Sanjay Poddar v. Raghu Nath

4. 27.T[1];2000 L[2].32

5. 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 1.4.2000 L[2],L[6] t[3].82

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

7. 30.8.2005 30.8.2005 L[7].584 2.98

8. 24.L.2008 L[8].L[2].2007 53 89.51

8. From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum' price was last fixed w.e.f. 27.4.1990 in sum of T[4].65 lakhs/acre it was'increased after nearly 7 years to T10 lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.L99B the price was enhanceO by irir.z% to redch the figure of <if.Z lakhs/acre and thereafter w,e.f. 2L.LL 2000 the price wqs. enhanced to <12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enh.anced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to t12.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by LI% - p-eI.A.n1tum with reference to the priCe determined as of -_1_4l1-_998___end__ vide same notifiCatlOn - !he-.-.,o-rice" was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to tL[3]:82 lakhs/acre per annum'vis-i-vis the previous.i'e' t12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. L.4.200I the price rose by. 11'5% per annum vis-a-vis the previous price of t13.82 lakhs/acre to LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters _ Page 2lof74 tjr,/.i r€neh tlfe_ fiqure -.9f..<15J-tatfisbcrs..--The_- prlee was next, i enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to T17.584 lakhs/acre which gives us I an increase of only 2.g8% per annum and then the price rose to T53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased. 89.51% per: annum with reference to the base figure of t17.584 lakhs/acre; and the date 30.8.2005.

9. Before noting the evidence relied upon by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court, it i would be beneficial for the reader of the present decision,. as l' feei, that arguments advanced on either side may be.noted. I would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the altbrnative and it was urgqd'that they would be entitled to price determination as per the fifst argument, failing which as per the second argument, failing which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of: Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by the learn.ed Reference Court pertaining !o the notification "dated 7.8.2000. for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated 7.8.2000forvi||ageBawana;thenotificationdated11.9.2000for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2,5,2001 for village Nareta;'and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Ali Pur; and the notification dated 27.L 2003'for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands were of uniform character and it was ggee! that corr:ectiv-e-a-ction is reqtrir-ed by doing 2 things Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from,jt" !o- !iqq. 11.5% $qease per annum and i ncrease--was. e*eessive-vith reference to the dates of the notifications under Seciion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; reqUiiinQ the same to be reduced to 10% per annum - iR the leait.-secondly, the learned Reference'Court was not Justified in treating all tands as of the same character arid thus Page22 of74. LA.App.N o.266 12008 & connected matters e) requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category'B'and Category'C'by the Land Acquisition Cdltettor and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. Io show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Cat€gory 'C', on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed. by the l-and Acquisition Collector was i ncorrect.

10. Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned. Reference.Court was not justified in ignoring the 2 safe deeds dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as aiso th-e-EaTe-deed -dated 25.4,200]-, Ex.PW-u[2], in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-U[3], 33 bigha and LZ biswa agricultural land in vitlage Mamurpur was sold @ T26.75 takhs/acre and as per the.sale deed Ex.PW-l12, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera knurO for a sum of t32.[4] lakhs and adiing on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 wguld be T28.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be {63.478 lakhs/acre. lt was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market vElue of agricultural lands in the aforesaid iO vitlages as of 7.8.2000, 1,1.9.2000, 2.5.200L, 22.8.2001, 7.t[2].2001, 16'5 'ZOOZ, 25,"5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument, pertaining to village Narela, it was urged that the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least LAo/o more LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page23 of74 <\1and for which the argument was that when in' the-{east-,-.... -.pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section eourt traO given said benefit to agricultural lands in village " Mamurpur- Narela by giving a.price benefit of T2l- per sqiyd.. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C.A.N o.440511997 IlOl vs. Dharambir & Ors- The said.decision would reveal that the price per bigha in. sum of {6,6501-: determined by the Land Acquisition Collector rryas enhanced to T16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to T22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored

11. Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having ac.cepted 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 induitrial estates, had resulted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality,. required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSIDC and. DDA.i.e. the implementing agqncies, which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Schemd and Bawana Industrial 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. L[2]. Alternative to the second suhmission, being the third: submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this: Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93)

DLT LSA Bedi Ratm LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page24 of74 2011:DHC:18652. 1 (t \ vs. Llnion of lndia, it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the land by perCentages ranging between 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, wdrked upon by tedrned counsel, with reference to the decision tn Bedi Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 67e per annum with reference to the base price {16,750/- per bigha as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till 3L.3.1973 and thereafter @ L2o/o per. annum till the various dates Wh-eh the 8 notificffition 4 of the Land Acquisition.Act 1894 were issued from time to time, a,nd uiith - which I am-co.ncerned.in the presenf.qppeah So worked out, f earned counsel highlighted that as of 27:\.20O[3] the fair market vafue would'come to T56,88,7591- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the r'eason he was appearing in such'appeals where the price fixation hai to be as of the notification dated 27.T.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle market value should 'be assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.200L, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 and: )3.5.2002 r

13. The fourth argument 'advanced was, and for which -+eference was made by learned-eounsel for the parties in the evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.No.26812008 filed by the land owners value should have been assessed qn yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page2l of74 ry\ -./ testimony of Ram Kisha ct that by setling agricultural 7 _Gmhis|andsheusedtoearnt1|akhperbighaper Ennrrm i.i:.TheTeii-mElk'ei value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition hereto the land of Ram Kishah ' and others were acquired. lt was.thus urged that the fair - market value as of said date should be T20 lakhs per bigha. | " may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants _in LA.APP.N o.26812008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292 t2OO[8]. - 14. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S..Kang, * Advocate who appeared in'a few matters and urged that for each of the notifica-tion in question the fair maiket"vatue ought. to. have been determined with reference to the' notification which was closest in point of time where under minimum land value was fixed by the Government'and the notification dated

24. L2008 where under T53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.L[2].2007; the mean average principle to be. adopted was the precise argument.'

15. The tast argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the.notification dbted 27.L.2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for T[5],39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said Saf e deed in the folf owing'words: (Refer para 17 of the de dated 7.7.20L0 in IAC No.177A ^): "lf we add stamp dltty in the sale price <3,69,906/: per bigha K5'39'690L[1] -70,760.: 6,09,850 for 7 bigha and 73 biswa) whigh comes to[4].17,74,109/per acre or 73,68,906/- per bigha, Futthei if we give J2% LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters' Page26 of74 g_5 ' increase on said' amount for interuening period between the', date when the sale deed. was executed and the date of 'notr'fication u/S 4 (20.05.m02 tu 27.01.2003) i.e. I months it. comes to779,76,037/- (round otr<!9,,1_Q9!0/). " The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition. i.e. 'Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the. award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which lg22 bigha and 18 biswa land was put in Category 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in KhaSra-NO.ZAO and thiit BAge No.56-57 ---otr-thc-ward would evi(f€-rlCe -tttat-lil-nd -comprised. in Khasra. No.200 ad-measuring l 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.L 2003 in sum of T15.[7] lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said prjce had been ' fixed as the minirnum price as of !.4.IOOL, and thereafter had depressed the same by I[1].7'lakhs per'acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was T14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another t[1].[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market. value determined whereof was T12.[3] lakhs per acre. ' lt would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale ' deed in question,'the same had to be for. Category 'C' lands and for category 'B', and category 'A' lands the prlce nad to be increased by t[1].[7] lakhs per acre for each category.,

16. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which ry:9?-gy199q!y sh,l3ll9v Podd.al L"ltn"d tgnior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above. and hence I need not repeat the same. I.A.App.N o.266t2008 & connected matters 1\ ' Page27 of74 T[7]. O/ '( tr f n various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I have ) / capsuled the reasoning of the.learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court peftaining to the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 o,f the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence fny journey to deal with the.arguments advanced keeplng in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various subparas of para 6 above

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

27. L.20;B and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential on said count has again been taken atT[1].[7] lacs per acre to inter se differentiate theprice between Category'A','Cdtegory'B' and' Category 'C' lands. ln.other words, the price differential has varied between t[1].[2] lacs'per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and T1'7 lacs per acr.e. LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page28 of74

19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition'Act !8g[4], I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page29 of74 - Tac-!S,. Which Put in a Village Date of Section 4 Notification LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons ADJ ccimpensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' t13.82 Cat. 'B'<L[2].26 Minimum price ae of 1.4.2000 Cat. Uniform. <t[4].3728. -Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with L2% increase p.a. Holambi Kalan 7.8.2000 T13.82 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 r14.12995. Price as in Gaira.f s case as of 15.11.1996 with Holambi Kalan 22.8.200r Cat. 'A'T15.[7] Cat. 'B't14 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform.' T16.43811. Minimum price as of L.4.200L with l2o/o increase p.a.. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 T15.[7] <22.L4239. Price:ds In Gairqf s case as of 15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. (compounded ) Bawana 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A'T13.82 Cat. 'B' <12.62 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 ' No enhancement given Khera Khurd 11.9.2000 Ca Ca Mi t. 'A't13.82 t. 'B'T12.62. inimum price AS qf-1,4.2000 -.- {14.40157. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase'p.a. Narela 2.5.200L Cat. 'A'T15.[7] Cat. 'B't14 115.857. Minimunr price as of 1.4.2001 with tabular form the data would be as under:- LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page 30 of74 5'q Ali Pur 22.8:2gq\ Cat. 'A' T15.[7] Cat.''B' {14 Minimum price as of L.4.200L T16.43811. Minimum price as of L.4.200l. with L2o/o increase p.a.. Ali Pur 23.5.2002 T15.[7] 117.8524 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001" with. Holambi Khurd 22.8.200L T15.[7] {16.43811 Mininlum price as of L.4.200L with Rajapur Kalan 22.8,2001 tl[5].[7] Minimum price as -of 1.4.2001 T16.43811 Minimuni price as of L.4.200L with \2% increase p.a. Rajapur Kalan

27. L.2003 Cat. 'A' T15.[7] Cat. 'B'{14 Cat. 'C' T12.[3]

1. t19.13765 for Unifoym category. Minimum price as of L.4.200L with 12% increase p.'a. in some cases.

2. t19.1604 for Uniform category.based on sale deed dated 25.5.2092 with 12% increase p.a. Sanoth 7.t[2].2001 T15.[7] 116.99042. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.b. Sanoth 21.t 2003 Cat. 'A' t15.[7] Cat. 'B'T14 Cat. 'C't12.[3] t19.13765 for Uniform categorY. Minimum Price as of L.4.200L with L7o/o increase P.a..: LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page3l of74 v)o Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2001 Cat. 'A'tL[5].[7] {17.75369*--- Minimum price as of '1.4'2001 with compouno lnterest @ 11.5% P.a, Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A't15.[7] <L[7].[7] 97 81. Minimum price as of L.4.200L with compound interest @ 11.s% p.9. '!

20. I now Propose to deal learned couhsel for the land urged by the Union as noted (pertaining to the land owners) with the 6 submissions urged bY owners and the 2 submissions in paras 10 to 15 here.inabove and para I above (Pertaining to Union of India) 21.. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-U[3] which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex'PW- 1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to T26.75 lakhs per acre and the f atter @ {63.478lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricurtur:al lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex'PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by thd 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 religious purpose and was-being used for a religious purpose' The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been.held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural 'lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government or:ganization "christian organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.N o.266 12008 & connected matters Page32 of74 u)) of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated thalthe-srye+ization @ieet'or the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors, Vs. lsti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (1+1 SCC 369 Mohd. Railfuddin Vs. Land' Acouiiition Officer (Refer para.13) sale transactions evidenced in.. a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section ' 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto trbated as an exemptar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there @l circumstances which have ted the buygr. to pay a higher price. The true test iis the price which a well' informed willing buyer would pay'to an equally welt informed seller witfrout being influenced by any. special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece qf land. An informed buyer would.be one who.has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the ar.ea; 'has understood the topology of the area.and the prevailing prices. lf a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this woirld not be a good. index of fair market value of the tands in the area. I would be failing if I do.not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which'*u, accepted by the. lebrned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated. --" Zl li.OO[3] where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan. was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser' price i.e. {17,[7] 4,LOgl- per.acre as against the price which comes' -to T63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.Pw-Llz and tzg.gg lakhs per acreforEx.PW-1/3.The2saledeedsEx.PW-l-12andEx.Pw-1/3, LA.AppN o.26612008 & connected matters ' Page 33 of74 -c4Q themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price ' t //. z[3].___-Thus- ap_art__from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted feaSons in, para 21 above raro-uld-Jre-addj-tional reasons to hold that the 2: o sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason lfind that under various awards nearly'between. 7,000 to 8;000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the.acquisition is of such large an area,"it would make all the mot:e a reason to be circumspect 'on' sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the. buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being-the decision dated Lg.L[2].2008 disposing of a batch of appeals,'lead m3tter being LA.App.N o.t93120 the sa-iE-cleeil therein bY which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural tand for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reftected therein could not be treated as a good -evidence of value of land in the area' was rejected by the court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in q.uestion i.e. Ex.PW-U[2] and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated aS the basis to determine fair market value' Thq argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench' did not accept the value in the sate deed on its own 'logic' as indicative of the market value, but-f6'irfr-d'that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3'd, the price arrived at would be the same as ' Pagd'34 'of at with reference to the average rate of the.sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Governmeht were giving a price of T[1],37,000/per bigha'and the sate deed under which L&T had pi.r.rchased the land gave the p.rice{3,26,600/- per bigha and the avera$e woUld 'come.to t[2],31,800/- which w?s near about the price of {2,L[5],160/- per bigha, if U3'd would be deducted from the sum ofT[3],26,600/-.ltmayfurtherbehighlightedthatinthesaid judgment the year of the sale was L993 and the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.L995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i'e' T[2],15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. lt is notthat the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it w.as so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be Eiven.' i would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair. market' value.

24. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is' rejected and I immediately'highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to - vjf fage -Narela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably.enhanced.would be dealt with by me at the.end when.l determine the fair market value of lands for the villages in question'

25. The second argument, contours whereof found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need LA.App.N o.26612008& connected matters are' to be to note the Page35 of74 1'1 latest'pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the.issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 Lal Chand vs. tJOt.

26. But.before that I must highlight that tfre decision in Lai Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for residential housing schemb and.the argument was being considered for fixation of.fair market value of agricultural lands in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residehtial Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V'.formed by NH-l and NH-L0 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Rgad

27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing the same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts, in paras 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence?

11. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brochu're stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: 5/. No. Plot size Category Rate (per square metre)

7. 26sqm Economically weaker sections Rs 100 (EWS)- Low income grciup (LlG) Low income group (LlG) Middle income group (MlG) Middle income group (MlG)

2. 32 sq m

3. 48sqm

4. 60sqm

5. 90 sq.m Rs 125 Rs 150 Rs 200 Rs 200 LA.App.N o.266 12008& connected matters Page36 of74 The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the said.provisional rates, should be taken as indicative of the ruling market price. L[2]. On careful consideration, we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA canriot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped.lands for several. reasons. Firstly, market value has to.be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas.market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of "freehold tan*-wtrEreas.the altotment "rates" in the DDA brochuie refer to the initial premium payable on allotm.ent of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor.13. The percentage of "deductlon for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of ' undevetoped bgricuttural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such devetoped plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in.which the exemplar plots are situated. L[4]. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or simifar statutory authority, it may utilise 'around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (cornmunity facilities), etc.

15. The considerable undeveloped the cost of development authority will also ' in.ul. expenditure for develoPment of land into a developed layout,.which includes levelling the land, cost of providing roads, LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page37 of74 4l: underground drainade and sewage facilities, IayinQ Water: lines,. electricity lines and developing parks.and -c.ivil amenities; whieh would be about 35% of the value sf-tfie' developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" aRd can account for as much as 75o/o of the cost of the developed plot' L[6]. on the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percent-age 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 afart, it is likely to be minimal' The ' roads and drains will also be narroweir, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal' Thus' the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of pfots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about ?0% 'pfrJ 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 mayrangebetween50%to65%dependinguponthe standards and quality of the layout. L[8]. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (s.ay of the size of 'one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to.200 sq m), and as there will be vgry limited civic amenities and no'playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (foi roiOs, parks, playgrounds and civjc amenities) will be ' far less; tnd tn"'cosi io be incuried for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot,m-a.y range onty between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75o/o for residential Plots.

19. lf the acquired land is in a semi-developgd urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development miy be as much less, that is, as little as 250/o to 40%o, as some basic infrastructure'will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contra ry. ) 20, Therefore the deduction. for.the "development L-Ctor" to ne 1.*0" with refererice to the price of a small plot in r -J"uuloped layout, to arrive at the cost of' undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction. Page 38 of74 2011:DHC:18652,)ry Yl'j,.[:1"#l'8,,u'3,"'Hr"ll?:l,io,i$ilt'3';i,J n',''! a69-wett *ne,tirn that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher tf?n the cost'incurred by privale devetopers, having regnrdto- higher ove'rheads and exPenditure 2L.EvenamongthelayoutsformedbyDDA'.the percentage of lanl utilised' fo'r roads, civic amenities, bJrps anl pt.ygrounds.may v?ry *i.tn reference to the nature of Etj;ijhether it is residential, residentialffifri'$ffiffinT",ry,i!liqti. size of the pl5ts,-width- of the roads, extent of community - - faei+ities; Parks and ptaygrounq!-P[gvided'

22. Some.cif. the 6outs -formed bV -Tn_e.itatutory devetoBrnent authorities-may have targe areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment-plants, water tanks, electrical substationr, "ii.-in addition io the usual areas earmarked' for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose bf ftr-e aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development".factor is a variable percentage and the_range of percentage itself being very wide from 2oo/o to 75Yo'. Second factor

23. DDA and other statutory developm."nl'a.uthorities "oopt difrerent rates for allotment of plots in the lame. layout, depending upon the economic ' status of the. agotte"r, iiuirii'i"ng tnem as high income group, middle income giorp, 't;il income group'. and economically weaker sections. As a consequerice, in the same layout' p|otsmaybee.armarkedtorpersonsbe|ongingto economicitl'-weaker sections at a price/premium 9f 1: 100 sq m, whereas the liicelpremium charged may be RS 150 per sq,u'e metre.for members of |ow income group, Rs200persquaiemetreforpersonsbe|ongingtomidd|e income giorp jnd Rs 250 per square metre for persons belonSing to high inCbme groups'

24. Theratioofsitdsina|ayoutreservedforH|G,M|G, LIG ano Ews -may also vary. Rtt these varying. factors reflect in the rates for "rroi*6nt. lt will be illogical to take the averug" oithe allotment rates, as the "market value" of those pioti ooes not depeld upo.[1] the cost incurred by DDA statir'tor," iuttroritvl nui'upoh ttl_e gey!19 capacitv of the a PPllEa n-tdTor ail-otment' Third factor LA.App.N o 26612008 & connected matters Page39 of74 t n

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

26. Thdre are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference" to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining th.e 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 priEe) charged by DDA, as being equal to the'market value of the property

27. However, in view of the difficulties referred to ' ' above, it is not. safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure frice has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." 28-: The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extractinrg from LAC Reference No.117A l20}g. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court, being the Same as was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court with reference to the evidence relied upo.n. 'lt reads:- " Ld. Co u nsel f-o-r--tb-e--lp-etitloners-has further.s.ubmitted that DDA & DSIDC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area bnd 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 T3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-O[5] area measuring 70 Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as t[3],989 per sq' metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. LA.App.N o.266 12008 & connected matters Page 40 of74 \4 plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela Industrial Complex_at the-rate of-T650 sq. metres which is E>c P\l/3/1 anO ano-tner allotment' letter OateO 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3l[2], which was sold at t3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that' from the statement of PWg Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PWLl/1, which is detail of land acquired. lt is apparent "that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = T248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ t3208 would be t253L4081- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized. for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so"the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 - 759422: L77I9866 per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price'of one.bigha i.e. t1771986 - 2489LL = 1523075 per bigha, Where as petitioher has been given rate only t[3],27,083/- per.' Similarly he 'has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R..L-5_h_A_Lm_?,- Asstt. M a n a q e r, D S! D_E_!yhg- h a s p ro d u ce d documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was LL247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. Vard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is <2L429L[7] per bigha, calculation is as under: i.e. Profit -comes to t247ObEf sq. yai'-l or'{2470000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 13612s0 sq. yards) ani the LAC has paid compensation @ t327083 per bi.Oha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a prOfit of <2L429J[7] per bigha. Ld. counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ <327083 pen Total area under plots L12.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq, vards. Price per sq. rnetre'in the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot t3000/- per sq. yards Total earninq r4083750000 Total expenditure <720s26901 Total profit T3363223099 LA.App.N o.266 12008 & connected matters Page 4l of 74 S v bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the saTd price is considered.on account of land, the figure come's to T654166. lf the amount is deducted from sale €iif i' 8'"1 o?',."[ft n, *; 3 f; li 3::: ?; "'*i,' Jon ff ' #" 9?: ":P 29, New, we do net hav'e' evidence as to. what was the. extent of plotted land'sold by DSIDC or DpA with reference tQ the Bawana Industrial Estate deveioped by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was.20o/o o.r 75o/o, 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 t'.al Chands c53e (supra), which render this - evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

30. lt is no doubt true, as held eve+--b)L the learned ' Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana ' Inilustriai Ar"., Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela, Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the buitding potentiality would translate itself.

31. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in La! Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the.issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of'." the lands.

32. The third submission in the aiternative w.a-s- baSed upon ' the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi RAm's case (supra), and the submission is as noted ln para 12 herejn above. The land owners require the -pdqgdetermined in Dharambifs case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.N o.ZSetZOOg & connected matters Page 42 of74 s). ?O 1O 106? in sLtm oLT16,7501-"-@ Mamurpur to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6Yo per annum, then by LO% per.annum and lastly by l2To per annum for different 'periods anci thereby determine the fair: market value for the 8 notifications in question.

33. lt be highlighted that in Bedi Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date as of the year.1959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied. the progressive.. increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum Qy 0W till the year 1965 and then by L0% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by LZo/o for. the remaining 3 years. - 34. However, in Lal Chands case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-1.0- 7967 is relevant?

47. The appellants contend that some ' lands in l:'Hiili[6]:'SSiff 1':1t1"'"?'::l"il;IlfJ[f 3:i;l;31 i",fr?:I?fl':ii sx',"11,x'f"* e.'n*" i3'?^"j ilJ""'.? acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value dbtermined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate oi 12% per annum. This Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patep- this Court held: (sCC p. 751, para 15) "-Zl-.-[ormally, recourse is taken to the mode of ' -:"ffiP*:,;?;5"Jil&H.$jil:1i::? value of nearby lands in previous years (a.s letrans@ns), where there is- no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr ' acquisitions of comparable lands in the neibtrOourhood. The said method' is reasonably LA.App.N o.266120A[8] & connected matters whelre ""---- '€hb--'::r--' reli transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it m.ay be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few ' years, may become unsafe and 'unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,' for determining the market value of a 'land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual intrease method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is. because, over the iourse of years, the 'iate' of annual increase may itself undergo '' drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of ' increase." (emphasis supplied)

48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there were no adverse c!rcumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the'market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase.of L2%o or L5% per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the.2OO[7] rates. Caution is.therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the.old transactions. Be that as it may. lt is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will 'not be of any use for determining the market value for a L98L

35. lt is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi Ra#s-+se1-supra) runs in the teeth of ffied by the-suptettle corrt in Lal Chands case (supraf which decision follows--?n--€arlier decision of tlie Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Ra meshbha i -tiva nbhai Patel. LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters. Page 44 of.74 J foffow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's case (supra) for the reason I find that a- Co-ordinate Oiuision Bench of this Court,.in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DA[1] SAraswati.Devi & Anr. Vs. UOI & OIs., pertaining to agricultural lands in viilage' Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive'percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Phanmbils case (supra) as of the year l-963, which would have resulted in' the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ T2010/- per annum per bigha gnd gave the increase @ TL000/- per bigha. lf Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would'have come to approximately T50,000/per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at T33,00"0/- Per bigha.

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market.value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of 'a Division Bench of this Court in LA,APP.N o.866t2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinah vs. tJOt &.Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana; and I highlight that one ' village with which l am dealing is village. Bawana, pertaining tO a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial E'state, the fair market value as of 15.11.1996'was determined @ {1,99,904.68 bigha which equals to t[9],59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.Lgg[7] by.which price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the Government was {1O lakhs per acre as of L.4.L997, the price LA.App.N o,26612AA[8] & connected matters Page 45.of"74 ' ^ 1"4 would equal the Ti.ljTyT determined by the Division Bench p.rice notified by the Government. 4 iee--as-oH5-;11.1996 @ t[9],59;542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Refe[ence Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by LOo/o per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason,'as assured by me herein above, I would be hol.isticaliy discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8' notifications in question.

39. The.fourth argument, which was advanced oniy by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.26812008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e.. LA.APP.N o.29212008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were Aarning TL 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.: 4L... The reasoning of the Court tha.t there.was no crop. standing on the land when its possession was taken over on 4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not being put to agricultural use and grdwing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3'd week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even.they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page 46 of74 s' o ' sown around the first week or the second week of. November each year,.

42. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form of documents is.relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he.was working bs an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi till 31.3.L996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and theieafter earned a.pension. 'lf ffiimed by him, was earnihg T[1] lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annual ineoTe--,ryoqld be T19 lakhs and one...finds it strange that not-a penny'was invested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of.sales being effected in the local Mandi or othenruise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not.been examined. No proof of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tUbewell,' if any, to irrigate the field.s or electricity bills paid if the purnp was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by.canal water, no proof of any payment.made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yield and the self se.rving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly rejected

43. lf there is reliable evidence of an there is otherwise reliable evidence, decision of the Supreme Court reported rs,, pertaining to the yield from agricultural determine fair maiket independerit exPert or as was found in the as JT Ig97 (L) SC 444 then it would be safe to applying the PrinciPle of land, only value by LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matter$ Page 47.of 74 too, the A,/ ' vf\ ()u capitalizing capitalizing on the yield basis and that 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 abbve in para L[4], by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average'principle be adopted with reference to the notification date d 24.I.2008.

45. In para 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight.that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 1l-.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8,200L,

7. L[2].2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2A02 and 27.L.2003 i.e. the years are. 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the tabie in Para 7 above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of 1.4.2000, L.4.}OOL and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the notification date d 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.20g[7];.e. i,s 4 yeeirS away fro'm the last year with which I am concerned i... the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which t 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 elese-s#he-point ferr whieh the mean average has to be determined.

46. t a'm left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification dated

27. L 2003 determined the fair market value in some References with respect to a sale deed dated 2052002 where under 1 bigha and L[3] biswa of land was sold in villagd RajapUr Kalan and LA.App.N o.266 12008 & connected matters Page 48 of74 ' /1.[1] >c has determined that based thereon the price as of said date t ws'ks -out@ aered'irrereasingttre-same fo r 8 months by L2% per annum, for the date zl.t.zooz the price woutd be {19, ll,o37l- per acre rounded off to T1g, L[6],o4o;- per. acre.

47. with reference to the Award No.10/Dc(NW)/2004-05 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring: question'pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflect fair markqt ' depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum of {1,[7] ressirsns in _. Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depr:essions in Category 'B' land were less vis-b-vis category''c'.land. In other words, with:lreferencelorcat"gr^/ A' l*d; the pr-i." of CuGgory 'C' land would have to be reduced'and vice-versa, vis-d-vis category 'c' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A'. land woutd be required to be increased suitably

48. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. tn view of the evidence herein above noted 'and reflecting upon the ' reasoning adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Collectol. and the.-learned Reference Court, I pose the question: What should be the fair market vatue of the subject,lands as of 7.8.2000, 1L.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.9.2001, 7,L?.2001, 16.5.2A02, ?s,?.2002 alg 27:\:2.oE i.9,_ the geles_plfyhtch thg notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894

49. t have, in para 37 above, noted a decision Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005. LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected maffers of a DiVisiori I decided on Page49 of 74 -)/- L-'/ \/ 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinah vs. uOl & Ors. wherein pertaining t; ' - village Bawana; fair market value determined as of 15.11.1996 isJ_1r_99,904.68 per big_Lr_a.which equals to 19,59,542.46 per acre. The said'decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i.e. the la'nds with which the Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision,' rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on popuiation growth, 5 villages in rural.Delhi were identified for providing major health facilities;' s-chools, markets and rural industry, one of which was village Bawana. llwqs noted that G:T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and that the Master Plan for Delhi nolified_uflhe year,1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed in.the future to industrial and commercial, but had also -e rved th at notw-ithstand[]gth'i[5] fo r tffip ia n was notified as contemplated by Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act L957, the lands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there.was no evidence that titl the year 1996, any land use.had been actually changed and put to ' the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject.lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, lhq potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being known to all as being required in the future for building purposes,'was' found not resulting in the potential being valueil wJt-6-referehce to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the nbar future capable of being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so expressly stating, would be. a propd$ti-on'TRet there is a difference between the undeveloped land having building LA.App.N o.26612008 &, connected matters Page 50 of74 l\ potentiality' in presenti vis-ir-vis.a land having a building already 36 above, as of the date L[5].11.1996, fair market value determined was {9,59,542.46 per acre and. which l.highlight once again is the' same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of' time i.e. the notification dated 25..[7] J-992 -where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the.Government as of 1.4.1997 was T10 lakhs per. acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 lV AD (Dethi) 13 QpJrei Sinah vs. UOI & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in ' village Holambi -Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa tand was ' acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996, fair market value deteimined for Category 'A' lands was {9,76, L2ll- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was t[9],[5] L,L2l'!per acre i.e. near'approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. lt needs to be highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in. para 19 and 2A of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to develo.pment work carried out in the. surrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division' Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V' i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola deterhrined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ T[1],30,523/- per bigha i.e. T[6],26,510.40 per acre. The decision is,..reported-as.2004 (4) nO (Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs, UOI and the.- --sama.Oivision€ench, as per the decisio+:r=eporteC-Js 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vs. tlOl, pertaining to a notification dated 14.1.199 4 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ {1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. T[6],73,L041- per acre. ' Page 5.[1] of 74 & ffr - -ffiC aErelaiil- the prdceOing paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Dethi as tabulated by mg in para 7 -: above bring out two very important facts relevant !9 determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the. year 1990.. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was T[4]..65 lakhs per acre which rose to T10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is T[5].35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.0547o increase in 7 years and the average price increase woutd be L[6],4360/o. The price risb over the next 1 year is by Ll.z% and thereafter by Ll% for the next 2 years and 1L.5% for the next year i.e. as.of 1.4.2001. lt shows that due to urbanization, between the year 199Q and L997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gairals case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above. 51: I need to elaborate a little.more with-respect to the decision in Gairals case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market va'lue of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to L[7] the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was T95,000 l- for multiple cropped land and having good _irrigatibn-facilities and thus capitalized the land price at T[9].[5] l.akhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land g'c"l_of _c_g.Iqarable lands in the ----urroundffieas. in c I uding pote ntia+itFin pa ra 1 9 o n wa rd s th e Court discussed the matter with'reference tc land priceS in a:djoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and basc-d-on -S61d instances found that based on the said sale Page52.of 74 - instances and woufd come to t10,03,3641- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices'notified by the Government as per poficy dated I.4.Igg[7] and thus worked out the mean average figure of t[9],76, L2ll- per acre for Category 'A' lands and {9,5L,I2I1- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in. when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f. L.4.L997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price notified as of I.4.Lgg[7] at't10 lakhs per acre, sale instanees were highlighting that the price was t10,03,3641- per acre.

52. The decision in Mahender Sinah's iase, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above,.highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that titl the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana"and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Ga.irafs case and Mahender Sinqh's case.highlight that potentiatity translated itself into a reality betwe'en 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per qnnum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the' LA.App.N o.266DA08& connected matteri Page 53 of74 ltz requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between tOQt q per annum to lL% per annum. One reason could -be fhat nrrrsuant to Master Plan for f\elhl 199o a-fairly largLeareacame' to be devetoped, both residential, commercial ahO industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

53. The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof 'the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 2L and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful - sale deeds, t[9] determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed. relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan" the learned Reference Court has held that as per the.said sale deed Ex.R-Z as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market vatue of agricultural lands would be {19,L[6],0401- per acre as of 27.L 2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa. of land which was sold for t[5],39,690/- and t70,160/- was paid as stamp duW would mean that T[6],09,8501- (t[5],39,690/- + t 7 O16OH were spent woutd yield the price <!7,[7] 4,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 54.. Thus, the best which could be said as the most favourable situation for the lqnd owners would be that with. reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C' lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would beT17,74,L0gl-peracre.FofCategory'B'andCategory'A'land the price would'have to be suitably enhanced and here we find anOther area of dispute for the reason, as noted by me hereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted L,A,App,No.266l2008 & connected matters e) sometimes T[1].[2] lakhs per acre, sometimes t[1].56 lakhs per acre. and sometimes tf.i lakhs per acre from the price of Category - _-- A' tJnds 'to Oetermine the price for Cbtegory 'B' lands and wherever lands were in"Category 'C' as w.etl -the pr.ice has been deducted further by f[1].[7] lakhs per acre

55. Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the lands and I nete that categrorization is base+onty on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressi'ons of various depths --- reeFirirg-tlte.sarne to be leveled and this would require. money to be spent. But on what basis has the Land'Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that t[1].[2] lakhs per acre wo.uld be spent and in some'that t[1].56 lakhs per acre would be spent ald in some that (1.[7] lakhs'per. acre would be spent? There is just no clue.

56. fn Gairai.Sinah's 'case (supra), the price differbntial worked out was t25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in GairAi Sinah's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. In Gairai Sinah's case the price for Category 'A' f and determined was <9,76,!21/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was t[9],5lJ-2].l- per acre and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land

57. I thus hold that Gairai Sinah's case should be my guidinfi'star for pricb differ.ential in the instant cases as well and thus I hold that wherever Category'A','Category'B'and category 'c' have to be differentiated on price, the differential should be 2.5%

58. Thus, if <L[7],74'109/-, rounded off to tL7'75 lakhs per a ere-woolerbsrhc pTi ce-or a catcgFry' c-l-a-nrfi_n-vl I I a g e Raja p u r Kalan as of 20.5.20o2and highlighting that the sale deed Ex'R-2 LA.App.N o.26612008. & connected matters tLl a'dmittedly pertains to a category 'c' land, the price for category 'B' land would be T18.20 lakhs per_._acre and for Category 'l' Irnd woutd be T18.655 lakhs per acre.

59. Taking the logicdl reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of L.4.2000 the per acre price was TL[3].82 lakhs and as of L.4.2001 the same was T15.[7] lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the ye?r was 11.5%'per annum. lf I treat Category 'A' land price at T18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per ' annum, the price as of L.4.2001 would come to approximately.,T16.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at t15.[7] lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001-, the price differential is T70,000/- per acre.i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to. a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the locltion, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%o. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and" acceptability. lt needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held goocf 'EVidEneE-t6-WOrk ouTa l-and' price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having atready impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page 56 of74 {5 -.- notifieatlons dated 7.8.2000,. 1@-z?8,z0ol and' 7.l^2.2OO[1], the differential period is smatl inasmuch as the sale deeil in question is'dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be- a relevant piete of evidence to be taken into account wniie Oet6rmining the market value of. land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.200L, 22.8.2001 and 7. I[2].2O0L 60, The argument that village Narela had always been treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of Narela was in existence since tong' and this was recognized ' wh."n, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, vis-bvis the adjoining villages T[2] per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambils case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational advantage was keeping'in view the realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbinization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which ' included areas in North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with which I am concerned today, the price differential faded and by the year ' 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent

61. I thqs hold that pertaining to the notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.200lr, 22.8,2001 and 7:!2.2001 thel. land prices would h.ave to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with / fefglqllqg_.lq thq 99!9 deed dated 25,s.2002.1o-f th.gyeason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates.could be determined.' Pertaininijffii tiated 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to'be determined with iespect to the sale deed dated 2552002 LA.App.N o.266 12008 & connected matters Page57 of74 # 'because- -with refdreined.te+he-said'satr iiffi 'tt-i+apparefft-t+at---, _land pricd as of said date comes to more than if determined with i respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was t15.[7] lakhs per acre with effect from L.4.200t..

62. With respect to the price differential for Category 'A' and Category 'B' lands., noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.200L only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification' dated 22.8.2001) | hold that vis-ir-vis the said notificationS,afterincreasingthepriceforthedatedifferential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be: effected by decreasing the same by 2.5o/o to determine the price for Category 'B' land

63. Before I work out the ccimpensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantialty in the other, a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification. dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to -village Holambi K'alan wherein the learned Reference Court has deterniineci the fair market value at <22Jq,23,900/- per acre as of 235.2002, '-b'trt t-need to-trigrffiig ht that- pertainTngrc-- the sa me notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court has determined=-the'-fair markbt value at <L[7],85,2401- per acre and I find that pertaining to village RajapurKalan and Sanoth, pertainln?Fto-the notification dated 27,1,.2003 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is {19,16,040/- in some cases and {19,13,7601- in a few, LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page 58 of74 {7 meaning thereby that much lesser compensation. has been" worked out in the year 2003 vis-d-vis the compensation worked.:. _. out for Holambi Kalan bertaining to ttre notification dated 23.5.2402 pnd the reason. for the abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in GairaJs case (supra) as of 15.11.1996'has been taken and increased at the rate of l2o/o per annum compounded.

64. With. reference to the notification dated 9.8:2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is t13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be stritably updated to reach the date of the notification i,e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed..dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Categciry -'C'-land[6], land price per acre comes to.{17,74,L091-, rounded off to T17,75,000/- per acre, and foi Cate$ory 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to. {18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by lI% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' tands in village Pooth Khurd comes to t14.75 lakhs per acre and.decreasing the same bV 2.5yo, it comes. to. {14,38,L251- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is <L[4],37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager T[1],000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference': Court.

65. All Land Acquisition Appeals and cross objections wherever filed LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters filed by the Unibn of India by Union of India in the Page59 of 74 €Y appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been. prepared and labeled as'GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed.

66. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-bbjections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are ailowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated L.4.2000 in sum of TL[4].75 lakhs per acre and for Category. 'B' lands the. compensation awarded at <L[4],37,280/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals' or cross references which peftain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. 67: Pertaihii'i[9]:to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benbfits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder,Vs. UO! 200L (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a detay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for' which peiiod of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Villaqe Holambi Kalan Noti.fication dated 7.8.2000

68. For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove anq cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensation to t14.75 lakhs per acre and l. highlig.ht that as per the award and even as per the reference all subject lands were of uniform category. Needless to state appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owhers are allowed by ' enhancing the compensation to t14.75 lakhs per acre to$ethe"r with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page60 of 74 expfained in the judgment reportbd as Sunder Vs. UOI2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing ----+he'appeal or cross objection, for whieh period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation--shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors woutd be entitled to proportionate cost. Villaoe Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2000

69. Pertaining te-viltage Bawana---relating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court.:..'_ has-no-t enhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fai.r market value for Category 'A' lands is fixed at t14.75 lakhs per ediit end for category 'Bt iandd at <i[4],s[8]:,L25t- per acre and noting that Union of lndia has neither filed any appeal or cross ' objection, appeals aS per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by fixing the. compensation as hereinbefore mentioned tld n,eedless to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellants. shalt be entitled to'statutory beinefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI2001 (93) DLT 569, except for: the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation faff be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Villaoe Khera Khura Notification dated L1'9'2000

70. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001. wherein with effect fiom 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is t13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably.updated to reach the date of the notification i'e. 11.g.2000 and with reference.to the sale deed dated 25.5.2042 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to <17,[7] 4,L091--,- --r-oundect -.off to T1-7,75,000/' per acr.e' and for Category 'B' lands increasing thg same by 2.5%.the price comes LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page 6l of74 o lo to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5o/o the prices comes to {18,65,500/- per acre for Catego.@ decreasing the said prices by Tl% 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 uillage Khera Khurd comes to tL[4],83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.syo, it comes to t14,[4] 6,4L31- per acre for Category 'B' lands 7L. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per'GRID-D' filed by the ' land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the nbtification dated ff.g.ZOp0 in sum of.T14,83,500/-. per acre for Category'A' lands and T14,46,4131' per acre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertaining to this notification and the village, the Union of lndia 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. uol2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants wou.ld be entitled to proportionate cost. Villaqe Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001

72. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect tiom l.:n.z11r minimum-priiE hotified per acre is t15.[7] lakhS per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 2,5.2001and with reference to the sale deed. dated 25,5.20A[2] wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes.to <L[7],74,!Ogl-, rounded off to t17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category'B'tands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.N o.266D008& connected matters Page 62 of74 o - to {18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices t_ aff#er ffiegory -'A'-laRds; and 'decreasing the said prices by LL% to reflect the price with ' reference to lhe sale deed 'for the date 2.5.200I; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands'in village Narela comes to. {16,L[6],500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5o/o, it comes to t15,76,087- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reaSons, done away with Categor;y 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is f15,85,5701- pel acre and since for Category 'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by t[9],000/- per acre which is a meager. amount, I hold that for Cat'egory 'Bi lands the price determined ' would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the _, pricestandsenhancedlo-@r€.-.

73. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per'GRtD-E' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of lndia are allbwed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Narela pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 in sum of {16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order for Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed' by land owners a1e dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition $ct 1894 as expfained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs.. UOI 2001 (93) Dl-T 569 shall be granted, except ior the period whgre there is a delay in fiiing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.N o.266 120.08 & co'nnected matters i Page63 cif 1ti 1L' interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. Thes-e. ortionate cost. --.Vi-llaqe Helambi-Katan Notification dated 22.8.2001

74. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 1-minimum Price notified Per acre is t15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the' notification i'e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre'comes to <L[7],74,109/-, rounded off to t17,75.,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing thE'r.m" by 2.5% the price comes to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further.increasing by 2.s%.the prices comes to t18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the.said prices by 11% to refteeHhe price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; lhe mean avbrage price for eategory:A' lands in village Holambi Kalan.ot"t to t16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5o/o, it comes to t16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lAnds.. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is T16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked oqt by me comes to a meager t[9],000/- per acre.and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

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

76. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed b11 -th-e--l-end owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.N o.26612008& connected matters Page 64.of 74 1\ t,/ Union of India are allowed by dlcreeing compensation payable for Categ.gry 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining.to the notification date d 22.8.2001 in sum of T16,.[7] 4,5001- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at t16,43,8Lu- per acre is maintained and,thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' l.ands are dismissed.

77. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 189 4 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs, UOI2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross pbjection, 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. Villaoe Ali Pur Notification dated 22.8.200i

78. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001wherein with effect from 1.4.200L minimum price notified per acre is t15.70 lakhs per acre and requirihg said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i,b. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 <!7,74,L0g1-, rounded off to T17,75,000/- per acie, and. for Category 'B' tands increaSing the same by 2.!% the'price comei 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 sqid prices by LL% to ieflect the price with reference to the saie deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for- category-:A-Iands in village A.li Pur comes" to {16,74,500/- per acre. and decreasing th.e same by 2'5yo, it comes to {16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting Page 65 of74 1? - ---'thatthe'tearned'R6ere-nce C reasons, d";; i.ererence court hasr-tnriffiout any +easons, do away with Category'B'lands and uniform price awarded is {16,43,811/- per acre,.the price differential worked out by me ' comes to a meager t[9],000/- per acre and thus qua Category,8, lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference:. Court.

79. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union.of-lndia. in respect whereof grid has been" pfepared and labeted as 'GRtD- H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any'appeal challeriging the decision of the Reference Court.

80. There shalt be no order as to costs. Vitlaqe Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.200L t 81. With reference to the notification. dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from I.4.200L minimum price notified per i acre "is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated. to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed.dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to t17,74,LOgl-, rounded off to t17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category'B'lands increasing the same bV 2.5% the price comes to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing bV 2.5% the prices: comes to <18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and: decreasing the said pti."r by LL% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean: average price -for-Category'4r lands-i*-villag*lelamb'Khurd- --j-- ' comes to t16,[7] 4,5001- per acre and. decreasing the same by ' 2.5o/o, it comes to {16,[3] 2,637.50. per- acre.for,Category 'B' tands --iloffng*thdt'Th-e-Ie as, without any reasgln-s*-do.ne-away with Categsry 'B' lan d uniform price' awarded is tl[6],43,tit1/- per acre, the,price differential worked oirt-6-V me comei to a meager T[9],000/- per bc.re and thus qua LA.App.N o.266 12008 & connected matters a Page 66 of74' Category 'R'. lancls | 'maintain. tMcl by-the learned Reference Court..:

82. The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has' been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-|: hereinabove is dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court.

83. There shall be no order as to costs.. Villaqe Raiapur. Kalan Notification dated 22.8.200L

84. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from l.4.2OOL minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with'reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 <17,74,L091-, rounded off to t17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category'B'lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to tl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to T18,65,500/- per acre for Category jA' lands; and decreasing the said prices by llo/o to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.200L; thq mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to T16,[7] 4,5OOl- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5yo, it comes to t16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' landS and uniform price agla.rged-js t16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked -aut.by me qomes to a meager t[9],000/="per.,.acr.e--and- thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

85. All Land Acquisition Appeals and cross objections wherever filed LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters filed by the Union of India by Union of india in the o Page67 of14 2011:DHC:18652.L{ apai€alCjf iieilbv:tand.ownerstn-re-tflectwher prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereinabove are dismissed.

86. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by.decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of T16,74,5001- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded- at T16,43,8L1/- per acre is maintained and thus such dppeals or cross references which pertain to Category.'B' lands are dismissed.

87. Pertaining to such.pp".i where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs, UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellahts or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Villaqe Sanoth Notification dated 7.i[2].200J..

88. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 whereih with effect from I.4.20A[1] minimum price notified per acre is t15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saiQ price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

7. L[2].2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to t17,74,109/-,. rouh-ded offi- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 25% the price comes -to {182 iakhs per acre anbJurther increasing by 2.5o/o the prices cornes-to T18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by:-.:.% to reflect the price with Page 68 of74 I I -l reference to the sale deed for the date 7.L[2].2a0L; the mea,n average p.ltse fg[1] cglegory'A',lands in village sanoth comes to <L[7],29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference court are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notification dated 7.L[2].2001 the'land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of 7L[7],29,500/-.

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

90. All Land Acquisition App"uir filed by the land owners. ?19 gl[9]:_s-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India aie allowed by granting compensation in sum of <L[7],2g,5601- and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objeCtiqn, 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. Villaoe ShahBu-r Garhi Notification dated 1-6.5.2002

91. Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by me hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at t18,65,500/- per acre and slnce there is just a difference of 4 days between the date of sale and the notification.l maintain that for the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitted to compensation at the rate of <18,65,500i- LA.App.N o' 26612008& connected matters Page69 of 74 all lands are in the same 1x, per acre and I highlight that as per the award anefTh€'f€TeTence ory. Appeals and crqss objections filed by the land owners as per'the,GR|D-L,are aliowed and needless to state on. the enhanced compensation the land. owners would be entitled'to all statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1g94 as. interpret-ed in the judgment reported as sunder vs. LJol 20oL (93) DLT 569 except that in ' such appeals-or cross objections filed by land owners whgre f5r the period of delay. Proportionate cost[5] stand awarded. Appeals and cross objections'filed by union of India are dismissed ur Garhi frl 23,[5]

92. Pertaining to the notification dated 22.5.2002 pertaining to village shahpur Garhi, noting that thb date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days I hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the land. owners would be entiiled to compensation at the rate of (18,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act L8g[4] as interpreted in the decision reported.a's sunder vs. uol 2001 (93). DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. proportionate costs stand awarded. All suclr appeals and cross objections by land owners as per'GRID-M' stand ailowed as aforesaid and all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of.India are dismissed, _"1

93. As noted by me pertaining 23.5,2002 relating to village Holambi treated in the same category by the LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters to the notification dated Kalan all lands have been learned Land Acquisition Page70 of74 Co||ectorandthe|earnedReferenceCourt.The|earned. Reference Court haS aWarded- COmp-ensation in sl 'm of <22,L[4].,2391- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5,?002 | have held that fair market value would be t18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensatidn payable to t18,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced price with reference. to the award. the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. Villaoe Ali Pur Notification dated ?3.5.2092

94. Pertaining to the notification dated 23'5.2002 relating to village Ali.Pur,'for parity of reasons qua the said notification retating to village Holambi Kalan a.nd Shahpur Garhi I determine ' ' fair market value payable at {18,65,500/- per aire and thus all appeals and. cross.objections filed by Union bf India as per 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing thq compensation payable to Tl-8,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisitign Act'as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT' 569 shall be paid saue-JnOt "*t-"pt in such appeals or tros[3] objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paiO toi the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Villaqe SaQgth Notification dated 27.1'.2003

95. Pertaining to the appdals and cioss objections by the land owners and Union of India as per'GRID-P' peptaining to the notification dated 27.L 2003 relating to village sahoth, I note LA.App.N o.ZSe lZ0Og & connected matters. Page T, of 7ti <la that the.learned.Land Acquisition Collector in 3 categories and I find that the learned without any discussion. held the lands' as while awarding compensation.

96. On the mean average basis which t have been following. by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to. the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the the:sale deed dated 20.5.20A[2] and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes:, *--. - to {19,43,!_09/- p_glgc[q__?_1d_ for Calegory-:U lenC the price -g-gll:lg.: to t18,94,9L[7].50 per aCre'and for Category 'C' lands the. prige comes to t18.,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at {19,L[3],7651- and.thus such appeals or cross objections wh.ich have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the.fate of appeals and cross cibjections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections aS per'GRID-P' are dismissed. Appeals and Cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in'sum of t19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compbnsation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 200L (93) DLT 569 shEll be paid-i;dVe "and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Propbrtionate costs as well. The appeals and cross object!-ont filed by Union of lndia pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lanQs are. allowe.d by modifying-+he--r.etatable -de€fee-ift the Reference order by r:educing the compensation for Category 'B' land to LA.App.N o.26612008 & connected matters Page72 of74 has placed the tands Reference Court has of uniform category e. q -{18,94,9L[2].50 per acre and for Category,C, land to T18,47,539.68 per acre Villaoe Raiapur Kalan Notificatioh dated 27.L.2003

97. For parity of reasoning as per para 96 above pertaining to village sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to..notification dated 27.r.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I fihd that the learned Reference.Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of T19,13,7651- per acre and in some cases at T19, L[6],0401- per acre by treating all lands of uniform: category. On the mean average basis which I' have been foffowing by increasing the price as of L.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category iA' landsi - " the priee-eomerto{*#3,500f-per affi-for'Category 'B' s, fand the price comes to T18,[9] 4,gL[2].50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price c.omes to {18,47,539.68 per.acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land. owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category'B'and Category'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertai'ning to Category 'Ai lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertainlng.to Category'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of T19,43, 5 00/-- per a c re a nd n eedless- to- statrorrtfre- en h a n ced compensation statutory beneiits aS per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs, UOI 2OO[1] -(93)-gl+-569-sha{l ffi-savg--€.nd except in' such appeals ald cross objections where there is a delay, interest iU LA.App.N o.26612008 & connecied matters Page73 of74 wo_uld not b_g_pgt_dlq_the period of delay. Proportionate costS'ds well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category'B'and Category'C'lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference' Order by len-- for-'_€ategoryr 'B' land.to {18,94,9L[2].50 per acre gnd for Category 'C' la4d to tL[9],47,539.68 per acre -.^1*-a

JUDGE AUGUST 23,ZOLL mm/dk L. --.[1] f, Page74of74