Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate v. CHANDER KANTA & ANR

12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.51/o per annum vis-à-vis the previous price of fl[3].82 lakhs/acre to - -readi the figure of 15J faiths/acre. The price was next enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to T17.584 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 U[7].584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005. •. 9. Before noting the evidence relied upon by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court, it would be beneficial for the reader of the present decision, as i feel, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. I would highlight that from the side of, the land owners, each argument was in the alternative and it was urged that they would' be entitled to price determination as per the first • argument, failing which as per the second argument, failing which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by the.learn.e.d Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000, for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5.2001 for village Narela;'and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Ali. Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands'were of uniform character and it was urg,d that cbrrectiv.e_action is_required by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to tame, 11.5% increase per annum and 12% per annum"i.'ncreasewas ecss1v with reference to the dates of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; requiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annum in" t'We'TèatSecondly, the learned Reference Court was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus SWIM - 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 Cateqorv '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-1'/3, in Land Acquisition

0 Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also Th steeed 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 @ 26.75 !ákhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 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 28.89 lakhs/acre and • pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-112 the land price would be, •0 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 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 a'rg'um'éht, pertaining to village Na.rela, 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 ast: pertaining to a notification issued on 30.101963 under Section 4 of the Land 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 UQI vs. Dharamb/r & Ors. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in sum of 6650tdetermined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to 16,750/- per big ha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to 22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Couft was reversed bythe SupremeCourt and the one rendered 0 by the Reference Court was restored.. Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSIDC and DDA i e the implementing agencies, 0 which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate and for which learned counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, • which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged. Alternative to the second submission, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bed! Ram LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • • vs. Un/on of/nd/a, it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bedi Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6 0/q per annum with reference to the base price 16,750/- per bighá as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Cdurt in Q Dharamb/r's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till 31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various dates when the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition.Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with.whith I arn...concerned.. inthe prcent appeals. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to 56,88,759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle, market value should be • assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2.000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 and 23.5.2002.

13. The fourth argument advanced was, and for which • -refe-re-nce was made by learned counsel for the parties in the evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.No.268/2008 filed by the land owners and LAAPP.No.292/2008 filecLby Unio,roflndia, 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 produce from his lands he used to earn fl lakh per bigha per annum i.e. thefálr market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be 720 lakhs per bigha. 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. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, 0 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 which was osest in point of time whera under minimum land value was fixed by the Government' and the notification dated 24.1.2008 where under 53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18,12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing (3 with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 big ha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for 5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said sale deed in the following: words: (Refer jiara 17 of dec/s/on dated 7.1.2010/n LAC No.11 7A/2009): "If we add stamp duty in the sale price 3,69,9061- per bigha 5130017_± 70,160 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 b/swa) which comes to U[7], 74,1091per acre or 3,68,9061- per b/ghá. Further if we give 22% • in crease on said amount for intervening period between th& date when the sale deed was executed and the date of no-tifica-t-/on u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it • comes to 19,16,0371- (round off 19,16,0401-)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said 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 Jn_Category 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra N200 and that page No.56-57............ otthe award would evid thätiand comprised. in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 big ha 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 7.15.[7] lakhs per acre ba'sed 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 fl[4] lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another fl.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determined O whereof was fl[2].[3] lakhs per acre. ' It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the s'ale deed in question, the same had to be"f: Category 'C' lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price naa to be increased by T[1].[7] lakhs per acre for each category. '

16. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above 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 t'ny 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.

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

19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued. under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant fac Wthch vti ts, öüTd be my data for further analysis Put in a tabular form the data would as under:- I Village Date of LAC compensation 1 ADJ compensation Section 4 (in lakhs/acre) with (in lakhs/acre) with • Notification reasons reasons Pooth 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' I[3].82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd V 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 13.82 Z14.12995. Kalan Minimum price as Price as in Ga/rats V of 14.2000 case as of 15.11.1996 with •Holambi 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' U[5].[7] Cat. Uniform. Kalan Cat. 'B' 14 fl[6].43811. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Holambi 23.5.2002. ••. Z15.[7] 22.14239. Ka!an. Minimum price as Price.as in Ga/rai's of 1.4.2001 case as of 15.11.1996 with (compounded); Bawana 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' Z13.82. No enhancement Cat. 'B' 12.62 given. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000.Khera 11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' 13.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd, Cat. 'B' 12.62. Z14.40157. Minimum price as Minimum price as oI..L[4].2.000.. of L[4]:2000 with 12% increasep.a. Narela 2 5 2001 - Cat 'A' 15 7 Cat Uniform Cat.'B'14. 15.857. -- V V • • Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001. of 1.4.2001 with All Pur 22.8.2001 16.43811. ct:B' 14 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. AU Pur.23.5.2002 Z15.[7] t17.8524 Minimum price as. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001. of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a Holambi 22.8.2001 T15.[7] t16.438.11 Khurd Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Rajapur 22.8.2001 15.[7] U[6].43811 Kalan Minimum price as Minimum price as. nf 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Rajapur 27.1.2003 Cat. 'A'ZiS.[7] T19.13765 for Kalan. Cat. 'B' T14 Uniform category. Cat. 'C' 12.[3] Minimum price as in some cases. fl[9].1604 for Uniform category based on sale deed dated 25.5.2002 with Sanoth '7.12.2,001 T15.3. 16.99042. Minimum price as Minimum price as of[1].4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with Sanoth ' 2.7.1.2003 Cat. 'A' 15.[7] T19.13765. for Cat. 'B' fl[4] Uniform category.[1] Cat. 'C' 12.[3] Minimum price as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters '' 2011:DHC:18685:17 Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2001 Cat. 'A' 15.[7] Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 1723ü[9] Minimum price as of. 1.42001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. Shahpur 23.5.2002. Cat. 'A' T15.[7] U[7].79781. Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. I now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by !med counsel for the land owners and the 2 submissions urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India). The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW- 1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to T2635 lakhs per acre and the latter © 763.478 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 O 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 deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/200 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 3e of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that.the-organ1zation had to-pay the-p4ee-for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for the req uirement 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. Isti Rohini & 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 51A of the L.AAct 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would payto 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 0 may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if 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 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 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-1/3, LA.AppNo.266/2008 & connected matters themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price

23. Thus, a.partirom the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above_wouLd_b_eadditionaI 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 sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the 0 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 Prataø S/ngh (since deceased) thru LR[5] Vs. UOr& 0,-s. It was highlighted thãfthe sale déedfherein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic, as indicative of the market value, butfOUi1'd"1hat if the price therein was reduced by 113rd, the price arrived at would be the same as H would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of thesale 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 would come to 2,31,800/- which was •near about the price of 2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1131 would be deducted from the sum of 3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum I arrived at as áforesaidi.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 mutuall' destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair, market value. 7 24. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately, highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to village-Narela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced would be dealt with by me at the.end when P determine the fair market value of lands for the villages in question..

25. The second argument, contours whereof. ar & to be found in para II of my decision herein abOve, I need to note the EO 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 Lal Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and the argument was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V' formed by NH-i and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Q 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 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: SI. No.PIot size Category Rate (per square metre) 26sqm 32sqm 48sqm -_ 6osqm 90sqm Economically weaker sections (EWS) Low income group (LIG) Low income group (LIG) Middle income group (MIG) Middle income group (MIG) Rs 100 Rs 125 Rs 150 Rs 200 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 O depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold fäfld[7] 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 O exemplar plots are situated. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first Is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc. The development authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout,. which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage and sewage lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil amenities, which would-be about 3-5otaFue-of-the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of "deduction for development" may be far less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles.. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and 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 O 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 &weW[1] that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incUrred • by private developers, having regacd-to higher overheads and expenditure. • 21. 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, residentialcum-commerc4aI-er--i-R8ustfia1-; and- even- among residential layouts, thepercentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community •- ---faefFFties; parks and playgrounds provided. Some of. the layouts formed by the statutory deve-leprnent authori-ti-es may have Ia-rge'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 is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%. Second factor ODA and other statutory development authorities • adopt different rates.for allotment of plots in the same 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 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 persons belonging to high income groups. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by • DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the applicants for allotment. Third factor Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DOA allot pfots on leasehold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and.more substantial annual rent. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership). rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases; But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the market value of the property. 0 27. However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, At 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 fortfte_petitioiiersjias further submitted thatDDA & DSIOC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate. He has relied upon allotment letter dated 04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the pre-determined rate of 3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter dated 2606.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring 70 Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as T[3],989 per sq. • metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. (A~ plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela industrial at the rate of 650 sq, metres which is Ex. PW3/1 and another allotment letter dated 25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at Z3000 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 30% of the total area utilized, for •roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come. to (2531408 - 759422 = 1771986[6] per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. 1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as 0 petitioner has been given rate only fl,27,083/- per Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R.D.Sharma,Asstt._Managr,_DSIDC who has produced documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is 2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Totalarea under plots = 112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in the year 2000 at = which DSIDC sold plot 3000/- per sq. yards Total earning = 4083750000 Total expenditure = Z720526901 Total profit = fl363223099 i.e. Profit tomes to 247ffésq. adTh247O000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and the LAC has paid compensation @ Z327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of •12142917per bigha.____ •. •••.••______ Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has •awarded compensation @ Z327083 per LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 41 of '4 bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the said price is considered on account of land, the figure comes to Z654166. If the amount is deducted from sale - wicper bigha i.e. 24700000, the figure comes to fl815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we.do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors; being 3 in nUmber which were noted by the Supreme Court in Lal Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases. It is no doubt true, as held even—by the learned- Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in 4./ Chancis case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of, the lands. The third submission in the alternative was based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bed! Ram's case (supra), and the submission is as noted In para 12 herein above. The land owners require the price determined in Dharamb/ts case (supra) relating to the notification dated 4Q Mamurpur to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% per annum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 nOtifications in question. It be highlighted that in Bedi Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date as: of the year 1959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied the progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years. However, in La! Chancis case (supra), the Supreme 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) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be deterrnned with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at the cumulativelcompounded rate of 12% per annum. This. Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In oNGc Ltd. v. Rames/ibhai Jivanbhai PateiJ& this Court. held: (5CC p. 751, para 15) 15, •_NormaIly, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate -escalation over epmvedmarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by—s-ale transactions or aeq-uis+tions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions.qr. acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said. method is reasonably • --safe 'wee-'€h"'1"-rei+eI-on". 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 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 increase." 0 (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 disc-lose 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 C 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 Bed! Rai#-s---ca-se-4sup-ra.) runs in the teeth, of the law declared by the Suprerne Court in Lal ('hands case -(supr), which decision follows---an----earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) 5CC 745 •ONGC Ltd. Vs, Rameshbhai Ii vanbhai Patel.

36. -frrthe instant case there is another good reasiot to follow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's case (supra) for the reason I find that a; Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLI 650 (DB) SaraswatiDevi & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharamb/ts 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 the increase fl000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would have come to approximately 50,000I- Q per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at 33,0001- per bigha.

37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahenc/er S/ngh vs. UOI& Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one village with which 1 am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land O 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 15.11.196 was determined @ 1,99,904.68 bigha which equals to 79,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 2 5.7.1997 by which price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the = Government was T[1].0 Iakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government.

I. -- -- -y - 1,ji[ !u' 9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein above, I would be holistically discussing the subject while, opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notifications in question. The fowth argument, which was advanced only by Q Sh.S.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 fl lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce The learned Reference Court has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave noproof in support of his oral testimony.

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 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 C) depressions for land in Category 'B 1' and further sum of t[1].[7] _•lakhs per acre would be required to 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.

48. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the Q 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 271.2003 i.e. the dates on which the notifications were issued underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. -• 49. I have, in para 37 above, noteda decision of a Divisioti Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender 5/pg/i vs. 1JO/& Ors. wherein pertaining to — iJfe-wanp fair marketvafue' determined as of 15.11.1996 is 1,99,904.68 per bigha which 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 faciIiti"es schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted that G T Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were provithng 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 — 7-observed that notwiThstffn'ding this, for t'he reason no zonal' p. was notified as contemplated by Section hA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used for 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 propöition'that there is difference between the undeveloped land having building'' U potentiality in presenti vis-a-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 for agricultural lands in.Delhi 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 Gaira! Sincjh vs. UQI & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired 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 9,51,121/per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to be highlighted that while. determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations Of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development, work carried out in the surrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V' i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Sing'hola. 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-.......2.004 (4) AD:(Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs[1] (JO/and the —sameDivisiGn-Bench, as per the decision-1r-eported--as 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh vs. (JO!, pertaining_toa notification dated 14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ 1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. 6,73.104/- per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters PageS! of 74 çg' -- 0 - The aforeädjudgmentsnotecj_ 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[6] determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricuftural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 274.1990 minimum price was T[4].65 lakhs per acre which rose to f1O lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is 75.35 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 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 agriculturalland 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 landand having good hrigatibn facilities and thus capitalized the land price at 9.[5] Iakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land. prices of comparable lands in the -s-ufrotfldng-a-re-as including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and basedn Satê instances found that based on the said sale instances and would come to 10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 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 T10 Jakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was U0,03,364/- per acre. Q

52. The decision in Mahender S/ngh's case, pertaining to vitlaga.Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the.year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which O the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Ga/rats case and Mahender S/ncih's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality betwen 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acc&eration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that _piJrsnanLtoJiasterfIanJor Dethi 1990 faLr argarea came to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the, market got saturated.

53. The empirical evidence in the instant case; apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon,.being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the Q sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some 'references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be 19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for 5,39,690/- and 70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that 6,09,850/- (5,39,690/- + 70,160/-) were spent would yield the price 17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. o 54. Thus, the best which could be said as the most favourable situation for the land owners would be that with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C' lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would be 17,74,109/-. per acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land the price would 'have to be suitably enhanced and here we find another area of dispute for. the reason, as noted by me hereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA.:App.No.266/200 & connected matters. sometimes f[1].[2] lakhs per acre, sometimes fl.56 Iakhs per acre and sometimes T[1].[7] Iakhs per acre from the price of Category - ' lands to determine the price for Ctegory 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C' as wefithe price has been deducted further by fl.[7] Iakhs per acre. Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the catcgorn is on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths same to be leveled and this would_require money to be spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that T[1].[2] lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that t[1].56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that T[1].[7] lakhs per, acre would be spent? There is just no clue. In Ga/rat Sing/i's case (supra), the price differential worked out was 25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Ga/rat Singh's case pertained to the date 15.11.1996. In Ga/rat Sing/i's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was 9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land. I thus hold that Ga/rat Sing/i's case should be my guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as well and thus I hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C' have to be differentiated on price, the differential should be 25%. Thus, if fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to f17.75 lakhs per aCTwGUd'bthepriCefOr Ctbry 'C'1andirrv1ilage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No.266/2008. & connected matters, admittedly pertains to a Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land would be 18.20 lakhs per acre and for 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 the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was f13.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was T15.[7] lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at 18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately

16.40 !akhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at 15.[7] lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is 70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of 0 rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held gOodvidencetO work Utàid price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 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 O Narela was in existence since long and this was, recognized when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, vis-àvis the adjoining villages t[2] per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambir's case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational advantage was keeping in view the realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which included areas in North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with which I am concerned today, the price differential faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent. I thus hold that, pertaining to the notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8,2001 and 7.122001 the land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with reference to the sale deed dated 25 5 2002 for the reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates could be determined. Pertaining to the notifications.16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003,.the land price needs tobe determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 because with reference to-the -s-atdáTé pi*e it-is apparent that land price as of said date comes to more than if determined with respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was 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 Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001) I hold that vis-à-vis the said C 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, -- - t• to-tightThatpertang ro- the same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned -_ Reference Court has deterrnined- the fair market value at 17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village • - Rajapur-Kalan and Sanoth, pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is 19,16,040I- in some cases and 19,13,760/- in a few, L[1] meaning thereby that much lesser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-à-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Kalan paining 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. VillaQe P00th Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000 With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is f13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 and 0 with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Catègori '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 f18.[2] lakhs per acre and fUrther increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to • 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to T14.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5% 1 it comes to 14,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded, is 14,37,280/- per, acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager I,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.. All Land. Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in, the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as'GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed.

66. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the nd 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 t14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 14,37,280/-. per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. 67; Ptaining -tO such appeal where the compensation O 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 appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000

68. For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to 0 village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensation to T14.75 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 filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are allowed by enhancing the compensation to T14.75 takhs per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 1)012001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing ----------the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2000 Pertaining to_village Bawan.,xeJating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court ha[5]..not, enhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A' lands is fixed at T14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands at T14,38,125/- per acre and C, noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and needless to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to.statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition 1)0/ 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost, o Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price[7] notified per acre is T13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 17,74,109j,. r..unded....off t117,75,000/. per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected mafters. 6? to 718.[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 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to 14,83,500/- 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 in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing. compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining tothe notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum of Q 14,83,500/7 per acre for Category 'A' lands and fl[4],46,413/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 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. (3 VillaQe Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001 72 With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is 15.[7] lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date- of the notification i.e. 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25;5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands: land price per acre comes..to fl[7],74,109/-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA kppNo 266/2008 & connected matters to t18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes—to--1-8&5,500/- per aere—for-Categot-y IALlands; 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% 1 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 byrne is less by 9,000/- per acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category 'B.' lands the price determined 0 would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the

73. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-E.' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for. Category 'A' lands in village Narela pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 in sum of 16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order for Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners 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. UO/ 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 & connected matters interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These to proportionate cost. appellants would be entitled - Notification dated 22.8.2001 -wher&n- ith-effect-froin--L4T2UOI -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 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 to 18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices (3 comes to I[8],65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reffeet-the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22:8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in _village Holambi Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons,. 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 whereverfiled by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum 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, UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for 0 which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitledto proportionate cost. Village AU Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is 15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification 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 to fl.8.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and • decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date22.8.2001; the mean • average price for Category-'-A--1ands in village All P.ur 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 thEtearned Rëfrërice Court has,_without any ceasons, 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 f1ia -------' -----in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. 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 Z15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed.dated 25.5.2002 vherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl[7],75,000/- per ac're, 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 reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean aVerage_price for Category 'A' lan4s4n-vllI e–HetambH(hrd 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. — NDtFñthftffé"jéäj-ned Reference Court has, without any reasons doneaway with Categoryia' Jands 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 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. 1 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 Rafapur 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 T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. Q 22.8.2001 and withreference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 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 T18.[2] lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' 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.mecmes. to a meager 9,000J-..per....acre.,and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. -

85. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters aea.1s:-fHedby1andown-ers'1m-respectvvhereof_gr been prepared and !abeled 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 fl[6],43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such ppeals 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 UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saiçl price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 17,74,1O_9Jiroijnd,ed off...to. 17,75,0-00/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.[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 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to 17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notification dated 7.12.200 1 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of17,29,500/-. 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 0 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. UQi 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellantsor cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2002 Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by me hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at 18,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a difference of 4 days between the date of sale and the notificatio.n I maintain that fOr the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- K[9] peracreand I highlight that as per the award aridffiereTerence all lands are in the same category. Appeals and_cross objections filed by the land owners as perthe: 'GRID-L' are allowed and needless to state on. the enhanced compensation the land• owners would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as SUnder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appealsor 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. Village Shahpur Gárhi Notification dated 23.5.2002 Q 92. 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. UOI 2001 (93) DLT569 except in such appeals or cross objections fi.led by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 23.5.2002

93. As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition -77 Collector and the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awardei.. cornpensation in ctim of, 22,14.,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have held that fair market value would be 18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to 18,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. Village AH Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002 Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali •Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at fl[8],65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross.objections filed, by Union of 'India as per 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to 18,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOi 2001 (93) DLT 569' shall be paid save and, except in such appeals or cros objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid fo the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Village Sanoth Notification dated 27.1.2003 Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as per 'GRID-P' pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village SanOth., I note ) w&I that the.learned Land Acquisition Collector has placed the lands in 3 categories and. I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the Iands as of uniform category while awarding compensation. --- --- ----- -----------

96. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the -----------sa-me--witi--reference----to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to 19,43,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price comes to 18,94,[9] 12.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at 19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The saidappeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of 19,43,500/- 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. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not bepaid 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 müdifyg—ther-eiatable---deec-ee---ifl the Reference Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to V 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' land to 18,47,539.68 per acre. Village Ralapur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2003 V 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 VC0Urt has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of 19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at 19,1V[6],040/ per acre by treating all lands of uniform category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' landg pri-ee comes-t,500/- acre andrCàtegory '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 V fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India M 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 - V 19,43,500/ per acre and nedIess tostate_orrthe Vén hanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. (101 be paid s-avd except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. ProportIonate costa[5] well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by 111ce&idng the compen&tion -for-- Category 'B' land to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' land to 18,47,539.68 per acre.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)

JUDGE AUGUST 23, 2011 mm/dk