Full Text
AMAN GOYAL Appellant
Through: None
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sachin Nawani and
Mr.Siddharth Panda, Advocates
23.08.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.266/2008.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
AUGUST 23, 2011 rk 2011:DHC:18655 IN THE HIGH COURT OF. DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ORDER
Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.M.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana, Mr.Raj Singh, Mr.Uday Ram, Mr.D.R.Tomar, Mri.S.Dahiya, Mr.N.S.Dalal, Mr.S.M.Bhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta, Mr.S.K.RoUt, Mr.S.S.Rana, Mr.Suhil
Dalal, . Mr.D.S.Khatri and Mr.T.P.S.Kang, Advocates
Vs.
Respondents I.
Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani 1 Mr.Siddhaçth
Panda and Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1, Ms.Anusuya Saiwan, Advocate, for
DSIDC.
Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan . Mathur, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Surder
Sethi and . Ms.Beenashaw Sthni Advocates for DA.
JAI SINGH
Through:
UOI & ANR.
Through:
AND
(GRID-A)
271/2008, LA.APP. 272/2008, LA.APP. 273/2008, LA.APP.
278/2008 CM APPL. 5338720 Cr0 S bjections), LA.AFP.
LA.App.No.266/2008 & coimected matters . ..
2011:DHC:18655 I 279/2008, LA.APP. 280/2008 & CM APPL. 5261/2009 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 281/2008, LAAPP. 284/2008, LA.APP.
286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP. 289/20TT8, EA.AFP:
290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP. 292/2008, LA.APP.
293/2008, LA PP7-2-94f2O&8 & CM APPL. 12918/2011 (Crüss
Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP. 296/2008, LA.APP.
299/2008, LA.APP. 301/2008, LA7APP. 303/2008, -L
A.AP P.
304/2008, tAAPP3I17ZOtY8, LA.APP. 337/2008, LA.APP.
339/2008, LA.APP. 357/2008, LA.APP. 394/2008 1 LA.APP.
401/2008, LA.APP. 413/2008, LA.APP. 443/2008, LA.APP.
472/2008, tA.*PP. 483/2008, L&-APP -- 48412 487/2008, LA.APF. 492/2008, LA.APP. 493/2008, LA.APP.
495/2008, LA.APP. 496/2008, LA.APP. 526/2008, LA.APP.
527/2008, LA.APP. 535/2008, LA.APP. 537/2008, LA.APP.
541/2008, LAAPP. 545/2008, LA.APP. 546/2008, LA.APP.
• 548/2008, LA.APP. 554/2008, LA.APP. 563/2008, 566/2008, LA.APP. 621/2008, LA.APP. 623/2008, LAAPP.
627/2008, LA.APP. 628/2008, LAAPP. 635/2008, L..A.APP.
648/2008, LAAPP. 649/2008, LAAPP. 662/2008, LA.APP.
724/2008 & CM APPL. 5353/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
756/2008, LA.APP. 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP.
861/2008, LA.APP. 875/2008, LA.APP. 879/2008, LA.APP.
880/2008, LA.APP. 888/2008, LA.APP. 894/2008, LA.APP.
895/2008, LA.APP. 905/2008, LA.APP. 906/2008, LA.PP.
907/2008, LA.APP. 910/2008,. LA.APP. 911/2008, LA.APP.
925/2008, LA.APP. 926/2008, LA.APP. 927/2008, LA.APP.
931/2008, LA.APP. 932/2008, LA.APP. 933/2008, LA.APP.
934/2008, LA.APP. 936/2008, LA.APP. 939/2008, LA.A\PP.
941/2008, LA.APP 942/2008, LA.APP. 944/2008, LA.APP.
946/2008, LA.APP. 955/2008, LA.APP. 958/2008, LA.APP.
.
999/2008 & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.IAPP.
1014/20081 LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP. 1023/2008, LA.APP.
1026/2008, LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA.APP. 1071/2008, LA.I\PP.
1244/2008, LA.APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, LA.APP.
1268/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008, CM APPL. 2377/2009, (Cross
Objections) LA.APP. 86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 97/2009, LA.AP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP.
111/2009, LA.APP. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, LA.APP.
251/2009, LA.APP. 252/2009, LAAPP. 265/2009, LA.APP.
• • •
266/2009 & CM APPL; No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
267/2009, LA.APP. 268/2009, LA.APP. 269/2009, LA.APP.
27012009, LA.APP. 271/2009, r LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APP.
273/2009, LA.APP. 300/2009, LA.APP. 306/2009, LA.APP.
454/2009, LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 521/2009, LA.APP.
532/2009, LA.APP. 535/200.9 & CM APPL. 12886/2.0 11 (Cross
• Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009 & CM APPL. 12917/2011 (Cross
• Objections),.... A•PP 544f2
LAApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters 2011:DHC:18655
INI
M
566/2009, LAAPP. 570/2009 & CM APPL.13873/2011, LA.APP.
589/2009, LA.APP. 593/2009, LA.APP. 594/2009, .LA.APP.
634/2009., LA.APP. 635/2009, LA.APP. 636/2009, LA.APP.
637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 & CM
104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP. 107/2010, LA.APP.
108/2010, LA.APP. 109/2010, LA.APP. 168/2010, LA.APP.
169/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LAAPP. 171/2010, tA.APP.
220/2010, LA.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, LA.APF.
'430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APR.
520/2010 CM APPL.13968/2011, LA.APP. 521/2010, CM APPLi.
9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 522/2010, LA.APP.
523/2010, LA.APP. 524/2010 & CM APPL. 12914/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 (Cros
Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, LA.APP. 527/2010, LA.APF.
528/2010, LA.APP. 529/2010, LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL.
• 229/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 531/2010, LA.APP.
532/2010 & CM APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.AP.
533/2010 & CM APPL. 12898/2011.(Cross Objections), LA.APP.
&34/2010,tA*PP. - 53..../2010 & CM APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010. & CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross
ObjecUons), LA.APP. 537/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010. & CM APPLI..
1297212011 (Cross ObjectiOns), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPI.
1290012011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.AP.F.
541/2010,. LA.APP. 542/2010 & CM APPL. 1.9857/2010 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. 12903/2011 (Cros
Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL. 12888/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010,. LA.APP. 566/2010, LA.APF.
581/2010, LA.APP. 592/2010 & CM APPL. 227/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP 593/2010 & CM APPL. 12969/2011 (Cros
Objections), LA.APP.. 594/2010, LA.APP. 595/2010 & CM APP.
• 226/2011. (Cross Objections), . LA.APP. 5.96/2010, LA.AP!.
597/2010 & CM APPL. '228/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.AP!.
598/2010 & CM APPL. 487/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
600/2010 & 'CM AP•PL. 12897/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
601/2010, LA.APP. 602/2010, LA.APP. 603/2010 & CM APPL.
12881/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP.
663/2010 & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
666/2010 & CM APPL. 6748/2011 (Cross Objections'), LA.APP.
675/2010'& CM A.PPL. .9988/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
761/2010, LA.APP. 792/2010 & CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross
Objections), L.A.APP. 793/2010 & CM APPL. 12899/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. 795/2010, LA.APP.
.40/2011, LA.APP. 195/2011 & CM APPL. 12892/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 215/2011, LA.APP. 228/2011, LA.APP.
229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011, LA.APP. 231/2011, LA.APP.
232/2011, LA.APP. 233/2011, LA.APP. 389/2011, . LA.APP.
LA.App.No.266/2008& connected matters . ' 2011:DHC:18655
392/2011, LA.APP. 420/2011, LA.APP. 424/2O11r.4AAPP.
425/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award
No.. 19/2002-03, Village-Pooth Khurd)
AND
(GRID-B)
1150/2008 & CM 12216/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
1151/2008 & CM 2345/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
1152/2008 & CM 2102/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP
1153/2008 & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
. 1154/2008, LAAPP. 1187/2008, LA.APP. 1188/2008, LA.APP.
1189/2008, LA.APP. 1218/2008, LA.APP. 15/2009, LA.APP.
82/2009, LA.APP. 1QO/2009, LA.APP. 102/2009, LA.APP.
113/2009, LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009, LA.APP.
214/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No.
11/2001-02, ViUage-Holambi Kalan)
AND
(GRID-C)
928/2008, LA.APP.. 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/2009, LA.APP.
96.9/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No
08/2001-02, Village-Bawana)
AND
(GRID-D)
(Cross Objections), LA.APR 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters .
2011:DHC:18655 - -(Retating- to 1\fotiftcatron 4dated 11 -092000- & Award- -No--
20/2002-03, ViiIage-Khera Khurd)
AND
(GRID-E)
94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP.191/2010 & CM No
22402/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 192/2010, LA.APP.
• 193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, LA.APP.
196/2010, LA.APP. 197/2010, LA.APP. 297/2010, LA.APP.
299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, LA.APP.
309/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 & CM No.
. 3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 373/2010, LA.APP.
493/2010, LA.APP. 494/2010, LA.APP. 495/2010, LA.APP.
496/2010, LA.APP. 497/2010 & CM No. 22728/2010 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, LA.APP. 499/2010, LA.APP.
500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& CM No. 23186/2010 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 & CM No. 10382/2011. (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 503/2010, LA.APP. 504/2010, LA.APP.
505/2010, LA.APP. 506/2010, LA.APP. 507/2010, LA.APP.
508/2010, .LA.APR 509/2010, LAAPP. 510/2010, .LA.APP
511/2010, LA.APP. 512/2010, LA.APP. 513/2010, LA.APP.
514/2010, LA.APP. 515/2010, LA.APP. 516/2010, LA.APP.
517/2010 & CM No. 7702/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
518/2010, •LA.APP. 519/2010, LA.APP. 610/2010, LA.APP.
611/2010, LA.APP. 612/2010, LA.APP. 613/2010, LA.APP.
618/2010, •LA.APP. 619/20101 .LA.APP. 620/2010, LA.APP.
621/2010, •
628/2010, LA.APP. 647/2010 & CM No. 3847/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM No.
3560/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 652/2010, LA.APP.
841/20.10, LA.APP. 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross
• • : Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM No. fEctios 855/20i0, LA.APP.
856/2010 & CM No. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010 & CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.-APP. 100-812-01-0-&--CM No. 9966/2011 (Cross
Object1ons), LAAPPtT0T21i20I0, IA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP.
79/2011, LA.APP. 80/2011, LA.APP. 81/2011, LA;APP. 82/2011, LA.APP.
LA.AP84/20±1rtkAPP. 85/2011, 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP. 300/2011, LA.APP. -322/2011, LA-AP-P. 324/2011 & CM APPL.15110/2011, LA.APP. 385/2011.
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 2011:DHC:18655
..
It (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 02.05.2001& Award No.
24/2003-04, Village-Narela)
AND
(GRID-F)
(Cross Objections).
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award NO.
18/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan)
AND
(GRD-G)
LA.APP. 777/2.010 & CM APPL.3808/2011, LA.APP. 778/2010
& CM 2686/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 779/2010 & C
12966/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP., 213/2011, LA.APFj'.
261/2011, LA.APP. 326/2011, LA.APP. 327/2011, LA.AP'.
328/2011, LA.APP. 330/2011, LA.APP. 331/2011,LA.APFj.
332/2011, LA.APP. 333/2011, LA.APP. 334/2011, LA.AP!.
335/2011, LA.APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, LA.APP.
341/2011, LA.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP.
350/2011, LA.APP. 351/2011, LA.APP. 365/2011, LA.APP.377/2011, LA.APP.388/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.
33/2003-04., Village-Holambi Kalan)
AND
(GRD-H)
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.
15/2003-04, Village-Au Pur)
. AND (GRID-I)
LA.App.14o.266/2008 & connected matters . .
2011:DHC:18655 .
1/ No.
9/2003-04, Village-Holambi Khurd)
AND
(GRID-))
Objections), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM No2667/2011 (Cros
Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Crbs
Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 & CM No.14333/2011(Cros
Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011 (Cros
Objections), LA.APP. 977/2010, . LA.APP 978/2010, LA.APP..
979/2010. & CM No.9990/2011, LA.APP. 980/2010 & CM
No.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP,.
982/2010 & CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APF.
983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APF.
984/20I0 &. CM No.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APJ.
985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APIj.
986/2010, LA.APP. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP. 990/2010, LA.APP
I
991/2010 & CM No.9984/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.AP'.
1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 & CM No.9970/2011 (Cros
Objections), LA.APP. 1018/2010, LA.APP. 1020/2010 & CM
No.12939/2 (Cross Objections)011, LA.APP. 1024/2010 & CV1
No.6771/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1/20.11 & CM
No.12964/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 2/2011 & CM
73/2011 & CM No.12922/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM No.6775/2011 (Cros
Objections),. LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.AP!P.
110/2011, L.A.APP. 111/2011, LA.APP. 112/2011 &.CM
No.10050/20 11 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP.
235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011 No.6752/2011 (Cross Objections), 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
(Relatng to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award
No.20/2003-04, Vittage-Rajapur Kalan)
AND
(GRID-K)
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters .
2011:DHC:18655
No.10393/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 896/2008 & CM
No.5364/2010 (Cross Objections)-LAAPP;- 897/2008, IA.APP.
1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP.
34/2010 & CM No.7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
488/2010, LA.APP. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP.
62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011, LA.APP. 421/2011
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.12.2001 & Award
No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth)
AND
(GRD-L)
.
387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP.
464/2008& 1 CM No.11333/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
• 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP. 468/2008& CM
No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP.
470/2008, LA.APP. 471/2008, LA.APP. 560/2008, •LA.APP.
• 561/200.8, LA.APP. 611/2008, LA.APP. • 663/2008, • LA.APP.
676/2008,, LA.APP. 678/2008, LA.APP. 679/2008, LA.APP.
68I/2008, LA.APP. 682/2008, LA.APP. 683/2008, LA.APP.
722/2008, LA.APP. 731/2008, LA.APP. 754/2008, LA.APP.
786/2008, L.A.APP. 825/2008, LA.APP. 826/2008, LA.APP.
• 842/2008, LA.APP. 850/2008, LA.APP. 853/2008, LA.APP.
883/2008, LA.APP. 903/2008, LA.APP. 904/2008, LA.APP.
924/2008, LA.APP. 935/2008, LAAPP. 937/2008, LA.APP.
. 938/2008, LA.APP. 940/2008, LA.APP. 943/2008, LA.APP.
945/2008, L.A.APP. 956/2008, LA.APP. 957/2008, .LA.APP;
998/2008, LA.APP. 1001/2008, LA.APP. 1004/2008, LA.APP.
1007/2008, LA.APP. 1065/2008, LA.APP. 1077/2008, LA.APP.
1079/2008, LA.APP. 106/2009, LA.APP. 172/2009, LA.APP.
309/2009, LA.APP. 374/2009 k LA.APP. 464/2009, LA.AP.P.'
465/2009, LA.APR 468/2009, LA.APP. 539/2009, LA.APP.
546/2009, LA.APP. 547/2009, LA.APP. 565/2008, LA.APP.
624/2009, .LA.APP. 628/2009, LA.A•PP. 63012009, LA..A•PP...
• 23/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010, LA.APP. 35/2010, LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010.
(Relating to Notification uls 4 dated 16.051002 & Award N Q.
29/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi)
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters , 2011:DHC:18655
AND
(GRID-M)
•
384/2008, LA.APP. 386/2008, LA.APP. 388/2008, LA.APP.
389/2008, LA.APP. 434/2008, LA.APP. 435/2008, LA.APP.
436/2008, LA.APP. 444/2008, LA.APP. 456/2008& CM
No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP.
467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. 562/2008, LA.APP.
68012008, LAAPP. 715/2008, LA.APP. 716/2008, LA.APP, 720/2008, LA.APP. 723/2008, LA.APP. 757/2008, LA.APP.
760/2008, LA.APP. 767/2008, LA.APP. 793/2008, LA.APP.
823/2008, LA.APP. 824/2008, LA.APP. 837/2008, LA.APP.
908/2008, LA.AP.P. 909/2008, LA.APP. 952/2008, LA.APP.
• 1022/2008, LA.APP. 1024/2008, LA.APP. 1025/2008, LA.APP.
1063/2008, LA.APP. 173/2009, LA.APP. 307/2009, LA.APP.
308/2009, LA.APP. 311/2009, LA.APP. 384/2009, LA.APP.
385/2009, LA.APP. 463/2009, LA.APP. 467/2009, LA.APP.
540/2009, LA.APP. 542/2009, LA.APP. 548/2009, LA.AP1P.
627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/2010.
• (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated. 23.05.2002 & Award
No.22/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi)
AND
(GRAD-N)
• + L.A.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2098
• (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2099, LA.APP. 304/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
12/2011 • • • • •• •
•
• (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.052002 & Award No.
16/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan)
•
AND
• • • (GRD-O)
836/2008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cross Objections),LA.APP. 310/2009
& CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 782/2010, LA.APP.
LA.App.No.266/2008 &. connected matters •
2011:DHC:18655 7&30-]M-, L-AAPP 85/2O1O,_LA APP 9/2011 & CM 9 960/20 11
- 1ossO0jections), LA APP 58/2011; L-A APP 289/2011 & CM
14850/2011 (Cross Objection's), LA.APP. 290/2011 & CM
14852/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 381/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.05.2002 & Award No.
17/2004-05, Village- All Pur)
AND - ..-----------.------- - (GRND-P)
.
- LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP. 674/2008 & CM No.7818/2009 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, LA.APP.
706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 & CM No.
7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008, LA.APP.
882/2008, LA.APP. 885/2008, LA.APP. 891/2008, LA.APP.
898/2008 & CM No.2355/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
902/2008, LA.APP. 92212008, LAAPP. 923/2008, LA.APP.
929/2008 & CM No.2351/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
930/2008 & CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
960/2008, LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 981/2008 &' CM No.1261/2009 (Cross
Objections), LA..APP. 982/2008, LAAPP. 983/2008 & CM
No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 & CM
No.839/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/200.8, LA.APP.
997/2008, LA.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008, LA.APP.
1027/2008, LA.APP. 1078/2008 & CM No.224712009 (Cross
Objections),. LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. ' 1127/2008 & CM
No.2111/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP.
1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
• 1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 & CM No7791/2009 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 13/2009 & CM No.2151/2009 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 22/2009, LA.APP. 83/2009, LA.APP. 99/2009, LA.APP. 103/2009, LA.APP. 104/2009, LA.APP. 107/2009, LA.APP.
115/2009 & CM No.6482/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
122/2009 & CM N6.14321/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, LA.APP)
174/2009, LA.APP. 250/2009, LA.APP. 260/2009, LA.APP.
261/2009, LA.APP. 26272D09, TA'APP. 264/2009, LA.APP
293/2009, LA.APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. '" 301/2009, LA.APP!
302/2009, LA.A.PP. 303/2009, LA.APP. 36512009, LA.APP:
43312009, LA.APP. 449/2009, LA.APP. 461/2009, LA.APP'.
471/2009, LA.APP. 487/20091 LA.APP. 501/2009, LA.APP.
. 51877009, LA.APP. 527/2009, LA.APP. 530/2009, LA.APP.
531/2009, LA.APP. 533/2009, LA.APP. 537/2009, LA.APP.
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters .
2011:DHC:18655 I-r 538/2009, LA.APP. 545/2009, LA.APP. 554/2009, EKAPP, 555/2009, LA.APP. 558/2009, LA.APP., 585/2009, LA.APP.
588/2009, LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP. 625/2009, LAAPP.
626/2009, LA.APP: 629/2009, LA.APP. 649/2009, LA.APP.
38/2010, LA.APP. 43/2010, LA.APP. 131/2010, LA.APP. 202/2010, LA.APP. 203/2010, LA.APP. 204/2010, LA.APP. 225/2010, LA.APP.
227/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010, LA.APP. 303/2010, LA.APP.
372/2010, LA.APP. 410/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010, LA.APP.
479/2010, LA.APP. 480/2010, LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP.
48312010, LA.APP. 484/2010, LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP.
486/2010, LA.APP. 487/2010, LA.APP. 604/2010, LA.APP.
606/2010 & CM No.19878/2010 (Cross Objections), .LA.APP.
607/2010, LA.APP. 608/2010, LA.APP 609/2010, LA.APP.
614/2010, LA.APP. 615/2010, LA.APP. 671/2010, LA.APP.
695/2010, LA.APP. 705/2010, LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.AP.P.
785/2010 & CM No.12968/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP
786/2010 & CM No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
• 787/2010, LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. 789/2010, 790/2010, LA.APP. 820/2010 & CM No.12880/2011 (Cros
Objections), LA.APP. 821/2010, LA.APP. 915/2010, LA.APPJ
• 916/2010 & CM No.6773/2011 (Cross Objections),. LA.APPJ
14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APPJ
26/2011 & CM No.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP
• 55/2011 & CM No.12894/2011 (Cross Objections),. LA.APPJ.
59/2011, LAAPP. 63/2011, LAAPP, 69/2011, LA.APP. 70/2011).
16/2011 & CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APPJ
114/2011 & CM No.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.L
135/2011, LA.APP. 136/2011 & CM No.12971/2 (Cros
Objections)011, LA.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 143/2011, LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APPJ
203/2011 & CM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APPI.
. 273/2011 & CM No.13289/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APPJ
338/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003 & Award
No.11/2004-05, Village-Sanoth)
I) Si
624/2010, LA.APP. 625/2010, 627/2010 & C.M. No.3853/2011
629/2010, LA.APP. 630/2010, 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters
(Cross ObjectiOns), LA.A.PP
2011:DHC:18655 No.3587/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 646/2010, LA.AP.
664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. 667/2010, LA.APP.
668/2010, LA.APP. 669/2010 & C.M. No.676912011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. b70/2010 &tM71T0T3818720TI (Cross.
Objections), LA.APP. 672/2010, LAAPP. 673/2010 & C.M.
No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, L.A.APP.
701/2010 & C.M. No.3850/2011 (Cross Obiections), LA.APP.
702/2010, LA.APP. 703/2010 & C.M. No.9941/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 & C.M.
No.12878/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 735/2010, LA.APP.
.736/2010, LA.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP.
739/2010 & C.M. No.3569/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
740/2010 .& CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
800/2010 & C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP.
802/2010, LA.APP. 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010, LA.APP.
809/2010, LA.APP. 810/2010, LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP.
812/2010, LA.APP.. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010,. LA.APP. 815/2010, LA.APP. 816/2010 & C.M. No.3862/2011 (Crtss
Objections), LA.APP. 817/2010,. LA.APP. 838/2010, LA.APP.
839/2010 & C.M. No.10335/2011 (Cross Objections) LA.APP.
870/2010 & C.M. No.9946/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
917/2010, LA.APP. 922/2010, LA.APP. 923/2010, LA.APP.
924/2010, LA.APP. 925/2010, LA.APP. 945/2010 & C.M.
No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 975/2010 &. C.M.
No.2664/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.. M.
No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP.
56/2011 & C.M. No.9939/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP. 98/2011, LA.APP. 99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011, LAAPP.
104/2011, LA.APP. 105/2011, LA.APP. 106/2011, LA.APP.
.107/2011, LA.APP. 108/2011, LA.APP. 109/2011, . LA.APP.
113/2011, LA.APP. 165/2011, LA.APP.329/2011
• (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003 & Award
No.10/2004-05, Village-Rajapur Kalan)
To be referred to Reporter or not? Wht.er,the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters
2011:DHC:18655 PRADEEP NANDRAJOGI L.
10 villages; namely, P00th Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi' Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, Ali Pur, Rajapur
Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue
District (North-West) and if we seethe map of the city of Delhi we would find that these villages lie in the North-Western part of
Delhi. They lie wi.thin an area between the 'V formed by Rohtak
Road i.e. NH-10 and G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-i. The Delhi-
Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-i. Whereas villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway line and NH-i, the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the.railwäy line. Narela and
Shahpur Garhi are, towards the east of the railway line. The urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has .beei developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is situated in the land within the aforesaid V. Bawana lndustrii
Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid'V'.
Historically, except for village Narela, all villages have bee'n treated as equivalent with respect to their location.
.. . The instant decision decides the issue as to what shouId be the fair market value of agricultural lands in the said villages as of the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001 22.8.2001 , 7:12.2001, 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003. Needless to state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time, on a..fr atddates under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition At
1894, vast tracts of land in said 10 villages were acquired ard save .and.. except lands in the Revenue Estate of village Narela where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential .ar?d,. partly industrial', in the other villages, acquisition wasfor the purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . Page 13 of174
2011:DHC:18655 road .orfrei.ghtcom.plex. The reason why such large tracts of lands were needed was to set up an industrial estate pursuant to a decision taken to shift all industries operating in non- conforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas. . .1
3. I must highlight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in all appeajs filed by them as also cross-objectiors wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and except pertaining to village Narela, where an additional argument was advanced; being that, the township.of Narela had • existed since pre-partition days and thus !ands in village Narela had abetter value and for which it was urged that way back in the year 1963 when lands in the revenue estate of village Narela and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of 2/- per sq.yd. vis-à-vis the price determined for lands in village Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight that learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi being in Mamurpur: •
4. The position of the awards made from time to time and the relatable notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have been detailed by me while noting the various Land Acquisition_Appeals and the Cross Objections as per the index hereinabove and thus I need not repeat the same.
5. A perusal of all the awards announced from time to time wouLd ieveal that the Learaedtand. Acquisition Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from time notifying the minirnum rates for agricultural lands. in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 2011:DHC:18655 (. 4" to 6', the land value has been appropriately depressed and this is to be found in a few awards where lands have been put in 2 or 3 categbrie' L€'.CategOry 'A', Category 'B' and Category, 'C'.
6. A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the learned Reference Court has determined[1] fair market value on different principles and for purposes of clarity I may note the basis on which the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court have, determined the compensation payable. The same would be as under:- Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 issued under-Seetion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units,: as again.st !13.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and fl[2].26 lacs pen. acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the, policy for minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. T13.82 lacs per acre andhas granted •. increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000' till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section, 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fai market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and has ignored that there was Category 'B' land for which he had to make necessary adjustment... Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 pursuant whereto 211.14 bigha land was acquired in village Holambi Kalan, the Land Acquisition Collector treated the land, as of same character and determined fair market value wit reference to the policy for minimum rates in sum of fl[3].82 lac[9]. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters, per acre which has been enhanced by the learned Reference Court to U[4],12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decision of a Gairal Vs. UO/wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market value determined was 9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and treating the said date and the said price as the base, giving 12% per annum appreciationfor a period of 3 years, 8 months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been determined.. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Bawana were acquired, the. Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value for Category 'A' lands, with reference to the policy and fixed the same at T13.82 lacs per acre for Category'A' lands and
12.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. The learned Refe.rence Court maintained the same. Pertaining, to the notification dated 11.9.2000 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd were acquired for shifting industrial units, the Land Acquisition Collector has, for Category 'A' lands determined fair market value, with reference to the policy effective from 1.4.2000 in sum of1382 lacs peracre and for category 'B' lands has fixed the same at 712.62 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted the policy wherein minimum price fixed as of 1.4.2000 was T13.82 lacs per acre and for 128 da.ys i.e. the number of days between 1.4.2000 till 11.9.2000, appreciating the same by 12% has determined fair market value at U[4],40,157/- and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands... Pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 pursuant whereto 1140.5.[8] bigha land.' was acquired in Narela for de\(elopment of sectors 1 to 4, Phase I, Narela, with respect to the policy of minimum price with effect from 1.4.2001 the LA.App.No66/2OO[8] & connected matters. 2IJ learned Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value • in sum of U[5].[7] lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category 'B' lands determined the same at U[4] lacs' pe-r-acre 'The learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price notified by. the Government as of 1.4.2001 and gave appreciation for a period[1] of 1 month for the reason the notification under Section 4 of the' ±and AcquisftiorrAct1894'is dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced the compensation to fl585,700/- per, acre which has uniforñily awadd... Pertaining to the notification dated 22 8 2001 • whereunder 512.16 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2,001 i.e. T15.[7] lacs per acre which has been held to be the fair market value for Category 'A' lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determined at fl[4] lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. fl[5].7[ lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum.. for 143 days and the price so fixed is 16,43,811I- per acre which has been uniformly awarded. Pertaining to same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 512.16 bigha land was acquired in villag Alipur, on the same reasoning which has been adopted for village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same compensation as determined for village Holambi Kalan has been worked out by the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also by the learned Reference Court who has done away with cat-egOffZatOfl -. --- •. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 192.15 bigha of land was acquired in villag LA.App.No.266/2008' & connected matters Holambi Khurd, the reasoning of the LAC and the learned Reference Court and the price determined is the same as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that: in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in the same uniform category. Pertaining to the same notification, dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural, lands in village Rajapur Kalan were acquired the reasoning and the fair market value I determined.by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the sam.e as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, H.olarnbi.Khurd and Alipur save and except in this village the acquired land was of uniform category.. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.12.2001. pursua'nt whereto 222.05 bigha land was acquired in village Sanoth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township, the learned Land Acquisition' Collector has assessed compensation uniformly in sum of T15.[7] lacs per acre which is the same as per the policy for minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the learned Referen'ce Court has adopted the same price and given' appreciation for 250 days at the rate. of 12% per annum to reach the figure of U[6],99,042/- per acre. •' Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural• lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has determined compensation in sum of'tt[5].7tacs'per acre which is the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has simply held that the land owners would be entitled to enhance compensation at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded.. I may highlight that the learnea Reference Court has not worked out the compensation and has left it to the Executing Court to do so, however I fi.n.d that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters '. Page 1$ of 74 2011:DHC:18655. 2~, fl[7],75,369.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as T472001 and the äëpriceat ?15.11acs, fôrFyearänd 45 days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village ShahpOr Garhi were acquired the learned LAC and the learned Reference CoUrt • have determined same compensation as per the reasonin pertaining to the same village for the notification datei 16.5.2002 and Ifind that sincethere is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision • of the Reference Court comes to fl[7],79,781.78 per acre. Per aining--t-o--the same notification -d-ated--2-3.5.200 pursuant whereto 445.81 bigha land in village -1olambi Kala was acquired, the learned_LAC has determined fair market valu in sum of 15.[7] lacs, per acre which is the same as per minimurh price w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopte the same reasoning as was adopted while determining the fair market value, of lands in village Holambi Kalan which we,e acquired pursuant to the notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the decision in Gairal's case (supra) and appreciatingthe same by 12% compounded per annum the price determined is 22,14,239/- per acre. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.5.202 pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Alipir were acquired the Collector hs • awarded compensation at the rate of 715.[7] lacs per acre basd on the minimum price as, of 1.4.2001, which price has been adopted as the, base by the learned Reference Court and after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w.elf. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters - 1.4.2001 till 23.5.2002, the price determined is 1785,240/- per acre • 0.- Pertaining tor the notification dated 27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha land in village Sanoth and --------2+8-8--O3-bg1i--+and-in-vfllage-Rajapur Kalanwere acquired,,the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the minimum pricenotified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the same value as the compensatipn payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages i.e. T15.[7] lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of 714 • lacs per acre and for Category 'C' lands in sum of T12.[3] lacs per • acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different reasoning in some impugned decision and different in a few. In some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted the minimum price in sum of fl[5].[7] lacs per acre-as • appreciating the same by 12% per annum fOr a period of 666 days has fixed fair market value at fl[9],13,765/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2 which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for 5,39,690/-.
7. Since the learned. Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned Reference Court have relied upon the notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi, let.me therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same would be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- 2011:DHC:18655.. -SLNo- Date of— Effective Date Price - (in lakhs/acre) increase per annum Notification of the price. 3.5.1990 27.4.1990 4.65. 25.7.1997 1.4.1997 10.0 11.[5] -. 24.9.1998 1.4.1998 11.[2] 11..[2] 21.11:2000 - 12.32,. 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 1.4.2000 12.16.
13.82 9.8.2001 1.4.2001 15.[7] 11.[5] 30.8.2005 30.8.2005 17.584 2.98 24.1.2008 18.12.2007 53 89.51
8. From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum price was last. fixed 27.4.1990 in sum of 4.65 lakhs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to 10 lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998. the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of 11.[2] lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e•.f. 21.11.2000 the price was 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 enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to fl[2].16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% per. annum with reference to the price determined as of I.41998anth_. vide same notificon±thé.1price. was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to 1382 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum: visà-vis the previous i.e.
12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-à-vis the previous price of U[3].82 lakhs/acre to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.. - reach the ftgure of 15J - lakbs/acre. -The pnce was next -. enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to !17.584 lakhs/acre which gives us an increase of only 2.98% per annum and then the price rose to 53 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 would be beneficial for the reader of the present decision, as I feel, 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 alternative and it was urged that they would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, failirg which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed byl the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5.2001 for village.. Narela;'and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Ali Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2003' for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands Were of uniform character and it.... was urged that Corrective_action.is re4uired by doing 2 things, Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the •... Government from time to time, 11.5% increase per annum and - %per annurn increasewas ecess1vewith reference to the dates of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; reqUiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annum ft the TèaL Secondly, the lea rhed Reference Court was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C' by the Land Acquisition Collector 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. show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C', on account of pits and depressions of varios depths, as per the awards passed, by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.
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:ste'deed dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the sam LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 1.[2] biswh agricultural land in village Mamurpur was,sold @ 26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19. biswa of land was sold in the revenueestate of village Kher 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 pricea of 25.3.2000 under' Ex'.PW-1/3 would be 28.89' 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 deed would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of. 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notification 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 learnefi counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' Page 23 of[4] and for which the argument was that when in the -st 1 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 lands in village Marnurpur- Narela by giving a. price benefit of 2I- 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 6,650Idetermined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to 16,750/- per big ha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to 22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court and the 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 DSIIJC 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. Alternative to the second submission, being the third T submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this J Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram. vs. Un/on of/nd/a, it was permsjbleto 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[1] 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 @ 6°/q per annum with reference to the base price 16,750/- per bighâ as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in • Dharamb/r's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till 31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per. annum till the various: dates whèh the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with - which Lam..concerned.i.njiie prcentap.paLs. 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 réaso.n 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 assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2.000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12:2001, 16.5.2002 and 23.5.2002.
13. The fourth argument advanced was, and for which -refe-re-nce was made by learno[1] 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 of 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 7 z> testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agriculturalm. produce from his lands he used to earn fi lakh per bigha per iiiüi, i.e. th&fálr market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be 720 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 inLA.APP.No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008. •
14. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kahg, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for each of the notification in question the fairTharketválue ought to have been determined with reference to the notification which was closest in point of time whera_under minimum land value was fixed by the Government' and the notification dated: 24 ! 1.2008 where under Z53 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 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 • (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for 5,39,6901-, determined the fair market value as per the said, sale deed in the following words: (Refer,oara 17 of the decision dated 71 2010 in LAC No 117A/2009) "If we add stamp duty in the sale price 3,69,9061- per big/ia 5,[3] OL± 70,160 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes tb T 17, 74,109/per acre or 3,68,9061- per big/ia. Further if we give 12% in crease on said amount for intervening period between the date when the sale deed was executed and the date of nüt/f/cat/an u/S 4 720.05.2002 to 27.01,2003) i.e. 8 months if comes to 19,16,0371- (round off 19,16,0401-)" The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisitiod 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 big ha and 18 biswa land_was put in Catego 'A', 45 bigha and biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 bisw in Category 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred toth land being comprised in Khasra N0200 and that page No.56-57 otthaward would evid thatiatid comprised in Khasra' • No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in 1 Category 'C'. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of fl[5].[7] lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had been' fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by 1.[7] lakhs per acre for Category lands, fair market value determined whereof was fl[4] lakhs pe acre and further depress the same by another Z[1].[7] lakhs pe acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value dëtermined whereof was fl[2].[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 naci to be increased by T[1].[7] lakhs pe(acre for each category.
16. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced by Sh.Sanjay PoddarHearned 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.
17. In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court pertaining to the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence my journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various subparas of para 6. above..
19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act! 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters S Village Date of LAC compensation ADJ compensation Section 4 (in lakhs/acre) with (in lakhs/acre) with Notification reasons reasons Pooth 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' T13.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd Cat. 'B' 12.26 T14.3728. Minimum price as- -Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi 7.8.2000 T13.82 T14.12995. Kalan Minimum price as Price as in Ga/rats of 14.2000 case as of 15.11.1996 with Holambi 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A'15.[7] Cat. Uniform. Kalan Cat. 'B' T14 T16.43811. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Holambi 23.5.2002 U[5].[7] Z22.14239. Kalan Minimum price as Priceas in Ga/rats of 1.4.2001 case as of 15.11.1996 with (compounded) Bawana 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' 13.82 No enhancement Cat. 'B' U[2].62 given. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 Khera 11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' fl[3].82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd Cat. 'B' fl[2].62 fl[4].40157. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with ofI42OQfl 12% increasep.a. Narela 2.5.2001 Cat. 'A'15.[7] Cat. Uniform. Cat. 'B' T14 U[5].857. - Minimum price as Mnimurn price as •.• of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with S is 1acts WThch woUld be thy data for further analysis_Put in a tabular form the data would be as under:- Ati Pur 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' U[5].[7] T16.43811. Cat;'B' 14 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. All Pur.23.5:2002 Z15.[7] fl[7].8524 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Holambi 22.8.2001 Z15.7. fl[6].43811 Khurd. Minimum price as MiniMum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a'. Rajapur 22.8.2001 U[5].[7] fl[6].43811 Kalan Minimum price as Minimum price as.. of 1.4.2001. of 1.4.200 1 wfth ______L Rajapur 27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' 1S.[7] fl[9].13765 for Kalan Cat. 'B' fl[4]. Uniform categor'. Cat. 'C' 12.[3] Minimum price• in some cases. Z19.1604 for Uniform category based on sale deed.• dated 25.5.2002 with 12%. increase p.a. Sanoth 7.12.2001 U[5].[7] fl[6].99042.. I Minimum •price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Sanoth 27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' 15.[7] U[9].13765. for Cat. "B' 14. Uniform category. Cat. 'C' fl[2].[3] Minimum price as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page3lof74 Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2001 Cat. 'A' 15.[7] Minimum price as of 1.4.200 1 17J5369__. Minimum price as of. 1.4200 1. with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. Shahpur 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' T15.[7] 17.79781. Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 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 T26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ Z63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in • question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust bythe 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 saIe 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 o of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organizati had 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 Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. RaUfuddin Vs. Land Acquis/t/on Officer (Refer para13) sale transactions evidenced, in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of SectiOn 51A of the L.AAct 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances whfth 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 ually well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumtances or the fancy to buy a particular piece 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 prevailir1ig prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, may pay a much higher price and this would not be a go1d index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kaln was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much less 1er price i.e. 17,74,109/- peracre as against the price which corns to T63.478.iakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and 28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 33 of7' themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price —anxfatidestroythother.
23. Ths parL_fto.m the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 aove quJb_eaddillonaI 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 beinge_decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Prataø S/ngh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. uor& Or. It was highlighted thfthe ale déedthereifl 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 Undthat if the 'price therein, was reduced by 113rd, the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Pagô 34 of 74 2011:DHC:18655. 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 theprice 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 L 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. would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutuallV destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds. reflecting fair, market value. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately, highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to[1] vilIage-NareIa, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced would be dea!t with by me at the end when.l determine the fair market value of, lands for the villages in question.. The second argument, contours whereof area to be found in para 11 of mi decision herein above, I need to note the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. Page 35 of74 latest pronouncement 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 L al 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:- S "Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence? ii. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: Sl;No. Plot size Category Rate (per square metre) 26sqm 32sqm 48 sq m 6Osq m 5_ 9Osqm Economically weaker sections (EWS) Low income group (LIG) Low income group (LIG) Middle income group (MIG) Middle income group (MIG) Rs 100 Rs 125 Rs 150 Rs 200 Rs 200 4( 1. 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. 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 fand[7] whereas the aflotment "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 toarrive 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 S 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, underground drainage and sewage facilitiesTàiñvëi lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil kJ "of the vaitte-of-the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised privateresidential 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 minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of. plcts in unauthorised layouts, woUld be only about 20% pIus 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 m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will. also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.) Therefore the deduction, for the "development factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of. undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is aIsoweWknown that the development cOst incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard-to higher overheads and expenditure. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residential- -c-um-commerc1al--or4ndust-,laJ-; and--even-among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community parks and playgrounds provided. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authors may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/ciic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor isa variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%. Second factor. DDA and other statutory development authorities • adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon the economic status of t1e allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and eConomicalfr weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layOit, • plots may be earmarked for persons belonging ço • economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Fs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be.s 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middie income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons belonging to high incOme groups. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market valu" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA_statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the applicants for allotment. Third factor LA.App.NO.266/2008 & connected matters Page 39 bf74 Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DfJA allot plots on leasehold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership), rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the market value of the property. However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market 'value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." 22-. The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference No.117A/2009. 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 upon. It reads:- "Ld. Counsel frtfte_petitionersJias. further submitted thatDDA &DSIDC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate He has relied upon allotment letter dated 04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the pre-determined rate of 3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-OS 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. S plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela industrial Complex at the rate of Z650 sq. metres which is Ex PW3/1 and another allotment letter dated 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at 3000 per sq. metres.. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW[9] Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PW11/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent I that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = 248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ 3208 would be 2531408I- per big ha. 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 = 1771986[6] per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price of one.bigha i.e. 1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only 3,27,083/- per Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R.D.Sharma,Asstt. Manager,_DSIDC who has produced documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 'sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is 2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area under plots = 112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in the year 2000 at = which DSIDC sold plot 3000/- per sq. yards Total earning ' = 4083750000 Total expenditure = 720526901 Total profit = 3363223099 Profit comes to 2470'pêrsq. yardTh. 270000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and the LAC has paid compensation @ 327083 per bighá only, meaning ther.ebythat DSID.0 has earned a profit of ?2142K[7] per bigha., Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further arguel that LAC has 'awarded compensation @ T327083 per L bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the said price is considered on account of land, the figure comes to Z654166. If the amount is deducted from sale -.nric.per bigha i.e. T24700000, the figure comes to. fl[8] 15834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." 29-r--------Now7--we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in Lal Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases. It is no doubt true, as held even by -the learned Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Li Chancis case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as S reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. The third submission in the alternative wa based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram's case (supra), and the submission is as noted In para 12. here;in above. The land owners require the price. determined in Dha ramblEs case (supra) relating to the notification dated 3fl1Oi96 in sumof 1ñ75.0/pebhf Marnurpur to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% per annum and lastly by 12% pr annum for different 'periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question. It be highlighted that in Bed! Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date as of the year 1959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied the progressive, increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for • the remaining 3 years. However, in La! Chano's case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the a ward relating to acquisition on 24-10- 1961 is relevant?..
47. The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired. under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation wa& awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to. the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rateof 12% per annurn. This. Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. RameshbhaiJ/vanbha/ Pate/id this Court. • held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) •,_Nprmally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing ---'-'---'---"- 'appropriate -escalation over'thprovedmarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by—s-ale transa-etfo-ns--Oc---acq-u+sftfons)', where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr, acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA.AppNo.266/2008 & connected matters t[1] S —sa-fe wer-e----th''jefl-é&gp sate transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that It may be unsafe, even If It relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a rellable standard if the gap Is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unrellable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a 1and acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, Over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." (emphasis supplied)
48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the coUrt should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will 'not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 - acquisition."
35. It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the D i v i s i o n B e n c h in Bedi Rs--ca-se--supra) runs in the teeth.of the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case (supr which decision follo arIier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai /ivanbhai Pate!. LA.App.No.266/2008 &, connected matters 3 6. -- IntheirIstdnt case there is another good reason not to follow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's case (supra) for the reason I find that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) SaraswatiDevi & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage; increase with reference to the price determined in DharambIr's case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted mi the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.11980 @ 2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ 1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was' applied the price wouldhave come to approximately T50,000/per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at 33,0fl0/- per bigha.
37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair marketvalue of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on11.5.2006, MahenderSingh vs. UO/ & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one. village with which I am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land • Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of • agricultural land in village Bawäna was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of I 15.11.1996 was determined @ fl,99,904.68 bigha which equals to 9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which prce for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the Government was Z10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266!2008 & connected matters Page 45°f 74 determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. 9,59,542.46 per acre, pertainingto the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein above, I would be holistically discussing the subject while opining upon. the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notifications in question. The fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chat•urvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning Z[1] lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no.proof in support of his oral testimony. S 41. The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on 4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is falIacous no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3Id 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.No.266i'2008 & connected matters ' _ 5/f sown around the first week or the second week of November --......eachyear................. 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 hewas working as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi till 313.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter,earned a.pension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning U lakh per bigha; for the lands belonging to the family, 'which admeasure 18 biga and 18 tswa, the annual-income -would be 719 lakhs and on1e, 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 otherwise. The trader to whon 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 fields or electricity bills paid if th pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the field1s were irrigated by.canal water, no proof of any payment, made the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by
44. The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle be adopted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008. In para 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of 1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years awayfrom the last year with which I am concerned. the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would be closest-to—the--point for which the mean• average has to be determined. I am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification date.d 27.1.2003 determined the fair marketvalue in some References with respect to. a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and has determined that based thereon the price as of said date —work-s-out to l[7],74,1O9/- -per acre andHncreasfng -the-sarnfor 8 months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price would be 19,16,037/- per acre rounded off to 19,16,040/- per acre.
47. With reference to the Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004..05 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasiring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C' land. The sale ded in question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflect fair ma'rket value of Category 'C' land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collector !1.[7] lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the • depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum Of.1.[7] • _ Jakhs_prart-ewouId be -eq'•'- ' t up the de 'pre ions in Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were less vis-à-vis Category_'C' land. In other words, With reference to Category'A' land, the price of Category 'C' lnd would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-à-vis Category'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land - would be required to be increased suitably. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In viev of • • the evidence herein -above noted and reflecting upon the • • reasoning adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector a 1nd the learned Reference Court, I pose the question: What shoiild be the fair, market value of the subject lands as of 7.8.2000, • 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 1 • 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the dates on which the • • notifications were issued underSection 4 of the Land Acquisftion Act 1894. I have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on • • LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • 2011:DHC:18655,~ l 11.5.2006, Mahender 5inah vs. UOI& Ors. wherein pertaining to