Union of India v. Niraj Aggarwal & Anr.

2. The instant decision decides the issue as to what should be the fair.market value of agricultural lands in the said villages as of the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2QOO, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003. Needless to. state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time; on.,. a·foresald-aates under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act · 1894; vast tracts of land in said 10 villages were acquired arid _save _and except lands in the Revenue Estate of village Narela where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential and partly industrial, in the other villages, acquisition was· for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters. Page 13 of74 ~-- I.I ·:I.'road or freight complex. The reason why such large tracts of lands were needed was to set up c:m industrial estate pursuant to a decision taken to shift all industries operating in nonconforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas.

3. I must highlight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in all appeals.Jiled by them c:~s also cross-objections wherever filed, and·similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and except pertaining to village Narela, where an additional - -.. argument was advanced; being that, the township.of Narela h~d. i existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Narela had a better value and for which it was. urged that way back in the year 1963 when lands in the revenue estate of village Narel~. and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of ~2/- per · sq.yd. vis-a-vis the price determined for lands. in village Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight that learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurpur comprised the same·revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi being in Mamurpur:.4.. The position of the awards made from time to time and the relatable notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have been detailed by me while noting the various Land Acquisition Appeals and the Cross __Objections as per the - - -.. ·------··········-·----· ·-. -··· index hereinabove and thus I need not repeat the same.

5. A perusal of all the awards announced from time to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from ti-me -te time notifying the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi and wher~ver it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 14 of74 Jc; L_.J,,,- ~-- ~· 4' t<f6', the land value has been appropriately depressed an-d this is to be found in a few awards where lands have been put in. 2 or 3 categories· te·. Category 'A', Category '8' and Category 'C'.

6. A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the learned Reference Court has ·determined fair market value on different principles and for purpos~ of clarity I may note the basis on which the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court have determined the compensation payable. The same would be as under:-

Ufldef.. Section 4 of the Land· Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against tl[3].82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and tl[2].26 lacs per. acre for Category '8' lands awarded by the learned Land.· Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the policy for minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. ~13.82 lacs per acre ano·has granted increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000 ·· till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fair market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and has ignored that there was Category '8' land for which· he ·had to make necessary adjustment.

I. i learned Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value i_n sum of ~15. 7 racs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the -same price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category ~B'.lands determined the sa.me at ~14 lacs 'pe-r·crrr~ - The learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price notified by. the Government as of 1.4.2001 and gave appreciation for a period of 1 month for the reason the notification under Section 4 of the ·Land Acquisition Act 1894 is dated 2.5.2001· and enhanced the compensation to ~15,85,700/- per acre which has· uniformly· awarded.. ------ ·-- ---·---------

1. Pertaining to th~ same notification dated 22.8.2001... pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Rajapur Kalan. were acquired the reasoning and the fair market value determined by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court · is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd I and Alipur save and. except in this village the acquired land was of uniform category.

I pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Alipur' · YV.~re acquired ·the learnecj____~~_!'}_q___ Acq_"(Jisit!on.. ~-~I lector has awarded compensation at the rate of ~15. 7 lacs per acre based on -the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which p·rice has been adopted as the base by the learned Reference Cqurt and after ·--------granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters (l 2011:DHC:18688,i i' i.,.,., L:',.,_~-. 1.4.2001 till 23.5.20.02, the price determined is ~17 185,240/- p@.f acre. 0;-- Pertaining -tc- the notification dated. 27.L2003 whereto 3092.04 bigha land rn village Sanoth ·.ano learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the.. minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the same value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villagesi.e. ~15.[7] lacs per acre and for Category '8' lands in sum of,~14 lacs per acre and for Category 'C' lands in sum of ~12.[3] lacs per -a.cre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different reasoning in some impugned decision and different in a few. In some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted the minimum price in sum of ~15.[7] lacs per acre as of,E[4].200l a--A€1-. appreciating. the same by 12% per annum for a period of 666 days has fixed fair market value at ~19,13, 765/- per acre which - -has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining · to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue ·estate of village· Rajapur Kalan was purchased for ~5,39,690/-.

7. Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector as:also the learned Reference ··court have relied upon the n·otifications · issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi, let me therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time. pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same would be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- -------. -·. ··-------··-·-·- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 20 of74 2011:DHC:18688. il •, ' '. i I:• ~b "INn n:::~t-o nf Eff,...,..+-r,,.. "'""'+-"" o,..;,..,.... % I --..,- ~. -~--· v...... ~-~~................ Notification of the price (in increase iakhs/acre) per annum 1.. 3.5.1990 27.4.1990 4.65

2. 25.7.1997 1.4.1997 10.0 11.[5] - --- ~--------- ·····- ···- ·---- -·--· ·-····--·· - ------· ·--·-

3. 24.9.1998 1.4.1998 11.[2] 11.[2]

4. 21.11:2000 - 12.32

5. 9.8.2001 1.4.1999 12.16 11 1.4.2000 13.82 11

6. 9.8.2001 1.4.2001 15.[7] 11.[5]

7. 30.8.2005 30.8.2005 17.584 2.98

8. 24.1.2008 18.12.2007 53 89.51

8. From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum · price was las_t fixed ~.e.f. 27.4.1990 in sum of ~4.65 lakhs/acre it was increased after · nearly 7 years to ~10 lakhs/acre and the ·annual increa-se comes _to 11.5% per annum {simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of ~11.[2] lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to ~12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issu~d the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to ~12.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% _P~f --~-OD.LJfD with reference to the price determined as of..,. 1.4.1998 and vide same notification_:___the___:~___price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to ~13;82 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis~a~vis the previous i.e. ~12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by.11.5% per annum vis-a-vis the previous price of tl[3].82 lakhs/acre to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 21 of74 --;---·:.. -·· --- -- -- --- ----- -- -----~---:--------,----------,------------ \. H -fe~-h J~ _ftgure Jif ~15:.:Z~-l.akb.stacre:- ---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 t17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005.

9. Before noting the evidence retied 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, failiTg 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 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 un-iform character and it wasJJ[ged that corrective~_ction is requir_ed by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time te>_tl!J1e,__)1.5%__increase per annum and 1 ")0£ f\Z:ir -::snnr lr\"'ctncrease was excessive--with reference to the g~tes_ of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; reqUiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annum --·In tne Teasf-5econdly, the learned Reference Cqurt was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No266/2008 & connected matters Page 22 of74 )~ !:. I I, I,. ! ~J I ·.·.I ·,,I ·~~ requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for· such lands which were put in Category '8' and Category 'C' by the Land Acquisition -Coliector 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 '8' 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 ignori·ng the 2 sale deeds _dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition · Reference which is subject matter of LA."APP.No.780/2010 as atso th-e--:s-ale:··tteErd 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 lakhs/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 ~32.[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-1/2 the land price would be_ t63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the s~id 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to_ determine the fair market VC'llue 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 th~ Land Acquisition Act 1894 by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument, pertaining to village Narela, it was- urged that __ the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page23 of74 i I,·.! ! __,_ __' il -.-,:.i c r - I ~ v, and for which the argument was that when in the-~---- ____ pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference c-6-urt ·had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village_ Mamurpur- Narela ·by giving a. price benefit of ~2/- per sq;yd. 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 ~16, 750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to ~22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reve-rsed by-the Supreme-Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored. 11.. Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, hav~ng a.ccepted that dut to B~~ana ~ndu~trial Estate, Nar~la _ Res1dent1al Scheme an Roh1n[1] Res1dent1al Scheme havmg resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized anddeveloped 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, '. 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. -

12. 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 Bedi Ram _LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 24 of74 2011:DHC:18688; i ~ I _r__, ~ I I !!.___, ~ < I I 'II. (- '-.... )to vs. Union of India, it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12o/o per annum for different periods. Sh.I.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~ value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing · the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 25 of74 ~J I -.-----;:.'. _i_::: ~':i'::i J:.:1 ' ',:;-! ' I. testimony of Ram Kishan to the e_ffect that by selling agricultural, produce from his lands he used to earn ~1 lakh per bigha per --_- ann-um i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kisha·n and others were acquired. It was _thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be ~20 lakhs per bigha. 1 may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by _ ·Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishanand others i.e. the appellants _if"l 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 arid urged that for each of the notifica-tion in question the fair- market-value ought to have been determined with reference to the· notification ________,w<.!!..Jh'---'-'i~ch was cJns._est in point of time where under minimum landvalue 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.-

15. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing witt) which, in some References the learned Ref~rence Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for ~5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said sale deed in the following; words: [Refer para 17 of the decision dated 7.1.2010 in LAC No.117A/2009): "If we add stamp_ dUty in the sale price ~3, 69, 9061~ _per bigha ({5,391690~_:_+ _70,160 _= 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes-to~17,74;109!­ per acre or ~3,68,9061- per bigha. Further if we give 12% LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters· )f _I·, j.c_l. _j:. ~ I (,~~ <= ~ increase on said amount for intervening period between the: date when the sale deed was executed and the date of --- ·notifica-tiotJ u/5· 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003} i.e. 8 months it comes to "tl[9],16,037/- (round off"tl[9],16,040/-)." 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 bisw~_!_~nd was. put in_~~-~~Q-~_ry '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 to. the ·---------land being comprised in Khasra-wcL200 and tha't p-age No.56-57 ·-------or the award would eviefence-lliat-tc:H'ftl 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 "tlS.[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 "tl.[7] lakhs per· acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was "t14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another "tl.[7] lakhs per acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determined whereof was "t12.[3] lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the same had to oe for Category 'C' lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' rands the price haa to be increased by "tl.[7] lakhs per acre for each category.

16. 1 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. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 27 of74 ~'- 2011:DHC:18688:,:'1,-'-'-----'--- !·i:', ~·....! ' ~ 7" J ~~ ''i !!..J T i ~ -i n ~­ \ '~

17. _- In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, 1 have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court pertaining to--the 8 notifications issued under Secti_~n 4 ~f the Land Acquisition Act- 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence my journey to _deal with the arguments advanced keepjng 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 10villages and 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, 1 think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 29 of74 CT:<.. ', ' -~ " I I,.,. ~ I n ! I T[1];:: I ":; ':1 '',1: I ?; I i I:I:::1 ·-.- ( "~ c - --~fac;_ts,whichwoulo~_he-my.data f-Or--further analysis. Put in a.·.......-- ------·-·----··-------------- ··------- tabular form the data would be as under:- Village Pooth Khurd Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan Date of LAC compensation IADJ compensation Section 4 (in lakhs/acre) with I(in lakhs/acre-) with Notification - re-asons 7.8.2000 ICat. 'A' ~13.82 Cat. 'B' ~12.26 Minimum price of 1.4.2000 reasons Cat. Uniform. ~14.3728. as-+Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with l2% increase p.a. ~14.12995. 17.8.2000 I~13.82 Minimum price as Price as in Gajrals of 1.4.2000 case as of 15.11.1996 with -· 12% increase p.a. 122.8.2001 ICat. 'A' ~15. 7 Cat. Uniform. Cat. '8'~14 ~16.43811. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a.. I I Holambi 1 23.5.2002 Kalan ~15.[7] Minimum price as ~22.14239. Price:as in Gajrals of 1.4.2001 case as of 15.11.1996 with 12% inc;:rease p.a. (compounded) - - Bawana 7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' ~13.82- No enhancement Cat. 'B' ~12.62 given. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 · l ---· Cat. 'A' ~13.82 Cat. Uniform. ---- IKhera li[1].9.2000 I- - -- --, Khurd Cat. 'B' ~12.62, ~14.40157. Minimum price as IMinimum price as otl_,_4~200ll____:____ I of L4o2000 with 12% increase p.a. \!; ··-· Narela 2.5.2001 Cat. 'A' ~15. 7 Cat. Uniform. Cat. 'B' {14 ~15.857. Minimum price as Mtnimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 30 of74 )> I l ~~- ----- - ---- 0_ ~:::!:~ r I L i "Cl '' '' I - Ali Pur 22.8.2001 Cat. 'A'~15.7... ------· ···-·. C:af-'s· ~14 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Ali Pur.23.5.2002 ~15.[7] Holambi 22.8.2001 ~15.[7] Khurd Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Rajapur 22.8.2001 ~15.[7] Kalan Minimum prlce as --·-----···--·-.. _of 1.4.2001 Rajapur 27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' ~15. 7 Kalan Cat. 'B' ~14 Cat. 'C' ~12.[3] Minimum price as ofl.4.2001 Sanoth 7.12.2001 ~15.[7] Minimum price as ·of 1.4.2001 Sanoth 127.1.2003 Cat. 'A' {15.[7] Cat. 'B' ~14. I Cat. 'C' ~12.[3] LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 7-b f16.43811. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a.. ~17.8524 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with. ~16.43811 f16.43811

1. ~19.13765 for IU~i~orm cat.egory.l Mm1mum pnce as of 1.4.2001 with in some cases.

2. ~19.1604 for Uniform category -based on sale deed dated 25.5.2002 with ~16.99042. ~19.13765 for Uniform category. Minimum pdce as of 1.4.2001 with Page 31 of74 G J;:,'! • (- \..__.. c= Shahpur 16.5.2001 Cat. 'A' ~15.[7] ~17.-25369.. ~- ---·.--- -- Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with --- ···-··---··· compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. Shahpur 23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' ~15. 7 ~17.79781. Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4~2001 of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.~...

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

21. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW- 1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ~26. 75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ~63.478 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 thaf 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.68/200S had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased _for religious purpose and was being used for a reHgious 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 aNon Government · Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 32 of74 I -~ '.. I I,,[1] ' ':. i -'cl --;----;-j;-:--~:I "I ~.-l;_ )8 of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the oraanizatkm had to oav th~ -nrin~ fnr 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. Jsti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para ·6) and 2009 {14) SCC 369 Mohd. Rai.Jfuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer {Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act -1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an,------=a.:__::re=a=----.!..Cfo,__,r'------'the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyer_ to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay- to an equally well informed seller without- being influenced by any. special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece qf 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 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 - I 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 l~nd 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 ~63.478 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.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 33 of74 ---- (- I ~. '• T[1] " ) /-~ \___ j~ ~: i J ':i "':,:: )j ~ themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful _price a11d ex-facie destroy each other.:2~_____Thus,. Q_Qart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para. 21 above w...o.uld_b_e_itdditio_nal 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 betvyeen 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 buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.I.S.Dahiya being_ the decisjon dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batc.h of appeals,-lead matter being.. LA.App.No.l93/2006 Pratap Singh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. VOl & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deecrfherein 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 p·aras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bene~, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own ·logic. as indicative of the market value, but___fCfOncr-that if the price therein. was reduced by 1/3rd, the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 34,of74 -- 1:' ' i till I:··' I ------:-----:--:---------::---- --···. -··..... ···-·---·······-···--·-· ·-·-···-.. 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&Thad purchased the land gave the.price_.~3,26,600/- per bigha and theaverage would come.to f[2],,31,800/- which was near about 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 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995... ~~ and 16.11.1995 and the Cou_rt 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 t_he basis for if it ~as so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. -. i. would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsk mutuanv destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair_ market· value.

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 I determine the fair market value of lands for the Villages in question.

25. The second argument, contours whereof are· to be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 35 of74 J '' 1: I:1.. !:,;), -- ~: i r '----' / 'I, ' lab~st pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the.issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15} SCC 769 La/ Chand vs. UO/. 26_. But before that 1 must highlight that the decision in La/ ' - Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basjs, residential plots were allotted 1 • • for residential housing scheme and- th.e ar_gument 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-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Rpad.

27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing the same and-- transferringperpetual 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?

11. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated that the plots were in_ a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: - --- -51. No. Plot size Category Rate {per square metre)

1.

2.

3. -4-.--

5. ----·- ----- - 26 sq m 32 sq m 48 sq f!l 60sq m 90 sq m Economically weaker sections (EWSr ----------- --- Low income group (LIG) Low income group (LIG) Middle incom~ group (MIG) Middl~ income group {MIG) LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Rs 100 Rs 125 Rs 150 Rs 200 Rs 200 - ~l ',! i i I::I I I J.,I:;: -;~ ','1 •',·:1 J L The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the said provisional rates, should be taken as indicative -ofthe 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 t'o 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 tend; -whereas the aftotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor

13. The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential -for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nat'ure of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated.

14. 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

15. 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, ttv LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 37 of74 <1 ~~ I "' I _j J ·:::1 I.!:; I l J I C- -~ underground drainage and sewage facilities;--Ta)iin~f-watef­ lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil amenities, whieh would be about 35% of the value 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.

16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the peccentage 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 isset 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 tV\Io factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20o/o plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots.

17. 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.

18. 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 si4e 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.

19. 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.}

20. 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 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 38 of74 ~? 2011:DHC:18688, ___ !. ' with reference to the price of a small plot jn an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is afs-o---weft--fffi-owtt that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost- incurred by private dev:elopers, having reg-a-r:4--tG- 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, residential- ~7 --------tC;t;Ut+ffiH-tC;t;O~mf-tlmH-H:::e~rcial or industr+a+; -a-fl& even-among residential __ layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to· the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community ( -. i.. ---------facilities, parks and playgrounds provided.

22. some:ar-·the -layouts formed by- --the- ·statutory d:evelopment authorffies may have farge 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 75o/o. ! __'j I ':] I.! -;~- ~ I I ' ~--: I I - --------... !;_':)--____ '-- Second factor.

23. DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots In the samelayout, 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.

24. 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-applicants1orallotment. - -------·------ - Third factor LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 39 of74 !:i J J ·1 rl I ~~ -;: I I -i ~. J l, r l-.:::._- / - L ~s- ·25. Some development authorities allot plots· on freehold basis, that is, by way. of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DOA 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.

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

27. However, in view of the difficulties referred to · · above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots 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 extractin·g from LAC Reference No.ll7A/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 tQL1b_e__p_e.tition.ers_b_as further submitted. · that DDA & DStDC affotted plots in Nareia Residential Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate~ He has relied upon allotment letter dated·04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela. which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the: pre-determined rate of ~3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/l, Allotment lett€r dated 26.06.2003 ·of plot no.SS Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring 70 Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as ~3,989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 40 of74 ' ---.:..._ I i,1!,, I " 'I. ( 'I l'-plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela ____ Industrial Comp~~x_at the rate o( ~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 ~3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW[9] Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PW11/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent ·that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = ~248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ ~3208 would be ~2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized for roa.ds, 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. 4' ·~1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, Y.1here as J petitioner has been given rate only ~3.27,083/- per _J'; big---n-a.------- 1 Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits 2~ I l l -- (- ---------. ··---···-·earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW[7] R.D. Sharma, Asstt. Manager, DSIDC who has produced documents--E-x. PW7/A (Colly). Ld _--Counsel has argued that total _expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is ~2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area under plots - 112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in - ~3000/.;. per sq. yards the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot Total earning ~4083750000 I - Total expenditure - ~720526901 Total profit - ~3363223099 ·i.e. Profit ·comes to -~2470--p-er sq. yarCfOr---~24TOOOO per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and the LAC has paid compensation @ ~327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of ~214291.[7] per bigha.__ Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ ~327083 per- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters P.age 41 of7tl I ~ I J I ~: l Yr ~ bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the said price is considered _on account of land, the figure--·· comes to ~654166. If the amount is deducted from sale _psice__per bi_g_ha_ i.e. ~24700000,.the figure comes to ~1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same."

29. No'IJ, \4 Je 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 !n the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the ( Supreme Court in La/ Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of Jand in the subject cases.

30. It is no doubt true, as held even bv 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.

31. I hold that the le·arned Reference Court, keeping in view. the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in La! Chands case (supra} has rightly rejected said evioence 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 rnarket value of the lands.

32. The third submission in the alternative wa.s_ based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram's case (supra), and the submission is as noted tn para 12 here:in. above. The land owners require the_prlc~--" det~rm.ined in Dharambits case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 42 of74 i ! i jj J. ! I I ·.[1] jl _j !.,.,. ~a to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% peLannum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question.

33. It be hi.ghlighted 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 spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied the progressive. increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per ann·um till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years.

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

47. The appellants conten<;j 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 determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12%· per annum. This Court had occasion to examine this issue·recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai }ivanbhai PateLlO this Court · held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) ···---~~~--Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value. by providing --------- ··---- appr opt iate -escalation overthe-proveu-market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions}, where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr. acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 43 of74 2011:DHC:18688::I J _, r_ ''- '·1, I i ~· ---,.., ! -- J. tt[1] ··-sate · ··. where ·c----·-The~~·::~·~~--...refted..'OO sate~·-----,----+ transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a ·few years, may becotne unsafe and unreliable · standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the ari·nual 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 disc~ose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the. country came down by more than 40o/o 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 wiil'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 Rant-~se-{-supra) runs in the teeth of the law decla-red by the. Supreme- Court in La! Chands case (supra),· which decision foHows- an earlier decision of tile Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai /ivanbhai Patel. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page44 of74 •. I I '! I ~-l ~I ~ ••• 1 _j j~ ····I',, ·' ' uJ 5D -- 36.---- 111 the i11stant case there is another good reason ·cndtto follow the· law laid down in Bedi Ram's case (supra) for the reason I fi.nd that a_ Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 {2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in viflage Mamurpur - Narefa, did not apply the progressive· percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambir's case (supra) as of the year 1963, which. would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur- Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ ~2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ {1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would· have come to approximately {50,000/per bigha ·but the Jearned Division Bench determined the same at {33,000/- p.er higha.

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, Mahender Singh vs. UOI & Drs. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana~ and I highlight that one village with which I am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fairmarket value as of 15.11.19-9-6 was determi-ned @ {1,99,904.68 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 price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the •· Government was {10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266i2008 & connected matters Page 45 of74 I i::: l.,: (c--- ' "' ·:.:.!J I \" ~I -, c~ ' determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government.

38. · If I v,;ere to take the price as of 15;-ll;i§% @ ~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 ho~istically discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the anotifications in question. 39.. The Jourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan · and others, the appeUants 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 ~1 lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce.

40. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the. testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no' proof in support of his oral testimony.

41. The reasoning of the Court that there was no- c_rop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on 4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to th·e family were not ·being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year; is falladous 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 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 46 of74 s-r 2011:DHC:18688. i 1 -, - - · · - · " 17": ~,, ' ~u I ~' ~ •' i ~,j ',,rl, ''-- (~,_. "~·- --·-·----··--··. S'.( sown around the first week or the second week of November each year.__

42. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led -···-····---·-------·in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he was working as an Administrative 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 ~1 lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha ·-·--···-·-----·-·-·-------···· and 18 biswa, the annuaiHincome vrould be ~19 lakhs and one finds +t strange that not -a penny was invested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be -earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not.been examined... No proof of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tube,. well;· if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electrically d.riven 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. the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly ·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 JT 1997 (1) SC 444 State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to the yield from -ag-ricultural land, only then it would be safe to determine fair market value by applying the princ~ple of LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 47 of74 ' -, i ··I ~u I -:-1 jj I:--::--i (-,, c.. ----.-s} capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, the capitalizing ·being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 tim-es as _was sought to be. projected.

44. The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average ·principle be adopted with reference to. the notification dated 24.1.2008.

45. In para 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in De1hi from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, · 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7. above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of 1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the. notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 ye-ars away from the last year with which I am concerne:!:..:;. the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized niodes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which woul-d -be cie-sest to the---J*)int fe-F wt:HE-A the mean average has to be determined.

46. 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 where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and LA.App.No.266/2008 & co~ected matters Page 48 of74 [ I --- I I. i; i --i,.- ~J I ( ( \___ ~- ---· 5'1 has determined that based thereon the price as of said date 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 market value of Category 'C' land. As per the learned Land Acquisition _, Collector ~1. 7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category '8' and further sum of ~1.[7] Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were less vis-a-vis Category ~c· }and. In other words, with referenceto Cate_g_o_ry 'A' land,-the price of c-at~g-~ry 'C' land· would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-a-vis Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land would be required to be increased suitably.

48. I no~ 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 theJearned Reference Court, I pose the question: ·what should be the fair market value of the subject lands as of 7.8.2000, i 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002; I 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.

49. I have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Di\(ision......... -.. !, Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on -- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 49 of74 I I ~.~ 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinqh vs. UOt& Ors. wherein pertaining ~o. · village Bawana, fair market value- determined as of 15.11.1996 _!_s_!~L~9,9_04~68 per big_bC) which equals to ~9.59,542.46 per acre. The said decision would be re1evant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised_ to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i.e. the la-nds 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 -De--l-hi were identified for 1 - providing major health fadtittes; schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was village Bawana. l~was noted that G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and. that the Master Plan for Delhi nqtified 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 observed that notwithstanding this; for the reason no zonal pla.n was n-otffled as contemplated by Section 11A 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, ~he potentiai 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 fLJture capable of being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so expressly stating, would be a propbsttfon that there. is a difference between the undeveloped ·land having building --. - LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 50 of74 " I ( '-- ("-., 5b potentiality· in presenti vis-a-vis.a· land having a building --:--'-----:-;-----;-;-:c---;---'""-=---:---:--- p-otentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was 't[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 c;:losest --in point of time i.e. the notification dated 2~.7.1_9_9:Z_where-under for agricultural ·lands in.. Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was ~10 lakhs per. acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced _another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gajraj Sinqh vs. UOI & 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' larids was 't[9],76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was 't[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 ofthe Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality wi_th 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. vii lag~ Singhola deterrnined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ =t[1],30,523/- per bigha i.e. 't[6],26,510.40 per acre. The decision is.....-r-eported.as2004 (4) AD ·(Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. VOland the - --------- ·----··--- --····· same--Dht-i-sio-n---S-ench, as per the decisioo---:ref}erted--as--111 (2004)- DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vs. UO!, pertaining to a notification dated - -. -------. ·------· --- 14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ '{1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. 't[6],73,104/- per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 51 of74 2011:DHC:18688.,: H- - - - - - --~_0. --~ -,ne _aforesalo _ JUdgments-~oted~- in tile -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 m~ in para 7.. ~ ~ above bring out two very important facts relevant t~ 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 ~4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ~10 lakh_s per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ~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% forthe _ 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 woulc;j be the decision of the Divi~ion Bench of - - this Court in Gaira/s case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

51. I need to elaborate a little- more with respect to the decision in Gajra/s case._ Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land 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 - - - - - " " " ' ". ·- -··. · · - - - - - · -·capitaliz~d the land price at ~9-.[5] lakhs per ~ere. Discussing the - second method of land prices of comparable lands in the