Union of India v. Dharam Pal & Anr

8. From the tabulation • hereinabove noted it would b apparent that after minir im price was last. fixed. 27.4.1990 in sum of. Z[4].65 Iakhs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to T10 lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price was enhanced by 1.1.2% to.reach the figure of11.[2] Iakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to U[2].32 lakhs/acre, which notification was' superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001' was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e!f.: 1.4.1999 to T12.16 lakhs/atre i.e. the price increased by pe.r annum with.reference to the price determined as of. 1.4.1998 and vide same notificatioth..ric..... wasL retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to fl382_lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum visà-vis the previous i.e.

12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rbse by11.5%' per annum vis-à-vis the previous price of T11.82 lakhs/acre.tol LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page.21 of 74 reach the ñgure of. 153 lakhs/acreT. The pce was next enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to U[7].584 lakhs/acre which gives us an increase of only 2.98% per annum and then the price rose to 53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annum with reference to the base figure of f 17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005. 9.. Before noting the evidence relied upon by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court, it 1 would be beneficial -for the reader of the present decision,, as 1'. feel, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. l would highlight that from the side of, the land owners, each • argument was in the alternative and it was urged• that they I: would' be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, failuig which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by the.. learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000, for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000..for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5.2001 for village S: Narela;'and the notification dated 22.8.2001for village Ali. Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2003: for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands 'were of uniform character and it I -' Vrged is required by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, 11.5% increase per, annum and annum'increasewas excessive with reference to the dates of the notifications under Section4of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; requiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annum in' thè'Tëa€Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not • justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' •.,, •. requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C' by the Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C', on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed, by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.

10. Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference Court was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-113, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also Th sterdee-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 biswa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ U[6].75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW1/2, 2 bigha and 19. biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of T32.[4] lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price. as of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 would be T28.89 lakhs/acre and, pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-112 the land price would be 63.478.lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 1 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notificatiOns were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument,.pertaining to village Narela, it was urged that the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more and for which the argument was that when in the. past pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Lnd Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur- Narela by, giving a. price benefit of 2/- per sqyd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UOI vs. Dharambir & Ors. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in:: sum of 6,650/determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to U[6],750/- per big ha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to 22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this. Caurtwas reversed bythe Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Rferece Court was restored. Learned counsel for the land: owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due. to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and:: developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in.the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the

13. The fourth argument 'advanced was, and for which was made by lear eri rniincimi for the parties in thel. 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 owners LA.APP.No.292/2008 filecLby Union 11ndia, that fair market value should have been assessed on. yield basis by annualizing, the yield for 'a period of 20 years and the evidence was the! testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agricultural I produce from his lands he used to earn tl lakh per bigha per jjj: i.e. theià1r market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be T20 lakhs per bigha. I may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008. • 14. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang,: Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for each of the notification in question the fair Tharket value ought to have been determined with reference to the notification whith was ctosst in point of time w herander_inimn land value was fixed by the Government' and the notification dated: 24.1.2008 where under T53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean averageprinciple to be: adopted was the precise argument.

15. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing 1 with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasrallo.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for: 5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said: sale deed in the followingwords: (Rèferøara 17oftfie decision • dated 7.1.2010 in LA C No.11 7A/2009,): "If we add stamp duty In • the sale price 3,69,9061- per bigha 5,3,69OE± 70,160 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes tb U[7], 74,1091per acre or 3,68,9061- per big/ia. Further if we give 12% S in crease on said amount for intervening period between the date when the sale deed was executed and the date of - 4at4ficatfcp u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i. e. 8 months it comes to 19,16,0371- (round off 19,16,0401-)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e. Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land_was put in Category 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred tothe land being comprised in KsraN200 and that page No.56-57 otthaward would evidce tht1andr comprised in Khasra.. No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in Category 'C'. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair, market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of U[5].[7] lakhs per acre based Upon the notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by T[1].[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was T14 lakhs pr acre and further depress the same by another Z[1].[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determined whereof was Z12.[3] Iakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the same had to bE fOr. Category 'C' lands and for Category 'B' and category 'A' lands the price naa to be increased by Z[1].[7] lakhs per acre for each category. I

16. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced_by Sh.Sanjay PoddarHearned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above and hence I need not repeat the same.

17. In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court pertaining to the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence t4ny journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various subparas of para 6 above.

19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued. under Section 4of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 0 iac, Which Put in a -- tabular form the data would •be as under:- S S Village Date of LAC compensation 1 ADJ cdmpensation Section 4 (in lakhs/acre) with (in lakhs/acre) with ____ Notification reasons reasons Pooth 7.8.2000 Cat; 'A' 13.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd Cat. 'B' 12.26 T14.3728. Minimum.., price as- -Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a' Holambi 7.8.2000 T13.82 U[4].12995. Kalan Minimum price as Price as in Ga/rats of 14.2000 case as of 15.11.1996 •witI 12% increase p.a. Holambi 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' 15.[7] Cat. Uniform. Kalan Cat. 'B' i[4] T16.43811. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with • Holambi 23.5.2002 15.7. 22.14239. Kalan Minimum price as Price; as in Ga/rats of 1.4.2001 case. as. of, •.. 15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.aJ (compounded) Bawana 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' Z13.82. No enhancement • Cat. 'B' U[2].62 given. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 Khera 11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' U[3].82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd. Cat. 'B' fl[2].62. 14.40157. Minimum price as Minimum price as of of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase' p.a. Narela 2 5 2001 Cat 'A'U[5] 7 Cat Uniform Cat. 'B' 14. 15.857. S, •. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001. of 1.4.2001 with S All Pur 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' Z15.[7] T16.43811. Cat.'B' fl[4] Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a.. All Pur 23.5.2002 U[5].[7] Z17.8524 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Holambi 22.8.2001 T15.[7] 716.438,11 Khurd Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Rajapur 22.8.2001 U[5].[7] fl[6].43811 Kalan Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Rajapur 27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' 1S..[7] Z19.13765 for Kalan Cat. 'B' fl[4].. Uniform category. Cat. 'C' fl[2].[3] Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. in some cases. Z19.1604 for Uniform category based on saé deed.• dated 25.5.2002 with Sanoth T15.[7] Z16.99042. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of. 1.4.2001 with Sanoth 2.7.1.2003 Cat. 'A' fl[5].[7] T19.13765. for Cat. 'B' 14.. Uniform category. Cat. 'C' fl[2].[3] Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2001 Cat. 'A' 15.[7] I Minimum price as of 1.4.2001. Minimum price as of.1.4;2001with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. Shahpur 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' T15.[7] fl[7].79781. Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.42001 of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @11.5%p.a. I now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by, learned counsel for the land owners andthe 2 submissions urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India).. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3• which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.P.W- 1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to T26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ T63.478 lakhs per.acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale dee.d in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated •...that th-organion had to pay the-ieeor the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the,requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the • vendee.

22. As. held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. 1st/Rob/ni & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mo/id. RaUfuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para13) sale transactions evidenced, in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section O 51A of the L.AAct 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special. circumstances wtiich have led the buyer, to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a gcod index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I do.not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the • learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kaia.n was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. fl[7],74,109/- peracre as against the price which comes • to t63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and,28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-13, LA.AppNo.266/2008 & connected matters • ' themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price — and ex-fdcie destroy each otheT

23. Jhus... apart fro.rn the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above_w_o_ui b.eadd1tionaI reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sate deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision ' cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No. 193/2006 °ratap Singh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UOT& Ors. It was highlighted thãfthe sale déédtherein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural • land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the I 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 S treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic, as indicative of the market value, bUtfOU1i'd that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3, the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected mafters • would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of 1,37,000/per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the.price 3,26,600/- per bigha and the'average woild come -to 2 131,800/- which was near a.bout the price of 2,15,160/- per'bigha, if 1/3rd would be deducted from the sum of 3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notificatio under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 • and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of the said, dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid. i.e 2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. " would highlight once.again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the lend price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutuaRii destructive evidence of the 2 sale.deeds reflecting fair, market value. Thus, the first argument as.noted in para 10 above isi •.' rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as 1 indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to I village --Narela, in view of the decision in Dharamb/r's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced would be dealt with by me at the end when I determine the fair market value' of lands for the villages in question. The second argument, contours whereof ares to be found in para II of my decision herein above, I need to 'n.ote the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the Issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UQI. 26.. But before that I must highlight that the decision in iL Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and the argument was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are. situated within the 'V 1 formed by NH-i and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnat Road and Rohtak Road.

27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring' agricultural lands, developing the same and transferring' perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts, in paras 11 to 27, the Supreme' Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence? ii. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-i) 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 S that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: SLN0.Plotsize Category Rate (per square metre) 26 sq m Economically weaker sections Rs 100 (EWS) 32 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125 48 sqrn LOW income group (LIG) Rs 150 60 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200 90 sq rn Middle income group (MIG) Rs200 The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the said provisional rates, should be taken as indicative of the ruling market price.

12. On careful consideration we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several, reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold fan-d-, -whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, •. playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc.. The development authority will also • incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout,.which includes the cost of, levelling the land, cost of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • underground drainage and sewage facilitieTàyiñwátër lines, electricity lines and developing •parks and civil amenities, wh3ch would be about 35%-of-the- ta+ue--uf-the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised 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 adequa.te for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus.. the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots... The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout.. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development • (for.roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be. far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.... If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure.will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.). Therefore the deduction, for the "development' factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped' land, will be far more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is • a4s&w&Hnown that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incLirred • by private developers, having regard-to higher overheads and expenditure. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residential- ------------------eum-commec4al--oc-iR4ustfTa1-; and-even-among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the • size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community --- fac-H+ties, parks and playgrounds_provided. - I Some df the layouts formed by the statutory..............develepment authortties may have large areas earmarked. for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical •.. substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for, roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor i's a variable percentage and the range of percentage itelf being very wide from 20% to 75%. Second factor. DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots in thesathe layout, depending upon the economic status. of 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 to S economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 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 middle income group and Rs 250 per square metre for person belonging to high income groups. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying, factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value' of those plots does not depend upon the cost, incurred by DDA._statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the applicants for allóthient. Third factor Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like ODA allot plots on leasehold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and.more substantial annual rent. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership). rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease isi long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a' tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the market value of the property. However, in view of the difficulties referred to'. above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." 2-8-. The-evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference No.117A/2009. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court with reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads:- "Ld. Counsel fos.tfte etLtioiiersjias: further submitted that DDA &..DSIDC aUotted 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 pie-determined rate of 3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-OS area measuring 70 Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as Z[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.

47. The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired. under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation wasawarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the l acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for, the 1961 acquisition L by providing an appropriate incrase at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This. Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbha! J!vanbhai Pate/IQ this Court. held: (5CC p. 751, para 15) NorrnalIy, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value. by providing appropdate escalation overth-ernvedmarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as —evidenced by s-ale transactions or aeq-uis-itions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions. qr. acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably •.. -......... sae ••i1d-1 saie transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a rellable standard if the gap is of only a. few years, may become unsafe and unrellable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a 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 increase." (emphasis supplied)

48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year,. as the newspaper reports disclose that. the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the 2007 rates. Caution is.therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition."_.... 35• It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the. Division Bench in Bedi R8m's se4supra) runs in the teeth of - the law declared by the Supreme Court in La!C'hana's case •(supfa)-- which decision follows---afi—earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGCLtd.Vs. Rameshbhai /ivanbha/ Pate!. 36; - iTrther instant case there is another good reason Ot to follow the law laid down in Bed! Ram's case (supra) for the reason I find that a; Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) SaraswatiDev/ & Anr. Vs. UQI & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in DharambIts case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ 2010/- per annum per bigha and gave he increase © 1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price wouldhave come to approximately 50,000/per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the sane at33,Oa0J-perbigha.

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, wEile discussing on the issue of the fair market value of subject lanis, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court 1 in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, MahenderS!ngh vs. U01& Org. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining ito agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one village with which 1 am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining td a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Latkd Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of 15..11.196was deterrnined@ fl,99,904.68 bigha which equals to 9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to • highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which pre for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the • Government was U0 Iakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266!2008 & connected matters • Page 45.of[7] determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. ----38.--- lf--we e—the--prfce—as—of-1-5.... iLi.g96 @ 9,59,542.46 per acre, pertainingto the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein above, I would be holistically discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 1 notifications in question.. 39.. The.fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh[5].Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e.. LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning T[1] lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce... The learned Reference Court has not accepted the.[1] testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave noproof. in support of his oral testimony.... The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possessionwas taken over on 4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, isfallacous no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3rd week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is sown around the first week or the second week of November each. yeas...

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 Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi till 31.3.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a pension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning T[1] lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 b'igha and 18biswa, the annual -1-nEome-would be !19 lakhs andone •fds4• strange that not a perinywas invested ma bank or a security wherefrom interest or. dividend could be earked. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined. No proof of number of workers employed, diesel, purchased to run the tubewell 1 if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by.canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis,' by capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of Ahe yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rigltly rejected

43. If there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as iT 1997 (1) SC 444 State of Gu/arat& Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to the yield from agricultural land, only then it would' be safe to determine fair market value by applying the principle of S capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, the capitalizing being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 times as was sought to be projected. The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle be adopted with reference to the. notification dated 24.1.2008. In para.[7] above, I have put in a tabular form, the[1] minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2000 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of 1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.82005. Thus, there would be no need to factor in the minimum price notWed under the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 yrawayfrcm the last year with whic,h I am concerned. the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the I first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 I years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would• be cI&sest-to--the--point foç w4idi• the mean• average has to be determined. I am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References with respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 wh.cre under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and has determined that based thereon the price as of said date work-s out to 17174,109/-3,ei aere-a-n&increasing-the-san for 8 months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price would be 19,16,037/- per acre rounded off, to 19,16,040/- per acre.

47. With reference to the Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004..05 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C' land. The sale deed 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 niarket value of Category 'C' land. As per the learned Land Acquisition • Collector, Z[1].[7] lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum Of.1.[7] lakhs per acie_would he regutre4to fill -up the depressions in Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were less vis-à-vis Category 'C' land. In other words, with reference to Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C' land would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-à-vis Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A'.land • - would be required to be increased suitably. I now enter the final stage, of my discussion. In 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 1 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 Acquisition Act 1894. I have, in para 37 above, noteda decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, MahenderSingh vs. UOI& Ors. wherein pertaining to -ige-B-va-fta, fair market-value determined as of 15.11.1996 is 1,99,904.68 per bighwhich equals to 9,59,542.46 per acre. The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i.e. the lands with which the Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural Delhi were identified for providing major health facffittes[7] schools., markets and rural. industry, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted th at! G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and that the Master Plan for Delhi notified in the year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed! in. the future to industrial and commercial, but had also ubserved that notwiThstandi -this; for the reason no zonal p was notifed as contemplated by Section hA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used fort agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to ' the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to,. agricultural use, same.was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being known to all as being required in the future for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capable. of being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so. expressly stating, would be a propOitTo.hThãt there is a difference between the undeveloped land having building potentiality in presenti vis-à-vis a land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was 9,59,542.46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. the notification dated 25.71997 where-under for agricultural lands inDeJ.hi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was Z10 lakhs per acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Ga/rat Sing/i vs. UOI & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land Was acquire.d pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was 9,51,12'1/per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lards in village Bawana It needs to be highlighted that while.. determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in villa 1ge Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations Of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development, work carried out in the surrounding S lands was considered. I would highlight that another Divisibn Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road,. i.e. village Singhola determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ fl,30,523/- per bigha i.e. T[6],26,510.40 per acre. The decision is.......epoeas...2.004 (4.)AD(Deth) 20 Ram Chandervs 'UO/and the same.DivisGnBenc.h, as per the decision 1r-eported--a-s 111 (2004) DLT 95 HukumS,nqh vs UOI, oertaining_toa notification dat'ed 14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value 1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. 6,73,104/- per acre.... 50 - The aforeäidudgments —noted- in the - preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued frOm time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in. para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant t[4] determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was T[4].65 lakhs per acre which roseto 10 lakh,s per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is T[5].35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as. of. 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, between the year. 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative •1 evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ga/rats case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above...

51. I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Ga/rats case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agriculturaHand in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was 95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at 9. 5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the • •second method of land prices of comparable lands in the SUFFOtinding rncludingpot-entfality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to lan n d. prices in adjoining viflageBhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based Thn.... Ie instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.N.o.266/2008 & connected matters instances and 'g vir!ig bene-f lit land pu -ce' would come to 10,03,364/- per acre (Referpara 31) The Court then considered the prices-notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus, worked out the mean average figure of 9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and 9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at f1O lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was 10,03,364/- per acre. I

52. The decision in Mahender Sing/i's case, pertaining to vilI.ageBawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Mastr Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Pla 1n so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentialit, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the faqt

59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was f13.82 Iakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was f15.[7] lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at f18.655 lakhs as'of 20.5.20.02 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per' annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately 1 • 16.40 !akhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at T15.[7] Iakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is 70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair ma.rket value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the I location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in. question yields to us a fair index as per which the I S minimum price notifiedby the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally notheld goOd idnce'tO work o..UfãTd 'price ona date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine. land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult I to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters I and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account while determining the market value of - land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001. The argument that village Narela had always been ' treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of Narela was in existence since long and this was recognized when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, vis-a-1 vis the adjoining villages f[2] per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambi,s case, loose sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational advantage was keeping in view the realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas'came under plotted development whic.hI included areas in North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with which l S am concerned today, the price differential faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent. I thus hold that, pertaining to the notifications r dated[1] 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001 the. land prices would have tobe determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 for the reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates 'could be detminéE. Pertaining to the notificatiohsdated 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003,.the land price needs to'be determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002' LA.App.Np.266/2008 & connected matters - because with ref&ence t -s-aW siatepriie it i appar-ent-that-land price as of said date comes to more than if determined with respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was f15.[7] lakhs per acre with effect from 1.4.2001. With respect to the price differential for Category 'A' and Category 'B' lands., noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village P00th Khurd and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the • notification dated 22.8.2001) I hold that vis-à-'is the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine the price for Category 'B' land. Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantially in the other,.a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value at 22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002,:- btrt.tneed to highlight that pertaming tothe same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court has deternrinecHthe fair market value at 17,85,240/- per acre and 1 find that pertaining to village Raja-pur---Kalan and Sanoth, pertathing to the notification dated 27.1.2003 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is 19,16,040/- in some cases and 19,13,760/- in a few, meaning thereby that much lesser compensation hasbeen worked out in the year 2003 vis-à-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Ga/rats case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. S Village Pooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000 With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified l6er acre is f13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitatly updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category'C lands, land price per acre comes to 17,74,109(-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to 18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11 0/o to reflect the price with reference to the sàe deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to T14.75 lakils per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 14,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done awa'y with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded. i 1s 14,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by m comes to a meager ?1,000/- per acre and thus qua Category lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Referenc Court. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of lndi and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the l appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has beew prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed.

66. - All Land Acquisftion Appeals filed by the land owners 'and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category "A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of z14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category. 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 14,37,280/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals' or 1 cross references which pertain to Category 'B" lands are dismissed. • 6L' lertaining to such appeal where the compensation[1] stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sgnder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93) DLI 569 shall be granted, except for the period i where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for I which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation I shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be I entitled to proportionate cost. I Village Holambj Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000

68. For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove I pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to I village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of, enhandng the compensation to Z14.75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that as per the award and even as per the reference all subject lands' were of uniform category. Needless to state appeals filedby the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are allowed by enhancing the compensation to T14.75 lakhs per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' ' explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. U012001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing • ------the a-ppeal or cross objection, for which period of delay. no interest on the enhanced compensation shau be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be 'entitled to proportionate cost. Village Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2000 Pertaining to_Viliae Bawan rating to the sa1me notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court iiasnot. enhanced the compensation, forparity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A' lands is.fixed at Z14.75, lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands at 14,38,125/- per. acre and noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowedt by fixing the compensation as hereinbéfore mentioned n'd needless to state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled tostatutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as SunderVs. UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there i1s a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no inteest, • on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled.to proportionate cost. Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000 With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per •, acre is Z13.82 iaichs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably • updated' to reach the date of the notification i.e. 11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 17,74,10.91-..,....rounded...o.ff tfl[7],75,000/...r acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price cor pes LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected mattrs. ' to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500I- per acre for Category W. lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mean, average price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to l[4],83,500I- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 14,46,413/- per acre for Category'B' lands.

71. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by'the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners ml appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing[1]." compensation payable for Categ,ory 'A' lands in village Khera[1] Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum of[1] fl[4],83,500/- per acre for Category 'A lands and 14.46i413/ per acre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertaining to this notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment; reported as Sunder Vs. U012001 (93) DLT 56.[9] shall be granted,[1] except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced! 'compensation shall be paid. These appellants.would be entitled' S to proportionate cost. Villacie Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001 72.. With reference to the notification dated 9.8,2001' wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 n- nimum puce notified per acre is fl[5].[7] lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be' suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e[1] 2.5.200 1 and with reference to the sale deed dated wherein for Category 'C' lands,' land price per acre comes 'to' 17,74,109/-, rounded off to T17,75,000/- per acre, and fo Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price corne LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected maers,. to 18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per aere—for- €a-teg-ory 'A ----Iands; and • decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average, price for Category 'A' lands in village Narela comes to 16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 15,76,087- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 15,85,570/- per acre and since for Category 'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by 9,000/- per acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category 'B' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the price standsdnhancedInfl[6],16,5pOJper acre._.. I

73. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-E' filed by 1the land •owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Narela, pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 in sumj of 16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order, for Category "B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as, also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 1O/ 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 LAApp.No.266/2008 & cannected matters interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These portionate cost. -ViltaeMoIambi1(a1an Notification dated 22.8.2001 -wherei-n-with-effect-from-14T20OI minimum price notified per acre is f15.70 Iakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 17,74,109/-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes 0 to ?18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to I[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to refteet-the pricewith' reference to the sale deed for the date 22:8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in _village Holambi Kalani comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by, 2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands..! Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons,. done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua', Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the i appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are I dismissed. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page64 of 74 Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of 16,74,500/- per acre and for Category. 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. Pertainin[9] to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQi 2001 (93) DLT 569 shalt be granted,.except for the perio[1] where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensatior shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would b entitled to proportionate cost. Villacie All Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001 wherein with effect from 14.2001 minimum price notified peç acre is t15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 17,74,109/-, rounded off to: 17,75,000/- per acre, and for' Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% 'the 'price comesi. to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices—'--comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and, decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with[1] ' reference to the sale deed for the date'22.8.2001; the mean 1 average price for Category-'A-1-ands in village Ati Pur cornes• to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to U[6],32,637.50 per acre for. Category 'B' lands. Noting' M, that theTearned Re rehëCourt_has,without any reasons 1 done away. with Category B' land.s and unifcrm price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court..... All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union in respect whereof grid hasbeen prepared and, labeled as 'GRID- H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Village Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is 15.70 Iakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22r[8]. 2001 and with reference to the sale deed.dated 25.5.2002 17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7],75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category. 'A' lands;' and, decreasing the said prices by 1,1% to reflect the price with F reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean.. aver-a-g-e--p-rice--fo-r-Catego-r-y 'A' comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%1 it cOmes to 16,32,637.50 per acre...for Category 'B' lands. Nti'thäfthJêàThed Reference Court has, without any...-'.. reasons doay with Category 'B' las d uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua q. Category 'A' lands I maintainthe_amoJnt al.Af a d 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-I' 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 RalaDur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 17,74,1091-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to 18.[2] Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes, to a meager 9,0001..p.er..acre..an.d thus q u a Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the 7~ rappeaisfiled prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereinabove are dismissed. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by.decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the. notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of 16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which• pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellahts or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost.. Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per i acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saiçl price to be suitably updated to reach the dté of the notification i.e. 7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 17.74,1ft9Jjoündéd off to. 17,75.0-O0/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes I to T18.[2] Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prfces comes--to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 1 i).. mean reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to 17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notification dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of 17,29,500/-. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-K' hereinabove are dismissed. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of 17,29,500/- and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period wh,&e there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation stall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2002 Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by rne hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined. by me,at 18,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a difference of 4 days between the date of sale and the notification I maintin that fOr the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,50/- per acreand I highlight that as per the award aridffie fefréncé all lands are in the same category. Appeals and_cross objections filed by the land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are al!owed and needless to state on the enhanced compensation the land owners would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per the. Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where' there is delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. ViHape Shahpur Garh Notfucat!on dated 23 5 2002 1 Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days I hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reportedas Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed.. Villaae Holambi Kalan Notification dated 23.5.2002 As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Cout The learned TT Reference Court has awarftei cothpensation in cum of 22,14,239/- per acre which I. have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have held that fair market value would be18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Unionof India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed iby the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to 18,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the -'i award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintaind. No costs. Village All Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002 Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village All Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notifidatin relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I detérmiie • fair market value payable at 18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India as per 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections fild by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing tIie compensation payable to fl[8],65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 00/ 2001 (93) DLT. 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid foI the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. •. Village Sanoth Notification dated 27.1.2003 Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the • land owners and Union of India as per 'GRJD-P' pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating. to village SanOth, I note LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters •. P1age 71 of 74 that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has p!aced the lands in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation..._ ---------

96. on the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price asof 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the -..............-.--.. same the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price corres to 19,43,500/-per acre and for Category 'B'. land the price corn.s to fl[8],94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the p-r __i_c _.ce_ comes to 18,47,539.68per acre. I find that the learnd Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market valüe 1 at 19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar wOuld be.the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The saidappeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payab!e in sum of.

4. 19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. Ubi 2001 (93) DLI 569 shall be paid.... sve and except in suh appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by moifyi-rg--the-r-eIata-ble---de€fee-4R the Reference Order reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land io ~Z[5]: 18,94,912.50 per, acre and for. Category 'C' land to 18,47,53968 per acre. Villacie RajaDur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2003

97. For parity of reasoning as per para 96 above pertaining to village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of 19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at 19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government asalsô by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lnds The acre and....for Category 'B' land the price comes to 18,94,[9] 12.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68 per acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands.. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of 19,43,500/- per acre andneedtess- to state—orrttre.... nhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001— 3+ —DLT-- &9--s*l be except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest -7/9 would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costas well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category'B' and Category lC? lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by reducing- the compensation -for---Category: 'B' land to 18,94,91250 per acre and for Category 'C' land 1 to 18,47,539.68 per acre.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE