Full Text
LA.APP.11/2011
JAI NARAYAN & ORS. Appellants
Through: Mr. L.B.Rai, Advocate
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA
08.072011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. tNi1
PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J.
JULY08, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:13648 ..
- ,.. . - \
. : ,• : •: • . .. .. 4;• : . • •
186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LA APP 238/2010, LA APP
239/2010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP
245/2010 LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/201O, LAAPP '
252/2010, LA APP 266/2010, LA APP 267/2O1O LA APP
273/2010, LAAPP 274/20101 LAAPP 275/20101 LA APP
312/2010, LAAPP 324/2010, LA AI'P 326/2010, LAPP
327/2010, LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP
;; 31/2O1O, LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 333/2010 with CM APPL
No 5524/2011, LAAPP 335/2010, LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP
368/2010, LAAPP 369/20101 LAAPP 371/2010 & CM APPL
No 20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/201Q, LAAPP
377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP LAAPP 45212010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP
694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011, LA APP
697/2010, LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 734/2011, LAAPP
706/2010 &CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010, LAAPP
708/2010 LAAPP 709/2010,LAAPP 7i0/210 with CMAPPL
No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM AL No 7473/2010, '
,766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAA'P 797/2010, LAAPP
798/2010, LAAPP 799/20101 LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP
19/2010, LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL
955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 & CM APPL
6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAPP
871/2010, LA APP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP
876/2010 LA APP 87712010, LA APP 878/2010, LA APP
879/2010, LAAPP 880/2010, LAAP,P 881/2010 & CM
• 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 88812010, LAAPP
1889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAIAPP 89012010, LAAPP
893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LAAPP 894/2010 & CM 4
No23353/2010, LAAPP 895/2010, LA4PP 896/2010, LAAPP ;
897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAP 903/2010, LAAPP 1
I .
••. . ., .. . . ,. ..
. '.
I
1 4 I
.. . .- -, . .'.-:' ••.; .
.. .
- . '•.• .-
. : •
..
•-r
,,. ... . ..
.. . . - : • : • . . . . : • • . .. , . . . .
H •''. : .. . .. . . . . .'.: • ti r
I
007/2010, LA APP 38I2p1O, LA APP 939/2O1, LA APP
1O34/2O1O & CM APPL 3086/2011, LA,APP 1040/10 & CM
ORDER
1 APPL 5673/2O11, LAAPP 1041/2O1O, LAAPP 1?43/201O, ILAAPP 1045/2010, LAAPP 1046201O, LAAPP 1O48/2O1O, I LAAPP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050/201 LAAPP 105612010, ¼ LAAPP 10€0/2010, LAAPP 1061/2011 LAI\PP 1071/2010, LAAPP 125/2011, LAAPP 126/2011, LAMPP 258/2011 (ReIating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 3/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND + LA APP 600/2009[1] LA APP 605/2009, LA APP 615/2009, tAAPP 310/2010, LAAPP 325/2010, LAAPP376/2010, LAAPP 383/2010, LAAPP 384/2010 0 1LAAPP 385/2010[1] LAAPP 473/2010, LAAPP 492/2010, LAAPP 586/2010: LAAPP k591/2010, LAAPP 638/2010, LAAP[1] 690/201O LAAPP 69 2/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, ILAAP 716/2o1o; LAAPP 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/2010, LAAPP' 885/2010, LAAPP 887/2010, LAAPP 891/2010, LAAPP 892/2010, LA APP 898/2010, LA'APP 906/2010 & tM APL No4443/2010, LAAPP 937/2010k & CM APPL 23299/2010, LA APP 1042/2010, LA APP 1047/2010 (ReIating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 '& Aw)ard No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka)
AND LAAPP 1003/2010, LAAPP 1017/2010, LI APP1r019/2010, LAAPP 1022/201Y, LAAPP 1023/2010, LAAPP 1044/2010, LA APP 1051/2010, LA APP 1053/2010, LA APP 104/2010 & CM APPL No 5656/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LAAPP 1057/2010, LA APP 1058/2010, LAAP 1059/2010, LA APP 1068/2010[1] LAPP 1069/2010, LAA1P 124/2011, LAAPP 127/011, LA PP 128/2011, LA APP 25/201i LAAPP784/OO5&connected Page3of19 I H: r I p -: '.,.:.• •.......,.,..;. •- • •.....,., '.;..: •.:. •; -.... I: (Relating to Notification u/s 4 datedj 17 b[6] 2005 & Award No 13/2OO6-O[7], ViUage-Mundka ' \ J AND -;+ LA APP 40/2009 & Cross ObjectlQns, LA APP 426/2009, if (LAAPP 4?8/2009, 442/2009[1] LAAPI 611/2009, LAAPP 616/2OO[9], LA APP 278/20]0 (ReIating toNotification u/s 4 datedl 24 09 2003 & Award No 3/2004-05 Vi!tage-Bakkarwala) 1•i •.. •:•, •' •••...f. AND I •3 4 + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No59l8/2O11, LAAPP 1030/2010, LAAPP 1031/2010, LAA1P 1033/2010 & CM No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM • No6943/2011 64/2010 APP 1066/2010, LAAPP 1067/2010 LA APP 11/2011, AAPP 122/20 ]!1 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.6.2005,& Award No 1/2006-07 Village-Bakkarwala) CORAM HOFi'BLE MR JUSTIC PRADEEP NA\DRAJOG
1 Whether the Reporters of local papers my be allowed to $ee the j6dgment 7'
2 To e referred to Reporter or hot 7 I
3 Whçther the judgment should be reported in the Digest 7 'PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral) '1 I am dcidIng the above captidned appeals and Ielatable civil miscellaneus appJication which are by way of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove LA APP 784/2005 & connected I' 2 t. •..,_....,......4... •1• I.4..........:...;......
2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of f4Ir market value of 'and in the revenue eteof Village Bakawa,t and village Mundka; 3 The dats on which fair mketvaIue of th18 1nd * to be determined may be graphically npted as under - S No Name ofVIIage Date of notfpcaton under 4 óf the L Section A Act
1 Bakkarwata, 2494O[3] 4 2 Bakkarwa!a 17 6 2'005 i 3 Mundka 25 2. 1997. 4 Mundka 21 3 2003
5 Mundka 17.61005 4 1t may be highlighted that the notification at ent No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to viI!age BakkarwaIa, is the srn. pursuant whereto lands were acquiredlin the revenLie estate o VilIage Mundka, aspe serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-b, leading frorh the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages /Vlundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Baklarwala lies towasrds.the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundk The difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas A the land of village Mundka abuts NH-10, that A of village Bakkarwala does not so abut, being dn the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate ofvillage Mundka.
6 As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the townships of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed frst, followed by vilag Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan 7 Agricultural lands in village 1 Mundka were acquired LAAPP734/2QO5&connected Page5ofl[9] A c A. 1...L.. A At A A j A A A •.:•': •:. • • -...-. Ti•- -•-. ' () j.; \ * 4 pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 197 isued under Section:4 of the Land AcqulsltltJn Act as per;awad No 2/1999/2000 Ag ric u ltural lands tn the revenue estate of vl!age Mundk were further, acquired pursuant to a notifation dated 2 11.12003 issued under. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award, No 3f005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands in th& revenue estate of the same village were acuired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land L I t I Acquisition Act as per Awrd No 13/2006-07 L 8 Agricultural lands ii the reyeçue estateof village; Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4of theLand AcquisitionAct as:. per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to p notification datedr 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 I }9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, unde"r all the awards, with reference to the minimm price for agricultural Jand as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi JO For clarity I may note that Ipertaining to the I notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in the'revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the Jearied[1] Land Acquisition Collector determined th fair market value &iith c -t I reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified -...--. •....... with effect from 1 4 1997 @ 10 lacs peracre a n d since the date of, Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted, LAAPP784/2OO5&connected Page 6of19...,........;.. i.. ••:: • • • • I - ---- - I 1 r p r th price for one year 11 5% per annuri This price was adopted for category A. lands For lançisin category B, the vaIue was further discouttec by 9O,OOO/- peracr Pertaining to the notifications dated 213.2. 003 and 24 9 2003, the Land Acquisition CoIIectr relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001 and gave no.;.,....: •. L • ••: •:. benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that thefair •• market va'ue of the lands to be determired vas as of 21 3 2b03 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 which required fair market, value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of \ill.ag.[6] Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Lard Acquisition Collector. determined the same with rference td the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 and gave no increase fr
11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the lahd wners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the referthice being made, vide I yarious judgments and decrees, which are tinder challenge in the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Gurt, and nhanced the fairmarket value
12 In a nut shell,Ipertalning to the notification dated 5 2 1997 vide which agricultural lands in vilIge Jvlundka were cquired, the Referenceourt adopted th:e same rotification as ias adopted by te Land Acquisition Collector under which the L APP 784/2005 & conrieoted.[4] -. ': •' •-.....;..:-Y:.: #•. •.. •: •. •••.......;, H.. I Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimuri vaIu for I agricultural !and n DelhL i e 1.[4] 1997,jbut s against the Land;......:. • •...y..,..,:.* •, Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 1] 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11, decreased the value by only. 34 days Jnasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum jalue was 1 4 1997and. the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitipn Act was, dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fied for category A lahds I } and for category B lands, with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000T- per acre
13 Thus, for category A land the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ !9,89,288/- per acre ard for • B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/' per 14i Pertaining to the notificatods dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands n village Mundka and vilage Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference' Cdurt took note of the fact thait after the Governments had;notified the niinimurn rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 3002005 Using the said 11. dates nd the minimum price notified by'the Government of NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean average What the Reference Court didwas to adop1'the value as of 1 4 2.001 and increasing the sane bi 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as bf 21.3J003 as' also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference rt Cou took the value notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per LAAPP784/2OO5&connected Page9ofl[9] I Iti; anum Jetermrned the sum arrLved at 4s of 21 3 2003 as also n 24 9 2003 The two sums rrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean 'fgure as of 21 3 2003, which I note tcomes to 1,92,O83 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the ' sum aftived at is fl[5],92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000I- per acre
15 Pertaining to the riotificathon j dated 7 6 2005 'pursuant whereto agricultural lands wre acquired un village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adapted the minimum price for agricultJral land notified by the Governmnt of NCT Dethi with effect from I[4] 2001 and giving e increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of, locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gavei 5% more arid determined the fair market value as f 176.[2] 005 in sum çf 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the pride determined was 20,35,255/- per acre,
16 In the aforesaid backdrop ofthe factial stenarro in twhich I hav penned profiled the rasoring of the Land Acquisition CclIector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve 'into the argurrlents advanced before me during hearing today
17 With reference to the eiiderice led.i, in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs LIQI & Ors, it was uçged by Sh L B Rai, • learned counsel for the appeJlant in LA 1App No 784/2005, which argument was adopted by other !earnedcouñsel 'who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-1 wereunder 1 bigha 1AA0 784/2005 &connected Page 9of19 nd 3 biswa of4agricu!tural land in vitlage Mynca vas sold a of 8 1996 for a sale consideration of[4],75,OOOI- 38,000/ was incurred towar4s sale duty and thus the çrice of the lard would be 5,13,000I- and calculated with reference thereto, land price.....,...'... it.., •:.. •F pier bigha would come to 4,46,OOOI- as of 5. 8.1996.., Learnd • counsel would urge that there is no reason not tq hold that fair 91'l arket vatue of agricultural lands in jlvilla,ge. Munqka was 4,46,000/- per bigha a,s of 5 8 1996 taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference o the said pnce, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, te the dates wen n1otifications under • Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were' issued pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the price progressively, if not thy 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum It is urged that on the same basis, land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in v)llage Bakkarwa!a Alterhatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkawala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the valUe of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the )udgrnent nd decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead mattr being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Tt?r LRs Vs UQI as per which fair market value of land, per bighp, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tilkri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at '2,15,164/- forcategory. A. land LAAPP784/2005&connected I PagelOofl[9] 44 4 I 4 I I arid 1,73,5OOI- for category B land, 2,35,85O for category A rand and 1,9O,15O/- for category B land, 4,O[2],85OI- for category A land and 3,24,85OI fdr category B land,.....'... e'spective!y...:.....,...
18 I may note here that in vahous land acquis)tion references, various parties have proved a nuber of, sale deeds executed from time to time, but during aguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners!have only relied upon / the sale deed Ex P-i i[9] Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar larned counsel forthe UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative w sample of he whole, the sample ( mustbea some adequate f:r.rtio'n: to the..v''hoIè..Fo.r.exátple, I.ea couneI WoI,d....:,. •......,.: •:...........:• •.,,,.,,.,..: 'p[1] " f the Land Acquisition Act Learnd coupsel wouId concede that the reasons given by the Iearred Referenc Court are nbt sound, but Would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the resons asto why ExP-1 be not taken as the basis to deterniine the fair market vl;ue of lands in village Mundka nd Bkkawala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds ExR-1 to R-4 referred to in the decisin f the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeçfs dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by, UOl would show t h e actual market value of the lançl and thus learned coànsel would urge that the said four sae deeds should be. crisidered, but hastens to add, ? that since value reflected ium price nbtifid by the than the inm therein is less m overnment, the price fixation should be with reference to the minimum price notified by the Govethmentwhih i nearest o the point of time when the respective notifcatins were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
20 An independent and alternativ argument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 /aisingh Vs UQI r 2 The decision in /a, S,ngh's case (spra concrn itself with the determination of the fair market vaiUe of land in villages akkarwala which wereacquired pursuant to; a inotification.. ated 15 10 1993 at 1,32,0O0/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch AAPP784/2OO5&connected Page 12of19 •• ',, - - ---. -------,.-- '. -,.. -.. -...;.<. ••...... -..:..,-. - k as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal fi1ei before the Supreme Coprt by either side have been dismsed Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market va'ue of land di village BakkarwIa as of 15 LO 1993 at 1,3,OOOI- per bigha, the fair maket value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market val1ue of land in viHage Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2O[3] as also 17 62OO[5] Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of vi1Iage Mundka, fair market value of land in village,Mundkatshould be deteçminedas of 25 2 1997, 21 3 2003 nd 17 6 2005, by giving 5% increase. 22 With respect to the sale deel Ex P-i, whereunder 1 'bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 1996, it would assure importance that the sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition act, which was issued on 25 2 1997 It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification underSection 4 of the Land Acquisitton Act, survey's are carried out with the object oi 'determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra tnumbers and fields are required to be ntified for the proposed acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to likelihood that the dands know that very soon there is every, 'would be acquired In Delhi, the large scaIe acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, atpre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to t[4] ones whose landS are 1 4 II I'...;......., --.............-.....,..... -:..•i:...-.....-:• - F ( t F e F 4 ) woud show that the Ciurt assessed thefatrmarket value W. reference to sale deeds executed bet'veen the years 1990 till F The year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Vil!a Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale F price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoihing villages wouldF be ndicative of fair market value of land in \4itlage Bakkarwala
26 In Prtap Singh's caseF (supr), the Division Be?ich F was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and petaining td various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquiiticn Act Lçletermined the fair market value 6f agriuItuFraI lands in Vi1l.age Tikri Kalan and F Ghevra as under - • SNO Date Village Price per Bigha F F 1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kal an TZ15,160/- for Block 16 1.1995 A & 1,73,00/- for BIockB land 2 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalàn & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & '90'56/r for Block B land F 3 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for BJockj F i A & 3,24,85OJ- for F Block B land • 27 Following the judgment in Pratar Singh's cas e (supra) have decided the fair market value fo the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6 2 2003 in the batchof apeals bing Land L!AAPP784/2005&connected Pagel5ofl[9] • •.. •...................................... F F F FIF I F. F ¼ • F • •. •F•F•...,..,.. •,..:...-.. -.. ••T. $ f,; l lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,4O[8] 75 per bigha e per acre and for CategQry B lands, I assess the fair, market i1ue at 2,O[1],117I- per bit[4] i e, 9,65,361, 6 0 per acre 9.. The next notification witi whch I am concernedj çLated 21 32O[3] pertaining to Village Mndka In jrani' Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decisionin Prataø Singh'scase (supra), for agricultural lands in Vi1llage Ghevra pertaining to a otification issued under Section 4 of th Lad Acquisition Act I on 6 2 2003, the fair market value assessd was ?4,O[3],425I-Der bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinionthat pertaining to S he notification dated 21 3-2 01031 fair mbrket value o land[1], i1n be 4,03,425I- i e19I36,44OI-Per acre, Jillge Mundl<a should 1 Which I hereby fix I 30 I propose tq deal with tIe iotification dated 24 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala...........
31 As noted hereinabove, n Chiianti La/scase (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425/- per bicja and thus, increasing I • the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure coms to 4,98,59/- per bigha, wbich comet to 20 per cre 2 3,9,227 The same Is held by me to be the fair rharkt value 1Qf lard in Village Mundka and Village Bakarwala a of 176 2005 I decree the same I Pa ge 17 of 19 •1 i. e....;..... •.. I 4: •I....L A.•.... ' •••:,. - I: •- •. f• H•• '....: • '2D
32 I am left with the notification dated 24 9 2003 pertaining * to viiiagd Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair. • 3.•... market value.'.., assessed in Chiranli Lal's case, l would require to * ppreciate the price by 10% per annum fqr a period of 201 days, the figure comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i e 2O,43,O76 80 per, àcre, which ! determine to be the,fair rrarkt value f land in;..Ji lt ag e BakkarwalaaSOf24.9.2003.,. '•. •.
33 Accordingly, the appeals filed: by the.,Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the sme The ppeals filed by the land owners and th cross-objections filed by the land owers stands decreed as unqer n For, the land faHing in Category tA land in VilIge Mundka the fair market 'alue is fixd at is 2,49,48 75 per b i g ha, i e 11,97;162I- per acre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at per igha i e 9,561 60 per acre, as on 25021997 For the land situated in Village Mundka the,fair market vatue is fixed at 443,425I- per bigh i e 19,36,440I- per acre, as on 21 03 2003 For the land situated in Vige Munçika th tair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha 'i e 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on17 06 2005 For the land situateçi in Villae Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha A. e LA APP 784/2O[5] & connected Pag 18 of 19 4. I - - - - - - -- --- - I ( i: t ? 1 I 23,93,227 2( per acre, 8 oç 17 06 2005 v), F For the land situated in VillaejBakkarwala the fair \ market value is fixed at[4],2541J- per bigha i 20,43 1 076 80 per acre, a$ on 24 09 2003 -, I vi) ri Appellants and cross-objectors *ho have uFceeded would also be entitled to solatiurn and interest as pe statute and as clarified in the decision reported as F 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder Fvs (JO!, for the F, compensation, paid originally and s enhanced by the Reference Court and fhnally dn the sum enhaned by the present judment and decree W vii) The appellants and cross-objector who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs k vill) All pending applicatiops stand diposed of i terms of & the prayers made therein (PRADEEP NAN DRAJO) - - JUDGE 1 F F JLJ4YO[8],2011 F mm F F F ¶ II F F ¶ F F F F