Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Advocate and Mr.R.S.DaIaI, Advocate v. UOI & ANR.

10. Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference Court was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also Th stedeed dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ T26.75. takhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bighä and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of Z32.[4] lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price., as of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 would be T28.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be 63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be, good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lahds in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000,.11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 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 10% more LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters Page 23 of74 and for which the argument was that when. in the pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural Aands in village Mamurpur- Narela by giving a. price benefit of 2/- per sqyd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UO/ vs. Dharambir & Ors. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in.sum of 6,650tdetermined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to 16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to 22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the SupremeCourt and the one rendered • by the 'Reference Court was restored. • Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSIIC and DDA i.e. the implementing agencies, which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme 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 AIternative to the second submission, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram. vs Union of India, it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair rrarket 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, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bed! Ram's case (supra) as per which.price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 60/q per annum with reference to the base price 16,750/- per bigha as of 30.101963.i.e the price affirmed by the Supreme Cdurt in Dharamb/r's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till 31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various ates when the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with..which Larnconcerned.injthe prcentappais.. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come.to 56,88,759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to • be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle: market value should be e assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001 0 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 and 23.5.2002.

13. The fourth argument advanced was, and for which -refw-e-nce was made by learned couns& for the parties in the evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which is subjectmatter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.No.268/2008 filed by the land owners • and LA.APP.No.292/2008 filecLby Union.f India, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing • • the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agricultura.I. produce from his lands he used to earn T[1] lakh per bigha per annum i.e. th&fair market value asof 7.8.2000 i.e the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be Z20 lakhs per bigha. I may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008..14. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for each of the notification in question the fairTharket value ought to have been determined with reference to the notification which was cIosest in point of time. where under minimum land value was fixed by the Government' and the notification dated 24.1.2008 where under T53 lakhs per acre Was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument.

15. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 big ha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for 5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said sale deed in the following words: (Refer i'ara 17.of the decision dated 7.1.2010./n LAC No.11 7A/2009): "If we add stamp duty IA the sale price[3], 69,906/-.per bigha (5,39, 690/-+ 70,160 = 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes tO U[7], 74,1091per acre or 3,68,9061- per b/ghá. Furthét if we give 1:2% in crease on said amount for intervening period between the date when the sale deed was executed and the date of nüt/ficat/on u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes. to 19,16,0371- (round off 19,16,0401-)" The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisftion. i.e. 'Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land_was put in Category 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred tothe land being comprised iii Khasra"1o.200 and that page No.56-57 'i'ottaward would evi th'tid 'comprised. in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in • Category 'C'. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair, market value as of the date of the notification ie 27.1.2003.in sum of T.15.[7] lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated 9 8 2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by T[1].[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was Z14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another.1.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determined whereof was T12.[3] lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the same had to be fOr. Category 'C' lands and: for Category, 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price naa to be increased by fl.[7] lakhs per acre for each category. 16.. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced_by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above andhence I need not repeat the. same. In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court pertaining to the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence my journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various subparas of para 6 above. But before dealing with the arguments 1 need to highlight various anomalies which strike the reader at the outset. The same would be:-

19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant S Put in a tabular form the data would be as under:-.. Village Date of LAC compensation ADJ cbmpensation Section 4 (in lakhs/acre) with (in lakhs/acre) with Notification reasons reasons Pooth 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' Z13.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd. ' Cat. 'B' 12.26 Z14.3728. Minimum....price.a -Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi 7.82000 U[3].82 ' U[4].12995. Kalan ' Minimum' price as Price as in Ga/rats of 1.4.2000 ' case as of 15.111996 with '12% increase p.a. Holambi 22.8.2001 ' Cat. 'A' 15.[7] Cat. Uniform. Kalan Cat. 'B' U[4] Z16.43811. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Holambi 23.5.2002 Z15.7.. 22.14239. Kalan Minimum price as Priceas in Ga/rai's. of 1.4.2001 case.. as of 15.11.1996 with 12% increase pa. (compounded) Bawana 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' 13.82 No enhancement Cat.'B'12.62 given. Minimum., price as of 1.4.2000 Khera 11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' 13.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd Cat. 'B' fl[2].62. 14.40157. Minimum price as Minimum price as, of 1.42000 with oLL420..O0...... Narela 2 5 2001 Cat 'A'fl[5] 7 Cat Uniform Cat. 'B' T14. t15.857. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001. of 1.4.2001 with. S All Pur 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' Z15.[7] 716.43811. Cat. 'B' 14 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. Ali Pur 23.5.2002 T15.7. fl[7].8524 - Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a Holambi 22.8.2001 fl[5].[7] 16.438i[1] Khurd Minimum price as Minirrium price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Rajapur 22.8.2001 Z15.[7] Z16.43811 Kalan Minimum price as Minimum price' as -... of 1.4.2001 of. 1.4.2001 with Rajapur 27.1.2003 Cat. 'A'Zff[7] Z19.13765 for Kalan Cat. 'B' fl[4] Uniform category. Cat. 'C' 12.[3] Minimum price as Minimum price as of.1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. in some cases. Z19.1604 for Uniform category based on sale deed dated 25.5.2002 with Sanoth 7.12.2001 fl[5].7. 16.99042. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of. 1.4.2001 with Sanoth. 2.7.1.2003 'Cat. 'A' T153 T19.13765. for Cat. 'B' 14. ' Uniform category. Cat. 'C' T12.[3] Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001, 12% increase p.a. Shahpur •Garhi 165.2001 Cat. 'A' 15.[7] Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Minimum price as of. 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. Shahpur 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' Z15.[7] Z17.79781. Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.42001 of 1.4.2001 with compound interest.@ 11.5% p.a.. I now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by learned counsel for the land owners and the 2 submissions. urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India).. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW- 1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to 26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ 63.478 Iakhs per acre.. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was S purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan.PW-6 who had tendered the sale dee.d in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/200.[8] & connected matters. of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that th-oniationhpd to pay the-price-for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) 5CC 717 Land A cciuis/t/on Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rob/ni & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. RaUfuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced, in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.AAct 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special. circumstances which • have led the buyer, to pay. a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of, land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he S may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would. be failing if Ido not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. fl[7],74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes to T63.478 Iakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and t28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.AppNo.266/2008 & connected matters., themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-fdcie destroy each oTheT: •23.Thus, apartfrc.m the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 abo _w_ouJ b_eadditiuna[1] reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more.a reason to be circumspect on sate deeds having intrinsic. evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the.. buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratay Sincjh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UOT& 0,-s. It was highlighted thafthe sale deedtherein by, which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good..evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of.the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but fbUffdthat if the price therein was reduced by 113Td, the price arrived at would be the same as would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of 1,37,000/per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had pUrchased the land gave the.price 3,26,600/- per bigha and the average woild come to 2,31,800/- which was •near about the price of 2,15,160/- per bigha, if 113rd would be deducted from the sum of 3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as. of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid. i.e. 2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to..be given. I. would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutuallV destructive evidence of the 2 sale.deeds reflecting fairmarket value. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately, highlight that the extended limb of •. the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds. as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to village...-Narela, in view of the decision in Oharambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced would be dealt with by me at the end when I determine the fair market value of lands for the villages in question. The second argument, contours whereof are to be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the •1 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. Page 35 of.74 latest pron.o...ncement of the Supreme Court on the. issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UQI. But before that 1 must highlight that the decision in Lal Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and the argument was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V' formed by NH-i and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing the same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts, in paras ii to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence?

11. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-i) dated 9-24981 is an invitation seeking applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme.. The brochure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis:

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│      SLNo. Plot size Category            --   Rate (per square metre)                        │
│              26.sq m Economically weaker sections Rs 100                                     │
│                        (EWS)                                                                 │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│              32 sq m Low income group (LIG)        Rs 125                                    │
│     .3.      48 sq m Low income group (LIG)      . Rs 150                                    │
│              60 sqm Middle income group (MIG)      Rs 200                                    │
│              90 sq m Middle income group (MIG) .   Rs200                                     │
│ LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters                       Page 36 of 74                   │
│                                                                  2011:DHC:18658              │
│       The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre                                    │
│        which is the average of the said provisional rates, should                            │
│        be taken as indicative of the ruling market price.                                    │
│       12.     On careful consideration, we are of the view that                              │
│       such allotment rates of plots adopted by development                                   │
│       authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of                                │
│       compensation for acquisition of undeveloped .lands for                                 │
│       severaL reasons. Firstly, market value has to be                                       │
│       determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped                               │
│       agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment                              │
│       rates, of development authorities are with reference to                                │
│       small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area.                           │
│       Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt                                    │
│       different rates for plots in the same area with reference to                           │
│      the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to                              │
│      ascertain the real market value, whereas market value                                   │
│      determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not                                  │
│      depend upon the economic status of the land loser.                                      │
│      Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold'                                │
│      tand whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure                                  │
│      refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots                              │
│      on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three                                     │
│      factors.      ,                                                                         │
│       First factor                                                                           │
│              The percentage of "deduction for development" to                                │
│       be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of                               │
│       undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for                                      │
│       development), with reference to the sale price of small                                │
│       developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price                                │
│       of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon                                 │
│       the nature of development of the layout in which the                                   │
│       exemplar plots are situated.                                                           │
│              The "deduction for development" consists of two                                 │
│      components. The first is with reference to the area                                     │
│     'required to be utilised for developmental works and the                                 │
│      second is the cost of the development works. ' For                                      │
│      example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or                                    │
│      similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of                               │
│      the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks,                                  │
│      playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities),                                 │
│      etc.                                                                                    │
│              The development authority will also . incur                                     │
│      considerable ' expenditure for development of                                           │
│      undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes                                │
│      the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads,                                │
│ LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters   .              Page 37 of 74                        │
│                                                                             2011:DHC:18658   │
│                underground drainage and sewage                                               │
│                lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil                       │
│                developed, plot. The two factors taken together would be                      │
│                the "deduction for development" and can account for as                        │
│                much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.                                │
│                         On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an                  │
│                unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of                    │
│                "deduction for development" may be far less. This is                          │
│                because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be                    │
│                set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities.                    │
│                Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The                │
│                roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for                     │
│                movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development                         │
│                work would also be comparatively less and mihimal. Thus.                      │
│               the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of                      │
│   • plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20%                                   │
│               plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA                            │
│               plots.                                                                         │
│                        The "deduction for development" with reference to                     │
│               prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts                      │
│               may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the                                │
│               standards and quality of the layout.                                           │
│                        The position with reference to industrial layouts will                │
│               be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of                    │
│               the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with                        │
│               the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq                     │
│               rn), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and                     │
│               no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development                       │
│    • (for :roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be                            │
│               far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will                     │
│               also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to                      │
│               be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range                          │
│               only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75%                          │
│               for residential plots.                                                         │
│ •             19.      If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban                     │
│               area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the                              │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

58. Thus, if fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to 17.75 iakhs per acTE'WoBid be the pri'cfor a..Ctry 'C n'dtrrviilage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No.266/2008. & connected matters admittedly pertains to a Category 'C' land, 'the price for Category 'B' land would be Z18.20 lakhs per acre and for Category 'A' land would be T18.655 Iakhs per acre.

59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was T13.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was T15.[7] lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at fl[8].655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately fl[6].40 !akhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government • at f15.[7] lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is 70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum, price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held gbodvidence.tO work i'iUtTiidprice ona date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 -notificatLos--dated-_7&2O0, l2O0O-2-50L--2.28.2ooi and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land ason said date, would be. a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account while determining the market value ofland as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2.000, 2.5.2001,22.8.2001 and 7;12.2001. The argument that village Narela had always been • treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of Narela was in existence since long and this was recognized • when, pUrsuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, vis-àvis the adjoining villages f[2] per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela.in Dharamb/,s case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational advantage was keeping in view the realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which included areas in North-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. I thus hold that pertaining to the notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.82001 and 7.12,2001 the land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 forthe reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates 'could be detérmined' Pertaining to the notificatiohUated 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 tecause with reference to he-s-atdTé prtèe its apparent-that-- --,--land price as of said date comes to more than if determined with respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was T15.[7] lakhs per acre with effect from 1.4.2001.

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 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001) 1 hold that vis-à-vis the said • notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine the price forCategory 'B'. land... 63., Before I work outthe compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantially in the other,.a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi • Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value at 22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, toightthatpertang to the sae notification dated 23.5.2002 in re!ation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court, has determind-:the -fair market value at - 17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village RajapuriKalan and Sanoth, pertaitntothe notification dated 27.1.2003. thefair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is 19,16,040/- in some cases and 19,13,760/- in a few, meaning thereby thatmuch lesser compensation.aeen worked out in the year 2003 vis-à-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Ga/rats case (supra') as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. Village P00th Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000 With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is f13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 and. with reference to the.sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Catègôr''C"lands, land price per acre comes to 17,74,109/..,' rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to 18.[2] lakhs per acre and, further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to T14.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 14,38,125/- 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 14,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 1,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the l'earned Reference Court.. All Land. Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as'GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village P00th Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of T14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 14,37,280/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed...... Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition • Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs, UO/ 2001 (93) DLI 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which pe.riod of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to prOportionate cost. Village Holambi Kalan Notification 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 and cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensation to T14.75 Iakhs per acre and I highlight that as per the award and even as per the reference all subject lands were of uniform category. Needless to state apeals filed by the Union of India and 'cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are allowed by enhancing the compensation to T14.75 takh's per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. U012001 (93) DLT 56'9, except for the period where there is a delay in filing •..........--hepeat or cross.objethon, for which period of delay. no interest on the, enhanced compensation shall be paid.. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2000 Pertaining to_ville BawanareEating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court tenhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A' lands is fixed at T14.75 Jakhs per acre and for Category"Ev'lands'at 14,38,125/- per acre and noting that Union. of India has neither filed any' appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and needless to state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000 With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 'wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per 'acre is 13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to. be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification' i.e. 11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to fl[7] f74,109/-:,.rounded off, to17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category tB' lands increasing the same by' 2.5% the price' comes LA.App.No.266/2008 & ëonnected matters to.18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500I- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A'. lands in village Khera Khurd comes to 14,83,500I- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 14,46,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. 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 notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum of 14,83,500/- per acre for Category'A' lands and fl[4],46,4131- • per acre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertaining to this notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. U012001 (93) DLT 56.[9] shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced • compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 mmum price notified per acre is fl[5].[7] lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. • 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 255.2002 • wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to. fl[7],74,109/-, rounded• off to 17,75,000/- per acre,; and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected mattes. Page, 62 of 74 to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices - comes to U[8],65,500/- per aere—for- Category 'A --Iands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Narela comes to 16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 15,76,087- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 15,85,570/- per acre and since for Category 'B' lands the price • worked out by me is less by 9,000/- per acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category 'B lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the I'll

73. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-E' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Narela pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.200 1 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 are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 63 df 74 interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. to proportionate cost. aWeJlants would be entitled Thesc. - ____.••- Notification dated 22.8.2001 -----whrein— fttreffect—frorrr14.I 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 17,74,109/-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices O comes to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reffeet—the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean avrage price for Category 'A' lands in _village Holambi Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.: Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, doneaway with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua - Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of16,74,50O/- peracre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. Pertainin[9] to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benèfitsas per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the' judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay 'no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village All Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimu.m price notified pe,r acre is fl[5].70 lakhs per acre and reqUiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification. i.e. 17,74,109/-, rounded off to U[7],75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% thé'price comes to Z18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing 'by 2.5% the prices comes to, 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and ' decreasing the said prices' by 11% to 'reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the däte22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category..-A-4ands in viUage All Pur comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by.2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. Page. 65 of 74 that thelearned Rfëréñce Court aswitho.ut any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/.- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre andthus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

79 All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union.... in respect whereof grid has. been prepared and labeled as 'GRID- H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court.

80. There shall be no order as to costs. Village Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2001. 81. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be, suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.. 22 82001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category. 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average_price for Category 'A' laii4s—u vFttage—HeIambH(hurd comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%; it cOmes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.......... thftëTëàThed Reference Court has., without any reasonsdoie_away with Category B--Iands--and uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category W. lands I maintain.theamun awrcd by the ç22 learned Reference Court. • 82. The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect. whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. There shall be no order as to costs., Village Rafapur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001 With reference to the notification dated, 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is U[5].70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price.wit,h reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price aardedis 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by m,e corn..es to a meager ?9,0001-..peracrc....an.dthu.s qua Category 'B' lands I 'maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. -.

85 All Land Acquisition Appeals 'filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.,, 2011:DHC:18658:apaifed by Jandownersirrespecthereof grid—has been 2 prepared and labeled as 'GRID-i' hereinabove are dismissed.. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by.decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of 16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded. at 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition 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 appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saiçl price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. - 7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated.25.5.2002 1734,109/-,_Launded o.ffto 177500.0/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.[2] Iakhs per a.cre and further increasing by 2.5% the prFces - comes-to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to ?17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notification dated 7.12.2001 the 1and owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of 17,29,500I-.

89. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of lhdia 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 Appeals filed by the land owners • and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of 17,29,500/- and needless to state on. the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Shahøur Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2002

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 18,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a difference of 4 days between the date of sale and the notification I maintain that fOr the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500i- •. •• ffi peracreand I highlight that as per the award ardë fëIencé all lands are in the same category. Appeals_and_cross objections filed by the land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowed and needless to state on. the enhanced compensation the land owners would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by landowners where there is delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. ViHage Shahpur Garhn Notification dated 23 5 2002 •

92. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.52002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days I hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reportedas Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 23.5.2002

93. As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition \ Collector and the learned Reference Court. The learned,- Reference Court has awarciecL compensation in sum of 22,14,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have held that fair market value would be 18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to 18,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. • Village All Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002 Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village All •Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at 18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India as per 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to U[8],65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in • the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. vol 2001 (93) DLT. 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or cros objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid fo the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Village Saroth Notification dated 27.1.2003 Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as per 'GRlD-P' pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sanoth, I note •..--..... that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation.

96. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the -----same--w+ti-refei-ence--to the sate deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to 19,43,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price corn.es to U[8],94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at 19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The 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. 19,43,500J- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced. compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid.... save.... and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by mUdify+g—the—r-eIatabie--deeFee--in the R-eference Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to • •18,94,912.50 per acre and for _Category 'C' land to • 18,47,539.68 per acre. • Village Rajapur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2003

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 271.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that the learned Re.ference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of 19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at 19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform. category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference •________ to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with, refer.ence to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' land[9] The pf 'B' land the price comes to T18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68 per.acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. • The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. 'Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining' to Category 'A' lands are allowed by •decreeing compensation payable in sum of • 19,43,500/- per acre and 'héedIe'ss-'tostateom-the"è'nhanced • compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 3+—OL±-569---s -hl except in ". such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate cost as 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 Thdudng the compensation--foi-- Category. 'B' land to U[8],94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' land to 18,47,539.68 per acre.

JUDGE AUGUST 23, 2011 S.. mm/dk S