Santosh & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

PRADEEP NANDRAIOG,J. For orders see LA.APP.No.971/2008. I (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JUNE 07, 2011 dk Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. . JKE HIGH COURT QF DELHI AT NEW bELHI % tuthe7ment Reserved On: 6 h June, 2011 Judqment.Delivered On: 7h June, 2011 • . LAAPP.NO971/20O8& CM No.4135/2009 (Cross ObjectiOn) RAJBAL& ORS. . . . . ......Appellants Through: Mr.Deepk Khosla and Mr.Indet Singh, Mr.LS.Dahiya, Mr.J.N.S.Tyagi, Mr.5.K.Verma, Mr.S.K.Rout,Mr. Mr.V.K.Singh, Mrs.Vijaylakshrni Jam, Mr.Shyam Babu Ambavata, MrN.S.Chechi, Advocates. Versus UOl & ANR. •. . . ., . .... . Respondents • Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel

(LA), GNCT Delhi with Mr,Sachin Nawani, Mr.R.C.Ray. and Mr.Ashish Tanwár, Advocates. . I Mr.Amit Mehra, Advocate for Mr.Ajay \/errna, Standing Counsel DDA. Pd\L) +LA.APP.1045/2008, LA.APP.110112,008 & CM 414812009 L LA.APP.1228/2008 & CM No.7778/2009, . LA.APP.1232/2008,, LA.APP.1237/2008 & CM No.11653/20111 LA.APP.1254/200 • LA.APP.1261/2008 &. CM. No.2902/2009, LA.APP.1262/2008 & CM •No.116J 2011 , LAAPP.1269/2008 . & CM No.7847/2009, LA.APP;1270/2008, LA.APP.1271/2008 & CM 110.7834/2009 LA.APP.1272/2008 & CM No.11648/2011, LA.APP.1274!2008 & CM No.11580/2011, LA.APP.23/2009, LA.APP.49/2009, LA,APP7I2009 LA.APP.87/2009 • & CM No.7472/2009, LA.APP,91/2009, LA.APP. 131/2009, LA.APP. 151/2009, LA.APP,163/2009, LA.APP.193/2009, LAAVP.195/2009 _LA.APP..205/2009 & CM LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters . Cl No.I067/2011 LA.APP.207/2009, LA.APR221/2009:II&TM No.10071/2011, LA.APP.225/2009,. LA.APP.235/2009 LA.APP237/23009, LA.APP.23912009, : LA.APR 297/2009, LA.APP.313/2009. LA.APP.317/2009, LA.APP.641/209LA.APP. 3 / 20 1 LA.APP.4/2010, LA.APP.512•010, LA.APP.3112010, LA.APP.33/2010, LA.APP.30/2011, LA.APP.31/2011, LA.APP.32/2011, LA.APP.37/2011, LA.APP.1092/2008& CM No.7843/2009. LA.APPJ097/2008 & CM No.4643/2009, LA.APP.1098/2008 & CM No.11674/2011, LA.APP.1099/2008 & CM. No.7840/2009, LA..APP.110012008 & CM No.9986/2011, LA.APP.1118/2008 LA.APP.1227/2008, LA.APP.1/2009 & CM No.7IL011 , LA.APP.2/2009 & CM No.3003/2009 • LA.APP.26/2009 j3006/2009, _LAAPP.28/2009 & CM • N0.414512009,_• •LA.APP.9212.009 & CM No.7770/200 LAAPP.12610A.APP0i2009, . LAJPPJ52/2009 & CM No.9953/201, LAfE 0/09 &CM No.11685/2011 LA APP. 170/2009, LA.APP.1 & CIVI No.996/2011 LAA.PR.212/2009 LAJ\PP.218/2009 & CM N0.7878J0 .0, LAAPP.22612009 •& CM No.11680/201'I, LA.APP.2J2009 J LA.APP.238/2009, LA.APP.240/2009, LA.APP.248/2009, LA.APP.2852009,. LA.APP.28612009, • LA.APP.28712009, LA.APP.288/2009, LA.APP289/2009, LA.PP.290/2009, LA.APP292/2009, LA.APP.294/2009, LA.APP.296/2009 • & • CM NO.11597/2011,. LA.APP.31212009, . LA.APP.314/2009,. . . LA.APP316/2009, LA.APP.318/2009, . LA.APP.319/2009, LA.APP.320/2009, LA.APP.321/2009, LA.APP.322/2009 & CM NO.11683/2011, LA.APP.323L009, . LA.APP.377/2009, LA.APP.379/2009, LA.APP.381/2009, LA.APP.382/2009, LA.APP.387/2009, LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters Page 2 oii9 LA.APP.444/2009, LA.APP.522/2009, LA.APP.64012009,••• LA APP 642/2009 LA APP 69/2010 LA APP 43lI20W LA.APP,68612010 LA.APP.33/2011, LA.APP.50/2011 LA.APP.1286/2011 & CM No.11686/2011, LA.APP.1287/2008 & CM No.2910/2009, LA.APP;88/2009 & CM No.11677/2011, LA.APP.36812009, LA.APP.44/2 010,. LA.APP.296/2011 & CM No.11597/2011 and LA.APP.34/2011 (Relatinci to Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 18.7.2003) AND LA.APP.347/2007, LA.APP.349/2007, LA,APP.35112007, LA.APP.354/2007, LA.APP.355/2007, LA.APP.362/2007, LA.APP.36912007. LA.APP.386/2007, LA.APP.397/200L LA.APP.21/2008, LA.APP.274/2008; LA.APP.63.1/2010, LA.APP.840/2010, LA.APP.342/2007,, LA.APP.343/2007, LA.APP.344/2007, LA.APP.345/2007, LA.APP.346/2007, LA.APP.348/2007, LA.APP.353/2007, LA.APP.35612007 LA.APP.363/2007, LA.APP.364/2007 and LA.APP.387/2007 (Relatinci to Notificatioh under Section 4 of: Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated

24.7.1998) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG .

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not? - Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶1RegEstry is directed to number, the cross-objections if any lying unnumbered in the above-captioned Appeals. LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters The present decision decides the above-captioned Appeals and ccoss objections—WhiCh partain tqjands acguirepyyaflt to notifications. dated 24.7.1998 and 18.7.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and I note that the subject lands are situate in the revenue estate of village l3Urari and jharoda Mazra Burari. It may be noted that pursuant to the notification dated

24.7.1998 lands Were acquired in the revenue estate of the village jharoda Mazra Burari and pursuant to the notification dated 18.7.2003 the subject lands which were acquired were in the revenue estate of • village Burari. The land measuring 705-07 bigha situated in the revenue estate of jharoda. Mazra Burari was acquired by the Goverhmeflt pursuant to the notification dated 24.7.1998 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894..The purpose of the acquisition was to set up a 'dairy Colony'. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award • No.5/LAC/CL/2000 as per which the Land Acquisition Collector ostensibly took into consideration the potentiality and fertility, of the land to ascertain the quality thereof as also its proximity to the nearby habitation. The award records that the survey of the acquired land was concluded to find out the grade Of the land as per its fertility and use. Based thereon the Land Acquisition C011ector has classified • the land into the following categories:- Block 'A': (443-15 bigha) : Plain agricultural land of Block 'B' (197-07 bigha) Block 'C' (64-05 bigha) LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters standard quality. Low lying land of poor fertility and prone to water, logging. Degraded land not put to any agricultural use. Pagé4ofl9 12'

¶5It may be noted that the basis of so holding has not been reco-rdedIset out in the award.

¶6The Land Acquisition Collector considered 4 sale instances out of which 2 instances were of the same village anda s per which land measuring 500 sq.yds. each was sold for 50,000I-on 07.08.19.97, whereas the' other , 2: sale I instances were of village Wazirabad, a village in the vicinity, the first of twhich being the sale deed dated '2770;'998-was4n-i5peCt of the land ad-measuripg1028 sq.yds. and the sale price was 1,00,000/- and the second sale deed dated

26.05-1977. was in respect of land ad-measuring 1600 sq.yds. which was sold for 3,00,000I-. The Land Acquisition Collector thus noted in the award that the indicative price as per the 4 sale deeds comes to 139/- per sq.yd. but did not rest his award thereon inasmuch as the said price resulted in the land value being less than the mininum price notified by the Government as per Office Order dated 24.9.1998 under which the minimum indicative price fixed by the Government for agricultural land in Delhi was fl1,20,000/- per acre i.e. 4 bigha and 16 biswa as of 1.4.1998. I note that as per the Office Order in question the rate per square yard comes to 230/- (approximately). Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Collector detemined the compensation payable as under:- . Block 'A' : 11,20,000/- per acre; .Block 'B' :' fl0,08,000I-per acre (Afte'r effecting 10% reduction from the price of category 'A') Block 'C' ' 8,96,000/- per acre (After effecting 10% reduction from the price of category 'B") The Land Acquisition Collector also awarded com'pensation for the trees found in the acquired land and also granted other statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act. LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters , ' . , . Dissatisfied with the assessment, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and on the reference being made the learned Reference Court answered the Reference under several orders passed under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and assessed the market value of the land by adopting the minimum rate notified by the Government i.e. 11,20,000/- per acre for Category 'A' land but gave benefit of an annual increase at the rate of 11.5% for the period 1.4.1998 till

24.7.1998 and as was done by the Land Acquisition Collector, even the Reference Court depressed the said price by 10% each over the preceding valUe to determine the fair market value for land comprised in Category 'B' and Category 'C'. Accordingly, the Reference Couri enhanced the compensation, per acre, as under:- Category 'A' : 11,60,580.82. Category'B' : 10,44,522.73. Category 'C' : 9,28,464.65. This assessment by the learned Reference Court has been accepted by the Government, but the land owners have challenged the same in the above-captioned appeals listed under caption. II above. • Another parcel of land ad-measuring 1448-01 bigha (301.66 acres), situated in the revenue estate of village Burari, i.e., the adjoining village was acquired by the Government pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on 18.07.2003. This land was acquired for the publIc purpose, namely, the development of a 'Bio-biversity Park, Phase-Il'. While determining the market value of the subject lands, the Land Acquisition Collector, treating the land as agricultural land, classified • the same into 2 categories, namely, Category 'A' and LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters t9 Category 'B' as per the award bearing No.2/LAC/N/05-06. The Land Acquisition Collector observed that the acquired land is on the Eastern side of the Forward Bund and categorically held that the land was not prone to Burdhi and/or Barahiadi i.e. was not prone to alluvium or diluvial effects of the river currents. He observed that the subject lands were 'Do Fasit i.e. 2crops were grown on the lands. each year. . . . The Land Acquisition Collector put in Category 'A' only 12.44 acres of land out of 301.66 acres and the remainder 289.22 acres was put in Category 'B'. The Land Acquisition Collector has observed that he had obtained the consolidation report .. from the office of the Kanugo showing the variation in the value of the land at the time of consolidation. . . . Relevant would it be to note that on what basis he did so has not been stated in the award and one is left guessing. The only reason for classifying the subject lands in two categories is that some lands were better in quality than the other. The Land Acquisition Collector referred to the previous award wherein the land was. classified in 3 categories. I highlight that the Land Acquisition Collector has given no reasons why he was placing only 12.44 acres land in Category 'A' and the remainder in Category 'B'. Pertairing to the fair market value, in the absence of any sale deed presen!ted before the Land Acquisition Collector from which fair market value could be determined, the . Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the Office Order dated 9.8.2001 as per-which minimum value of agricultural land in Delhi was fixed at 15,70,000/- per acre, and accordingly held said price to be the fair rrarket value for lands in Category 'A' and for unexplainable reasori, in any case none which I can fathom, assess the value 5,05,000/- per acre for the remaining LA.APP.971/2008& connected matters . . rc land. With respect to a report received from the Horticulture Department, the Land Acquisition Collector observed that land comprised in Khas.ra Nos.116/3, 4, 7, 8, 14, 26, 106/26, 133/25 and 26 were having -orchards and for which he assessed - further compensation pertainingto said lands with respect to the value of the trees thereon. Needless to state statutory benefits under.the Land • Acquisition Act 1894 were also granted. Dissatisfied with the assessment of the fair market value, the land owners 'sought reference under Section" 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and hence various references were made to the Reference Court.

'After affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, the Reference, Court answered the references by rejecting the categorization of the lands as per the award and granted a -uniform compensation for the entire land. Adopting the -minimum price for agricultural land issued by the 'Government on 09.08.2001, aiid - granting an annual increase @11.5% per annum on the sum of 15,70,000/-, the Court fixed the market value of the land at 19,20,568/- per acre as on 18.07.2003.- Needless to state statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were granted onthe enhanced compensation.

16 This decision has been challenged by the land owners as also the Government.

• . 17. . A perusal of the decision of the Reference. Court would reveal that the matter was argued on two counts. On the first count the land - owners won and on the second count they lost. The first count on - which they questioned the award pertained to classification of only

12.44 acre land. in Category 'A' and for which' 'they relied upon the valuation given tothe lands during consolidation prOceedings which LA.APP.971/2008 &corrnected matters ' ' took place iii the year 1970-72. The secopd count pertained to the market valUe of land and for which they relied upon two sale deeds Ex;PW-1/2 (in the refeence sought by Raj Bal LAC No.226/1/2007 as per which 7 bigha 15 biswa land comprised in. Khasra No.19/26 in the revenue estate of village Burari was sold by the recorded bhoomidars thereof Sh.Rarn Kumar and Sh.Rajesh Kumar in favour of Motor General Finance Ltd.: on i2J93 at a curd&d 3ale considation Or 39,17,000/-. Therefrorñ they urqed that th market due agricultural lands in village Burari have to be treated at 39,17,000I-per acre as of 9.12.1993 and desired that market value of their lands be enhanced asof the year 2003.

18.. I may note that in the reference sought pertaining to the lands • which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 24.7.1998, this sale deed was pressed int6 aid by the land owners therein as well. . . The sale deed has . been rejected . by the learned Refernce Court pertaihing to both sets of acquisition. 1 shall be dealing with the reasoning of the learned Judge soon hereinafter. Consolidation proceedings in both villages took place under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act; 1948 [as extended to Delhi]. since: the consolidation proceedings in question were relied upon only pertaining to the agricultural lands in village Burari and • record thereof alohe was proved before the Reference Court, it may be noted that 93 sheets of the consolidation record was proved as Ex,PW-.4/I the reference sought by Raj Bal & Ors. nd this was ei dç'h The. h rakash wh - a I_pea rcd PW-4 and th srre coi: Uiat during can ldatio LA.APP.9711 2008 & connected matters land in the viHage was assigned .16 annas, 12 annas, 10 annas8 annas, 6 annas and 4 annas. I may highHght that as per the award No.2/LAC/N/05-06 'the subject lands are comprised in rectangle No;106, 107, 108, 109 1 110, 112, 113, 114 115, 116, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 142 and 143,, /\s pérthe award the lards in all the rectanqles save and except rectrgk NoJ4! and 1'3 -;nd nnk 'ands com'pdsed n Ka;ra NoJ;., J. 2, d 25 rctanc 'ave !.ieen p: in :aiiy and the remainder in Category W. The record of consolidation shows that the Land Acquisition Collector, notwithstanding having referred to have seen the record of consolidation, has not reflected the same correctly inasmuch as I find the following valuations given during consolidation Rectangle No. Value in annas ,. •8 . 6 109' . . 10' . •110 ... 10 . , . 6

113 ' . , .6 . . ', . .12 116 . , . . 12 . . 125 •' , . 12 . . . C" . H LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters .. ., '. - I may highlight the patent absurdity in the award wherein rectangle No.142 and 143 have been placed in Category 'A' which during consolidation were assigned value 12 anna ignoring that rectangle 115, 116, 125, 126 and 132 to 134 were also assigned the same value. I shall be taking corrective action at the appropriate stage. But would note at this stage that the learned Reference Court has somewhat undohe the injustice by treating all lands in the same category of which finding the land owners are happy but the Government is aggrieved of. • 26. From the facts noted hereinabove, the arguments of the rival parties can be discerned. As regards the Goyernrient it questioris all lands in village Burari being' put in the same category and also with regard to the enhancement given by the learned Reference Court. As :regards the land owners they are aggrieved by the fact that the market valu of their lands was not determined with reference to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 i.e. the sale-deed dated 912.1993 under which 7 bigha and 15 biswa of land in village Burari was sold for39?17;O?0I.

¶27I may note that a number of documents were proved by various parties before the learned Reference Court, but I need not trouble the reader of my decision with the same as neither counsel relied upon them during arguments for the obvious reason the sales, reflected in the sale deeds-post 2003, being after the acquisition being notified, LA,APP.971/2008 & connected matters tj could not be treated.as reflective of the fair market \ialue of the lands as of either the year .1998 or of the year 2003..

¶28Questioning the adoption of the sale price as per Ex.. PW-1/2, and justifying the rejection V thereof by the learned Reference Court, • Sh.Sanjay Poddarr argued that Motor Generl & Finance apparently • entered into 2 agreements to sell, both dated 15.10.1999 being Mark 'A' and 'B' for a consideration of 42,90,000/-; Learned counsel urged that the speculative value, reflected in the sale deed dated 9.12.1993 is apparent inasmuch as the said land was agreed to be sold 5 years • and 10 months thereafter for a sum of 42,90,000/- i.e. a meger • price rise of 3,73,000/- 'which would give an appreciation of less than 1% in the total period of 5 years and 10 months as against various decisions holding that during this period the! price rise, of agricultural • land in Delhi was around 10% progressive, in some and flat in ohers depending upon the situational advantage/disadvantage of the subject lands'. By way of illustration to make gOod the point, learned • counsel argued that doing reverse calculation, if 42,90,000/- wa the value as of 15 10 1999, depressing the same by reducing it 10% each year even on a flat rate, the value as of , 1993 would be around '14,00,000/- for 7 bigha and 15 biswa 'land.': Counsel highlighted that this would translate to a value of fl,80,000/- per bigha. However, counsel was quick toaddthis may not be taken, as his admissibn as V the argument was only to illustrate a point. Learned counsel highlighted ,the testimony of Sh.Arun Mittér PW-3 a director of the company who appeared in LAC No.140/1/206 and admitted that he was not far 1niliar with the topology of the area and had no,proof of any earnings from the land during the period it remained with the company and virtually admitted not having put-the land to any use. Counsel stated that his assertion that flowers were groWn therein by a .LA.AP.P.971/2008 & connected matters ' ' • Page 12 of 19 / Mali had to be ignored inasmuch as when questioned who was the Mali, whO employed him and in what manner salary was paid to him, Sh.Arun Mitter disclosed his ignorance. Counsel also highligited that one land owner Sh.Laxrni Chand who was a petitioner along with Charan Singh & Ors. in LAC No.138/1/06 admitted land being used as a godown i.e. a commercial purpose. Learned counsel further submitted that on. the issue of the land price, Ex.RX1 being the sale deed dated 22.11.2003 executed in favour of Nisha Tyagi showed that the lady had purchased agricultural land in village Burari on

22.11.2003 for 6,32,000/- being 5 bigha and 19 biswa of land and 'the sale deed EX.RX2 dated 2.1.2004 showed that Raj Bal, his wife Usha Tyagi, and his sister-in-law Shobha had purcha5ed 2 bigha, 10 biswa land in the same vill'age for 2,65,651/-. Therefrom counsel sought to justify the inflated figure in the sate deed relied upon by the land owners.

¶29Pertaining to the sale deed executed in favour of Motor General -&. Fa-nc it wtaiy. a-s.sumes importance that the company, speaking through its Director, gave no convincing reasons of having put the land to any use: The claim thatflowers were grown and were, consumed in house is, most uninspiring inasmuch as not even .the name of the Mali employed Could be provided by Sh.Arun, Mitter. No proof of any. salary paid to the Mali was adduced. Thespeculati\fe nature of the transaction is self-evident from the fact that nearly 6 years thereafter the company ostensibly sold the land at a meager price rise of 3,73,000/- which gives not even 1% increase in the value of the land spread over nearly 6years, to be exact 5 years and 10 months. That Arun Mitter admitted having no idea of the topology of the land in the area would show that the company was not an informed buyer and in respect of sale of land it is settled law that the LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters . V test is the price which an informed buyer would pay to a willing sel!r añdto'be an informed buyer there must be evidence that the buyer has knowledge of the topology of the area, the land available for sale and such other factors showing that the buyer was an informed bu'er as observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as. ffrlohammad Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer 2009 (14) SCC

¶367I accordingly hold that the sale deed in. question would not be a good guiding factor on which fair market value of thé lands in question has to be determined and would likewise even reject the sale deed relied upon by Sh.Sanjay Poddar as the same relate to small parcels of land and cannot be treated as a good representative sample of the whole. Thus, pertaining to the subject lands I hold that the basis to determine the fair market value has to be the Government Officer Orders, fixing ñiinimum price at U1,20,000/- per acre as of 1.4.1998 and 15,70,000/- as of 9.8.2001; which, treating 11,20,000/7 as the base figure and the date 1.4.1998. gives us a progressive price rise of about 11% per annum and this I 'highlight conorms to a percentage increase which is being given by the Courts as a thumb rule.. On the issue of the situational location of the land, there is no evidence that it is near developed colonies in Delhi.. In the decision reported as 2011 IV AD (SC) 383 Om Prakash vs. State of Haryana & Org. it was observed that several facets have'to be kept in view while determining the potential value of the acquired land and some of these would include:- ' I

(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-6-vis the city Orthe town or village which had been growing' in size because of its comrnerciaI, industrial, educational, religious or any other LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters .

' ' nn khd of impoànce or because of its explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acqüired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the cae may. be ; possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land; absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired larjd for building purposes; existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the, acquired land; benefits or advantages or educational institutions, health care; centres, or the like in the surrounding ares of the acqUired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if builton the acquired land;

(viii) and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.

¶34In view of the discussion hereinabove I find complete jUstification in the reasoning of the learned Reference Court pertaining t& lands which were acquired pursuant to the notification • dated 247.19 98 as also the classification of the lands into 3 blocks and corresponding values assigned thereto and hence I hold that •LA.APP.347/2007, LA.APP.349/2007, LA.APP.351/2007, LA.APP.354/2007, LA.APP.355/2007, LA.APP,362/2007, LA,APP.369/2007, LA.APP.38612007, LA.APP.397/2007, LA.APP.21/2008, LA.APP.274/2008 LA.APP.631/2010, LA.APP.840/2010, LA.APP.34212007, LA.APP.343/2007, LA.APP.344/2007, LA.APP.345/2007, LA.APP.346/2007, LA.APP.971/2008 :& connected maters 2-) LA.AP.348/2.007, .. LA.APP.353/2007,. . LA.A'PP:356' LA.APP.363/2007, LA.APP.364/2007 and LA.APP.387/2007 are required to be disrñissed. . As regards the remaining Land Acquisition Appeals and cross bjectidns filed, I hold that the Reference Court gave good reasons to disagree with the classification resorted to and the price a.ssigned thereto by the Land Acquisition Collector, but find the Referenc Court having committed one error, in that it has assigned one market value to the entire acquired land. It is no doubt true that the Land Acquisition Collector had referred 'to the subject lands as 'Do Past!, but with reference to the record of the consolidation proceedings, and as discussed by: me hereinabove, it is apparent that different rectangles had different values ranging between 4 anna to 16 anna and in respect of the lands with which I am concerned, noting that they are comprised in rectangle No.106, 107, 108; 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 125, 126, 12, 128, 129, 133, 134, 142 and 143, to which value of'4 annas was assigned to rectangle No.128, 6 annas to rectangle No.107, 112 and 114, 8 annas to rectangle No.106, 127 and 129, 10 annas to rectangle No.108, 109, 110 and 113 and 12 annas to the remainder, it would be just and proper to classify lands acquired in village Burari in 2 categories. Lands valued at 10 annas and 12 annas would be in Category, 'A' and the remainder in Category 'B'. •" I accordingly hold that lands comprised in rectangle No.108, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116,125, 126, 132 ) 133, 134, 142 and 143 would be treated as in Category 'A' and lands comprised in rectangle No.106, 107, 112, 114, 127 and 129 would be treated. inCategory 'B'. Needless to state lands comprised in va.rious Khasra Nos, relatable to the rectangle in question would so st.and categorized. This concludes one issue of categorization and which unfortunately for the land owners has resulted in therelatable cross objection succeeding on the point that not all lands have to be placed in the same category.

On the issue of the fair market value of the land, as noted hereinabove the learned Trial Judge has adopted the price notified by the Government at 15,70,000/- per acre as of 9.8.2001 and has enhanced it by 11.5% per annum to reach the figure of 19,20,568/- per acre and this, price I hold is the fair market price for lands in Category 'A' detailed in para 37 above I reduce the said figure by bOb for Category 'B' lands and thus hold that the fair markt value • •for Category 'B' lands would be 17,28,512/-. •l conclude by directing that LA.APP.3'47/2007, LA.APP.349/2007, LA.APP.351/2007, LA.APP.354/2007, LA.APP.355/2007, LA.APP.36272007, LA.APP.369/2007, LA.APP.386/2007, LA.APP.397/2007, LA.APP.21/2008, LA.APP.274/2008, LA.APP.631/2010, LA.APP.840/2010, LA.APP.342/2007, LA.APP.343/2007, LA.APP.344/2007, LA.APP.345/2007, LA.APP.346/2007, LA.APP,348/2007, LA.APP.353/2007, LA.APP.356/2007, LA.APP.363/2007,, LA.APP.36412007 and LA.APP.387/2007 are dismissed. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.

LA.APP.971/2008 & CM No.4135/2009, LA.APP.1045/2008, • ' LA.APP.1101/2008 & CM 4148/2009', LA.APP.1228/2008, & CM, No.7778/2009, LA.APP.1232/2008, LA.APP.1237/2008 & CM No.11653/2011, LA.APP.1254/2008, LA.APP.1261/2008 & CM No.2902/2009, LA.APP.1262/2008 & CM No.1165.1/2011, LA.APP.1269/2008 & CM No.7847/2009, LA.APP.1270/2008, • LA.APP.1271/2008 & CM No.7834/2009, LA.APP.1272/2008 Sc. CM LA;APP.971/2008 & connected mafters No.11648/2011, LA.APP,.1274/2008 & •CM No.11580/2011, LA.APP.23/2009, LA.APP.49/2009, LA.APP.75/2009, LA.APP.87/2009 & CM No.7472/2009, LA.APP.91/2009, LA.APP.131/2009, LA.APP.15112009, LA.APP.163/2009, LA.APP.193/2009, LA.APP.195/2009, LA.APP.205/.2009 & CM No.10067/2011, LA.APP.207/2009, LAAPP.221/2009 & CM No.10071/2011, LA.APP.225/2009, LA.APP.235/2009, LA.APP.237/23009, LA.APP.239/2009, LA.APP.297/2009, LA.APP.313/2009, LA.APP.317/2009, LA.APP.641/2009, LA.APP.3/2010, LA.APP.4/2010, LA.APP.5/2010, 'LA.APP.31/2010, LA.APP.33/2010, LA.APP.30/2011, LA.APP.31/2011, LA.APP.32/2011, LA.APP.37/2011, LA.APP.1092/2008 & CM No.7843/2009, LA.APP.1097/2008 & CM No.4643/2009, LA.APP.109812008 & CM No.11674/2011, LA.APP.1099/2008 & CM No.7840/2009, LA.APP.1100/2008 & CM No.9986/2011, LA.APP.1118/2008, LA.APP.1227/2008, LA.APP.1/2009 & CM No.11671/2011, LA.APP.2/2009 & CM No.3003/2009 LA.APP.26/2009 & CM No.3006/2009, LA.APP.28/2009 & CM No.4145/2009, LA.APP.92/2009 & CM No.7770/2009, LA.APP.126/2009, LA.APP.150/2009, LA.APP.152/2009 & CM No.9953/2011, LA.APP.160/2009 &. CM No11685/2011, LA.APP.170/2009, • LA.APP.184/2009, LA.APP.192/2009, LA.APP.194/2009, LAAPP.204/2009, LA.APP.206/2009 & CM No.9956/2011, LA.APP.212/2009, LA.APP.21/2009 & CM No.7878/2010, LA.APP.226/2009 & CM No.11680/2011, LA.APP.234/2009, LA.APP.236/2009, LA.APP.238/2009, LA.APP.240/2009, LA.APP.248/2009, LA.APP.285/2009, LA.APP.286/2009, LA.APP.287/2009, LA.APP.288/2009, LA.APP.289/2009, LA.APP.290/2009, LA.APP.292/2009, LAAPP.294/2009, LA.APP.296/2009 & CM No.11597/2011, LA.APP.312/2009, LA.APP.97.1/2008 & connected matters •• LA.APP.3 14/2009, LA.APP.316/2009, LA.APP.3 18/2009, LAivPP.31912009, LA.APP.320/2009, LA.APP.321/2009, LA.APP.322/2009 & CM No.11683/2011, LA.APP.323/2009, LA.APP.377/2009, LA.APP.379/2009, LA.APP.381/2009, LA.APP.382/2009, LA.APP.387/2009, LA.APR444/2009, LA.APP.522/2009, LA.APP.640/2009, LA.APP.642/2009, L 2010, LA. P.431/2010, LA.APP.686/2010, LA.APP.33/2011, LA. . , APPI2Z612011 & .CM- :No.11686/2011, LAAPP.1287/2008 & CM No.2910/2009, LA.APP.88/2009 & CM N- .11e7712011, LA.APP.368/200, LA.APP.44/2010, LA.APP.296/2011 & CM No.11597/2011 and LAAPP.34/2011 stand disposed of in terms of paras 37 and 39 above requiring a decree to .be drawn with reference to whether the lands are comprised in such Khasras as fall in such rectangles which have been placed in Category -'A' or in Category 'B'. Needless to state such appeals and cross objections which relate to such lands as would be in Category 'A' stand dismissed. Appeals filed by the land owners and also cross objections filed by the land owners which relate to lands plated in Category 'B' are dismissed. Appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to lands in Category 'B' would stand allowed in terms of para. 37 and 39 above.

¶41Needless to state impugned decrees would stand modified accordingly. I leave the parties to bear their own costs. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JUNE 07,2011 mm/dk . • LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters •

S $-143 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % /udqment Reserved On: 6t h /une, 2011 /udgment Delivered On: 7 1h /une, 2011 H + LA.AP.50/2011 SANtOSH AND ORS. Appellant Through: Mr.H.R.Singh & Mr.V.K.Singh, Advocates. versus H UOl AND ANR. Respondents hrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhiwith Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.R.C.Ray and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates. Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed •to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?