17,74,109/ per acre or "^3,68,906/- per bigha. Furthef if we give 12% increase on said amount for intervening period between the date when the saie deed was executed ancf the date of ratification u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes to ^19,16,037/- (round off119,16,040/-). The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e. Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would re award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land bigha and 18 biswa land was put in Category 'A', ^5 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra No.200 and that page No.56-57 of the award would evidence"tTTat^a^^^^^ 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 veal that the of which 1922 notification dated 9.8,2001 where under said pr fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and t depressed the same by ?1.[7] lakhs per acre for lands, fair market value determined whereof was acre and further depress the same by another ? acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value whereof was ^12.[3] lakhs per acre. It would be a the argument was. The argument precisely wa market value had to be determined with respec deed in question, the sahie had tO; be for Category for Category.'B' and Category 'A' lands the phcje had to be increased by ^1.[7] lakhs per acre for each category.

16. 1 have already noted hereinabove the argL were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior ce had been riereafter had Category 'B' Q[4] lakhs per L.[7] lakhs per determined Dparent what s that if the to the sale 'C lands and ments which counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above and hence I need not repeat the samq. C- • ' ')

17. In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinat ove, I have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court pertaining to the 8 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition A relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence fr notifications:t 1894 and y Journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Lane Collector and the learned Reference Court as per paras of para 6 above.

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

19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 v nimum price on, in some on the sale thereof have Court, while hs as to why _q.uality. Ilages and 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters the relevant Page 29 of74 Village Pooth Khurd Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan Bawana Khera Khurd Narela Date o Section Notification 7.8.2000 7.8.2000 22.8.2001 23.5.2002 7.8.2000 11.9.2000 2.5.2001 tacts,jvnrch.wmna for-fartner aftal^ Put in 3 tabular form the data would beas under:- ^ LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons ADJ compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Cat. 'A' ^13.82 Cat. 'B'?12.26 Minimum price of 1.4.2000 as Cat. Uniform. m.3728. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. n[3].82 Cat 'A' n[5].[7] Cat. 'B' n[4] Minimum price of 1.4.2001 ^15.[7] Minimum price Of 1.4.2001 as as as Cat. 'A' ?13.82 Cat. 'B'n[2].62 as Cat. 'A' n[3].82 Cat. 'B'n[2].62 Minimum price as of_r[4].20QD Cat. 'A' tl[5].[7] Cat. 'B' ^4. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n[4].12995. Price as in^ Ga/rafs case as of 15.il.1996 with ?16.43811. Minimu of 1.[4] m price as 2001 with ?22.14239. Price;as in Gairafs case as of 15.11.1996 with (compounded) No en given. ?14.40157. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with hancement n[5].857. Minimum price as of 1.4,2001 with Ali Pur Ali Pur Holambi Khurd Rajapur Kalan Rajapur Kalan Sanoth Sanoth 22.8.2001 23.5.2002 22.8.2001 22.8.2001 27.1.2003 7.12.2001 27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' n[5].[7] Cat'B'm as as.[7] n[5].[7] n[5].[7] as as Cat. '.A' n[5].[7] Cat. 'B' n[4] Cat. 'C n[2].[3] n[5].[7] Cat. 'A' a[5].[7] Cat.'B'm Cat. 'C ?12.[3] as as SS" n[6].43811. Minimum price as of, 1.4.2001 with 12°/o increase p.a.. n[7].8524 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with n[6].43811 Mininrium price as of 1.4.2001 with ^16.43811 Minimum price as 1.4.2001 with of

1. ?19.13765 for Uniform category. Min m.um price as of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.^. in some cases.

2. n[9].1604 for Uniform category based on sale deed dated 25.5.2002 with ne Min of

99042. mum price as 1.4.2001 with ?19 13765. for Uniform category. Min mum price as of 1.4.2001 with Shahpur Garhi Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2001 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' n[5].[7] Cat. 'A' ^15.[7] as n[7].2S3fia. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.51% p.a. ?17.79781. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a.

20. 1 now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by learned counsel for the land owners and the 2 submissions urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (p Union of India).

21. The first argument is predicated on the 2 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 srtaining to sale deeds, has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence tc fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the 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 deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for determine villages in religious purpose and was being used for a religiou The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held reliable evidence to determine fair market value of lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony s purpose, not to be agricultural of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size requirement of the organization and is bejng us women i.e. there was a special circumstance, vendee.

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1935 (1) SCC 717 LandAcquisition OfficerEluru &Ors. Vs. IstiRohini &Anr. (Refer suitable for the ed for destitute personal to the para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Motid. Raufuddin I/9. 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 fact exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circunstances which • treated as an have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The price which a well informed willing buyer wo to ^63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 LA.App,No.266/2008 & connected matters. true test is the !uld 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 prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular pi may pay a much higher price and this would index of fair market value of the lands in the ar^ failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the noi;ification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist fo- a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes the prevailing ece of land, he not be a good fea. I would be lad relied upon

8.89 lakhs per and Ex.PW-1/3, Page 33 of74 themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the f£ ncifui price 23^ Thus, apart fronn the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in i para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly betvyeen 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 reason to be circumspect on sai^ deeds havir 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 Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs 1/5. UUr~& Ofs. It was highlighted that the sale deed which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the a fancy for Duld not be area, was th suitable large, was learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had the said land and hence the price reflected therein c treated as a good..evidence of value of land in the rejected by the Court and the price in question, w deduction on account of the parcel of land being 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-l/Z 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 Benjzh, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but" found" that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3'"^ the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 34.of74 the more a g intrinsic therein by agricultural the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. t\ produced by the Government were giving a price c per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had p land gave the.price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the a\'erage woyld come to ?2,31,800/- which was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3"^^ would be deducted from the sum of ^3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted tha: 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. would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of e sale deeds f ?1,37.000/urchased the ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Di is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is vision Bench not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis; for if it was so, the apprecikion 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 and price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutuall|^ destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value.

24. Thus, the first argument as noted in para rejected and I immediately highlight that the exte the argument that after accepting the said sai indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to village -Warela, in view of the decision in Dhammbir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced wc with by me at the.end when I determine the fair ma lands for the villages in question.

25. The second argument, contours whereor are- to be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I neeiJ to note the 10 above is ided limb of e deeds as uld be dealt rket value of Page 35 of74 u K) latest pronoyncemefTt of the Supfeme Cotirt on the iusue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 Lai Chand vs. UOI. 26, But before that I must highlight that the decision in LM 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 argument considered for fixation of fair market value of agricu was being tural lands in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residentic Scheme'. J highlight that agricultural lands in village situated within the 'V formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. Road and Rohtak Road.

27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA afte agricultural lands, developing the same and t perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would releyant tp industrial layouts, in paras 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- " "Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidimce?

11. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-19 invitation seeking applications from members public for allotment of plots on lease basis u Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brbchuT that the plots were in a layout formed/to be fc Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochi the following provisional rates for allotment of leasehold basis: SI. No. Plot size Category Rate (per squar

1. 26 sq m Economically weaker sections (EWSr ~ -

2.

3.

4.

5. 32 sq m Low income group (LIG) 48 sq m Low income group (LIG) 60 sq m Middle income group (MIG) 90 sq ni Middle income group (MIG) LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected naatters Housing Rithala are G.T.Karnal r acquiring 'ansferring equally be 81 is an of the Jder the e stated rmed in re gives plots on ? nnetre) Rs 100 Rs 125 Rs 150 Rs 200 Rs 200 Page 36 of74 u \ The appellants contend that Rs 150 per squL.....euc 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 are metre, - 1 WI view LIIOL such allotment rates of plots adopted by development view that authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for compensation for acquisition of undeveloped several- reasons. Firstly, market value ha^ 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 r* _. i i award of lands for s to be small plots in a developed layout falling within u Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorit "ban area, es 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 tentt wtrereas 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 pote'ntial for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated.

14. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may.utilise arourd 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc,

15. The developfnent authority will al considerable expenditure for developm undeveloped land into a developed layout,, whic the cost of levelling the land, cost of providi SO incur ent of h includes ng roads. underground drainage and sewage facilities/Taying w^ lines, electricity lines and developing parks end civil amenitios, which would be-about 35%-Qfthe^attje-of^ttTe developed plot. The two factors taken together v^ould be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.

16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the perce itage 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 deve opment work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to 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 u )on the standards and quality of the layout.

18. The position with reference to industriallayouts 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 linnited civic ameni':ies 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 ma/ 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, tldeduction for development may be as much less, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastruciure will already be available. {/Vote: The percentages me ntioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.)

20. Therefore the deduction for the "deve opment factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of en the that is. undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page38 of74 with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is weifHo^owft that the development copt incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard-to higher overheads and expenditure.

21. Even among the layouts formed percentage of land utilised for roads, c parks and playgrounds may vary with re by DDA, the \/ic amenities, 'erence to the nature of layout—whether it Is residential, residential- Dng residential regard to the of community and GVGn am layouts, the percentage will differ having size of the plots, width of the roads, extent ^adtitfes, parks and playgrounds provided.

22. Some of.Th layouts formed by Tthe statutory development authorities may have targe 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 exjamples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of pe being very wide from 20% to 75%. Second factor

23. DDA and other statutory developm rcehtage itself 2nt authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots In the same layout, depending upon the economic allottees, classifying them as high income income group, low income group, and status of the group, middle economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots may be earmarked for persons belonging to economicaliy weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium char 150 per square metre for members of low Rs 200 per square metre for persons belor income group and Rs 250 per square me beldhgihg to high ihcbme groups.

24. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these yarying^ factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be the average of the allotment rates, as the of those plots does not depend upon the c DDA statutory authority, but upon the pay the applicants for allotment. Third factor LA.App.Nd.266/2008 & connected matters ged may be.Rs income group, ging to middle re for persons llogicai to take 'market value" DSt incurred by ng capacity of Page 39 of74

25. Some development authorities allot freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DOA ailotpjots-ofi leasehD-W basis. Some have premium which is almost eqpal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual re|nt.

26. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the \ialue 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 bein^ equal to the market value of the property.

27. However, in view of the difficulties reiferred 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." 28"- The evidence on the subject has been disci learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by from LAC Reference No.ll7A/2009. The argument before the learned Reference Court, being the sa u plots on ssed by the extracting advanced me as was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court with reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads:- "Ld. Counsel to.c_i.h-e_p_eJ;Ltj_oaersJias further.sulDmitted that PDA & DStDC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area 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. PW6/1, 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 DS DC i.e. plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Industrial Complex at the rate of ^650 sq. metres which is Ex: PW3/1 and another allotment letter dfated 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW was sold at ?3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that Narela 3/2, which from the statement of PW[9] Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PWll/1, which is detail of land acquired. It i that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus; of development per bigha would be 1794 ?248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential f3208 would be ^2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is apparent total cost 400000 = that DDA Scheme @ for roads, '0% 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. ^771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha petitioner has been given rate only ?3,[2] 4)TgtTa^ " ' Similarly he has tried to demonstrate earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testim R.D. Sharma, Asstt. Manager, DSIDC who has produced documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel jhas argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 tljl 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. where as,083/- per the profits ony of PW[7] 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning ^2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: of DSIDC is Total area under plots = 112.47 hec I.e. yards. 1361250 sq. Price per sq. metre in the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot ^3000/- per sq. \ / 'ards Total earning = ?4083750000 Total expenditure = ^720526501 Total profit = ^3363223099 i.e. Profit comes to f2470^ per sq. yard or bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 13611.,, and the LAC has paid compensation @ ^327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has eaned a profit of f2142Q17 per bigha. — Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has 'urther argued that LAC has awarded compensation @| ^327083 per LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters mrOOOO per 50 sq. yards) P^ge41 of 74 iation of the bigha for the land in question if 200% apprec said price is considered on account of lane, the figure comes to ?654166. If the amount is deducted from sale _ price__per bigha. i.e. ?24700000, the figure comes to ?1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." -How-. evidence as to yvhat was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIC Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether C and Narela 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 va the subject cases.

30. It is no doubt true, as held even by lue of land in Reference Court, that with the development Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme the IcarnGd of Bawana and Nareia 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. 1 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 reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself evidence as to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while shall be discussing as to what should be the fair m the lands.

32. The third submission in the alternative Wc the observations of a Division Bench of this Court case (supra), and the submission is as noted In p above. The land owners require the price c arket value of s based upon in Bedi Ram's ara 12 herejn etermined in Dharambif's case (supra) relating to the notification dated 3Q.].0.TQfi[3] in suj3a-ot^l6^750A-per-bj^lta^foti44lla^ Mamurpur to be treated as the basis and progressively increa 6% per annum, then by 10% per.annum and lasti; annum for different periods and thereby deterr market value for the 8 notifications in question.

33. It be highlighted that in Bedi Ram's case reference to the base date aS: of the year 19^, 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Court applied the progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the y^ar 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and final the remaining 3 years.

34. However, in La/ Chandz case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as unden- "Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-10- 1961 is relevant?

47. The appellants contend that some ands 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 per bigha. Their contention is that as the;ed, firstly by by 12% per line the fair (supra), with for the year Bench of this y by 12% for Rs 7000 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 cumulative/compounded rate o^ 12% per ann Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONCC Ltd. V. Rameshbhai jivanbhai PatellQ. this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) "15. Normally, recourse is taken to the m determining the market value by providing ——appropriate escalation over~thB^Toved"inarket value of nearby lands, in previous years evidenced by s-ale transactions or acqtris where there is no evidence of contemporaneous sale transactions acquisitions of comparable lands at the um. This ode of ih neighbourhood. The said method is reas (as ^ns). any qr the onably Page 43 of74 -safe 1'^Wed-oit: tFansaetions/acquisitions precede the sl acquisition by only a few years, that is, up tci four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even ifit relates to a neigfibouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual 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 standa'd of increase." (emphasis SLpplied)

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 not be on the 12% or the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may possible to determine the market value, based 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 15% per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that -salebject the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be use for determining the market value for i acquisition." award of any

35. It is apparent that the ratio of law laid do Division Bench in Bedi Ram's c3-se-(suQra) runs In t which decision follows-^fi—earlier decis Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ON Rameshbhai iivanbhai Patei. LA.App.No.266/2008 (fe colonected matters )wn by the he teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case on of the GC Ltd. 1/5. follow the law laid down in Beef/ Ram's case reason I find that a Co-ordinate Division Bench c the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) & Anr. Vs. UP! & Ors.. pertaining to agricultural Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progress increase with reference to the price determined HI

36. In the iubLdfiL Ldse there is another good reason not to supra) for the f this Court, in Saraswati Devi ands in village ve percentage in Dharambii's case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would hiave resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamur of 14.3.1980 @ ?2010/- per annum per bigha increase (§) ?1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's our - Narela as and gave the principle was applied the price would have come to approximately ?50,000/per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at ^33,00i0y-per bigha.

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market value oi in the unreported decision of a Division Bench cf this Court in l_A.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinah vs. UOi& Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appea s pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one village with which 1am dealing is village Bawana, notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Sectio Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired f estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair mar 15.11.19#6 was determined @ ?1,99,904.68 bigh to ?9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 for agricultural land being the minimum price det Government was ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.[3] LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters pertaining tp a 1 4 of the Land 18 biswa of or an industrial <et value as of a which equals be for me to by which price srmined by the 997, the price Page45.of 74 determined by the Division Bench would equal tl" price notified by the Government. -3Bt-— If I were to take-^the—prfce—as—ot^^rS.il.l§9€ @ ?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 giv progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I lea e minimum s benefit of /e it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein above, I would be holisticaliy discussing the subject while o the fair market value of the subject lands as on d notifications in question.

39. The-fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 a the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 abo Dining upon ate of the 8 id who are of India i.e. ve i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning ?1 lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce.

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

41. The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taksn 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 3'^'^ week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow whe LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters the land is at which is sown around the first weeic or the second week of November each year._

42. But the other reasoning of there being ho evidence led in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he was working as an Administ-ative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi till 31.3.199() i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a pension. If the family, as claimed by him/was earning n lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annual be ?19 lakhs and one finds 4t strange that not a penny was invested security wherefrom interest or dividend coi Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The Tader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined. No proof of number of workers employed, diesel purchased well> if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity pump was electrically driven has been furnished in a bank or a Id be earned. to run the tubebills paid if the and if the fields were irrigated by canal water, no proof of any payment made to 1US, the learned yield basis, by narket value of sue of the yield the irrigation department has been furnished. T Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the capitalizing the same, to determine the fair rr lands. There is no reliable evidence on the isand 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 uld be safe to principle _ of yield from agricultural land, only then it wc determine fair market value, by applying t capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, the being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 times as was sought to be.projected.

44. The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocc the mean average principle be adopted with refer 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 froni time capitalizing te was that ence to the to time. I highlight that the notifications with concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of iA/hich I am 22.&.^001. 1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there need to factor in the minimum price notified notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.20 yeats away from the last year with which I am conce puld be no under the 07 i.e. is 4 med i.e. the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The 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 €4©sest-te-the-p0int foi^-wWcf> tt>e mean average has to be determined.

46. I am left to deal with the last submission, para 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that as noted in the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification datecl 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 soldi in village Rajapi r Kalan and LA.App.No.266/2008 8c connectedmatters Page 48 of74 has determined that based thereon the price -works out to ^17,74,109/- per acre and t months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price would be ?19,16.037/- per acre rounded off to ng,16,040/- per acre.

47. With reference to the Award No.lO/DC is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.2 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C land. " question pertains to the same land and indeed t\ if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would re value of Category 'C land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collectom.[7] lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and furth lakhs per acce-wduld-be required to fill up the as of said date for 8 IMW)/2004-05 it OO admeasuring "he sale deed in ere is logic that 'lect fair market er sum of ?1.[7] depressions in Category 'C land, meaning thereby depressions land were less vis-a-vis Category 'C land. In ot in Category 'B' ler words, with reference to Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C land would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-a-vis Category '€' 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 discuss the evidence herein above noted and reflec ion. In view of ting 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 cS of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.20ol, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the dates c n 16.5.2002, which the notifications were issued under Section 4 ofthe L^nd Acquisition Act 1894.

49. I have, in para 37 above, noted a decisio Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters n of a Di\|isiort decided on Page 49 of74 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinah vs. (JO! & Ors. wherein village-B^wana, fair market value determined as o is ^1,99,904.68 per bigha which equals to ?9,59,542 The said decision would be relevant on the issue of 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 Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. population growth, 5 villages in rural Delhi were identified for providing major health facrtitresr schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was vNlage 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 in the future to industrial and commercial, but had also noijserved that pertaining to ^15.11.1996 46 per acre, potentiality, areas in the Based on. be changed;, for the reason n 0 zonal pfaTf ' the Delhi e used for that till the and put to the instant sly put to id decision. was notified as contemplated by Section llA o Development Act 1957, the lands continued to t agricultural purposes and there was no evidence year 1996,. any land use had been actually changec the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in case, where all subject lands were continuou agricultural use, same was the case noted in the Sc To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area bein all as being required in the future for building pu g known to poses, was found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near fut of being built upon. To put it differently, the decis not so expressly stating, would be a propo^tToh"TRa ure capable ion, though t there is a difference between the undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters Page 50 of74 _ ! ^ potentiality in present! vis-a-vis a land having a building potentiality, in future. As already noted by nne in pbra 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value dei:ermined 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 notifi 25,7.1M[7].where-under for agricultural lands in D price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was « acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench ha(J pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gairai Singh vs. UO! & 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 7^' lands was ?9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ^9,51,121/per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to be highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development work carried out in ths 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.Karna! Road and Rohtak Roa Singhoia determined fair market value as of ^1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. t[6],26,510.40 per acre. reported-as-2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chander i/s. UO/and the sameDivisian-Bench, as per the decision-reported as^ 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh vs. UOL pertaining to a notfication dated cation dated 5lhi minimum tlO lakhs per j, i.e. village 19.3.1993 @ he decision is 14.1.1994 for village Singhoia determined fair market value @ ^1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. ?6,73,104/- per acre. 2011:DHC:18648,9::5C^ The _aforesaiar:)udgments-.aiot-ecll in the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying mini for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by m^ above bring out two very important facts relevant tk the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Del years commencing from the year 1990 As of mum price in para 7 determine hi over the 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 la over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 the average price increase would be 16.436%. The chs spread years and 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 shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good co evidence for this would be the decision of the Divisio this Court in Gaira/s case (supra), which I have d para 49 above.

51. I need to elaborate a little more with resp 4.2001. It 1990 and Toborative n Bench of scussed in ect to the decision in Gaira/s case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holam of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court disc valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,000/- fpr multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities capitalized the land price at ?9.[5] lakhs per acre. Dis second method of land prices of comparable la para 19 c -stirrounding-areas-ii Court discussed the matter with reference to Ian LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters bi Kalan as ussed the and thus:ussing the ids in the nwards the i prices in adjoining viHage Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and tsased on sale instances found that based on the said sale instances and gtvtrtg-benefit of indifstrmtbratrorr the-tend-price would come to n0,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court: then considered tl^ prices- notified by the Govei-nment as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the inean average figure of ?9,76.121/- per acre for Category lands and ^9,51.121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-fac:ored in when the Government issued the minimum price noti 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 Sinoh'^ case, viUageBawana, referred to by me in para 49 abo fication w.e.f. pertaining to ve, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account which was projecting residential, commercial a future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi anc 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 dev(5lopment had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan by the Court nd industrial on the issue and nobody had exploited the potential. As 1 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 Gairats case and Mahender Singh's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reiality betwe'en 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not trans ate with the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 53 of74 requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to bet per annum to 11% per annum. One reason cou -QursijajitLto Master Plan fnr npihi i ween 10% d be that -iceacame to be developed, both residential, conimerclal and indjstrial and probably there was enough availability of developecl land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

53. The empirical evidence in the instant case, ipart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, n 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 deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned.Land Acquisitior 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 fl[9],16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha anc 13 biswa ofland which was sold for f[5],39,690/-;and f70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that f[6],09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + ?70,160/-) were spent would yield the price n[7],74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.12002.

54. ' Thus, the best which could be said as favourable situation for the land, owners would be the most 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 a-ea would be ^7,74,109/- 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 noted bf me hereinabove In sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App.No.266/2008 & connected matters spent and in some that ?1.56 lakhs per acre wou in some that ?1.[7] lakhs per acre would be spen no clue.

56. In Gairai Sinoh's case (supra), the p sometimes ?1.[2] ialchs per acre, sometimes n.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 weH^ the price has been deducted further by ?1.[7] lakhs per acre.

55. Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what vyould be the money required to be s —[ands and l-nete-that catogorizatlen Is based-^nt^ certain lands having pits and depressions of —reeitttfiftf^thesame to be leveled and this wdulc to be spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that n.[2] lakhs per acre would be Id be spent and t? There is just rice differential )ent to level the I on the basis of various depths require money worked out was ^25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in GairaiSinah'^ case pertai 15.11.1996. In Gairai 5//7<7/7's case the price f land determined was ^9,76,121/- per acre and 1 land the price determined was ?9,51,121/- pe price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category'A'land.

57. I thus hold that Gairai Sinah's case guiding star for price differential; in the instant ce thus ! hold that wherever Category 'A', Cat: Category 'C have to be differentiated on price, should be 2.5%.

58. Thus, if ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^7.75 lakhs per acre would be the priced a Category 'C'^larrd-rn village Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No.266/2008.8c connected matters ned to the date or Category 'A' or Category 'B' " acre and the should be my ses as well and egory 'B' and the differential admittedly pertains to a Category 'C land, t ie price for Category 'B' land would be ?18.20 lakhs per acre and for Category 'A' land would be ^8.655 lakhs per acre.

59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price not Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was and as of 1.4.2001 the same was ?15.[7] lakhs per percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at n[8].655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 fied by the n[3].82 lakhs acre i.e. the 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 contrasted with the minimum price notified by the at ?15.[7] lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price d ?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 that when jovernment ifferential is location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would ve by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is th ry the price at even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an rationality and acceptability, it needs to be high though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held good^ evidence to"wofk oUTa land price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence tc land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a element of ighted that determine price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would to fathom the existence of market forces/conditio be difficult ns walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 -notifications—datec!-^^2M0, i_22,8.2001 and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus i[1] the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as ar evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account while determining the market value of• land as on the dates. 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001. 60, The argument that village Narela had treated locationally advantageous for the reason th always been e township of Narela was in existence since long and this was recognized when, pursuant to a notification issued in the yea - 1963, vis-a vis the adjoining villages ?2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in DharambiYs sight of the fact that the price differential due advantage was keeping in view the realities in th 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 am concerned today, the price differential faded an 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.

61. i thus hold that pertaining to the notific 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7 land prices would have to be determined on the minimum price notified by the Government 5 reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 for the case, looses to locational e year 1963. with which I d by the year ations dated 12.2001 the basis of the s also with reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as 3n said dates could be determined. Pertaining~to the notifications~~dated 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land pricei needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 Op. tojecatise-with r^^em^e te-#^-saM sa+e price tt4s-apjparent that land price as of said date comes to more than if deter respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein land price notified was ?15.[7] lakhs per acre with effect from 1.4.2001.

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

63. Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantially in the other, a striking note of discordijnt would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to villagei 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, -btJt i-ne^d tcrhtgrrtight mat pertaming to:the same n(3tification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court has det^irrined- the -fair market value at "nined with minimum tegory 'A' the said ig to the the said fferentiai, las to be ^17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village Rajapur-Kalan and Sanoth, pertaining to the notificaton dated 27-1:_2^3 the fair market value assessed for Category is fl[9],16,040/- in some cases and ^9,13,760/- i 'A' lands n a few, I^age 58 of74 -C[9] meaning thereby that much lesser compensati worlced out in the year 2003 vis-a-vis the compen'iation worl<ed Dn has been out for Hoiambi Kalan pertaining to the notifi 23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is notification the land price determined in Gairats ca of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. VHIaqe Pooth Khurd iSiotiflcation dated 7.8.2000

64. With reference to the notification dat cation dated that in said se (supra) as wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price acre is ?13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. ' with reference to the saie deed dated 25.5.2002 Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to • rounded off to n[7],75,000/- per acre, and for Cate^ increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl; acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and de said prices by 11% to reflect the price with referenc deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean averac Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to ed 9.8.2001 notified per be suitably.8.2000 and wherein for ri[7].74,109/-/ ory 'B' lands 3.[2] lakhs per creasing the e to the sale e price for ?14.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing the: same by 2.5%, it comes to ?14,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noti learned Reference Court has, without any reasons with Category 'B' lands and uniform price ng that the done away awarded is ?14,37,280/- per acre, the price differentia! worked out by nie comes to a meager n,000/- per acre and thus qua lands 1 maintain the amount awarded by the learne Court.

65. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the U and cross objections wherever filed by Union of Category 'B' d Reference lion of India India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grd has prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' hereinabove are di;;missed.

66. 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 Pooth Khurd perta notification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of n[4].75 lakhs p for Category 'B' lands the compensation a ^14,37,280/- per acre is maintained and thus such cross references which pertain to Category 'B' dismissed.

67. Peitaimng ito such appeal where the co stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as UQl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which penpd of delay no interest on the enhanced conpensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Viliaae Holambi Kaian Notification dated 7.8.2000 68. ning to the er acre and A/arded at appeals or lands are mpensation Acquisition Sunder Vs. For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 I" pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' h ereinabove relating to ereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensation to ^14.75 lakhs per acre and i highli per the award and even as per the reference all sl were of uniform category. Needless to state appeals ght that as bject lands filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are: dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are enhancing the compensation to n[4].75 Fakhs per ac allowed by re together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explamed in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. mi 2nm (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing -the- appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no intereist on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2000

69. I Pertaining to village Bawana_j:dat[ng to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court jTas_mt enhajiced the conripensatidn, for parity of reasoning; fair market value for Category 'A' lands is fixed at ^ 14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' landis at ?14,[3] per acre and noting that Union of India has neither filed any objection, appeals as per'GRID-C hereinabove fixing the compensation as hereinbefore t needless to state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per the l and Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reportec UOi 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period v\ delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. Tpese appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Viliaae Khera Khura Notification dated 11 70.. With reference to the notification wherein with effect fi-om 1.4.2000 minimum pr acre is ^13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the 11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed c wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per f 17,74,L0S/-, -xounded -off tO—tl-7,75,000/- per Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% LA.App.Nb.266/2008 «&-connected matters appeal or cross are allowed by nentioned and as Sunder Vs. here there is a 9.2000 ated 9.8.2001 ce notified per notification i.e. ated 25.5.2002 acre comes to acre, and for:he price comes Page 61 of74 to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% comes to n[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' I the prices 3nds; 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 fl[4],83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%> it comes to ?14,46,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands.

71. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' fled 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 villpge Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.20p0 ?14,83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and per acre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertain notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. ^67/2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay mfilirig the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the compensation shall be paid. These appellants would to proportionate cost. Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.20C

72. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price rdtified per acre is ?15.[7] lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notif< 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to n[7],74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7],75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the p LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters in sum of 4.46,413/ng to this enhanced be entitled cation i.e. 25^5.2002 rice comes to ^18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing b comes to ^18,65,500/ per aere-^Fot^ Categor decreasing! the said prices by 11% to reflec reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5. average price for Category 'A' lands in village ^6,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the se comes to ?15,76,087- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting iy reasons, done rice awarded is ' lands the price hich is a meager that the learned Reference Court has, without a away with Category 'B' lands and uniform p ?15,85,570/- per acre and since for Category 'B worked out by me is less by ?9,000/- per acre w amount, I hold that for Category 'B' lands the price determined r\ I / 2.5% the prices 'TSr^-tends; and t the price with 2001; the mean Narela comes to me by 2.5%, it ry 'A' lands the would be as per the reference but for Catego _price stands enhanced tn ppr gr-r*? D-E' filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands i pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.20 ne,16,500/- per acre and as per the refer Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the L also cross objections filed by Union of India as al which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by Ic 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 ori the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Lane

73. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRI land owners and cross-objections filed by the 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as 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 LA:App.No.266/2008 & connected matters "I village Narela 31 in sum of •ence order for nion of India as so such appeals nd owners are Acquisition Act Sunder 1/5. UP! Page 63 oT74 interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. — Motification dated 22.8.2001

74. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring sa d price to be suitably updated tp reach the date of the notification i,e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dcted 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ^7,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2 5% the prices comes to ?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!8.20()1; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village h comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing 2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Categ Noting that the learned Reference Court has, reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and awarded is ?16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager f[9],000/- per acre^nd thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awa learned Reference Court.

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

76. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the olambi Kalan the same by ory 'B' lands., without any jniform price ded by the India in the id has been land owners eals filed by Page 64 of74 and cross-objections filed by the land owners in app LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.•r' - \ Union of India are allowed by decreeing connpensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan per[1]:aining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of n[6],74,500/- per acre and awarded at for Category 'B' lands the compensation ^16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus sue cross references which pertain to Category 'E dismissed.

77. Pertaining to such appeal where the c stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Lanld Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. UQl 2001 (93:) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village All Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001

78. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price |notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be h appeals or lands are ompensation suitably updated to reach the date of the not 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed date wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.[5] comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' " decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the: reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.200] average price for Category-'Ai-iands in viliage AM P ^16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same fication i,e. d 25.5.2002 price comes ^ the prices lands; and price with; the mean Lif comes to by 2.5%, it comes to f16,32,63/.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting -isr that the learned Referenre Court has, without any reasons, tiene away with Category 'B' lands and ufflform price awarded is ^^16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked comes to a meager?9,000/- per acre and thus qua C lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Court.

79. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Uni in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID- H; hereinabove are dismissed.,[1] not^ that land owner filed any appeal challenging the decision ofthe Refere

80. There shall be no order as to costs. Village HoJambi Khurd iSgotification dated 22.8.2QQ[1]

81. With reference to the notification dated wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price n acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said p 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 ^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 n[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' Icinds; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the f)rice with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean 'A' comes to ^16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to n[6].32,637.50._per.acre for Category 'B' lands. l^mtm^ThM •the l^rned Reference Court has, without any reasQjis,^ d-OJie_away wmxXatagory 'B' lands ami 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 out by me ategory 'B' Reference jnaf-lttdias have not nee Court. 9.8.2001 Dtified per "ice to be thus qua LA.App.No.266/20()8 & connected matters ( Category landsU—maintaiii--tbe^-atwuR^-awa learned Reference Court. " I •

82. The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect:48d by the whereof grid has been prepared and labeled hereinabove is dismissed. I note that land owners h any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. There shall be no order as to costs. as 'GRID-I' ave not filed 83. Vinaoe Rafapur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2QQ[1]

84. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price acre is ^"15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said 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 n[7],74,109/-, rounded off to ?17.75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.[5] comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001.; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to ^16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing tie same by 2.5%, it comes to ^16,32,637.50 per acre for Categc Noting that the learned Reference Court has, ' reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and u awarded is fl[6].43.811/- per acre, the price differe out by me comes to a meager f[9],000i-4)£L_ajC.ra_a notified per price to be price comes % the prices lands; and ry 'B' lands. fVithout any niform price itial worked Gjd_ thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

85. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Ui and cross objections wherever filed by Union of LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters lion of India ndia in the 2011:DHC:18648.;L i A aptpfials:-fHed t?yiand ownersin respect wtiereof grid-has-beenprepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereinabove are disnpissed.

86. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appe als filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of ^16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation a\A ?16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such cross references which pertain to Category 'B' dismissed.

87. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross ob ection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced conpensation shall be paid. These appellahts or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Viilaqe Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001

88. With reference to the notification dated arded at appeals or lands are Sunder Vs. wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price n acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and irequiring sb\4 P suitably updated to reach the date of the notif 7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre fl[7].74.109/-- rounded off to ?17J[5]..QQ0/- per acr Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the p 9.8.2001 otified per rice to be cation i.e. 25.5.2002 comes to and for rice comes to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes- to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters lands; and price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.20 average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sa ?17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that ail lands in vill per the award and as per the Reference Court are I hold that for acquired lands in village Sci 01; the mean 10th comes to age Sanoth as of same value noth for the notification dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of n[7],29,[5]

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

90. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in a opeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of ^17,29,500/- and needless to state on compensation statutory benefits as per the Land 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 comoensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. ViHaae Shahour Garhi Notification dated 9ir Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, a: hereinabove the land price would have to be d reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and price for Category "'A' lands has been determ ?18,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a days between the date of sale and the notifies that for the notification in question dated 16.[5] owners are entitled to compensation at the rate \ - •... LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters the enhanced Acquisition Act 16.5.2002 s held by me Btermined with for which land ned by me at difference of 4 tion I maintain.2002 the land of nS,65,500/- N per acre and I highlight that as per the award andThe ri^rence ail lands are in the same category. Appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners a's per the 'GRID-L' are allowed and needless to state on. the enhanced compensation the land owners would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is delay, no interest would be ipaid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are; dismissed. ViiBacie Shahpur Garha Notlficatiori dated 23.5.2002

92. Pertaining to the notification dated pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi,; noting that the sale deed and the notification has a differential of o hold that pertaining to this notification, since land category, the land owners would be entitled to com the rate of fl[8],65,500/- with statutory benefits as Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such cross objections filed by land owners where there is interest would be paid for the period of delay. P costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as afore appeals and cross objections filed by Union ot dismissed. 23.5.2002 date of the nly 3 days I is of same pensation at r the Land •eported as appeals or a delay, no qoportionate jections by said and all India are pe obj Vniaqe Holambi Kalan Notification dated 23.5.2002

93. As noted by me pertaining to the notific 23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all Iand[5]; treated in the same category by the learned Land 3tion dated have been Collector and the learned Reference Court. Reference Court has awarded., catiipensation The learned Id sum ol ?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 cross objections filed by the land owners as per dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed 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, need with reference to the enhanced price with refe award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. VillaQe Ali Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002

94. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the sa d 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 'GRID-0' are dismissed and all appeals and cross 0 appeals and 'GRID-N' are by Union of ess to state, -•ence to the India as per Djections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to ?18,65,500/- per ac statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2QQ[1] re on which interpreted in (93) DLT.559 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or crosi objections where there is a delay, interest would rjot be paid fo^ the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Village Sanoth Notification dated 27.1.2003

95. Pertaining to the appeals and cross obj(jctions by the land owners and Union of India as per 'GRID-P' pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sanoth, I note LA.App,No.266/2008 & connectedmatters Page71 of 74' < / that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has pla( in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of unirarm 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 ced the lands notification issued by the Government as also by -same-wtt{rTefer^nce-ix> the sale deed^ dated 2 taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands th to ^19,43,500/- per acre and for Category '1' l^nd the price com^s to ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ^18,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair m fl[9],13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross ob have been filed by land owners the same have tc in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed cross objections filed by land owners pertaining t lands are allowed by decreeing compensation pay ^19,43.500/- per acre and needless to state on compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid sWe a except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proport onate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands n^GcHfyK=\g-^e--r^atafele -deef^e—the Refere reducing the compensation for Category LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ncreasing the 0.5.2002 and e price comes arket value at ections which be dismissed Appeals and

3 Category 'A' able in sum of the enhanced Union of India are allowed by nee Order by 'B' land to Page 72 of74 n' ns,94,912.50 per acre and for Category ^^18,47,539.68 per acre. Viilaqe Raiapur Kaian Notifiration datf>d 27.1.2nn^

97. For parity of reasoning as per para 96 'C land to above pertaining to bq required otification dated where I find that cases awarded re and in some ands of uniform:h I have been to village Sanoth, similar corrective action ij: pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to n 27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and the learned Reference Court has in some compensation in sum of ?19,13,765/- per ac cases at ?19,16,040/- per acre by treating all category. On the mean average basis whi 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 < ale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' landsi PtTO-eom^-to-m^3.560^-^ acre-and land the price comes to n[8],94,912.50 per acre 'C lands the price comes to ?18,47,539.68 per appeals or cross objections which have bee owners the same have to be dismissed in so fa Category 'B' and Category 'C lands and simil fate of appeals and cross objections filed by pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said ap objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Ccitegory 'A' lands are allowed by "decreeing compensation pa^ ?19,43,500/- per acre and needtess~tD"5tate-( compensation statutory benefits as per the Lan 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported a 2601-(^i-B[:T~569—sh-a^l -be—paid—save—afvd appeals and cross objections where there is; LA,App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters for Category 'B' and for Category acre. Thus such n filed by land r they pertain to ar would be the Union of Jndia peals and cross able in sum of n~th^e-enhanced d Acquisition Act

5 Sunder Vs. um except in such delay, interest. _wquld not be paid for tM period of delay. Proportionate costs as weil. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by modifying the relatabie decree in the Reference Order by H=edtiemg—#ie eempensotion fof--Category 'B' land to ns,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.68 per acre.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters.