Balbir Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

10. Briefly, the.'. rePort delineaLes.developn'rent o't river Yamuna as it flows in the nre into uuliogs stretches. guidelines for,city of Dellri bY

11. One such stretclr is between the ITO Barrage till the ILFS-NOIDA Linl< Bridge..in tlre South and turther beyond, in tlre Soutlrern cliiection, as tfte riverl=lows past the city of Delhi and enters tlre Sta.te of Uttar Pradesh in tlre Southern,boundary of tlre citv of Dellri. 12..The stretclr with wlrich we are concerned in the irrstant Land Acquisitiorr Appeals, is tlre stretch of the riyer as it crosses Nli-24. (at the popular bridge callecl the Nizarr-rucldin Bridge over tlre river Yamuna) and proceecls..towarcls tlre Soutlt, crossing larrds ol' village Belrlolpur l(haclar, l(ilokari, l(hizrabad, Jogabai, Ol<lrla, Jdsola ancl Madanpur l(lradar, all of which lie on tlie Western banl< of tlre river and Nangli Rajapur and Clrucl< Chilla,,which lie on the Eastern banl< of the river. Graphically reproduced the plan prepared by tlre learned Reference.Cor-rrt on inspqction cat-ried on 2I.II.2006, and to be founcl in the record of LAC No.2/1998 Etr-qpAl Sinoh l/s. UO/ & Anr. (in respect ol= village Nan'gli Rajapur) would be as uncler:- ' F I, of,liv, sc.r 4L t-O.:. O;! l.ittt*4 v el 'vrl.d.. t liJ-:r';i.. 'l'.ilr;'.i.' I rr. 't;.[1] i il,i t. l t: ''; r ttj/",l r.J,rr.,;- l-: i:.'rl ' 'l.l ']ai!i I \/t, ''+rf \1t. '(.t I ri 'l' I 'I' t ";'u-" \ \ / 't \,,.ir i I -l I I I Page 6 o'f 32 LA. APP.59 / 2007 & con nected 13..,River Bed'iS de'l'ined as the area, over which the river flows ancl denotes the area wlrich, in tlre ordirrary ol- regular course o'f nature, iS covered by the.waters o't the river' 'Flood Plain' is tlre lald adjacerrt to a river, wlriclr because of il-s level topograplry, floods when tlre river overflows' ir[4]. Tlre lands wlriclr are subject nratter of acquisit-ion irr tlre irrsLant. appeals, lie in the Flood Plairr. area of river Yamuna' and r-nostly in the Westertr banl< and except for a 'Few patclres' wlrere agricultural activities can be. undertalcen, the 'land is mostly grasslancl, bushy and shrub vegetation.' The aquatic vegetation is very poor in tlris stretclr due to degraded water quality o1'river YamLrna.

15. T[e lancls are comprised in the revenue estate oI village I(ilol<ari, l(lrizrabad and Nangli Rajapur'

16. Flood disclra r9e and levels, at dif Ferent 9au[9] ing stations in river YamLlna,.ihdicate flooding of the area wlrenever monsoon is normal or in excess.

17. As woulcl be eVident from the plan ol'tl-re area prepared by tlre learnecl Reference court, and as extracted'hereinabove by me, tlre larrcls witlr whiclr I am concernecl is between tlre river banl< and the Forward Bund. lt has been graphically'narrated by the learned Rel=erence Court in its'repott dated 22'II.2006, relevant extract wlrereof wourld reacl as ttttder:-,,The spot inspection lras been conducted in terms ol= order datecl 13.11.06.in tlre presence of ofFicials 'l'rom DDA (Sh. M.M. Rao, Director L.M.), Sh' S'l(' Singlr (LAC. sourlr), sh. Raj shelchar (P.c. south), sh. Atul l(ur-nar (Ex. Enginber, lrrigation & rlood Control Department) w[o are accompaniecl with other team of ofFicials from LA. APP.59 /2007 & con nected PageT of32 respecLive cleparl-r'nents. counsel tor tlre petitioners as well as responclents are also present' Tlre ofl'icials lecl to embanlcment of River Yamulra in village Nangli Rajapur via Marginal B.uncl Road through,pantoon Road'. A rouqh slietch (i.e. Site plan bv roxi red b cia ls DDA lra s bioacl idea of the location of villaqes lras been nanoeo ffi is Annexure 1 and clearly depicts the to.i!io'-' of vi||ages -BelrIolpur l(hadar, NangIi Rajapur, l(ilol<ari, Clruck Chilla, l(lrizi^abad,..;ogabai, Olchla, Jasola and Madanpur l(hadar. Aco site plan irrdicatin lclr no's of villa Nanqlirazapur has b handed ov officials of LAe ined at site tlrat some of the _t^ Kt-rr=1.[3] rto's wflich are sub-merged or lilcely to be subnterged and are adjacent to water stream fias beetr denotifiecJ while the otlrers had been acquired. Tlre same are reflectecl in difterent shades in tlre. site plan. (Anne><ure ll). Tlre officials informed tlrat'the acquired iand extended upto 500 nretres and may be more"from tlre'stream of weiter which was flowing currently. The land on both sides at the'site spot'appeared to be urrcler cultivation. However, it is pertinent to note tlrat ofticials fr riioation and Flood ntrol rtment d that as' when th ter Iev ilt nv Yamun'a crosses a mar[< 41.2!4r-8-3., the land gets ffi, dependirrg on amount of discharge of water in the river. It was also pointed out that owitrg to aforesa id reasons no development has. been permitted from 'Marginal Bunb Road' till etnbankment of River Yamuna (As depictecl irr Anne><ure - l). lt was observed tlrat tlrere WaS'no substantial developmerrt except tlrat land appears to be utilized near the site for agricultural purPose. Tlrereafter tfie officials lecl to show the approximal-e locatiol of land of village l(ilolcari, Belrlolpur and lffizrabacJ from Rirrg. Road and D.N.D. Road. The o'l'ficials showed tlrat no activity/development on tlre ' lancJ near to the enrbanl<ment coulcl be undertalcen except for agricultural activity. -[lre spot inspection LA.APP.5g /2007 & connected Page B of 32 18. cor.nmenced at about 2.4.0 p.m. and haS been cornpleted at about 4.45 P.m. 5d-. (AtuooP l<uMAR. MEMIRATTA) ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI 22.7r.2006" It may be highiightecJ that tlre Forward Bund, as the very name suggests, is the raised embankment to contain tlre flooclecl river as ancl wlren it overflows, so tlrat the city ol' Dellri is not inundatecl with water, during monsoon. lt is obvious tlrat'due to tlris, t[ere is hardly any construction activity in tlre area in questiott, for the reason most of it is low lying area and is flood prone. ln the words of the learned Re'Ference Court, the topology, nature ancl,poLential for utilization of the subject lattds,'may tre reproduced by me. It reads as under:- "As per notification dated 23.6.89 placed on record about 3500 Flectares of land starting fronr a point 1 lcm. upstream,.wazirabad Barrage road till i,t outs the boundary of Union Territory was proposed to be acquired for clranneliza[ion of river Yamuna. Tlre purpose of tlre project itself suggests tlre lancl in tlre river bed adjacent to the existing stream of water was to be acquired. TIre acquired lancl being in river bed on forward bund as suclr can be safely irrferred to be covered durinq some parts of tlie year witlr water and may be cultivable for otlrer parts of tlre year. No evidence has been led b5r tlre petitioners to show that the land was not situated in the forwarcl bund area. Considering tlre situation oF the land in tlre river bed it may not be capable of beirrg utilized as a ndrmal agricultural lapd or building site despite tlre village being urbanized and cannot be compared with lancl other tlrarr siturated in river bed in village l(ilolcari. Tlre development may have tal<en place in and around village l(lolcari but tlre - same cannot change the lranclicaps of land situated in a forward burrd.area owitrg LA,.APP.59 /2007 &. co n nected. ousi 9 of32 20..to its typical locatiorr and lilcelihood of flooding during the monsoons. lmay also observe that a meTe construction o[1] an isolafed boundary wall or a solitary. temple witlrout inclicating tlre nature of construction canno[ lead to an infe,renie that the land could be used as a builclirrg site or could be compared to land1=alling outside the forwarcl bund area. The value of land as such needs to Ie assessecl- by this Court considering the.. a1=oresaid factors."

19. Tlre quote hereinal]ove extracted by me is trom the reference order dated 18.10.2006 in LAC No.1/2003 titled Bed Rant Vs. UOl & Anr. By virtue of a notification dated 23.6.1989 issued ut:lder Sectiol 4 of tlre Lancl Acqurisition Act IBg[4]., a vast tracl< of larrd adnteasuring 3500 lrectares was proposecl to be acqLlired at public expense, for a public purpbse, namely, 'Channelization of Yamuna River'. Lands of various villages were covered by the said rrotification and needless to state included lands comprised in the revenue estate of village l(hizrabad, l(ilolcari and Nangli Rajapur' lt may be clariFied tflat not all agricultuial lands in the revenue estate of saicl 3 villages were notified for the proposed acquisition' Oply the lands wflich were between.the Forward Bund and the river Yamuna and.as stand graphicaliy. described by the learned Judge and as extracted hereinabove in)para l.7, were the ones whiclr were proposed to be acquired. 2L The notification in question was followed by a declaration issr-tecl under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act IBg[4] on 22.06.1990 whereirr tlre area arrd the l(hasra number in each village in respect whereof the notification was issued were d eta ilecl. LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page L0 ol'32 22'.Pertairringtotherevenueestateofvillage|(lrizrabac|, subject matter of the' present ap'peals' the Land Acquisition collector annoLillcecl an Award bearing No'IBlIgg2-.93' Pertaining tovi||age|(ilo|<aritheAwardNo'14/19g2-g3WaSatrnouncedon

19.6. Igg[2] and pertairring to village Nangli Rajapur the Award No.16/19 g2-g[3] was announced on 19'q'1992'

23. In all. the awarcls' thg Lancl Acquisition Collector assessecl the fair market value oF the subject lands tor all 3 villages @<27,334.|-perbighaandneed|esstostatehe|dtlrat[heland owners would be entitlecl to the interest'ancl such other statutory berrefits as welre to. be paid. on the compensation assessed as per the LancJ Acquisition Act 1894 24..Whileassessingthefairmarl<etvalueoftheIandsaSon 23.6.1989 i.e. tlre date of the notification issued under section 4 of tlre LancJ Acquisition Act 1894', tire Land Acquisition Collectot' tool< into consideration various registerecl sale deeds reflecting the statecl price and therefrom computed tlrat the average price of tlre larrd woulcl col'ne to t18,736l- per bigha' But' ttoting tlrat ":o: oFFice order.datecl 3.5.1990 the Governtnent of Delhi lrad notified tlre minimunr price of agricurltural lancl irr tlre Union Territory ot Dellri lraving 2 rates; {4,50,000/- per acre for agricul[ural lands ancl {1,50,000/- per acre.for larrd situatecl irr the river- bed' since tlre notitication under section 4-witlr wlriclr he was concerned was c|atecl23'6.19B[9],depressecl,byc|iscountingthepricebyl.5%per an11L11 and cottcluded by holding that.i:lre I'air nrarlcet price as of 23.6.1989 would beT27,3441- per biglra' This price determined for tlre land in village l(ilolcari was held to be price payable for tlre acquired land in the other 2 villages as well forthe reason tlre Larrd LA.APP.59/2007 & connectecl PageLLof 32 Acquisitiotr Collector assessed.tIe connBensation on tlre minitnutrr price notifiecl lry the Governmerrt itself as on 3'5'1990 forthe lands situated in tlre.river bed' Dissatisfied with tlre assessment marle by tlre LantJ 25.

26. Acclurisit-iorr collector, the appellants lrerein souglrt reference under Sectiorr 18 ol= tlre Larrcl Acquisition Act IBg[4], wlrich was referred to tlre Reterence Court as pel, Section 1B of the Act' The leat-necl Reference'Court, after frapning tlre issues i' the reference before it a'ncl after permitting the parties,to lead eviclence in support of tlreir claim, disposed of tlre references made, by aricl uncler various orders fixing the fair marlcet price at- T89,600/- per lriglra for the 'acqurired lands'

27. e rbasoning oi tlre learned Rel'erence Court is pai-i-materia in each ordbr.

28. The recorcl of the learned Reference court shows that bel'ore mailcing tfte assessment, vicle order dated 13'1I'2006' it recorcled that the Court would inspect tlre site ancl notice whereof was deerirecl to be given to. the.pbrties as per tlre order' Thereafter, in the presenCe of the le'arneci counsel for such parties who clrose to be present at the inspection ancl in tlre presence of the represenrative.of the Larrd Acquisition collecl-or- arrd DD'A the learned. Juclge macle a site visit on 22.Ii-,.2006 and prepared a spot inspection report ancl a site plqn,. both oF wlriclr lrave beetr extracted by me lrereiirabove in para.I[2] and 17 above'

29. It may be no'ted that the learned Judge tool< various plrotograplrs wlrich are pla.ced irr LAC No.2/199 B bhopal Sinoh Vs' UO/ 6, Artr. apd tlre same show that the'lands are low lying lands LA.APP.59 12007 & connected Page LZ 0f 32 scribecl try the learned'Judge i'n the report which I lrave extracted in pa ra 17' lrereinabove: 30.ltisnotiridisputet|rattlre.|anc|inquestion,fa|lsinan area, wlriclr is between the. river Yamuna arrd Ring Road' since I atTt, wiUr consent of learned counsel for the parties treating LA App'No'5gl2oo]asthe|eadmatter,itwouldbere|evanttol..lote that tlre appellant thereof Bed Rant, appeared in tne witness bo>l' as PW-7 betor:e the Reference Court'. and adrnitted in lris crossexarninatio' that e><cept for a petrol pump and the two shops' there is no abadi arourrcl the larrd. lt is ?lso admitted that there is a naala (drairr) in village l(ilolcari. He admiited that since cOnstfurction WaS trot allowed by t'lre Government' no other construction could come uP'.: 3l.VariousclocumentsWereprovedbetorethelearned Rel.erence Court by various parties lancl find a mention in the varibus orders passed by the learned Reference court' but I need not note the same [ecause, before me, while arguing tlre appeals learnecl counsel l=ol'the parl-ies pl-essecl irrto aid only one sale deed clated:_7.3,1988, Ex.PW-311 in'the reference souglrt by Bed Ram' Besicles, learned counsel reliecl upon the clecision reported as 2000 (s[4]) DRJ 384 (DB)' wlrereirr a Division Bench,ot this Court assessed the marlceI value l,or the larrd situate in village l(lrizrabacl acquired pursuant to a rrotification dated 10.0'5.:gl[6] and assessed the compensation @ t35,O0O/- per bigha.as of '10'5 '7g76' I may highlight that land wlriclr was subject matter of consideratio.tr in Trndey's case (supra) was saline lancl (salabi) and 'was acquired fgr pur-poses of constructing a pilot cuL in tlre reaclr from Nizrnu'dding Bridge to LA.APP.5I/7007 & connectecl ', P age t[3] of 32 j Ol<lrla Weir. Learnecl counsel also relied upoll tlre decision reported as Diwan Ram Swaroop & brs L/s. lJnion of lndia 1992 (48) DLT 600 perLtsal whereof shows that the lancl sit'uate in village l(rizrabacl was acquired pursuant to a notification dated 03.06.1961 and was assessed at {12,500/- per biglra I r.nay lriglrligSt tthat ithe clecision in Diwan Rant

32.

33. Swaroop's case. (supra) was the,basis on wlriclr decision was prernisecl in Ttnde.l/s Case (supra), ln. findeV's case, tal<ing the larrd vallte at {12,500/- per bigha as oF 3'6'1961 by giving an annual increment of 12% but denying a progressive increase' the sLltTl worlced outt was {35,000/- per bigha. With re'ference to tlre decision reportecl as Bedi Rant vs..,uol & Anr.2001 (93) DLT 150 ancl h clecision datecl 4,2.2011 disposirrg of RFA No '58211994 W lcishan lGpahi vs. Uol & Anr. as a'lso a decision ol' tlre supt-eme court reporrecl as'Nand Ram vs. State of Harvana JT 1.988 (4) 5C 260, it was urged in tlre alternative, that it the price as per sale cleecl clatecl 17.3.1gBB was not to be adopted and the sale price determined in Diwan Ram Swaroop'S case was talcen to be base price, percentage irrcrease acloptecl iby 'ttre tearned Trial Judge as 12% be acloptecl br-rt tlre benefit of the pt-ogressive increase slrould be givetr ancl in respect of tlre plea I must note that learned 'counsel made a Concession tlrat aS WaS done in Bedi Ram'S CaSe, ini[ial increase coulcl be @ 6% p"r' unnum I'ollowed by IO% per annurt ancl then 12% per annum, with tlre cut ofF years being 19s9-19 65 (6%), Lg66-Ig73 (L0%) and Ig74 onwards (I2%)- Pressi;g the I'irst argument that the sa'le cJeed dated:I[7].3.1988 slrould be adopteQ by this Court to determine the fair nrarlcet value as of 23.4..1989, learned counsel heavily relied upon LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page L[4] of 32 tlre clecision of tlre Supr-eme Court re[1]:orted as G.Prema Vs' Specia/ Tehsi/clar(2010)12SCC5o2airc|thec|ecisionreportedasom prakash vs. state of lTarvana & ors. 2AII (lv) AD (5C) 383 and urged that as held therein the developmetrt around the place wlriclr lracl tailcen place over tfie years,,wheTe the subject lands were situate, had to be factored irr wlrile determining tlre fair marlcel- value of tlre acquired lands' Relying upon the testimony of Devi Ratn PW-6 in the re'l'erence pertainirrg to Bed Rarn, the Patwari of village l(lolcari, learn'ed counsel argued tlrat lre adnritted tlrat tlre lancl in question is situated in a cjeveloped area, having builcJing potentiality, inasmuclr as tlre land situated in village l(ilol<ari and l(lrizrabad were acquired for the planned development of Dellr'i ip the years 1959 and Lg61 and on whiclr acquired lands DDA hacl developed tlre residential colonies nanred 'Friends Colotty', 'l(alindi Colony' ancl 'Maharani Bag['. l[.was thus urged tl'rat tlre area in question had great potentiality; the sarle beirrg a reflection ottlre 3 colonies having corre Llp on the earlier acquired lands. Pertainirrg to t[e sale cJeed clated I].3.1988, Ex.P\A/-3l1' referred to by me hereinabove, it was arguecl that tlre vendor and vendee of the sale deecl were not tlre residents ol' the'area 'in question ancl tlrus, the sale transacted between them lrad to be tal<en bs the bapis for deterrninirrg the marl<et value of tlre acquirecl land ancl cor:ld not be ignoreQ by labeling the same as a taipted clocument ancl not to be ignored as. per the reasorring o1' the learnecl TrialJudQe, which reasoning is as under':- "lt may furtlrer be observed that, there is no evidence to reflect that there could have been an increase in prices of land as per sale deed dated 1-/-3.88 @ Rs. 2,07,500 per biglra reliecl by petitioner when compared LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page 1.[5] of 32

2. A:. with Ex,R[1] (Rs.43,2001- per blgha) or min' price- I'i2<ecJ w,e.f. 27.4.g0 as per'policy wi!6in a short span ol'time' It is a lcnown falt that ihe 'scheme of acquisition. is lcnown.to the villages and residents muclr betore tlre actual notification uls 4 is issued as nUmerous SUrveys uru rude prior to arry acqu-isition proceedirrgs. As suclr ihu "nu.ution o[1] sale deecl' ati errhanced rates to claim increased compensation catlnot be ruled ot-tt- For the aforesaid reasons sale deed datecl 17.3.88 relied by oetitioner does'not appear to be reliable to assess the value of land." I have extracted the quote herein above fr-otn the pertaining to village l(ilokari, an addit-ional argutnent decisiorr dated 25.g.2006 in LAC No.1/:1003 'Bed Rant vs' UOI 6r Anr.'

35. was advanced which was prec,licatecl on the decision dated 10.10.1984.in RFA No.II7lI974'Smt'Angoori Devi vs' UOl -& Ors' wherein pertaining to a nbtification dated 13.11'1959 fair marlceI value assessed by tlris Court for'lancls in villaqe l(ilolcari w.aS t26,OOO/- per biglra as against {12,500/- per bigha for the land in village l(hizrabacl wlrerein in Diwa.n Ram Swarup's case (supra) collpensation assessecl as of the dbte 3.6.1961 was {12,5001-' lt was tlrus urgecl tlrat it was apparerrt that larrd in village l(ilolcari was more valuable tlrarr'the rest ancl for wlriclr it was urged that l(lolcari neecls to be clealt with on a better footing.

36. Per contra, Slrri Sanjay Poddar, Starrcling Courrsel for tlre Lapcl Acquisition Collector urged that the Trial Court lrad visited the spot and had acquired spot lcnowledge about the land and its topograpl.ly, and has recorded a categorical finding of fact, to the e1fect- tlrat tlre acquirecl lancls are itr the liiver bed on Forward Bund and as SUCh, can safely be inferrecl to be covered during some paft LA.APP.5L/2007 & connectecl Page LE of 32 of t-lre year with water and may be cultivable for ol-lrer parts of tlre year. since the la.nds'l=all in the river bed, they nlay not be capable oF being utilized as a norrnal agricultural larrd and in any case are unsuitable to be br-rilt upon Tle development may have talcen irt ancl arouncl village l(ilolcari and village l(hizrabad, but tlre same was 01 tfte lands on the western side of Ring Road, ittstan[ lands ard on tfle eastern sicle of Ring Road; the earlier acquired lands were trot low lying lancls.'They were just lilce arry other- ordinary agricultural Iands. counsel statecl that the situational disaclvantage of tlre ipstant lands was writ apparent arrd tlrat fflere isolatecl Construction of a petrol pUmp ancJ 2 unautlrorized slrops to wlriclr Slr.Bed Ram had referrecl to in.his testimony were oF nd sigrrificance, Learned counSel highlighted tlrat thb witnesses lrad admitted that no construction was perr-nissible on the land and tlrus urged that merely lrecause 3 colonies: Maharani Baglr, l(alindi Colony ancJ New Friends Colony hacl come up on the acquired lands mainly of village l(ilolcari and partly of village l(lrizrabad cot-tld not ir-npact tlre potentiality of the instant Iands wlrich were qualitatively disaclvantageously situatecl, Ireirrg o11 tlre eastern side of Ring Road ancl'across the Forward Bund spanning the area be[ween the Forward Bund and the river Yamufla' Learnecl counsel claritiecj that even if it be held thal- tlre

37. learnecl Trial Judge lras inadvertently referred to as the'subject lands as'forrning the River Bed ratlrertlran tlre Flood Plairr land, but hasl-en to add tlrat tlris dOes not irnpact tlre reasoning of the learped Trial Judge inasmuch. as tlre'land beirrg tlre Flood Plain land was prone to water-logging and.indeed this was tlre reason why lrarclly any Crop was grown on tlre lancls and tlre fact tlrat the I na.tural vege[ation on tfie Iarrd being grass land, truslry and shrub vegetation. i

38. lrr 'reply to tlre argufflents per^tainirrg tc tlre progressive increase to be efl'ected wlrile cleteimining the fair marlcet valure of' tlre larrd, Shri Sanjay Poddar reliOd upon the latest judgm.ent of tlre Supreme Court reportec Corp.oratiol[1] Ltd Vs. Rameshbhai ''\ ^' ^' Patel & Anr' 2008 (14) scc145 and hiEhliglrted paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof'

39. Learnecl counsel highlighted that the solitary sale deed relied upon i.e. the sale deecl clated 17.O[3].1988 e><ecuted by Shri Ranjit Singlr S/o Slrri Badlu Ram in favour of Slrri Vinod l(umar 5lo Slrri l(edar Nath, whereby a parc'el of lancl acl-measuring 1 biglra 1 biswa w'as sold tor a sum of 72,07,500/-; the recitals ol'the same woulcl show tlrat {4.O,OOO/- was paid in aclvatrce and balance i'e' 77,67,500/- was to be paicl at the time of registration of tlre sale deed. Tlre sale cleecl clid not mal<e it.clear as to wlrat was the nrode of payment of balance sale' cotrsideration. Counsel higlrligfitecl thaL the'sale deed was exbcuted a few months prior [o tlre clate of tlre notil'ication irr question ancJ justi1'iecl tlre reasoning of the learned Trial Jurclge which w?s questioned by the learned coupsel, wlrich reasoning I have extracted in para 33 above' Learriecl counsel I'urther urged that except for this solitary sale 'cleed, no otlrer evidence in the shape of voluntary sale transaction lras beep placecl on record'by the appellants/lancl-owners. Counsel 5iglrliglrted that in rebuttal, the Urrion oF India submitted 4'sale cleeds, Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 whiclr were also considered al- the time of apnouncirrg the awards which showed tlrat tlre average sale price was {18,73G1- per bigha. Counsel highlighted tlrat 2 sale deeds out LA.APP.5I/2007 & connectecl Page lB of 37 of.t|rese[4].wereexecuteclbythelanc|.owrrers/c|a.intants,natnely, sr-nt-.,Angoori Devi. counsel urged that the paucity ol' sale deeds showed paucity of sale transactions and [lrus tlrere was no demancl for l-lre larrcl in quesLion ancl tlrus concluclecl that the larrd' did not have any potentiality.to commancl higher value as claimed by tlre appellants. Learned counsel contendecl tlrat the learned Re'l'erence Court lras rigfitly rejectecJ the solitary sale-cleed relied upon by tlre appellants. Learnecl cot-tnsel higlrlightecl that suclr types of clocunrents are created not only For the purposes ol'inflating tlre price, but also to secure alternative plots inasmuch as tlre Large Scale AcquisiLion Policy tor Agricultural Lands in Dellri requires tlrat tlre individual, whose land is acquir*bd, tnust lrave more than lbigha lancl to be entitlecl to a residerrtial plot in a developed colony. Learnecl counsel highliglrtecl tlre decision of tlre supreme Officer2OOg (14) SCC 367, wlrerein it w'as QbservecJ as under:- "I[2]. ln Shaii Kuria/<ose v. /ndian oi/ corpn. Ltd. this Court lrad observed as under: (SCC pp' 65.2-53' para

3)

. pay'l'orthe acquired land if it had been sold in tlre open marlcet at the time of issue of nol-itication^ uncler Section 4 of tlre Act. However, comparable sales.method of valuation' of land for fixing the Page L[9] o1'32 ta.aPP.sg /2007 & connected Court reported as Mohamntad Raofudclin Vs' nd Acctttisitiott rnarl<etVa|Ueoftlreacquired|anc|isnotalways' conclusive. There are certain factors whiclr are. requirecl to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded' accordingtotlrevalueoftlreIandref|ected'inthe sales. ThL factors laid down inter alia are: (/) the salemustbeagenuinetransaction'(2)that,tlr'e saIec|eedmusthavebeene><ecutedatthetinre proximatetotlredateofissueofrro[ification uncler section 4 of the Act, (3) that tlre land coverec|bytlresaIemustbeintlrevicinityofthe acquiredl'and,(4thatthelandcoveredbytlre sa|esmustbesinri|artotheacquired|and,and (5)thatthesizeofpIotoftlreIandcoveredbythe salesbecomparabletot|re|andacqL|ired..|fa|| tlrese.|'actorsaresatisfied,,t|rentlrere!sno. reason why tlre sale value of the land covet-ed by thesalesbenotgivenfort|reacquiredIand' lJowever, if tlrere ia a dissimilarity in reqard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land iovered by sales and land acquired, it is opentotlrecourttopropoitiorratelyreducel.h.e compensation for acquired larrd. tlran wlrat is reflecteclinthesalesdependingupon'the clisadvantages attaclr'ecl with the acquired latrd'" 4Q.ItWaSarguec||lyMr.SarrjayPoddarandtorwlriclr learned counsel relied upon tlre decision of the suprenre court reported 136, flrat tlre lancls situatecl in various villages acquired tlrrouglr tlre SatTle notification cannot be given the Sal-ne marlcet value unless and until it is proved that the situation and potentiality of tlre larrd in 2 different villages are ther same' To tlris efl'ect, lre poir-rtecl out tha:[ even in Nand Ram's case (supra), relied upon loy the appellanl-s, iL was lreld that tlre sinrilar-ly siIu.atecl lahd irr a village is to argued that LA.AP P.59 /2007 & co n nected be given tlre same price and not all. Tlrus, it was unless and until tlre potentiality and situation oF tlre Page 2O of 32 ! land souglrt to be acqLrired are similar to the land sought to be comparecl, a uni'l'orm rate cannot be awarded' This argument of learned counsel I am noting was in response to,the submission rnade tftat t[e solitary sale deecl pertaiping to village l(ilolcari be treatecl as reflective of the market value of. lands in village l(rizralracl arrd village Nangli Razapur. Mr.sanjay Poddar further argurecl that wlrile assessing the marlcet value of the acquirecl lands, tlre prirrciple, as laicl down in Mohammad Raofttddirt's case supra is to be followecl; narnely,'(i) tlre court is duty bourrd to ensure tlrat the compensation cletermirrbcl is just and fait- not only to tlre indiviclual wlrose property is acquired, but also to the public wlrich lras to pay for it; and (ii) the lancl situated,on tlre frontage lraving special aclvantages cannot be treated at par with tlre land situratecl in the interior uncleveloped area' Further, the coLlr[ is requirecl to act as a willirrg and in'tormed buyer ancl seller, mearring thereby, such a buyer ancl seller must be unaffected by the special neecls of a pa,rticular purchase and must have the inForrration reqt-rired by a 1:rudent p.brson relating to the land sought to be acquirecl. Counsel highliglrtecl that the learnecl Trial Court' whicl't lracl visited the site, has acted as an informed btryer and seller wlrile recording the fincling atrout the nature of the lancl' wlrich fipcling cannot be disturbecl without any cogent evidence' lvlr.Ajay Verma, learn'ed counsel for DDA while adopting 4.r. __/ tlre arguments aclvanced by Mr'sanjay Poddar, aclcled tlrat the land acquirecl 'l=or residential colonies WCIs not tlre purpose urrder the present notification'ancl that as helcl 'in tlre decisiorr reported as LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page 2L of 32 r vs, Sharat ChandtA-E6pt 2OA0 (6) SCC 326' lands can be classil'iecl as situated near a river or at a distance tlrere-trorn i.e. within a village belting can b-e resorted to' 4.2.lnrejoincler,learnec|counselfortheappe||atlts, surbr-l.litting rejoinder subrlissions through Mr.B.P'Gupta, /\dvocate relied upon 'tlre decision of this court reportecl as Baldev Slncth Dhlllon & ors. vs. Unlon of lnclia & ors 2005 (I2l-) DLT 606, and with referetlce to paragraphs 23 ancJ 70 tlrereof contended that in tlre said decision, pertailing to the instant lands, where the challenge to the acquisition was that there was no ground to involce tlre urgerrcy clause i.e. Sectiop 17(1) and 17(4] of the Land Acquisitiorr Act 1894 tlrereby denying tfte right of hearirrg to the lancl-owners affectecl uncler Section 5(A) of the Ac[, the respondents had cited tlre looming tlrreat ol' unautlrot'ized colonization as the reason to derry sLlch riglrt and therefrom coupsel souglrt to ipfer tlrat the lands had a potentiality for clevelopment and colonization. Mr.L,C,Chechi, leartred counsel supplemented, with reference to a notification dated 25.I.1995 issued uncler section 4.[8] (2) of the Land Acquisition Ac[ 7894 read witlr an orcler dated 5.11.2004, botlr of whiclr were not l=iled before the learnecl Re'terence Court, but were. talcen on.l-ecorcl as acjclitional evidence pursuant-to an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 oF the code of civil Procedure, and urged tlrat tlre rrot-ification and tlre order prove that the lands which were under the River Bed were de-notifiecl from acquisition as tlrey were held not reqerirecl for the purpose Fol wlrich the acquisitiorr' was tnade, ancl theretrom counsel urged that it was apparerrt tlrat the remaining lands.were not 'River Bed'. Havihg considerecl tlre submissions urged by learrred counsel for tlre parties I propose to deal witlr the same after nol-ing the clecision of the Surpreme Court reportecl as (2008) 14 SCC 745 Genera/ Manaoer Oil 6t Natura/ Gas Corooration Ltd' Vs' Rameshbhal.llvanbhal Patel & Anr': The matter reached tlre Supreme court, on tlre facts 4.3.

44. that atr al-ea acl-measuring 13 lrectares ancl 17 ares, in village ljapura within District Mefisana, Gujar:at was acquired for an ONGC installation, for wlrich the notifica"tion under SecLion 4 ol tlre Land Acquisition Act IBg[4]. was iss'ued on 15'9.1992' The Land Acquisition Collector determirred the fair marlcet val'ue of the land as of 15.9.1gg[2] at t[2].10 per squarb rnetet-. On a reference Sought, the Reference Court enhanced tire compensation by deterrnining the fair marlcet value at {17.1=0 per square meter. The reasonipg of tlre Rel'erence Court Was tftat in the absence of a.ny sale deeds in tlre village in question, the only material was Ex.15, being an awarcl pertaining to a notification dated 6.I.1987 whereuhder land in a rreighbouring village rrameb Santhal was assessed to a fair compeltsation at tlre.rate cif T10 per SqUare meter, aS also Ex'16, wlrich related to anotlrer land near'the village ljapura i'e' larrd in village Chalsana, oF whiclr fair compensation was also assessed at {10 per square meter pertaining to'a notificatiorr datecl 3L.7.1986. Thus, talcirrg t10 per square meter to be fair rnarlcet vallre for the years 1986 arrd 1987, since notitication beirrg considered was ' cjatecj 15.9.Lggz, tlre Reference Court increased the value, cr,rrlulatively at the r-ate of LO%.pef annum and tlrereafter reduced t[2] per square meter on account oF clistance factor between village' LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page23 ci,f 32 ljapura arrd o[lrer 2 villages, thereby arriving at tlre figure o1=tl7'10 per sqLtare.meter. The High court dismissed the appeal against tlre clecision of tlre Rel'erence CourL. This is lrow tlre t"natter reaclred the SuPrerrre CourL.

45. The Supreme Court opined, on tlre facts of tlre said case, tlrat iir the absence of any eviclence relating to sale transactions in village ljapura and having regard to the pro><imity of village Santhal with tlre acquired lands of village ljapura' it woutlcl be reasonable to determine the marlcet value of lands irr village ljapura witlr re'Ference to Lhe value of land in village Santlral ancl village Clralsana. Tl'tus, tlre Supreme Court lreld that iI would lre reasonable to holcl.tlrat in tlre year IgB[7], value o'l'larrcl in village ljapura was the same a's ill village Santhal and tlris would nrean thal- as of the year ]987, value of lancl ip village ljapura was t10 per square meter. The Supreme Court tlrereafter consiclerecl tlre second question, as to what shoulcl be tlre percentage itrcreaSe to be givel per- annLtnn ancl the further question whetlrer tlr,e same slroulcJ 5e cutnulative i.e. progressive or simple. \ /i[h re'[erence to tlre decisions reported as (1992) 4. SCC 659 Raniit sinqh vs. uT of ancligarh,(2004)2SCC2B3Krlshl.UtpadanMandlSanltlVs, Bipin l(untar and (2005) 9 SCC 594 Lancl Acgtrisition Officer ancl 'cer Vs. Rantanitulu, where Courts had acceptecl escalation in marlcet value of land ?t the relevanI titne 1'ronr lrercentages rarrgirrg between IOo/' to. 15% per annurt, the Suprerrre Court lrelcl tlrat one lras to be careful with respec[ tO:.Wlrethertlre land was comprised in an urban, semi-urban or a rttral LA.APP.59 /2007 & conllected I Page 74 ctf 32 Revenue DiulzlAnAl area. In paiu 13 ancl J[4].of i[s opinion, the Supreme Court observecl as under:-,,:-3. Primarily, the increase irr lancl prices'depetrds otr Four factors: situation of tlre. la.ncl, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of latrd for development in the area, and ihe demand for l-and in tlre area" In rural areas' Irnless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity' increase in prices woLrld be slow, steady and gradual, without arry suldden spurts or jumps. on the other lrand, in urban or semi-urban areaS, wlret-e the developrrrent is faster, where tlre demand for lancl is high and wlrere there is construction activil-y all around, the escalation in marlcet price is at a nruch higlrer rate, as compared to rural areas' ltr som(3 poclcets in big cities, due to rapid cleveloptnent and high clemand for la"nd, Slre escalations in prices fiave touched evell 30% to 5O% or mclre per year, during rrineties':- 4.. Orr the'otlrer extreme, in remote rural area where there was no chance of any development and hardly and buygrs, the prices stagnatecl for years or rose marginally at a 'nominal rate oJ I% or2o/o per annu.mn. Tlrere is thus a significant clil'Ference in increases in marlcet value of lands in ',lrban/Semi-urban areaS and increases in marlce't value o]' lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if tlre itrcrease in marlcet value in urban/semi-urban areas is afuout I0% or 15o/o per annumn, the corresponding increases in. rurPl_?l.e.as'uvould at best be only around lralf of it, that is, about 5o/o to 7.5o/o per annLtm. TSis 1-rle'of thurnb refers to tlre general trend itr tlre 'pinetites, to be adoptecl irr the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. \/Vhere tlrere are special reasons 'For applying a higlrer rate of increase, or any 'specitic evidence r-elating to the actual increase in prices;, tlren the increase to be applied w'ould deperrd upon the sarne. " ' Tlrereafter, the - Supreme Court noted that tlre acqLlisition in Raniit Sirtgh's case (supra), pertained to lands on wlrich Sector 4I in the city of ChancJigarlr was cleveloped'i.e. tlre lancl was abutting the urbafl c'ity of Charidigarlr. The larrd in' Bipin LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page V[5] of 32 4.6. Kun"taf s case (supra) was adjoipi'ng tlre Badaun - Dellri lliglrway and was in a semi-urban al-ea and the land which was surbject rnatter oF consideration in Ramaniu/t|s case (supra) pertairred to tlre 3|-o plrase development of the e><isting and establislred inclustrial estate in the urban area. lt was irr this conte><t tlrat the suprerne court expressed an opinion in para 13 and !4' of its clecision, as e><tracted lrereitlabove. Tlre observations in para 14 of tlre decision pertaining to renrote rural areas arq equally applicable where the land is suclr tlrat tlrere is hardly atry chance of any clevelopment and lrardly any buyer to purchase tlre land; and hence prices stagnating

48. Needless to state, the situation of the land and its sun-ourrding areas, irrcluding availability of lancj irr the area and cJemand thereoj' are tlre factors wlrich lower prices in rural areas and tlrese would eclually be the factors whiclr wou,|cl depress.price rise even if tlre lancl is in an urban area, but is so placed in the cit-y, tlrat its poterrtial for development is meager. 4.g. Marslry lands along river banlcs, lands in Flood Plain, pt-one to floodirrg, wor-rlcl be in this category, everl ir it is irr an urban or a semi-Llrban area, Reverting bacl< to tlre decisiop of the Suprenre Court in 47.

50. Rantesh Bhai's case (supra), highlighting that for lands where poLerrtiality was establislred, a safe tlrumb rule lreld ap!licable lry gre Court, cou.lcl be to increase the marl<et value by I0% to 75o/o per annufft, burt this tlrurnb rule wa's expressly rnade subject to a variation; where peculiar features were available irr [lre 1'ortn ol= eviClence to increase tlre growth up to even 30% per annum or clepress tlre same to lralf i.e"5o/o to 7 '5o/o per annum' LA.AP P.59 /2007 & co nnected Page2G of 32 tr[1] 'J L. Applying tlre aforesaid principles' it was obserrred that since the subject lands were in a rural area and tlrere was no development activity in the area for a long period of time' appropriate escaiatiorr per annum shoulcl be 75% and no fflore'

52. stating tlrat the escalations should be at a cumulative rate i.e. progl-essively and not at a flat rate, the supreme court, in pal-a 20 and 2I of its opinion, lreld tlrat corrlmencing witlr tlre rate oftlO/-persqUarentetet.intheyearl,gBTafldaccordingbeneFitof cunrulative rate pF increase to be 7.5% per year, the price rruould rise to t14..35 per sqLlare meter in tlre year 1992 and as against cleclucti ng T2l- on account of distance factor as done by the Court ol'Rel=erel'tce ancl as uplreld by the lligh Court, since tlre Suprelrle court was applying a lower percen.tage cumulative rate of escalation, tlre decjuction effected was T[1].35 per square rneter and accorclingly the fair marlcet valu'e determined was t13/- per sqLlare nr eter.

53. With respect to the sale deed datecl l-7'3'1988 it has to be lriglrlighted tirat apart from the reasorring given by the learned Trial Judge tlrere are good furtlrer reasoning to igpore [he same and llrave lriglrlightecl the same while noting the argunrent ot slr.sanjay Podclar Advocate irr. para 39 above 'and since I am accepting tlre entire reasoning of tlre argunnent I need not re-state tlre same aS my reasons, but lest I am accused of being a copy cat ancl not evidencing that lhave independently applied rry mi'nd to the argument I record that a solitary sale transaction would be an unsafe measure since a solitary swallow does not medn the onset of Spring and that a solitary tree is no indication tlrat orre has reachecl the woods. I neecl not pen down the catena of judgnren[s LA.AP P.59 / 2007 & co n nected Page77 of32 penlred in tlris court by learnecl Juclges wherein a litLle in e><cess of 1 bigha of agricultural lancl was acquired a few days prior or a few trlot-ttlrs prior to a proposed_ acquisition to avail the benetit of atn alternative residerrtial plot in a developed area at a concessiotral price as per tlre Large Scale Acquisitiorr Policy for Agr-ict-tll-ural Lapds irr DelIi. lt assumes impot-tance that under the sale deed 1 biglra ancl 1 biswa of land was transactecl on I7'3.1988' As I have. lrighlighted herein abovg, issue of re-development of the river YamLtna was being consiclered for a Iong period of time and there is every possibility of Sh,Vinod l(umar beipg a smart man who l<new somebody in the corridors of power and got wind of the proposed acquisition. lwonder what meaningful agricultural activity can be carried on by a person on l biglra arrd l biswa land? That apart, as observed by th.e Supreme Court in tlre decision reported as Union of lndia vs. Ram Ph.a/ 2OO[3] (10) SCC 166, while assessil1g the valLte of a large tract of land situated in various villages a solitary sale transaction o1'a small parcel of land slrould [e ignorecl as it would be unsa'fe to assess the marlcet value of a large tract of land basecl thereon. Tlre law relating to sa|nplirrg tells us tlrat'for a sarnple.to be representative of the wlrole il- mus;t be a fair percentage of the whole and not a triFle. I reiterate Iny reasoning in paras 47 and 48 above. tr,[4] The question would be.whether tlre percetrtage increased worlcecl out by the Iearnecl Trial Judge i'e. L2% per annLtnl on a'l'lat rate witlr reference to the land price t35,000/- per biglra as determinecl in Tinc{e-v's case (supra), wlrich I note per[ained to a notiFicatiorr dated 10.5.I976 fot' lands in village lQtizrabad (lapd being salabi ancl thr-rs a guiclance to me of beirrg in LA.APP.59 I 2007 Bt connected Page[7].B of 32 the flood plain of the river) is correct and whether tlre same has lo be applied progressively and not at the 'flat rate.

55. I have alreadv lreld herein above that tlre instant lands are on tlre Flo.od Plain, not on the river bed as lreld by the learned Reference Court, but tlre same would malce no dif-ference inasmuclr as being on the floocl plain of the river, the larrd is low lying, shallow, nrostly grassland, bt-rshy and witlr shrub vegetation. Tlre aquatic vegetation is very lloor and tlre area gets'Flooded wheneve.r tlre monsoon is nornral or in excess. The learned Re'l'erence Court lr.as highliglrted tlre topqlogy pf tlre land witlr reference to a personal visit and I accept tlre same. Tlre instant lancls are situationally disadvantaged and are clualitatively difterent, being inferior, to other lancls in the revenue estate of village l(ilolcari and l(lrizrabad which were acquired earlier on, on wlrich tlre colonies of Maharani Baglr, l(alindi Colorry ancl New Friends Colony were colonized. It is for this reason thd decision in RFA No.117/I974 Smt. Anooori Devl vs. UO/ wherein pertainirrg to a rrotification dated 13.11.1959, for land in village l(iloicari iair marlcet value assessed was {26,000/-.per biglra cannot be tlre basis for fixing the fair marlcet valite of the subject lancls. I higlrliglrt that pert-aining to'village l(lrizrabad, for similar lancl, pertairring to a notification datecl 10.5.7976, in Tindev's case (supra) fair market value assessed as of said date was t35,000/per bigha. Tlre argun.rent of Sh.L.C.Chechi Advocate, noted in p?ragraph 4.[2] above (last portion), needs to be dealt witlr here. The no[ification releasing lands are the 'River Bed' and -tlre 'Flood Plain'. lt is apparent tlrat tlre autlrorities as also tlre Reference Court lrave usecl fhe extrression 'River Bed' and 'Flood Plain' as LA.APP.59/2007 & connectecl irrterclrangeable, tro1- reeilizing tlrat the two ar-e differetrt; and as explained itr para 13 above. The subject lands. are 'Flood Plain: ancf not'River Bed'and as held by me in paras 4'/ and 4'B above' the consequence of tlre larrds being 'Flood Plain' have to tol{ow' 56.. On the principle of percentage increalse as per Bedi Ran-t's case (supra), reliecl upon by learned counsel tor tlre lanclowlters, wherein progressive increase for various stretches ol'years was appliecl at 6oh, IO% and l2oh per annLlm, su'ftice would it be tct state tlrat tlre Same was on the basis of evidence of suclr arl ipcrease. I am guided on the issue by the decision ol'the Supreme court in Raq-tesh BhaiE case (supra) wherein tlre Suprenre Court cautioned the courts tlrat while applying tlre tlrLrmb rule of percentage increase in the price of lands, one must not be oblivious of positive evidence-to show a greater price rise or lacl< of any evidence of sales, ffteaning thereby prices being stagnanI o.r increasing marginally by I%o or 2o/o per annunr arrd in suclr cases pertaining to rural areas the tlrumb rule be'ing to talce the price increase between 5% to 75%-per antrum. I have already lreld herein above that tlre peculiar featUres, whiclr are rregative in clraracter, for tlre'instant lancls woulcl requrire'the thumb rule required to be adopted for rural areas as applicable to the instant lanc1s on tlre principles I have extractecl in Rartteshbhal's case (supra). I may. lriglrlight that the clecision of a learned Single Judge of tliis Court in Ba/clev Sinqh qhillffi case (supra), wfticlr was reliecl Ltpon by learned counsel tor tlre appellants, in para 13 tlrereof, brings out tlrat tlrere is no clevelopment potential in the lancl Save and except 1e.r flevelop it as a green area a'fter clrannel izing the rivet' Yamr;na and use the same for people to LA.APP.59 /2007 & connected Page 30 ol'32 stroll arouncl and enjoy the cool breeze af'ter toilin g harcl in the hot sLlplTter; not more than 15% of tlre area is capable of a nreaningful USC.

57. But, I lrasten to add tlrat, !,he futuristic use of a land aft-er acquisition would not be a basis to inFer a l'air marl<et value, wlriclr is the manclate of $ection 24 of the Land AcquisiLion Act

1894. Whatever be the percentage increase per annum in the value ol= tlre land, as per tlre decision in Rameshbltai's case (supra) tlre sarne lras to be applied in progression.

59. Talcing into account all the factors lrerein above noted, 58, ol' fact and of law, in my opinion tlre fair marlcet value of tlre irrstant subject lands require the same to be fi><ed with reference to the decision in Tindev's case (supra) by talcing tlre land value at {35,000/- per bigha as of 10.5.1976 and applying tlre percentage increase not at 12% per annum but at 7.5% per annum and applying the same progressively for a period of 13 years, since the notification witlr wlrich I am concerned is dated 23.6.1989,I reach tlre I'igure in sum of t89,6L[4].37 per bigha.

60. Tlre learned Reference Court has determined tlre cornpensation ut TBg,600l- per biglra bf adopting the annual price rise to be 1.2%o burt applying the same at a flat rate to the base rate oF {35,000/- per bigha.

61. But, I have worked' out the figlrre to reach tlre sum of {89,614.37 by commencing fronr the base date 10.5.1976 and applying the same for a period of 13 years whiclr will talce me to tlre date 10.5.1989, I arn conscious oF the fact tlrat tlre notification requires me.to proceed alread by anoLher 43 days and ther-efore A.npp.SS/2007 & corrnected Page 31. of 32 logically requirirrg to further enhance tlre sum, but noting that nratlrematical precision is not to be aclrieved wlrile assessirrg f'air compe'sation and that if difference.between dates is rregligible' tlre sanre has to be ignorecJ ahd thus lbring tlre curtains down by accorcling my irnprinnatur to tlre price cleterminecl by the learned Reference Cour[.

62. pert-aining to the cross objections filecl by tlre Union ol' Inclia, I note tlrat the ch'allenge wqs to the learned rrial Judge holding that lancl value appreciated' by 12% per annul-11' Tlre challenge was on the ground tlrat tlre poor quality, locational and otherwise, of the lancl dicJ not warrant saicl presumption to be ra ised. In view of n'ty reasoning lrereinabove dealing witlr tlre 63. v r-ival contentions pertaining to the appeals filed by tlre latrrl owners, ancl the conclusiorrs arrived at, the inevitable conseqLlence lras to be, the clismissal of all the cross appeals arrd cross objections filed by tlre Union of Irrdia' 64.. Tlrus, all appeals as also the cross objections are clisrnissecl, leaving the parties to bear their own costs' '-" ^''t':' -*.- '^'''-=-1\ (\. \l \r ( PF.AD EE F I\'NAIV DILAJOG ) JUDGE JUIUE 07,2OLL mm / dl< \