Union of India v. Inder Pal Chabbra & Anr

6. A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References T1ace, would show that the learned Reference Court has determined fair rr1arket value on different prinCiples and for purposes of clarity I may note the basis on which the learned La:---:d Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court ha\ e determined the compensation payable. The same would oe as under:-

UftEfer 5eEti-oft 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursua ~t whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Foot[1] Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as aga;r5t t13.82 iacs per acre for Category 'A~ lands and ~12.26 lacs pe; acre 1.For Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned _an:l Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the po~ic_t fc ~ minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. ~13.82 lacs per acre and has gra""ltec increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period l.4.2GOC till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Sectlor 4 of the land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fa;~ 11arket value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and has ignored that there was Category '8' land for wh;c:-: i1e had to make necessary adjustment.

7. Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector as ·also tre learned Reference -court have relied upon the notificat~cr.s issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, ~=ixi~-~g minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi, let me therefor~e note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time tc tirr 2 pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same wocid be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under~:- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 20 Jf~4 ------------······------------------------------···----· ---- -- ---.- ~~In Date of EffnrrhJL:'1. n~-t-1::'1. Pr-~-!. 1,...' /i i '--'-... v........,..... '-'- ~':) I Notification of the price (in I:ncrease i iakhs/acre) · per 1 I ann'Jm '1.. 3.5.1990 27.4.1990 4.65 I

2. 25.7.1997 1.4.1997 10.0 \11.[5] --- --· -- -·-- r--- ~-···----~- - - I,3. 24.9.1998 1.4.1998 11.[2] ! 11.[2] I 21.11:2000 12.32

14. - I I

5. 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 12.16 I 1-; i i i 1.4.2000 13.82 I 1::;_

6. 9.8.2001 1.4.2001 15.[7] 1l.[5] 30.8.2005 30.8.2005 17.584 2.98 I I •

8. 24.1.2008 18.12.2007 53 89.51

8. From the tabulation hereinabove noted it t.1vouid be apparent that after minimum· price was last f'xed ·v:::.-;:. 27.4.1990 in sum of ~4.65 lakhs/acre it was increasec afce:r nearly 7 years to ~10 lakhs/acre and the annual increa-se:orr 2s to 11.5°/o per annum {simple}. The next year i.e. w.e.f. l.L.=.998 the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of ~1=..[2] lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the pricE W3S enhanced to ~12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification vr=~s superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2GC[1] was rssued the price was retrospectively enhanced,'v.ef 1.4.1999 to ~12.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11=1c p~r _annurn with reference to the price determined as::~f J-~4..199_8 ___an_d___vide same notification_~___tb.e___price w-cs i f I ! ! i I i retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to ~13.82 lak"ls~'ao-2 - -l.e~lrjcreased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis the previous L~­ ~12.16 l2~hs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by ll,Sco oer annum vis-a-vis the previous price of ~13.82 lakhs/ac~e t:J LA.App.:'~o.266/2008 & connected matters Page21 cf[7].:.~ · • -,. • ~ -., ___ -o <- -'"" -----·-'"''•' - - - - - - - - - - -rea<:-11 the _frg-ure of ~15:._1___ 1akb.stacre:_-~The: __j)£Jce _ _:_was _J~~-~- ____ _:___ enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ~17.584 lakhs/acre which gives u~ an increase of only 2.98% per annum and then the price ro~e tc ~53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased-- 89.51°/o pe:annum w_ith reference to the base figure of ~17.584 lakhs/acrE and the date 30.8.2005.

9. Before noting the evidence retied upon by the:an:: owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Cou,--t. it would be beneficial for the reader of the present decision, as feel, that arguments advanced on either side may be noteci, would highlight that from the side of the land owners, ea-:h argument was in the alternative and it was urged that t'"'!ey Nould be entitled to price determination as per the -:::rs: argument, failing which as per the second argument, fai.ing 'Nhich as per the third argument and so on. From the sidE J·_= Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by ·che learned Reference Court pertaining to the notifk:atior. da':ec r.8.2000 _ for village Pooth Khurd; the notification da·::ed 22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for;·illage Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5~2001 for vHia~e ~-Jarela; ·and the notification dated 22.8.2001_ for \iillage Ali F·.v; 21nd the notification dated 27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Ka~an end Sanoth treats as if all lands were of uniform character ana t __ _y1as _l!rged that corrective_action ls_r_eq.uired by doing 2 thin:Js, firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by t1·2:3overnment from time t() t!_rn_~,__ll.S% increase per annum a1j ----~ - --:L"Z"o/cl-pe-iCiTITI0111 increase-was excessive--with reference to t-. 2,...~...,...o,... "~ +-h~ not:~:c-t:o-s ··nde- Se-....:on 4 o.c the L-n..... A---.:_:....:--- -..Jo[1]..'-::::> Vi lllC J Ill a I II Ul I l..LI I I I dIU l..UUI::-uu_:: - · - - - - ·-- !J:4ct 1894:; requiring the same to be reduced to 10°/o per annt:""':1 ·.~ tne !2ast. ~-Secondly, the learned Reference Court ·vvas r.::-t i:~stified 1in treating all lands as of the same character and th.iS:::..,A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 22 of74 " _,.._..__...._. ___,_ ~-------·~··---~··-----------------------------------------·-·-·-..· ·-·~--- ----·- ·-~. --· requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price fer such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category' 'C' b~/ the Land Acquisition Collector and in respect o·f vvhich categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.'e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' c:nd Cat~gory 'C', on account of pits and depressions of varjcus depths, as per the awards passed by the Land Acquis;ticr Collector was incorrect.

10. Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urge,d that the learned Reference Court was not justified in ignoring thE 2 sale deeds dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquislti:>n Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/201D 35 atso t1H:~-·s-are···uee-d dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex_.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 bisvJa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was ·sold @ ~2E. ~'5 ~akhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW~l/2, 2 b!gha 3!lC: ~9 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of villa,ge K>"JI~·~a Khurd for a sum of ~32.[4] lakhs and adding on the starr,p d J~Y paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land pricE as of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 would be ~28.89 lakhs/ac:e c.rd pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price woulci te ~63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sa~e deecis wou~cl be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.20~:~o. 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.20~'2, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notificatic1s were ~ssued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 Jy su1tab!')' increasing or decreasing the price. As an extende,:l !i:-:1 J of th~s argument, pertaining to village Narela, it vvas urged U·3t the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learn=:d counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 23 cf 74 ----··- --·- ----·-··-··------------..,..----· ·-..-~~-,-·-·-..----·---- ~·and for which the argument was that when in the_ -Dast,. _:: /· l. 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 Mamurpu:--- Narela by giving a_ price benefit of '{2/- per sq~yd. This wa[5] upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 ir. C.A.No.4405/1997 UOI vs. Dharambir & Ors. The said decislor would reveal _that the price per bigha in. sum of {6,650/determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to {16, 750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to {22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this::ourt was reversed by the Supreme Court and the one rendered ':JY the Reference Court was restored. 11.. Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urgeci, in ·:he alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Cou:-t:_, naving accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela !~esidential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted ln the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality. required fair market value to be determined with respect to ·:he price at which DSI~C and DDA.i.e. the implementing agenc~esr ~tvhich acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Hesidential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed [and in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana lndust~ial Estate and.for which learned counsel took me through the evidence ied and as noted by the learned Reference Court, ·which ! would be noting hereunder_ while dealing with the submission urged... 12~ Alternative to the second Sllbmission, being the U:·lrd 5ubmission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of t'-1is Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (.93) DLT 150 Bedi Ratn =-.A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 24 of--:-4 -----------···-----------------------vs. Union of India, it was permissible to determine fair market, - ----value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by gi\dn; suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for diffe:ent periods. Sh.I.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned caunsel, with reference to the decision in Bedi Ram's case (supra) as oer which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6% per annum with reference to the base price ~16,750/- per bigha as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10o/o per annJm jll 31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per- annum till the varic~s ---------dates when the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the La[1]:l Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and w:th which I _am_concerned in__the present _appeals. So worked o~t, learned counsel highlighted that as bf 27.1.2003 the fair mark2t value would come to ~56,88, 759/- per acre and I may highlig 1t that ~earned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reascn he was appearing in such ·appeals where the price fixation has ':::c be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned coun.s·2! urged that on the same principle market value should -t;e assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.200 J.. 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 arcd 23.5.2002.

13. The fourth argument- advanced was, and for whic[1] -r-e-fe-r-e-nce was made by learn~d counsel for the parties in e-= evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.No.268/2008 filed by the land owner-5 and LA.APP.No.292/2008 filedJJy Union__.ofJndia, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizin;J the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 25 of:-~ ---- ----~-.... ·- '""'-~>~ ------H ----~·· ·------~--·-·-·-·-- r·-testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agricu[1] tur=:!. /. -.. ~/ produce from his lands he used to earn ~1 lakh per bigha per ann-um i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitiol Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kisha:1 and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fa:r market value as of said date should be ~20 lakhs per bigha. i may hi~ghlight 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 notifica~ion in question the fair market value ough·~ to have been determined with reference to the notificat1ot[1] __________ which was c_l_os_est in point of time where under minimurn tana value was fixed by the Government, and the notification datec: · 24.1.2008 where under ~53 lakhs per acre was the minirrLr'" price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle tc ':>e 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 wit~ which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, wlth reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, w~ere "Jnder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200:1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold fo~ ~5.39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said sale deed in the following: words: (_Refer para 17 of the decisior: dated 7.1.2010 in LAC No.ll7A!2009): "'If we add stamp duty i.~ the sale price ~3.69,906/- _Qer bigha ({5,:i~o90L: __f 70,160 = 5,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes.to"<l[7],74,l:J9/oer acre or ~3,68,9061- per bigha. Furthet if we give i2%::_,A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ------------- -·------·--------------------------------------------------·--·-·•""-----~,-- --tncrease on said amount for intervening period between t11e· ·.-· date when the sale deed was executed and the date of. / - fw-tfffcation u/5 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes. to 't19,16,0371- (round off~l~l_6,040(_)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acqulsition 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 '8' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 bis·v\'c: __ -~a!~_g_Q_~Y- 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra 1\10.200 and that page No.56-: 7 or-me-cfWard would eviaence -lliat--tand comprised in Khas"3 No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed:n Category ~c·. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector h[3]:d determined fair market value as of the date of the notificaticn i.e. 27.1.2003 in surn of ~15.[7] lakhs per acre based upon t!~e notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had bee[1] fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ~1.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'E' lands, fair market value determined whereof was {14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another ~1. 7 lakhs pe!acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determine:, whereof was ~12.[3] lakhs per acre. It would be apparent vvhat the ar-gument was. The argument precisely was that if trJe market value had to be determined with respect to the sa e: jeed in question, the same had to t>e for Category 'C' lands anc ·for Category '8' and Category 'A' lands the pnce haa to te ~ncreased by ~1.[7] lakhs per acre for each category.

16. 1 have already noted hereinabove the arguments whicr Nere advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar. learned senior counsel l':'hc: - ·---------- ------~-- - --·-- - ·----------~--~---- 3ppeared for the Union of India and the same are refjectej ir 'Jara 9 above and hence I need not repeat the same.:,A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 27:,:- ";'~.. ~-- ·---------- =-7. In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I have •{) capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition ColiectcF ' /~ and the learned Reference Court pertaining tothe 8 notifications issued under Secti_~n 4 of the Land Acquisition Att 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence rny journey tc:leal with the.arguments advanced keeping in view the fac':s:r;oted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various sJbparas of para 6 above.

18. But before dealing with the arguments I need tc l'"'ighlight various anomalies which strike the reader at ':he cutset. The same would be:- _:.,. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 wher=~n lands were acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for Category 'B' lands, having depressions and pits, deduction effected vis-a-v:s "t1e price for Category 'A' lands is ~1.56 lacs per acre 2 r,d pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 where price has ~seen determined for agricultural lands in village Khera KhLrd, s~d price d~ff-erential has been worked out at ~1.[2] lacs per acre and while determining fair market value for agricultural land[5] !n 'Jillage Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notificaton dated 2.5.2001 the deduction effected is ~1.[7] lacs per acre,:Nhich is the same figure adopted when fair market value Jf agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan was determined as.:)f the date 22.8.2001. PertaiQing to _the OQtlfi~c;ation da':ed 27.1.2003 and relatable to viltage Sanoth the price differenj.al on said count has again been taken at ~1.[7] lacs per acre to irter s[2] differentiate the.price between Category 'A', Category '8' e:~:-Jd r:ategorjl 'C' lands. In other words, the price differ~ntia! h2~ 1aried between ~1.[2] lacs per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and ~1.[7] ~acs per acre. "LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 28 cf':'.::; / ·------------------------------------·· ·------·-- 1·.,. ·'

E. VVhereas for the notification dated 27.1.2003 the learned Reference Court, in some references has determinej the fa~r market value with reference to the minimum Jrice notified as of 1.4.2001 and has given appreciation, in sorne cases has determined the fair market value based on the saJE deed dated.20.5.2002.

F. VVherever the learned Land Acquisition Collector has classified lands in Category 'A', 'B' and 'C' reasons thereof have.... been'Ql'ven irrthe award but the learned Reference Court, v~.-hiiE - a·warding ul1ifcYrm compensation, has ·gi\Teh no reasons as to vvh~ · ____Lt wa_s_tr.e_ating all lands to be of same character and_Q_uality.

19. Since 1am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 ~ctific2t~ons issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisit:on Ac~: 1894, [ think it advisable to put in a tabular form the re!evart:=...A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 29 ~f 74· ________,_ _____________________________ -fact~, wnich woula _be -my data for-- furtH-er analysis. Put i~l 3 ---·- --- ------ ----------------- ------ --______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ ! --tabular form the data would be as under:-:Village Date of LAC compensation IADJ compensationl Section 4 (in lakhs/acre) with I(in lakhs/acre) Vl/it:l I Notification reasons reasons I Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000 l Cat. 'A' ~13.82 iCat. Uniform. Cat. 'B' t12.26 ~14.3728. Minimum price a -Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 of 1.4.2000 witr Hoiambi Kalan: Holambi, Kalan I 7.8.2000 22.8.2001 I t-lolambj J 23.5.2002 !<alan Bawana 7.8.2000 /h ·'· era 11.9.2000 Khurd ---- --i-----· I ! Narela I 2.5.2001 i l2o/o increase ~.a. '{13.82 ~14.12995. Minimum price as IPrice as in Gal/--als of 1.4.2000 case as o,= Cat. 'A' ~15. 7 Cat. 'B' ~14 15.11.1996 w:tl", 12% increase p.2. Cat. Uniform. '{16.43811. i Minimum price as IM. inimum price -~s ! of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 vnch. 12% increase p.3. '{15.[7] '{22.14239. Minimum price as IPrice as in Gaira/s of 1.4.2001 case as of Cat. 'A' '{13.82 · Cat. 'B' '{12.62 I,Minimum price of 1.4.2000 · I ------- Cat. 'A' t13.82 15.11.1996 )f.'~th 12% in<;:rease p.a. (compounded> No enhancement '1 given. '· as I I Cat. 'B' '{12.62- Minimum price as '{14.40157. Minimum price as· of L[4].2000 w th 12% increase p.c. {of__lA~200Q.____ I I -- ---

1 Cat. 'A' '{15.[7] ICat. 'B' '{14 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 '{15.857. I !\JI. • ' I as 1.v.;n;mum pnce 3.[5] i 1of 1.4.2001 vv=-~:: i LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 30 of74 I - Ali Pur 22.8.2001 -· - - Ali Pur 23.5.2002 Hoiambi 22.8.2001 Khurd Rajapur 22.8.2001 Kalan ----- ---- - ---- pur ba IK;1;n i Sanoth 17.12.2001 I I Is - 127.1.2003 1 anoth I I l -- Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] ~15.[7] ~15.[7] ~15.[7] Minimum pr~ce as -Cat. 'B' ~14 ICat. 'C' ~12.[3] I~15.[7] I Minimum price as I I j Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] ICat. 'C' ~12.[3] 12% increase p.a. t16.43811. Minimum price cs. of 1.4.2001 v;it: ·. 12% increase o.a_ ~17.8524 Minimum >:>rice as of 1.4.2001 v:lth 12o/o increase p.a. ~16.43811 I Minimum price a~, of 1.4.2001 w~t!--:' 12% increase t::-.[3] ~16.43811 of 1.4.20('1 1vitr. 12% increase p.a_ --- - U~i~orm cat_e~o y Mln,ml ~rv'l pr,rc -~r •• l\..4ilt ·~\,..'-' _,.._,:_ of 1.4.2001:,""~tr 12% increase p.a. in some cases.

2. ~19.1604 TO:'" Uniform I based deed 25.5.2002 ~a+-e -,""' r\: l. "' ~-Li i or: sale dated -AJ'+·h tiY:..... r_ 12% increase p.2. tl[6].99042. of 1.4.2001 -.v:th 12% increase c.2. ~19.13765 ·=cr I, 'n;fnrm rat-pg....,~}· v • u...._,._~.... - I i I IMinimum price as of 1.4.2001_ 'tftr of 1.4.2001 12% increase 1:,c. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 31:,f /4 --------··--..--- -------··-----··-~-- ·--- IShahpur 16.5.2001 ICat. 'A' ~15.[7] ~1 7.253fi9_~~- ~ ~ ~. I _I Ga~~i Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 vvt~ compound ~Trterest @ 11.5% p.a. Shahpur 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] Z17.79781. Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4~2001 of 1.4.2001 W~':h compound in·:erest @ 11.5o/o p.a. I..

20. ~ now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged cy learned counsel for the land owners and the 2 submiss1ors urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabo-..·~2 (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining -~J Union of India).

21. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds Ex.PW'-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PV~"- 1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair marke: value for the former comes to ~26. 75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ~63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference CJu(t has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determinE fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages ir, ~uestion on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 Il!as )Urchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Sw3m: Satsang'' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 '";ad stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased fcF:--eligious purpose and was being used for a religious purpcse. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not to be: r=liable evidence to determine fair market value of agricuitL'"at,ands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Governme:lt Crganization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimcr,y::.,_,\~.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 32 o:::-~4 I ' \

I. ---·- ·---,__--.. ·- -··------·~ ·~··-~··-------------------------------------------·----·-·-·--.._. _____.., of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stateci - -tt+a-t-t~km had to pay the -price for the saic: p:ece c:r land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitabie;:or the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitutE women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal tJ the vendee.

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (l) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. /sti Rohini & Anr. (~efer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Lana Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sa!e deed to determine the market value of !2nd:n an ~----=a=-=--r-=ea for the reason there may be special circumstances -~~vhich have led the buyer__ to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pa~l t;:, arc - ----·-----equally well informed seller wfthout- being influenced by an)/ 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 !and, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I woulcl be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied Lporc ~ the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which ·was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification elated · - - - · --- 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Raja pur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ~17,74,109/- per acre as against the price whicr, comes --to ~63.[4] 78 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ~28.89 iakhs per acre for Ex.PV.J-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.?\!J-1/3, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 33 Jf74 ' themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fancifu; pr:ce a[1] 1d ex-facie destroy each other.·. 2~-- _Thus,. agart _f[pm the reasoning of the learn~d Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 aJ>_o_j[e_w_o_uld be ad_di_ti_o_nal reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom f=:ir 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 u-e acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sa1e deeds having intrins:c evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of th 2 buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported dec!sic~l cited by learned counsel Sh.I.S.Dahiya being_ the g_ecision datej 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals,· lead matter bein';i LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap Singh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. DO/ & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deea-·therein b;' 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 deducbon on account of the parcel of land being large, Aias accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases tr1e 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 shoulci be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Divislor Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicati\te Jf the market value, bur-laona that if the price therein. W3s ~educed by l/3rd, the price arrived at would be the same as:::..,A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 34.of 74 ~ \ -,,.,. ------·-·-·--------------------------- ··-----·~-- -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 tl,37,000/per bigha and the sale deed under which L&Thad purchased tile land gave the price _t[3],26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to t[2],,31,800/- which was near about the pr]ce cf f[2],15,160/- per bigha, if l/3rd would be deducted from the sl·m of t[3],26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the sc.id judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.19'95 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market vaiue 2s of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid:.:= f[2],15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Ber·cr is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as t_he basis for if it was sc, '.:he appreciation for 2 years had required to be g;v·E:n. 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 mutualiy destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value.

24. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above [s rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended Hmb c-f the argument that after accepting the said saie deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to...- village Nare!a, in view of the decision in Dharambirfs.:ase {supra}, !and price should be suitably enhanced would be dea:: with b·yr rne at the.end when I determine the fair market value:;.-~ lands for the villages in question.

25. The second argument, contours whereof are, tc be found ~n para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ~-.,.,_~ "' -' ---- -·--·-- --------~--- ---· !atest pronouncement of the Suprerne Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La/ Chand vs. UOi. 26_. But before that I must highlight that the decision in Lai Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure Nhereunder, on lease-hold bas!s, residential plots were allotted ·Por residential housing scheme and the ar_gument was being ~:onsidered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands tn village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for:he same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala 3re situated within the 'V' formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnaj Road and Rohtak Rpad.

27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquir: ng agricultural lands, developing the same and transferr:ng perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industria! layouts, in paras 11 to 27, the Supre-ne Court observed and held as under:- " Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence?

11. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The 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 or;: leasehold basis: --------- --------------

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

1. 26 sq m Economically Vl.l~~_kers~ctions Rs 100 (EWS) - - - - - -

2. 32 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125

3. 48 sg _r:n Low income grou~ (LIG) Rs 150 --- - - ·- ··-4-:- 60 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200

5. 90 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200 -- - - - - - - - LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters -~:.L ·._ / t ---~--···---··,·--·--------------- -----~---·-·--· ---- The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metrE which is the average of the said provisional rates, sh:)ulc be taken as indicative of the ruling market price.

12. On careful consideration, we are of the view !:hat such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands fo1· 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 valiJe 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 freehcld rand-; ·whereas the attotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor

13. The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of. undeveloped ·agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of smali developed plots, varies between 20% to 7So/o of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upor; the nat'ure of development of the layout in which th~= exemplar plots are situated.

14. The "deduction for development" consists of tw::J components. The first is with reference to the are[3] required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. Fo:example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA Ol~ similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40'% o·= the:and area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks" playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities): etc l[5]. The development authority will also incUlconsiderable. expenditure for development o-= undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads L?_.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 37 of/4 ----·---.. ·- ---· -----·--------·----------------------------------------- ·~·--·-- -·---- _.., ''" ___ underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying water lines, electricity lines and developing parks and d\li! amenities, whiEh would be-about 35% of the vetttte-of-the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for 35 much as 75°/o of the cost of the developed plot.

16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in a:1 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 fJ:~ movement of vehicles. The amount spent on developme!':: work would also be comparatively less and minimal. ThJs the deduction on account of the two factors in respect::J-F plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20%: plus 20%:n all 40o/o as against 75% in regard to OCt:. plots.

17. The "deduction for development" with reference -~c prices of plots in authorised private residential layou·:s may range between 50% to 65% depending upon tre standards and quality of the layout.

18. The position with reference to industrial layouts w ! be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say,Jlf the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the si4e of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 s:; m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities ar;,j no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for developmert (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will 1:2 far less; and the cost to be incurred for development w:!~ also be marginally less, with the result the deduction tJ be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45o/o to SSo/o as contrasted from 65% to 75c~ for residential plots.

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

20. Therefore the deduction for the ''developmen·: factor" to be made with reference to the price of a sma ·; plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost o·= undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduct1or \__'.,/ ~ ~A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 38 o:--;4 -----··- --···----·····--·-----------------------· \ \ with reference to the price of a small plot in a11 unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is,. a-1-se---wett·-f<:ftt}Wft that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost· incurred by private developers, having reg.a-1'4-to- higher overheads and expenditure.

21. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, t.1e percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout-·whether it is residential, residentialcum commercial or industria+; aoo even among resident aI layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of communi~y fa-eiti-t-1-es, parks and playgrounds provided.

22. Some of. the layouts formed b-y fh-e statuto\)i d-evefepment authorffies may have targe areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrica~ substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and communityfci·v1c amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is:m!y to show that the "deduction for development" factor is 2; variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%. Second factor

23. DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots In the same layout, depending upon the economic status o~= the allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots may be earmarked for persons belonging ·r:c economically weaker sections at a price/premium Jf R.s 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be Rs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to rnidd~e income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons belonging to high income groups.

24. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MtG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factot~s reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market va~ue" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacty:f the applicants-forallOtment. -... -·--. Third factor LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Pag:: 39' c.f74 ----~·-·--·----------------------·

25. Some development authorities allot plots or. freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. So;-ne \ -< '- ~ ~development authorities like DDA allot-plots on lea-s-etmid ____ basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent.

26. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership). rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease prem~urn rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the ·market value of the property.

27. However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formec by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undev·eloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." 28-. The evidence on the subject has been discussed by fle learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting ·from LAC Reference No.ll7A/2009. The argument advanced [:·efore the learned Reference Court, being the same as r.as c:dvanced before me, has been noted by the learned Refere:~ce Court wlth reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads:- "ld. Counsel to_cthe_p_etition_ers_h_as further submitted that DDA & DStDC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate. He has relied upon allotment letter dated ·04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the pre-determined rate of ~3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/l, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of piot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring 70 Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as ~3,989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. Lr[1]..App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 40 o:: 74 --- --~-~-· ·- -"·· ------··-·~-~- _ _... __....,.__ ·----··.~..; ---plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela ~~ ~~- Industrial Comp~ex_at the _rate of ~650 sq._ metres ~~1ich ~. \), )-.!' is Ex. PW3/l and another allotment letter dated / 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2; 1 1f\J11cr, / was sold at ~3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from thE statement of PW[9] Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PW11/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = ~248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ ~3208 would be ~2531408/- per bigha. And if 30o/o 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 deductir,~g development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. ~1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, vvhere as petitioner has been given rate only ~3,27,083/- per ~~ ~- ~-------~---~~-----ntgi-ra---:- ------ Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R.Q_._Shar_l!l_~, Asstt._ MarJager, DSIDC whq 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 l.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is ~2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: j Total area under plots - 112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in - ~3000/- per sq. yards the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot Total earning - ~4083750000 Total expenditure - ~720526901 Total profit - ~3363223099 ~i.e. Profit comes to ~2470-pefsq:-yarao?f2470000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and the LAC has paid compensation @ ~327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of ~2142917 per bigha. __ Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ ~327083 per- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 41 of';':l -----·----·----·--·-··--·--------------------------- •, bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the \_ said price is considere..d___Qn account of land, the fig:JrE-- ··comes to ~654166. If the amount is deducted from sale _ pric~ __per bigh_g_ i.e. ~24700000, the figure comes tc ~1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same:' __ ----~---29. No'N. we do not h-ave evidence as to what was tre extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference -~::> the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Nareia Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 2C% cr 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted,,., · the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted b/ the Supreme Court in La/ Chand's case (supra), which render th~s evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of Janel il the subject cases.

30. !t is no doubt true, as held even bv -fA-e----1-ea-rn-eE:- Reference Court, that with the development of Bav!lan[3] lndustr~a~ Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and r"ar,o j::. -'I ' - J 1.__ Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a bui~dir;; potentiality, but the question would be what would be the va~Le to which the building potentiality would translate itself.

31. l hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in '.J12J_ the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court ir La, Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence a[5] reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same wt-:;!e 1 shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market valLe o~= the lands.

32. The third submission in the alternative wa_s based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Rar:rJ's case {supra), and the submission is as noted tn para 12 herein above. The land owners require the _p_rj~~---_determineo in Dharambir's case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 42 -:/: 74 c· ",.,_- -·----··- -··-----····----·---------------------------..... 30 1o 1963 in sum of t167 7501-- per bigha for village Mam Jrpur to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firs':ly ty 6% per annum, then by 10% per.annum and lastly by 12:.; PE=~~ annum for ·different periods and thereby determine the fa:r market value for the 8 notifications in question.

33. It be highlighted that in Bedi Ram's case (supra). wit:1 reference to the base date as of the year 1959, for the ye.c_r 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench o·= -~t-~:.[3] Court applied the progressive increase method by frst:_; enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965, arj then by lOo/o per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12c1c fc~ the remaining 3 years.

34. However, ln La/ Chands case (supra), the Suprem 2 Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-10- 1961 is relevant?

47. The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notificatior dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delh~ and compensation was~ awarded at the rate of Rs 700C per bigha. Their contention is· that as the present acqu!sition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference tc the market value determined for the 1961 acquisitior by providing an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. Thi[5] Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. lr 0/VGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai jivanbhai PateL10 this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) _'~l~~ Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing a pproprtate---escalation over--the·-prove-oLmarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as ~---~-~---~-ale transactions or acquis+ttons~. ·where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 43 cf74· ·-,, ""-/I,t. -- I - - - -·-·--- -. -. J....--~-e v·here -------· ~~.-.~--.. -r~--on...._.~.~ -~-v -.:-rn= -CIICU -~------------------- ·-:-· transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a· few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in

1970. or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of ir.crease." (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, l"f 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 lSo/o per year, as the newspaper reports disc~ose that the price of immovable properties in most a·reas 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. !t is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by t~ 2: ivision Bench in Bedi R-a-m'-S---ta-se--+supra) runs in the teeth:f - ----the law -declared by the Suprem~-- Court in La/ Chands cc;s[2] s-HfF:a-}-, vihich decision foHows-a-n---e-arliei decision of t -~ 2 S~preme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. /s. - - ---- ---·-- /iameshbhai jivanbhai Patel. =-...\.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 44 o= 74 _,. ----------------------------------------·----·-·-~,_,___ --- __.___ ·- --··- ------·-----·--

36. u-- Ill the instant case there is another good reasor nor "CO follow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's case {supra} ~~or the reason I find that a_ Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court.:n the decision reported as 88 {2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in vlrl2oe Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percent2~e increase with reference to the price determined in Dharamb/rs case !(supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resu,tec i:l the land price being determined in village Mamurpur- Na:-ela 3s of 14.3.1980 @ '{2010/- per annum per bigha and ga\·e t'12 increase @ '{1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's prindple \1\ 3S applied the price would have come to approximately ~SC,OOJ,­ per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at '{33,0UO/- per blgha.

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, wh le discussing on the issue of the fair market. value of subject;ancs, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Ccl.irt:n LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Singh,s. UOI & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertain:~g '=o agricuitural lands in village Bawana; and I highlight that o:~e village with which I am dealing is village Bawana, pertainln;J t:: 2 notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of t;le la:-c: Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 b~sv1a T= agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an indust( 3 estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as J~: 15.11.19-96 was determ~ned @ ~1,99,904.68 bigha which equc:.is to ~9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be fer ne '=c highli,ght that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by whjch pri:e for agricultural land being the minimum price determined ty tre Government was ~'10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997. the pri:e LA.App.No.266i2008 & connected matters Page 45 o.:- '""4 '--~-·--· ·- -- '~ -----~·-··-------------------------------------------- -- --··-~·· ---determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimurr. price notified by the Government. ~ ------ -~ -38-;----·----1-f I were to take the price as of 15.11.1~ @ ~9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which " am concerned, the price would be approximately the samE as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by lOo/o per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason,· as assured by me herein above, J would be holistically discussing the subject while opining upcr the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notifications in question.:og. The.fourth argument, which was advanced only !:y ~h.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kisran and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who c:re -~ne respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e.:..A.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. tl·2 testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands beiongi r·;1 ':o the family they were earning 'tl lakh per bigha by safe:f a;:,Jricultural produce. 4'J. The learned Reference Court has not accepted t 1 '"'1e testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no' proof in support:::~ his oral testimony. 4-:::... The reasoning of the Court that there was no crJ·P standing on the land when its possession was taken over en 4.10.2000 would require· an inference to be drawn that tile acquired !lands belonging to the family were not being put ·::: a£:ricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallado._;s nc doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge tha/: b:;r the 3~c vveek of September rice is harvested in:Je!hi ar~d:,c: vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the !and ~~ left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which \s U'....App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 46 of-4 / / "" ___,. __ ·- -·- ------..·--..····--------------------· ['... J ""· sown around the first week or the second week of Ncvember each year._

42. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led --- ---·-----in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he was working as an Administrative Office; in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi till 31.3.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a penslor.. Jf the family, as claimed by him, was earning ~1 lakh per bigha. for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 13 b;g1a and 18 biswa, the annual income would be ~19 lakhs cind Jne finds i-t strange that not a penny was tnvested in a balk cr a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Bestcles, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader tc vvhom the produce was sold has not been examined. No p:·oof of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run th·= tu.Jewell, if any, to irrig.ate the fields or electricity bills paic if:he pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by canal water, no proof of any payment rrade ·:o the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the l2an·ed Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basjs, by capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value ·.Jf lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of th·!2 yle C: and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rigrt 1 y rejected.

43. If there is reliable evidence of an independent ex::lert or there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found:r.;:r.e decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (J..i! SC i-44 State of Gujarat & Drs. Vs. Rama Rana & Drs., pertainlng tJ ':re yield from agricultural land, only then it would be s:::fe tc ceterm~ne fair market value by applying the princi:oie of LA.App.No.266/2008 & cormected matters Page 47 c:'"'4 -------- _..----·----·-··--------------------·,,- ··, / ' capitallzing on the yield basis and that too, the capitalizin;; / being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 time-s as was sought to be projected.

44. The fifth argument which was advanced, as note•:. 1erein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that::he mean average principle be adopted with reference to the 1otification dated 24.1.2008.

45. In para 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from trne to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I c:m concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.20Gl,.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 par[3] 7::Jbove, we find that minimum prices have been notified as J.; 1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would b·e:-:o:--;eed to factor in the minimum price notified under ·:re r,otification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 Jears away from the last year with which I am concerneC:;,.....;:he year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. ·:he frst year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 1 ears away. The law of statistics which governs mean averc.;:e 3S one of the recognized niodes to determine a value, tn.cetween 2 given values, requires the 2 end points tc be -~~ e::r.es which woul-d -be cffi.se-st--to---the-J*)int f-GF w-f:l.~fl the mean average has to be determined.

46. i am left to deal with the last submission, as notea:n:Jara 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that the learred Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification da":ed 27.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References xith respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where unde:- l blgha and 13 biswa of land was sold in viilage Raja pur "Kalan c.rJd LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 48 o::' 74 -·--- ~- ___.. -------..... ~ j" --) / has determined that based thereon the price as of· said date". --WG-rk-S-out to ~17.74.109/ oer acre and·increasi1•9 tl1e san~e fer 8 months by 12o/o 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 admeasur'ng 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C' land. The sale deec 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 market value of Category 'C' land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collector ~1. 7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum cf ~=-. 7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depresstens in Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category B' land were less vis-a-vis Category 'C' land. In other words, vv· th ----- ---- --·-··-·-·-···- -·-·--·-··--------- ·- ···-- -. reference to Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C' land would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-a-vis Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land would be required to be increased suitably.

48. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the reasoning adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court, I pose the question: What should be the fair market value of the subject lands as of 7.8.2000, !. 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the dates on which the notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land AcqLisition Act 1894. 49__:__ ____ 1 have, in para 37 above_, not~d a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 49 of74 -----··--·-··-------------------- 11.5.2006, Mahender Singh vs. UOI & Ors. wherein pertain~ng to villaae--8-awana. fair market value determined as of 15.1Ll996 _i__s_!1_,99,9Q[4].68per big_ba which equals to ~9,59,542.46 per ao~2, The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentali(..., --~~--~- an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision;10tes that the subject lands i.e. the lands with which the Div!sic[1] Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuc[1] a~, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in th,[2] Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based o:~, population growth, 5 villages in rural Delhi were identified for~ providing major health facititi-es;- s-chools, markets and,-ur=, industry, one of which was viHage Bawana. It was noted ti;a:~ G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access tc village Bawana and.. that the Master Plan for Delhi notified ir: the_ year.1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed in. the future to industrial and commercial, but had a:s: - ---ubserved that notwittrstaneimg th1s; for the reason no zona-l--plan was n-ottf+ed as contemplated by Section llA of the C[2]:r: Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used fo~- 3gricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the }ear 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put ·~o::he use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the insta:11: case,,~vhere all subject lands were continuously put ·:o agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decls1Jn,,..o put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth t: a potential land value with reference to the area being knowr to all as being required in the future for building purposes, V.'as 'fJund not resulting in the potential being valued wlth referer ce tJ the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capab·e c·f being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, tholj,gh rot so expressly stating, would be a propos1tToh-l:nat there is a difference between the undeveloped land having buiiid=~;J:=._A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 50 o::!4 f potentiality· in presenti vis-a-vis a land having a building --- - ~ potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 cbove, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined w3s ~9,59,542.46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. the notification jatecJ 25.7.19_91 where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi min rnuT price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was ~10 lakhs per. acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronource::1 another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Ga/ra/ Sinqh vs. UOI & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lards:1 village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa lane w2s acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.:.995, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands wc_s ~9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ~9,51,121.­ per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of !anos '",,pi3go Bau"ana It needc to be hignJigh...e"' t,___.... ---1 -.·-- ~. I '~ I ~ '• ' """ Wll I ~ •.... I • oJ • I I I • i l \,A i ~c..\.,.,; "V' J I ~::. determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in v:llage Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court i 1 para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality wit.[1] reference to development work carried out in the surroundin;;J lands was considered. I would highlight that another Di·visio.l Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the san:e 'V' Le. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. \.ti !age Singhola determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 © ~1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. ~6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is,.,. reported as 2004 (4) AD ·(Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. UOI and the same Divisio.n-6ench, as per the decis~oR--.Feported-a-s 111 (21JO~-' DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vs. UO/, pertaining to a notification date,: ·--------------- --- 14.1.1994 for village Stnghola determined fair market value 9 ~1..40.230/- per bigha i.e. ~6,73,104/- per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters -i -,/- ~.;.,. ( ------··---.,·--···----------------------r~.r '· 5~. - -!he aforesaia-judgments-~:_no.ted-----rrl th-e preceding -· ·------·----- -·-·-·- --·- - - - - - - - - - - - - _ __-:: paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from t1me to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lan9s in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant t~ determ~ne the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the:,·ears commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ~4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ~10 Jakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ~5.35 lakhs sprEad ever 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years ard t1e average price increase would be 16.436%. The price r se:::ver the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the 11ext 2 years and 11.5o/o for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001.:t s:1ows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and l997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborat:ve evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of ".:h~s Court in Gajra/s case (supra), \-Vhich I have discussed;~~ para 49 above.

51. l need to elaborate a little more with respect to t1e decision in Gajra/s case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as o-: 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed t-:e 'v-aluation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that ti_"t,e g;oss return per acre per annum was ~95,000/- for multi~~e -~ropp_e_g___ land and having good _irrigation_facilities and th JS capitalized the land price at ~9.[5] lakhs per acre. Discussing t:1,e second method of land prices of comparable lands in tr-~e u --s-l.tfffl~as-1iicludif'rg- p-otenti-ality, in para 19 onwards t>1e CJurt discussed the matter with reference to !and prices:·adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up a:-:d t:a-sea-on sale instances found that based on the said s[2] ~2 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 52 of7~ " -··~-·· ·- ___,~ -------~··-... ·---~ -"'-··---------.. _.~, __ insta nces and g-1-v+rtg-b-e-t;-efit of industria Iiza--ti-o-rr-th-e-1-a-rrc:-pr: _::- ~,..... would come to tl0,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The cc,_ "t -~ then considered the prkes- notified by the Government 35 c~( policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean avera_:;:: figure of t[9], 76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands a ~1c~ f[9],51,121/- per acre for Category '8' lands. The deds: J:: highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in wh:::;1 the Government issued the minimum price notification \v.=. f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to s;;::e transactions the Court found that as against the minimurr, p( ~e notified as of 1.4.1997 at flO lakhs per acre, sale jnstance[5]: w[2]: ·e highHghting that the price was f10,03,364/- per acre.

52. The decision in Mahender Singh's case, pertain:ng -, viUa_ge Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, higr:Hgr c[3] 'Nith reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Mas.2:- Pian for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Cc _'-':: 'Nhk:h 'was projecting residential, commercial and:nd'Jst:-:=.: ~ future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the:ss Je of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Maste,.. Pt:s!e so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiaH'~y r the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fc:'~ that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with V'.'hi:> the Dlvision Bench was concerned, virtually no developme::t r3c" taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and n::>bc:~ · had exploited the potential. As I have already higniigho:ec! ~ -_ para 49 above there is a gap between,what would be expect:::: to be the market growth and what the market actually;Jrm s. The decisions in Gajra/s case and Mahender Singh's c:c-s= high!ight that potentiality translated itself into a reality betw,;:;e -: 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5o/o per annum ~-:j thereafter the extended potentiality did not transiate with 'cl= LA.App.No.266/2008 & coniiected matters Page 53 c_: ':'"4 - --- ··------·- ___,_ -----·····--------------------------------:--equisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between =-c~1: '~;Jer annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that,. _________o.urs_uant to Master Plan far Delhi 1990 a fairly larg.earea ccme -~o be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial anc probabiy there was enough availability of developed land 310 ~he hunger of the market got saturated.

53. The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart f:o!T: ·:he 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in resr:.ect Nhereof the learned Reference Court has given good rea5o:ls ~1ot to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons ~n.:>aras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful 3ale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us tl1e 3aie deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Cclie:t:::>l" Jursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kc·1an ·:he learned Reference Court has held that as per the sa~d se:!e deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale· i.e. 20.5.2002 t[le faL- _llarket value of agricultural lands would be ~19,16,040/- ~=( acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 bisv1a of land which was sold for ~5,39,690/- and ~70,160/- was paic: as stamp duty would mean that ~6,09,850/- {~5,39,690/- + ~70,160/-) were spent would yield the price t17,74,109/- ~er acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

54. Thus, the best which could be said as the rrost ·=avou.rable situation for the l~nd owners would be that rJ'th r-eference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C':ands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area wccld:Je tl[7],74,109/- per acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land:he price vvould ·have to be suitably enhanced and here vve ·=~r"c another area of dispute for the reason, as noted by:e 1ereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned L::1C: Acquisition Collector in different awards has deduct2c.-:..A.App.No.266/200S & connected matters Page 54 ·Jf[7]:... -·-····--···----·-··------------------------------------· sometimes f[1].[2] lak~s per acre, sometimes f[1].56 lakhs per acre and sometimes fl. 7 lakhs per acre from the price of Categ:)ry --- -- 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands ar:d wherever lands were in Category 'C' as wel-l-tf:le price has been deducted further by fl. 7 lakhs per acre.

55. Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to 1e·1el tre la--A€ls and I note that cateaori-~-attem ts 6-as-eei--e-ttty on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various dep:hs ---feytl+~-same to be leveled and this would require:-noney ·-··· -·- --- -----·-··· -~-~---- ----------------- --~--------- to be spent. But on _what basis has the Land Acquisifon - -- ---- -·--- --- Collector held, in some awards that f[1].[2] lakhs per acre wculd be spent and in some that f[1].56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that fl. 7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There is j Jst no due.

56. In Gajraj Singh's case {supra}, the price differential worked out was f25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereir:abcve that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. In Gajraj Singh's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was f[9], 76,121/- per acre and for Category B' land the price determined was f[9],51, 121/- per acre and ·~1e price differential comes to about 2.5o/o with reference to tie price of Category 'A' land.

57. I thus hold. that Gajraj Singh's Cj3Se should be -:-:ty guid~ng star for price differential in the instant cases as we!i and thus I hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'E' a:1d Category 'C' have to be differentiated on price, the differential should be 2.So/o.

58. Thus, if fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to f17.75 ~ak'ls,~er acre1Nou1d be the priceror a Lategory 'C'I.a-n-a-i-n--viliage F.ajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R.-2 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 55 c:=-~'4 ~,. ----------------------------·---·-·--····----······-·· admittedly pertains to a Category 'C' land, the price f: r '~. Category '8' land would be fl[8].20 lakhs per _acre anj fer Category 'A' land would be fl[8].655 lakhs per acre.

59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by th,e Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was fl[3].82 lakh.:; and as of 1.4.2001 the same was fl[5].[7] lakhs per acre i.e. ·:h[2] percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annur:~. ~-~ 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% peannum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximate!~ f16.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that wher contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Governr1en'~ at fl[5].[7] lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differentia: i[5] f70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46o/o. Since exactness can neve:-- bE achieved while determining fair market value of a large churk o·= and with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels o·:=.and are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size.. tne ocation, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the p::-;:e 'JY plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even t:1e sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an elemen·: Jf rationatity and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular C:2te is normany not held good evtdence·to work 6ut-aland price cr. a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to deterrr:ine;and price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price o:-: a particular date ls the result of various market forces/conditiJ'~S r,aving already impacted the land price and it would be diffkt.lt ':J fathom the existence of market forceS/COnditions V-ia!k~~:£i:::,ackwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to th::.: LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 56 cf 74-,/ _,__,_,_ -·- ---·--.-------------------.,. notificatic ~.2-000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.200:::. and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as th[2] t sale ceed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculia~~ facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which Itse'f has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence cf market value of land as on said date, would be a relevant:Jie::::,= of evidence to be taken into account while 'determinin£ t:..,[2] market value of· land as on the dates 7.8.2000, ll.9.2CC:, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001.

60. The argument that village Narela had always be-21 treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township::f Narela ·.vas ln existence since long and this was recog,-~:zed when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, ·;is-3vis the adjoining villages f[2] per square yard price advanta~e was given to lands jn village Narela in Dharambils case, IJoses sight of the fact that the price differential due to loca':iona! advantage was keeping in view the realities in the year 1963 Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delr:i ana more and more areas came under plotted development ·Nhich included areas in North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with wh~ch: am concerned today, the price differential faded and by the yea~ · 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.

61. I thus hold that pertaining to the notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8,2001 and 7.12.20Cl tle iand prices would have to be determined on the basis:)f tne minimum price notified by the Government as alsc w:th reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 for the reasor [ f::i:j no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on saic dates ---:caurd be determined. Pertaining- to the notifications ciatej 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 ~nd 27.1.2003, the land price need,s to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2C02 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 57 cf74 ':., / ----·-------------------------------------------------------- -- ----- ·------------ ----- ··--------because-with refe-ren-ceto the-s-afdsate Prt-Ce-tt-is--~--tw- ---~,---- " 13nd price as of said date comes to more than if determined with respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum l:ind prlce notified was f1S. 7 lakhs per acre with effect frJm 1.4.2001. c[2]. With respect to the price differential for Category ·t.,' and Category '8' lands, noting that pertaining to the said;1otifications categorization has been done only pertaining to t-!e:and acquired in village Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kai:L'l {pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Viila;~e Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to t,_e rlotification dated 22.8.2001) I hold that vis-a-vis the s[2]:d notifications, after increasing the price for the date differentia:, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to je e·=fected by decreasing the same by 2.5o/o to determine the price fer Category '8' land.

63. Before I work out the compensation and since it woL:d be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the [arc r::-rices would marginally increase in a few cases arc: s·:..:bstanbally in the other, a striking note of discordant wou c emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining ':c tt1e notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holam o: kcJar. wherein the learned Reference Court has determined tr·e fa:r market value at f22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, --b[1]::t t--need to--ntghtight marpertaining to tfre same notificatic n d2ted 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learnEd Reference Court has determtned--- the- fair market value 3t ~17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to \/iJiage Hcjapur-Kalan and Sanoth, pertaining to the notification dated 27.~2003 th~ fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lanes is ~19,16,040/- in some cases and ~19,13,760/- in a fer,;, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 58 of":-4 -~-- -·.- ---·- ------·.....-~------------------------------------------ -·--·---·~------.- ~-~ --- ----meaning thereby that much lesser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-a-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification da'::ed 23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that il said notification the lan~ price determined in Gajrats case (supr~; c1S of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12°/o per annum compounded. Village Pooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000

64. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2CJ[1] wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified::er acre is ~13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably updated· to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 a1d 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 '8' lar:Js increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to f18.[2] !akns;=er acre and further increasing by 2.5o/o the prices cofTles t:) ~18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing tle said prices by 11o/o to reflect the price with reference to the Sc ~ e deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price ·=cr Cateaorv 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to ~14. 75 lakhs -. ~ per acre and.decreasing the same by 2.5"la, it corres tJ ~14,38,125/- per ac-re for Category '8' lands. Noting that tl·2 learned Reference Court has, without any reasons. done av~3y' with Category '8' lands and uniform price awarded i.s ~14,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by r1·2 comes to a meager fl,OOO/- per a·cre and thus qua Category -2.' lands 1 maintain the amount awarded by the learned P.eferer::2 Court:.

65. Ail Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union a·.= ir:c[a and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India 'n t.1e LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ',' 'l C• ',_ appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has be-@p,,' prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed. - - - - - -, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - ---. ______ E[6].----AII Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross.:objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by U:1ion of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payatie fJr Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertaining to tne rjotification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of 'tl[4].75 lakhs per acre aild fJr Category '8' lands the compensation awarded 3-~ tl[4],37,280/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals J"" cross references which pertain to Category '8' lands a:-e dism~ssed.

67. Pertaining.. to such appeal where the compensati Jn stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquislti~n t.~ct 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. i.JOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period wnere there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, f:;:- \r\lhich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensati2n shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would je entitled to proportionate cost. Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000 6:3. For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabo·.:e: pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabo·Je a 1d cross objections stand disposed of enhancing t-12 compensation to 'tl[4].75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that 35 per the award and even as per the reference all subject lan::ls ·:~ere of ~nlform category. Needless to state appeals filed by t-,,[2] Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismlsse::. ~~ppeals and cross objections filed by land owners are allowed::y e1hancing the compensation to 'tl[4].75 fakhs per acre togett-er 'iNith statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 2s '::.,A.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 60 o::-~4 -~-·--· ·- --·~ -----~·-·~-·· ~('· explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. U0/2001 (93)"' DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in fHjng ---the appeal or cross objection, for which period of deiay no interest on the enhanced compensatioQ____shall _be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Bawan·a Notification dated 7.8.2000

69. Pertaining to villa.g_e Bawana___relating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court ______ has rrot enhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, ·=air market value for Categori'A'-·Iands is fixed at ~14. 75 lakhs per acre a·nd for Category 'B' lands at· ~14,38,125/- per acre ard noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal o:-- 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 appeilants shal! be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisitcro Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder -vs. UO/ 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 /'. wou!d be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000

70. With reference to the notification dated 9.3.2C01 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 25.5.20C[2] wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes tc· ~17,74,10.9/-,..rounded off i:o-ll.7,75,000/- p.er acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5%> the prjce c:>JT,es LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 61 c:f 74 t -.,.--, /l t to f18.[2] ~akhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5°/o the prl::2s ~/ comes to f18,65,590/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; s:,d· decreasing the said prices by 11o/o to reflect the price \id-~ reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mearc average price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Kh.rd comes to f14,83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same jy 2.5o/o, it comes to f14,46,413/- per acre for Category '8' lands.

71. AU Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by t1e land ovvners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreei:1g compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Krera:<hurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 in surr of ~14,83,.500/- per _acre for Category 'A' lands and f14,46,41.3/qer acre for Category '8' lands. I note that pertaining to:r,is 1otification and the village, the Union of India has not filed 3lY appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits 3S )er the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgrr en-c ~eported as Sunder Vs. U0/2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be gran':ea 2xcept for the period where there is a delay i-n filing the appea, -=or which period of delay no interest on the enhar,cec:ompensation shall be paid. These appellants would be enti:lecj =o proportionate cost. Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001

72. Viith reference to the notification dated 9.8.LJJ!. --~--·····--- --- --·---- - - · wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified pe.-acre· is ~15. 7 lakhs per acre and requiring said price tc oE suitably updated to reach the date of the notification:.e. 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002. v11herein ~or Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes tc tl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to =tl[7],75,000i- per acre, a;lC: fa- Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price ccmes LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 62 cf i~: '' ------ -·------ ' <[_ d ~,.,; to ~18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5o/o the pr~c€s romP& to f18.65.500/ oer acrP fnr- f'AtPnnry 'A'--- tan-as; and decreasing the said prices by 11o/o to reflect the price w·ith reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Narela comes to f16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to f15,76,087- per acre for Category '8' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, d:Jne away with Catego~y '8' lands and uniform price awa ~c:ed is f15,85,570/- per acre and since for Category '8' lands tre pri:e worked out by me is less by f[9],000/- per acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category '8' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' la:1ds t12 ___________p_rie__e_stands_e_nhanced_ _to__fl[6], 16,500/- oer acre_____

73. Ali Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-E' fileo by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners ir. - - - - - - - - -.. ~-----appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in viUage Narela pertait:1ing to the notification dated 2.5.2001 in sum of f16, 16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order for Category '8' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land ow~-ers are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objectlons filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A·" lands are I allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the e11hanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisitioc 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 o'f 74 --------------------------------------- --------------····-interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid, These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. ________ ---- -- --- -- Village- Holambi Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001

74. With reference to the notification dated f 1.8.2G01 --- --- wherei11 with effect from 1.4.2001 ·minimum price noti-Fied per acre is fl[5].70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price tc be suitably updated to reach the date of the notificat!on 1,e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25 5.[2] J02 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to f17,7S,OOO/- per acre, and fJr Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to f18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; 2:1d decreasing the _said prices by 11% to refl-ect--the price \~<th reference to the sale deed for the date 22~8.2001; the M.e::~n average price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Ka~an comes to f16, 74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same o:; 2.5%, it comes to f16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' anos. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without a~y reasons, done away with Category '8' lands and uniform prr:e awarded is fl[6],43,811/- per acre, the price differential w:>rkeo out by me comes to a meager f[9],000/- per acre and thus qLa Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded b\· tre learned Reference Court.

75. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of lnd'3 and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India ir the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has:>ee:1 prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are

76. All Land Acquisition Appeals filecj b~ ~h-~__ij3nd owner[3] and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. ----- ·-·--···--"·--·----------------------,-,, - Union of India are allowed by d~creeing compensation pay!3bie"'1 ~ for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the·/ notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of fl[6],74,500/- per acre 2nd for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at f16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are

77. Pertaining to such appeal where the comper:satio:: stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisihJn Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, -~Jr whlch period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensattcn shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would ~e Village Ali Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001

78. With reference to the notification dated 9.8,20Cl wherein with effect from L[4].2001 minimum price notifiej per acre is tlS. 70 lakhs per acre and requjring said price to te suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.2. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.20C[2] wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7],75,000/- per acre, and ·"2r Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl[8].[2] !akhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5o/o the pr:ces comes to fl[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; 3n:f.,..-decreasing the said prices by 11% to ·reflect the price.,_, ·w~''-:1 reference to the sale deed for the date· 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category ·~-l-ands in village A!i Pur comes tJ fl[6],74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, r.t comes to fl[6],32,637.50 per acre for Categqry 'B' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 65 of 'i[4] -----... - ---- ----·-----··----------------------------------------- •m~-~··••·---- -• ___._ I~-, that the-tearned Reference Court has.,--W-ithOut a-BY Fea-sons, do-ne,/1 -. --~- --·-··- ·- ---.-- ----away with Category '8' lands and uniform price awarded is,( t16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager t[9],000/- per acre and thus qua Category '8 lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Referen:E Court.

79. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of-1-r.--cha ----- - ';n respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeJed as 'GHI:J- -1' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not.=iled any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. ao. There shall be no order as to costs. Village HoJambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2001

31. With reference to the notification_ dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is f15. 70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification:. 2. 22.8.2001 and v.;ith reference to the sale deed _dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land priCe per acre comes ~c =t17,74,109/-, rounded off to ~17,75,000/- per acre, and f8r Category '8' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ~18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the pri:es comes to ~18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and c:ecreasing the said prices by 11o/o to reflect the prlce wl':h (2ference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean __c.1Ler__ag__e___price_f0!' -Cate---9-0-r¥ 'A' +a-RG-s----i--A---v~-H-e+a-m-b+--K--h'Jud ---- comes to ~16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to t16,32,637.50_peracreJor Category 'B' lanjs. ---!'Toting lflat rne--Tearned Reference Court has, without -cry r2asons--r- done_away with rategory 'B' lands and uniform p(ce 2~arded is ~16,4-3,811/- per acre, the price differential worked cut by-me comes to a meager {9,000/- per acre and thus c:-'a LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 66 cf '74 --~-~----·-----.,~---·-------------------------·------·--··-~---·~--,.... Category 'B'. lands I maintain--the amount awarded by· the,,learned Reference Court. /

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

83. There shall be no order as to costs.~ Village Rajapur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001

84. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is f15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price tJ l:e suitably updated to reach the date of the notificatior, i.·s. 22.8.2001 and with ·reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes tJ f17,74,109/-, rounded off to f17,75,000/- per acre, and fer Category '8' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price CC'T123 to fl[8].[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5o/o the pric::s comes to f18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; arj decreasing the said prices by 11o/o to reflect the price >vvit~l reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the r1ear[1] average price for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Ka!a·1 comes to t16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5o/o, it comes to t16,32,637.50 per acre for Category '8' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, vvithout anJ reasons, done away with Category '8' lands and uniform price. aw~f"QE;Q__is t16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential workej.,., ~ Ol1t bv me comes to a meager f[9],000J~ _per ~a_cre_and thus qua Category '8' lands I maintain the amount awarded by· the learned Reference Court.

85. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of Jndia and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India ir the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 6" of-4 - · - ----- -,-\ ' ap-_p£a1s -fHe((by-i-cmd ownersu-m--re·spe-ctu~whereof grid has---b-eeR--7~- u - prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereinabove are dismissed.

36. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owr~ers 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 3nd for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded 3~= ~16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals Jr cross references which pertain to Category '8' lands 3(e S[7]. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensatcr: stands enhanced statutory ben~fits as per the Land Acquisitcr,4ct 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs, VOl 2001 {93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the per:cd where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, fJr \Nhich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensaton shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would te Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001

28. 'With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2C01 v1herein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified Jer 3cre is tlS.70 !akhs per acre and requiring sai<;i price to ce suitably updated to reach the date of the notification.'2.