Union of India v. Ram Rattan & Anr

ORDER

23.08,2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.266/2008. TT

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. AUGUST 23, 2011 mm THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI :k % Judgment Reserved On: 12^^ August 2011 judgment Delivered On: 23'''^ August 2011 LA.APP. 266/2008 JAI SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Mr.Deepak Khosia/ Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.M.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana, IWr.Raj Singh, Mr.Uday Rann, Mr.D.R.Tomar, Mr.i.S.Dahiya, Mr.N.S.Dalai, Mr.S.M.Bhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta, Mr.S.K.RoUt, Mr.S.S.Rana, Mr.Suhil Dalai, Mr.D.S.Khatri Mr.T.P.S.Kang, Advocates Vs. UOI&ANR. ... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1. Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Advocate for DSIDC. Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Ms.Shobhna Takiar. Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi . Ms.Beenashaw Soni Advocates for DDA. AND (GRIP-A) + LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP. 264/2008, LA.APP. 265/2008, LA.APP. 267/2008, LA.APP. 268/2008, LA.APP. 270/2008, LA.APP. 271/2008, LA.APP. 272/2008, LA.APP. 273/2008, LA.APP. 278/2008 "STXIvrAPPL. 5338/2009~tCroSs~mjmmn5). LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters - Page1 of 74 a 279/2008, LA.APP. 280/2008 & CM APPL Objections), LA.APP. 281/2008, LA.APP. 5261/2009 (Cross 284/2008, LA.APP. 289/2aU8, TA.APP. 292/2008. LA.APP. 1291,8/2011 (Buss 296/2008. LA.APP. 303/2000,—LA.APP. 286/2008. 290/2008, 293/2008, Objections), 299/2008, 304/2008, . 339/2008, 401/2008, 472/2008, 487/2008, 495/2008, 527/2008, 541/2008, 548/2008, 566/2008, 627/2008, 648/2008, 724/2008 756/2008, 861/2008, 880/2008, 895/2008, 907/2008, 925/2008, 931/2008, 934/2008, 941/2008, 946/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. IA.APP. LA.APP. - LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APR. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 287/2008. LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP. & CM APPL. 295/2008, LA.APP. 301/2008; - 3^117200:8, 357/2008, 413/2008, 4-89/2008, 492/2008, 496/2008, 535/2008, 545/2008, 554/2008. 621/2008, 628/2008, 649/2008, LAtAPPt LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAtAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 337/2008, 394/2008, 443/2008, 484/2008; 493/2008, 526/2008, 537/2008, 546/2008, 563/2008, 623/2008, 635/2008, 662/2008, & CM APPL. 5353/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. la:app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 875/2008, 888/2008, 905/2008, 910/2008, 926/2008, 932/2008, 936/2008, 942/2008, 955/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 879/2008, 894/2008, 906/2(508, 911/2008, 927/2008, 933/2008, 939/2008, 944/2008, 958/2008, 999/2008 & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), 1014/2008, LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP. 1023/2008, 1026/2008; LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA.APP. 1071/2008, 1244/2008, LA.APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, 1268/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008, CM APPL. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 2377/2009, (Cross Objections) LA.APP. 86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 97/2009, LA.APP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP. 111/2005^,1 LA.APP. 114/2009. LA.APP. 120/2009, lAAEP. 251/2009, LA.APP. 252/2009, LA.APP. 265/2009, LA.APP. 266/2009 & CM APPL. No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 267/2009, 270/2009, 273/2009, 454/2009, 532/2009, LA.APP. 268/2009, LA.APP. 271/2009, LA.APP. 300/2009, LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 535/2009 Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009 & CM APPL 12917/2011 (Cross Objections), -LA.APfi.—543/2009, - LA^APP. -&4"4/2009; "tATSPPT LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. CM APPL. 269/2009, LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APP. 306/2009, LA.APP. 521/2009, LA.APP. 12886/2011 (Cross 566/2009, LA.APP. 570/2009 & CM APPL.13873/2011, LA.APP' 589/2009, LA.APP. 593/2009, LA.APP. 594/2009, LA.APP. .634/2009, LA.APP. 635/2009, LA.APP. 636/2009, LA.APP. 637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, LAiAPP. 643/2009 & CM APPL.13878/2G11, LA.APP. 1/2010, LA.APP. 29/2010, LA.APP. 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP. 107/2010, LA.APP. 108/2010, LA.APP. 109/2010, LA.APP. 168/2010, LA.APP. 169/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LA.APP. 171/2010, 'LA.APP. 220/2010, LA.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, LA.APP. 430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP7 520/2010 CM APPL.13968/2011, LA.APP. 521/2010, CM APPL 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 522/2010, LA.APP. 523/2010, LA.APP. 524/2010 & CM APPL. 12914/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, LA.APP. 527/2010, LA.APP. 528/2010, LA.APP. 529/2010, LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL. 229/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 531/2010, UV.APP. 532/2010 Si CM APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), l-A.APP. 533/2010 & CM APPL. 12898/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 534/20i©7 -LA.APP.-535/2010 & CM APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010, & CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 537/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010 & CM APPL. 12972/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPL. 12900/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP. 541/2010, LA.APP. 542/2010 Si CM APPL. 19857/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. 12903/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL. 12888/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010, LA.APP. 566/2010, LA.APP. 581/2010, LA.APP. 592/2010 & GM APPL. 227/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 593/2010 & CM APPL. 12969/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 594/2010, LA.APP. 595/2010 & CM APPL. 226/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 596/2010, LA.APP. 597/2010 & CM APPL. 228/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP-. 598/2010 & CM APPL. 487/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 600/2010 & CM APPL. 12897/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 601/2010, LA.APP. 602/2010, LA.APP. 603/2010 & CM APPL. 12881/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP. 663/20TG & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 666/2010 & CM APPL. 6748/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 675/2010CM APPL. 9988/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 761/2010, LA.APP. 792/2010 & CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross Objections), UV.APP. 793/2010 & CM APPL. 12899/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. 795/2010, LA.APP. 40/2011, LA.APP. 195/2011 & CM APPL. 12892/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 215/2011, LA.APP. 228/2011, LA.APP. 229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011, LA.APP. 231/2011, LA.APP. 232/2011, LA.APP. 233/2011, LA.APP. 389/2011, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008&• connectedmatters Page3 of 74 392/2011, LA.APP. 420/2011, . LA.APP. 424/-2ail^-LA™API'. 425/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s

07.08.2000 & Award No.19/2002-03, Village-Pooth Khurd) AND + l_A.APP. 972/2008 & Civi 2349/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1122/2008 & CM 2099/2009 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 1150/2008 & CiVj 12216/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1151/2008 & CM 2345/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1152/2008 & CM 2102/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1153/2008 & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1154/2008, LA.APP. 1187/2008, LA.APP. 1188/2008, LA.APP. 1189/2008, LA.APP. 1218/2008, LA.APP. 15/2009, LA.APP. 82/2009, LA.APP. 100/2009, LA.APP. 102/2009, LA.APP. 113/2009, LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009, LA.APP. 214/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 11/2001-02, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND -C) + LA.APP. 359/2007, LA.APP. 202/2007, LA.APP. 382/2007, LA.APP. 383/2007, LA.APP. 269/2008, LA.APP. 811/2008, LA.APP. 928/2008, LA.APP. 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/2009, LA.APP. 969/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 08/2001-02, Village-Bawana) AND + LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2011 & CM 12911/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters _ Page4 of74 iftelatmg-iD Motifrcatton u/s 4—dnted ir.t)9.2000--&--Awafd 20/2002-03, Village-Khera Khurd) AND -E) + LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, LA.APP. 646/2009, LA.APP. 91/2010, LA.AI^^ 93/2010, LA.APP. 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP."""l91/2010 & CM No. 22402/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 192/2010, LA.APP. 193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, LA.APP. 196/2010, U\.APP. 197/2010, LA.APP. 297/2010, LA.APP. 299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, LA.APP. 309/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 &. CM No. 3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 373/2010, LA.APP. 493/2010, LA.APP. 494/2010, LA.APP. 495/2010, LA.APP. 496/2010, LA.APP. 497/2010 & CM No. 22728/2010 . (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, LA.APP. 499/2010, LA.APP. 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& CM No. 23186/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 & CM No. 10382/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 503/2010, LA.APP. 504/2010, LA.APP. 505/2010, LA.APP. 506/2010, LA.APP. 507/2010, LA.APP. 508/2010, LA.APP. 509/2010, LA.APP. 510/2010, LA.APP. 511/2010, LA.APP. 512/2010, LA.APP. 513/2010, LA.APP. 514/2010, LA.APP. 515/2010, LA.APP. 516/2010, LA.APP. 517/2010 & CM No. 7702/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 518/2010, LA.APP. 519/2010, LA.APP. 610/2010, LA.APP. 611/2010, LA.APP. 612/2010, LA.APP. 613/2010, LA.APP. 618/2010, LA.APP. 619/2010, LA.APP. 620/2010, LA.APP. 621/2010, LA.APP. 622/2010, LA.APP. 623/2010, LA.APP. 628/2010, LA.APP. 647/2010 & CM No. 3847/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM No. 3560/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 652/2010, LA.APP. 841/2010, LA.APP. 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM No. ^70378/2011 (Cfuss—Qbtections), -tAA:PP^855/2010, LA.APP. 856/2010 & .CM No. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010 & CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1008/2010 &-GM-N0. 9966/2011 (Cross 70biH-c"tions), LA.APP. 1021/2010, LA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP. 79/2011, LA.APP. 80/2011, LA.APP. 81/2011, LAAPP. 82/2011, -±A7APP7 :83/20±±7 LA.APfir-84/2011, LA.APP. 85/2011, LA.APP. 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP. 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/2011, LAtAPP. 324/2011 & CM APPL.15110/2011, LA.APP. 385/2011. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page5of74 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

02.05.2001& Award No. 24/2003-04, Village-Narela) AND -F) + LA.APP. 497/2008, LA.APP. 141/2009 & CiVj 5302/2010 (Cross Objections). (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 18/2003-04, Viiiage-Holambi Kaian) AND (GRiD-G) + LA.APP. 777/2.010 & CM APPL3808/2011, LA.APP. 778/2010 & CM 2686/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 779/2010 & CM 12966/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 213/2011, LA.APP. 261/2011, LA.APP. 326/2011, LA.APP. 327/2011, LA.APP. 328/2011, LA.APP. 330/2011, LA.APP. 331/2011, LA.APP. 332/2011, LA.APP. 333/2011, LA.APP. 334/2011, LA.APP. 335/2011, LA.APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, LA.APP. 341/2011, LA.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP. 350/2011, LA.APP. 351/2011, LA.APP. 365/2011, LA.APP.377/2011, LA.APP.388/2011. - (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No, 33/2003-04, Village-HolambI Kalan) AND (GK0D-H) + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, LA.APP. 409/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22-08.2001 & Award No. 15/2003-04, Viliage-Ali Pur) AND + LA.APP. 481/2010 LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters' Page6 of 74. TRelating to Notifteatton u/s 4 datecT 9/2003-04, Village-Holambi Khurd) AND (GRID-J) + LA.APP. 780/2010 & CM No.2661/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM No.3833/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 900/2010 & CM No.3541/2011 (Cross Objections)) LA.APP. 970/2010, LA.APP. 971/2010 & CM No.3805/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM No.2667/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Crbss Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 & CM No.l4333/2011(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 977/2010, LA.APP. .978/2010, LA.APP. 979/2010 Si CM No.9990/2011, LA.APP. 980/2010 & CM No.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP. 982/2010 & CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections), UV.APP. 9*84/2O^nr & CM ISTo.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), 1-A.AFP. 985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), 1-A.APP. 986/2010, LA.APP. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP. 990/2010, LA.APP. 991/2010 & CM No.9984/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 & CM No.9970/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1018/2010, LA.APP. 1020/2010 & CM No.12939/2 (Cross 0bjections)011, LA.APP. 1024/2010 & CM No.6771/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1/2011 & CM No.12964/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 2/2011 & CM No.6752/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 25/2011, LA.APP. 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, LA.APP. 53/2011 & CM No.6766/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 73/2011 & CM No.12922/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM No.6775/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.APP. 110/2011, LA.APP. 111/2011, LA.APP. 112/2011 & CM No.10050/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP. 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011 (Reiating to Notification u/s

22.08.2001 & Award No.20/2003-04, Viiiage-Rajapur Kalan) AND (GRID-K) LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page7 of74 + LA.APP. 488/2008, LA.APP. 490/2008, LA.APP. 491/2008, LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/2008, LA.APP. 868/2008 & CM No.10393/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 896/2008 & CM -^07^364/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APPt 897/200&,- LA.APP. 1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP. 34/2010 & CM No.7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 488/2010, LA.APP. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011, LA.APP. 421/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth)

07.12.2001 & Award AND (GRID-L) + LA.APP: 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, LA.APP. 352/2008, LA.APP. 364/2008, LA.APP. 385/2008, LA.APP. 387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP. 464/2008& CiVi No.11333/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP. 468/2008& Cl^I No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP. 470/2008, LA.APP. 471/2008, LA.APP. 560/2008, 561/2008, LA.APP. 611/2008, LA.APP. 663/2008, 676/2008, LA.APP. 678/2008, LA.APP. 679/2008, 681/2008,^ LA.APP. 682/2008, 722/2008, 786/2008, 842/2008, 883/2008, 924/2008, 938/2008, 945/2008, 998/2008, 1007/2008, 1079/2008, 309/2009, 465/2009, 546/2009, 624/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. 23/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010. 731/2008, 825/2008, 850/2008, 903/2008, 935/2008, 940/2008, 956/2008, 1001/2008, 1065/2008, 106/2009, 374/2009, 468/2009, 547/2009, 628/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. La.app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 683/2008, 754/2008, 826/2008, 853/2008, 904/2008, 937/2008, 943/2008, 957/2008, 1004/2008, 1077/2008, 172/2009, 464/2009, 539/2009, 565/2008, 630/2009, 26/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. -A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 35/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 16.05.2002 Sl Award No. 29/2003-04, Viliage-Shahpur Garhi) LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters AND (GRSD-M) + LA.APP. 338/2008, LA.APP. 343/2008, LA.APP. 356/2008, LA.APP. 366/2008, LA.APP. 367/2008, LA.APP. 368/2008, LA.APP. 369/2008, LA.APP. 370/2008, LA.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP; 384/2008, LA.APP. 386/2008, LA.APP. 388/2008, LA.APP. 389/2008, LA.APP. 434/2008, LA.APP. 435/2008, LA.APP. 436/2008, LA.APP. 444/2008, LA.APP. 456/2008& CM No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008 Objections), LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. 680/2008, LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. 720/2008, 760/2008, 823/2008, 908/2008, 1022/2008, 1063/2008, 308/2009, 385/2009, 540/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 723/2008, 767/2008, 824/2008, 909/2008, 1024/2008, 173/2009, 311/2009, 463/2009, 542/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 562/2008, 716/2008, 757/2008, 793/2008, 837/2008, 952/2008, 1025/2008, 307/2009, 384/2009, 467/2009, 548/2009, (Cross LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/2010. (Relating to Notification u/s No.22/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) AND

23.05.2002 & Award + LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2008 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 304/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23,05.2002 & Award No. 16/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRID-O) + LA.APP.379/2008, LA.APP. 381/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, LA.APP. 499/2008, LA.APP. 530/208, LA.APP. 836/2008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 310/2009 & CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 782/2010, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters la.apPt 9/2011 & cm 9950/2011 ^'(Crbs^bjections)/"LA.APP. 58/20r3^-a.APP. 289/2011 & CM 14850/2011 (Cross Objections), La.APP. 290/2011 & CM 14852/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 381/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

23.05.2002 & Award No. 17/2004-05, Village-Ali Pur) : AND + LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009 (Cross Objectio^ns), LA.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP. 674/2008 & CM No.7818/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, LA.APP. 706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP., 808/2008 & (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008, 7837/2009 882/2008, 898/2008 902/2008, 929/2008 930/2008 960/2008, LA.APP. 885/2008, & CM No.2355/2009 LA.APP. 922/2008, & CM No.2351/2009 & CM No.78.21/2009 LA.APP. 980/2008 LA.APP. 891/2008, (Cross Objections), LA;APP. 923/2008, (Cross Objections), (Cross Objections), & CM No.855/2010 CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross (Cross & CM & CM LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross" & CM LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2008 & CM No.1261/2009 Objections), LA.APP. 982/2008, LA.APP. 983/2008 No.2347y2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 No.839/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2008, 997/2008, LA.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008, 1027/2008, LA.APP. 1078/2008 & CM No.2247/2009 Objections),. LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. 1127/2008 No.2111/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1196/2008, 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), 1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 & CM No.7791/2009 Objections), LA.APP. 13/2009 & CM No.2151/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 22/2009, LA.APP. 83/2009, LA.APP. 99/2009, LA.APP. 103/2009, LA.APP. 104/2009, LA.APP. 107/2009, LA.APP. 115/2009 & CM No.6482/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP.' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 449/2009, LA.APP. 461/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 487/2009, LA.APP. 501/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 527/2009, LA.APP. 530/2009, LA.APP, LA.APP. 533/2009, LA.APP. 537/2009, LA.APP. 122/2009 & CM No.14321/2009 (Cross Objections), 123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, 174/2009, LA.APP. 250/2009, LA.APP. 260/2009, 261/2009. LA.APP. 262/2009,' LA.APP. "264/2009, 293/2009, LA.APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. 301/2009, 302/2009, LA.APP. 303/2009, LA.APP. 365/2009, 461/2009, 433/2009, 471/2009, 5T872009, 531/2009, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters \P 538/2009, LA.APP. 545/2009, LA.APP. 554/2009, LA.APP. 555/2009, LA.APP. 558/2009, LA.APP., 585/2009, LA.APP. 588/2009, LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP. 625/2009, LA.APP. 626/2009, LA.APP. 629/2009, LA.APP. 649/2009, LA.APP: 38/2010, LA.APP. 43/2010, LA.APP; 131/2010, LA.APP. 202/2010 LA.APP. 203/2010,LA.APP. 204/2010, LA.APP. 225/2010,LA.APP: 227/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010, LA.APP. 303/2010, LA.APP. 372/2010, LA.APP. 410/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010, LA.APP. 479/2010, LA.APP. 480/2010, LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP. 483/2010, LA.APP. 484/2010, LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP 486/2010, LA.APP. 487/2010, LA.APP. 604/2010, LA.APP. 606/2010 Si CM No.19878/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 607/2010, LA.APP. 608/2010, LA.APP. 609/2010, LA.APP. 614/2010, LA.APP. 615/2010, LA.APP. 671/2010, LA.APP. 695/2010, LA.APP. 705/2010, LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.APP. 785/2010 Si CIM No.12968/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 786/2010 Si CiV| No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 787/2010, LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. 789/2010, LA.APP. 790/2010, LA.APP. 820/2010 Si CM No.12880/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 821/2010, LA.APP. 915/2010, LA.APP; 916/2010 & CM 1^0.6773/2011 (Cross Objections), i_A.APP. 14/2011 Si CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), U^.APP. 26/2011 Si CM No.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 55/2011 Si CM No.12894/2011 (Cross Objections), U>i.APP. 59/2011, LA.APP. 63/2011, LA.APP. 69/2011, LA.APP. 70/2011, l-A.APP. 72/2011 Si CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 76/2011 Si CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 Si CM No.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 135/2011, LA.APP. 136/2011 Si CM No.12971/2 (Cross 0bjections)011, LA.APP. 137/2011 Si CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 143/2011, LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APP. 203/2011 Si CM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 273/2011 Si CM No.13289/2011 (Cross Objections), UV.APP. 338/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s

27.01.2003 & Award No.11/2004-05, Village-Sanoth) AND + LA.APP. 336/2010 Si CM APPL.14845/2011, LA.APP. 624/2010, LA.APP. 625/2010, LA.APP. 626/2010, LA.APP. 627/2010 Si C.M. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 629/2010, LA^APP. 630/2010, LA.APP. 642/2010, LA.APP. 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA.APP. 645/2010 S< C.M. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Pdgellof74 No.3587/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 646/2010, LA.APP. 664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. .667/2010," IIaXPP. 668/2010, LA.APP. 669/2010 & C.M. No.6769/2011 (Cross UDjections), la.ahp. b/U/2UlU ix L.M. No.J81872tn:l tCross Objections), LA.APP. 672/2010, LA.APP. 673/2010 & C.M. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, U\.APP. 701/2010 & C.M. No.3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 702/2010, LA.APP. 703/2010 & C.jVI. No.9941/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 & C.M. No.12878/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 735/2010, LA.APP, .736/2010, LA.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP. 739/2010 & C.M. No.3569/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 740/2010 Si CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), . IJ^.APP. 800/2010 & C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.AP'P. 802/2010, LA.APP. 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010, LA.APP. 809/2010, LA.APP. 810/2010, LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP. 812/2010, LA.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010, LA.APP. 815/2()l0, LA.APP. 816/2010 & C.M. No.3862/2011 (Crfess Objections), LA.APP. 817/2010, LA.APP. 838/2010, LA.APP. 839/2010 & C.M. No.10335/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 870/2010 & C.M. No.9946/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 917/2010, LA.APP. 922/2010, LA.APP. 923/2010, LA.APP. 924/2010, LA.APP. 925/2010, LA.APP. 945/2010 & C.M. No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 975/2010 & C.M. No.2664/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M. No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP. 56/2011 & C.M. No.9939/2011 (Cross nhiprtinn-;V I A.AgP 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, LA.APP. 97/2011,[LA.AI^ 98/2011^ LA.APP. 99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011, Lfl^.APP. 104/2011, LA.APP. 105/2011, LA.APP. 106/2011, LA.APP. 107/2011, LA.APP. 108/2011, LA.APP. 109/2011, LA.APP. 113/2011, LA.APP. 165/2011, LA.APP.329/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s

27.01.2003 & Award No.10/2004-05, Viilage-Rajapur Kalan) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whether tile Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters yi PRADEEP NANDRAIQG, I

¶1villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, IMarela, Ali Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue District (North-West) and if we see the map of the city of Delhi we would find that these villages lie in the North-Western part of Delhi. They lie within an area between the 'V formed by Rohtak . Road i.e. NH-10 G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1. The Delhi-Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-1. Whereas villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway line and NH-l, the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the,railway line. Narela and Shahpur Garhi are. towards the east of the railway line. The urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has been developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is situated in the land within the aforesaid 'V. Bawana industrial Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid.'V'. Historically, except for village Narela, all villages have been treated as equivalent with respect to their location.

¶2The instant decision decides the issue as to what should be the fair market value of agricultural lands in the said villages as , of the dates

7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001>

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003. Needless to state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time, on afoTesaTd~cfates under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, vast tracts of land in said 10 villages were acquired and save..and.except lands in the Revenue Estate of village Narela where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential and. partly industrial, in the other villages, acquisition was'for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page13 of74 road or freight complex. The reason why such large tracts of lands were needed was to set up an industrial estate pursuant to a decision taken to shift all industries operating In non-conforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas.

¶3I must highlight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in all appeaLs.fiied by them as also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and except pertaining to village Narela, where an additional argument was advanced; being that, the township.of Narela had ) existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Narela had a better value and for which it was.urged that way back in the year 1963 when lands in the revenue estate of village Narela . and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of per sq.yd. vis-a-vis price determined for lands in village Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight that learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi being in iviamurpur.-

¶4The position of the awards made from time to time and the relatable notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have been detailed by me while noting the various Land Acquisition Appeals and the Cross Objections as per the index hereinabove and thus I need not repeat the same.

¶5A perusal of all the awards announced from time to time would reveal that the learned Land-Acquisition Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from time-to time notifying the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths betweea LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters 4' to b', tne land value has been appropriately depressed and this is to be found in a few awards where lands have been put in 2 or 3 categories re. Categb^ 'k\ Category 'B' and Category 'C. .

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

7.8.20Q0 issued im^er Seetieft 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against ?13,82 lacs per acre for Category 'A^ lands and ^12.26 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the policy for minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. ^13.82 lacs, per acre and has granted increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000 till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fair market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and "has ignored that there was Category 'B' land for which he had to make necessary adjustment. B. Pertaining to the same notification

7.8.2000 pursuant whereto

211.14 bigha land was acquired in village Holambi Kalan, the Land Acquisition Collector treated the land as of same character determined fair market value with reference to the policy for minimum rates in sum of ^13.82 lacs LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters per acre which has been enhanced by the learned Reference,-• Court to ?14,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decision of a Divisioir-Bendrtrf-thfs-Cotrrtn'^^xnted-as 200G (Vl) AD Pefhi-i3 Gairai Vs. wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market value determined was ^9,76,121/- per acre for.Category 'k' lands and treating the said date and the said price as the base, giving 12% per annum appreciation for a period of 3 years, 8 months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been determined. C. Pertaining to the same notification

7.8.2000 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Bawana were acquired, the Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value for Category 'A' lands, with reference to the policy and fixed the same at ^3.82 lacs per acre for Category-'A' lands and fl2.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. The learned Reference Court maintained the same. D. Pertaining to notification

11.9.2000 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd were acquired for shifting industriaT units, Land Acquisition Collector has, for Category 'A' lands determined fair market value, with reference to the policy effective from 1.4.2000 in sum of ^13.82 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands has fixed -the same at T12.62 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted the policy wherein minimum price fixed as of

1.4.2000 was ?13.82 lacs per acre and for 128 days i.e. the number of days.between

1.4.2000 till 11.9.2000, appreciating same by 12% has determined fair market value at ^14,40,157/- and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands... E. Pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 pursuant whereto 1140.5.8 bigha land was acquired in Narela for development of sectors 1 to 4, Phase I, Narela, with respect to policy of minimum price with effect from

1.4.2001 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page16 of74 learned Land Acquisition Collector determined, fair market value in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of

1.4.2001 for Category 'B' lands determined same at ?14 lacs per^cre: The learned Reference Court adopted minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001 and gave appreciation for a period of 1 month for the reason the notification under Section 4 of the. Land AcquibiLlon Act 1894^!s dated 2.5.200! and enhanced compensation to ^15,85,700/- per acre which has uniforhnly "awarded. F. ^ Pertaining to notification

22.8.2001 whereunder

512.16 bigha land in village Holambi Kaian were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. ?15.7 lacs per gcre which has been held to be the fair marl<et value for Category 'A' lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determined at ^14 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. ^15.7 lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum for 143 days and the price so fixed is tl6,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded. G. Pertaining to same notification 22,8.2001 pursuant whereto

512.16 bigha land was acquired in village Alipun ^on the same reasoning which has been adopted for village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same compensation as determined for village Holambi Kalan has been worked out by the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also by learned Reference Court who has done away with categorization— — - H. Pertaining to the same notification

22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 192.15 bigha of land was acquired in village LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page 17 of74 Holambi Khurd, reasoning of the LAC and learned Reference Court and the price determined is the sahie as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that; in this village even the LAC has treated ail lands in the same uniform category. \. Pertaining to the same notification

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

7.12.2001 pursuant whereto

222.05 bigha land was acquired in village Sanoth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Nareia township, learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed compensation uniformly in sum of ^5.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per the policy for minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the learned Reference Court has adopted the same price and given appreciation for 250 days at the rate of 12% per annum to reach the figure of ^16,99,042/- per acre. K. Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired, the learned Land AcquisitionCollector has determined compensation in sum of tl5.7 tac;s~per acre which is the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has simply held that the land owners would be entitled to enhance compensation at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded, I may highlight that the learned Reference Court has not worked out the compensation and has left it to the Executing Court to do so, however I find that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page^ of74 n?,75,369.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date a "1.4.20111 and the^ase price "at ?15.T lacs, for i year and 45 days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned Additional Sessions Judge.. L. Pertaining to notification

23.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court have determined same compensation as per the reasoning pertaining to same village for notification 16,5.2002 and I find that sinceithere is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision of the Reference Court comes to ^17,79,781.78 per acre. pursuant whereto

445.81 bigha land in village Holambi Kaiah was acquired, the learned i_AC has determined fair market value in sum of ?15.7 lacs, per acre which is the same as per minimum price w.eif. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopted the same reasoning as was adopted while deterrriining the fair market value of lands in village Holambi Kalan which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the decision in Gairai's . case (supra) and appreciating the same by 12% compounded per annum the price determined is ?22,14,239/- per acre. N. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.5.2002 pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Alipur were acquired learned Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at the rate of ?15.7 lacs per acre based on the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which price has been adopted as the base by the learned Reference Court and after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annurn w.e.f. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page19 of7

1.4.2001 till 23.5.2Q02, the price determined is fl7,85,240/- per acre. Or Pertaining to-notification

27.1:2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha land in village Sanoth .and 2188.03 btgha-lantHn village Rajapur Kalan.'were acquired,, the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the same value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages i.e. T15.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of .^14 lacs per acre and for Category 'C lands in sum of T12.3 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different reasoning in some impugned decision and different in a few. in some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted minimum price in sum of ^15.7 lacs per acre as of^r.4i^01and appreciating the same by 12% per annum for a period of 666 days has fixed fair market value at ?19,13,765/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for ^5,39,690/-.

¶7Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned Reference "Court have relied upon notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi, let me therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same would be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page20 of74 SI No n=»fp ryf % increase per annum Notification of the price (in lakhs/acre)

1.

3.5.1990

27.4.1990 .

4.65

2.

25.7.1997

1.4.1997

10.0

11.5

3.

24.9.1998

1.4.1998

11.2

11.2

4.

21.11.-2000 -

12.32

5.

9.8.2001

1.4.1999

1.4.2000

12.16

13.82

6.

9.8.2001

1.4.2001

15.7

11.5-

7.

30.8.2005

30.8.2005

17.584

2.98

8.

24.1.2008

18.12.2007

89.51

¶8From tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum price was last fixed vy.e.f:

27.4.1990 in sum of ^4.65 Ial<hs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to ?10 lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of HI.2 lakhs/acre thereafter w.e.f.

21.11.2000 price was enhanced to ^12.32 lakhs/acre, ' which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.1999 to ?12.16 iakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% ^pej anjiym with reference to the pri.ce determined as of

1.4.1998 vide same notification the " price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.2000 to ^13;82 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis previous i.e. n2.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by. 11.5% per annum vis-a-vis the previous price of ^3.82 lakhs/acre to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters %ufe _Qf: ?15:JZiJakbs/acre: - Tlie-price was next enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ^7.584 lakhs/acre which gives us an increase of only 2.98% per annum and then the price rose to"v ?53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 I.e. increased 89.51% per annum with reference to the base figure of n7.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005.

¶9Before noting the evidence relied upon by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Courti it would be beneficial for the reader of the present decision, as I feel, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. I would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the alternative and It was urged that they would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, faillAg which as. per the third argument and so on. From the side of Union of India It was urged that the land price fixed by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.2000, for village Pooth Khurd; notification

22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; notification

7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5;2001 for village Narela; and the notification dated 22.8.2001.for village All Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands were of uniform character and it was urged that corrective action is required by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, 11.5% increase per annum and ~±2% per dnnum 'increase^iwas excessive with reference to the dates of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; requiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annum m tfie Veast Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page22 of 74 ,•54 requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by Land Acquisition Collector in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' Category 'C, on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed, by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.

¶10Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference Court was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds

25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference whichijs subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also th^~"SB^Ie"deed reared

25.4.2001, Ex.PW-l/2, in the same LA.Appeai. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ ^26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-l/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of ^32.4 lal<hs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as. of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 would be T28.89 lakhs/acre pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-l/2 the land price would be ^63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument, pertaining to village Narela, it was urged that the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page23of74 and for which the argument was that when in the.-past- ^ pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur-Narela by giving a. price benefit of ^2/- per sq.yd.. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UO! vs. Dhardmbir & Ors. The said decision would reveal that price per bigha in .sum of ^6,650/- determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to ?16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to T22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored.

¶11• Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela Residential Scheme and ,Rohlni Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSIDC and DDA i.e. the implementing agencies^ which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme Bawana Industrial Estate and for which learned counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged. ^

¶12Alteriiative to the second submission, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this ^ Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bed! Ram .LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page24of74 1/5. Union of India, it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.i.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners haiided over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bedi Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6% per annum with reference to the base price ?16,750/- per bigha as of 30.10.1953 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till

31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various dates when notifications under Section of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with . which I am_concerned inJ±Le present appeals. So. worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to ^56,88,759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle market value should be assessed for preceding notifications

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002

23.5.2002. ,

¶13The fourth argument advanced was, for which ._i:eference was made by learned-cowsei for the parties in the evidence led in LAC No,99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.No.268/2008 filed by the land owners _and LAj^PP.No.292/2008 filedJDy Linion^otindia, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page25 of 74 testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by sdling agricultural: : produce from his lands he used to earn lakh per bigha per annum i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be ?20 lakhs per bigha. I may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008.

¶14The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for each of the notification in question the fair market value ought to have been determined with reference to the notification which was closest in point of time whprp nndpr minimum land value was fixed by the Government and the notification

24.1.2008 where under ^53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18,12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument.

¶15The last argument which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification

27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed "dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra IMo.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of villageRajapur Kalan was sold for ^5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said sale deed in the following words: (Refer oara 17 of tfie decision dated 7.1.2010 in LACNo.ll7A/2009) : "If we add stamp duty in the sale price 13,69.906/- per biaiia R539.690/- + 70.160 - 6,09,850 for 1 bigiia and 13 biswa) whict) comes^0^17,74,109/- per acre or ^3,68,906/- per bigiia. Furtiiet if we give 12% LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page26 of 74 increase on said amount for intervening period between the-date wiien tiie saie deed, was executed and the date of mtificatioh u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes toX19,16,037/- (round off^l9J6,040/-)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition. i.e. Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land was put In Category 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra No.2t}0 and that page No.56-57 the award would evidence~th~^nanlj comprised, in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha 13 biswa was placed in Category 'C. Whereas Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification I.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of ^15.7 lakhs per acre based ijpon the notification

9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ?1.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was ^14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value determined whereof was ^12.3 lakhs per .acre. It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the same had to be for Category 'C' lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price, naa to be increased by T1.7 lakhs per acre for each category. .

¶16I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above and hence I need not repeat the same. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page27 of 74

¶17in various sub-paras of para hereinabove, i have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court pertaining to the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence hiy journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various sub-paras of para 6 above.

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

7.8.2000 wherein lands were acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for Category 'B' lands, having depressions and pits, deduction effected vis-^^-vis price for Category 'A' lands is ^1.56 lacs per acre pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 where price has been determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd, said-price differential has been worked out at ^1.2 lacs per acre and while determining fair market value for agricultural lands in village Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notification

2.5.2001 the deduction effected Is ^1.7 lacs per acre, which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan was determined as of date

22.8.2001. Pertaining to notification

27.1.2003 and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential on said count has again been taken at T1.7 lacs per acre to inter se differentiate the price between Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C lands. In other words, the price differential has varied between T1.2 lacs per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and ?1.7 lacs per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page28 of74 B. The learned Land Acquisition Collector has adopted the minimum price notified closest in point of time to the date when Section 4 notification was issued without appreciating the land price with reference to the date of the Section 4 notification i.e. no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has been given. Gr T^re^earned Reference Court has adopted the minimum price notified and has given appreciation ranging between

11.5% per annum and 12% per annum and in some cases has compounded the same and in some given said benefit at the simple rate. D. Pertaining to village Holambi Kajan .where acquisitions were made pursuant to the notifications

7.8.2000

23.5.2002 the learned Reference Court has adopted the price determined by this Court in Gairafs case (supra) as of

15.11.1996 has given appreciation at the rate of 12% simple per annum for the former notification and at the rate of 12% compounded per annum for the latter. E. Whereas for notification

27.1.2003 learned Reference Court, in some references has determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001. and has given appreciation, in some cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale deed dated,20.5.2002. F. Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Collector has classified lands in Category 'A', 'B' and 'C reasons thereof have ^^n given irrthe award but the learned Reference Court, while "awardrng^uTTif^m compensation, has giv^n no reasons as to why it was treating all lands to be of same character and quality.

¶19Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, 1 think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page29 of 74 facts, WHich would be my-- for furtfer analysis. Put in a tabular form the data would be as unden-Village Date of Section Notification LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons ADJ compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B'n2.26 Minimum price as-of 1.4.2000 Cat. Uniform. n4.3728. -Minimum price as of

1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi Kalan

7.8.2000 n3.82 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 n4.12995. Price as in Gairafs case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A'n5.7 Cat. 'B' n4 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. T16.43811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. . Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 n5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ?22.14239. Price:as in Gairafs case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. (compounded) Bawana

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B'n2.62 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 No enhancement given. Khera Khurd^

11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B' n2.62. Minimum price as of i.4.2onn Cat. Uniform. n4.40157. Minimum price as of

1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Narela

2.5.2001 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Cat. 'B' n4 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. n5.857. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters - 12% increase p.a. Ali Pur

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Cat: 'B'n4 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n6.43811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a.. Ali Pur

23.5.2002 n5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n7.8524 Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with. 12% increase p.a. Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ?15.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n6.43811 Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 n5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n6.43811 Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Cat. 'B'm Cat. 'C n2.3 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001

¶1n9.13765 for Uniform category. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. in some cases.

¶2n9.1604 for Uniform category based on sale deed

25.5.2002 with 12% increase p.a. Sanoth

7.12.2001 n5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ae.99042. Minimum price as of,

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Sanoth

27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Cat. 'B'm. Cat. 'C ^12.3 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ?19.13765 . for Uniform category. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2001 Cat. 'A'n5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ^17.Z536a_^— Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with compound interest @11.5%. p.a. Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 Cat./A' ^5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n7.79781. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a.

¶201 now propose to deal with the 5 submissions urged by learned counsel for the land owners 2 submissions urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India).

¶21The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair marl<et value for the former comes to T26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ^63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters of PW-7 Sister Annie, tlie secretaty of tlie organization stated > -tbat-the organi2at4onhad-te-pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the.requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee. ^

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Bum & Ors. 1/5. IstI Rohini &Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009

(14) SCC 369 i\/loiid. RaUfuddin l/s. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced In a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A;Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which 'was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification

27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ^17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App,No.266/2008& connectedmatters • Page33 of74 themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price diid ex-fdcie destroy each otfier ' 21^ Thus, apart from reasoning of learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would he. addiMnnal reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly betvyeen 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. ! would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.I.S.Dahiya being the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being. LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap Singh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UP! & Ofs. It was highlighted th^the sale dee^'therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good .evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but~foulTd"'that if the price therein vvas reduced by 1/3'"'^, the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page34.of74 would be price arrived at with referenceto the average rate of the sale deeds producedby the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Governmentwere giving a price of 37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed underwhich L&T had purchasedthe land gave the.price53,26,600/-per bigha and the averagewoyid come to ?2,;31,800/- which was near about the price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'^'^ would be deducted from the sum of ?3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ?2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read.pedanticallybut meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. ! would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent.contradictionin the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value.

¶24Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is-rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market vajue of the land, pertaining to village-Narela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced would be dealt with by me at the.end when.I determine the fair market value of lands for the villages in question.

¶25The second argument, contours whereof are= to be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters' Page35 of74 latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 Lai Chand vs. UOI.

¶26But before that I must highlight that the decision in Lai Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basjs, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and the argument was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road.

¶27Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing same transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts/ in paras 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as unden- " Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence?

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

¶126 sq m Economically weaker sections . Rs 100 (Ewsr: "

¶232 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125 3^ 48 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 150

4.

60.sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200

¶590 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200 LA.App.No,266/2008& connectedmatters Page36 of 74 The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which IS the averageof the said provisionalrates, should be taken as indicativeofthe ruling marketprice.

¶12On careful consideration,we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several, reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determinedwith referenceto large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates, of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developedlayoutfalling within urban area. other statutory authorities adopt differentrates for plots in the same area with reference to the economiccapacityof the buyer, making it difficultto ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the. land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold fandT-whereasthe allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotmentof plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor .13. The percentageof "deductionfor development"to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development)",with reference to the sale price of small developedplots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developedplots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exeniplar plots'are situated.

¶14The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc.

¶15- The development authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost ,of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page37of74 MM underground drainage and sewage facilitiesriaying water iines, electricity lines developing parks civil developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.

¶16On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of "deduction for development" may be far less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to .be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of pTots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% In regard to DDA plots.

¶17The "deduction for development" with reference to , prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout.

¶18The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the Industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the si2e of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgroundsand civic amenitjes)will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.

¶19If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, not an undeveloped rural area, then deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as sonrie basic infrastructure.will already be available. (Note. The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.)

¶20Therefore deduction for "development factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page38of74 with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is also-wei+--knownthat the developmentcost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard-to higher overheads and expenditure.

¶21Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residentiai-cum-commefcial or ind^tistfiaf;and^ven among residential . • m^ a g Ma* w «w II • W I I ^ I ^ ^.i I I U| ^ I layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community -faciltt^es, parks and playgrounds provided.

¶22Some of. the layouts formed by "the statutory develepment authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%. Second factor

¶23DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon economic status of the allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots may be earmarked for persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be.Rs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons belonging to high income groups.

¶24The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, l^ilG, LIG and EWS may .also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogicalto take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the applicants for aflotment. " Third factor LA.App.No.266/2008&cDiinectedmatters Page39 of74

¶25Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DOA allotploLs on jeasefiold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent.

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

¶27However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not. safe or advisable to rely upon allotment rates/auction rates In regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developedlayout, in determiningthe market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." 28-." The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting from l_AC Reference NO.117A/2009. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court with reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads:-: "Ld. Counsel to_LJJb£L4ietLtiQnersJiasfurtoer submitted . that DDA & DS!DC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate. He has relied upon allotment letter dated 04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the ^ pre-deterhnined rate of ?3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter

26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as ?3,989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters - Page40 of74 plot no.270, measuring sq. yards at Nareia Industrial Complex at the rate of ^650 so. metres whicii is Ex: PW3/1 another allotment letter

25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at ?3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from statement of PW9 Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PWll/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = ^248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Nareia Residential Scheme @ ^3208 would be ^2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized , for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 - 759422 = 17719866 per bigha). And after deducting development charges from, sale price of one bigha i.e. ^1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only ^3,27,083/- per "bigtra"^ ^ ^ Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW7 R.D, Sharma, Asstt. Manager. DSIDC who has produced documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Nareia Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is ^2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area under plots =

112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot T3000/- per sq. yards Total earning ^4083750000 Total expenditure — ^720526901 Total profit = 0363223099 i.e. Profit "comes to t247"0"~per sq. yard orT247G000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and the LAC has paid compensation @ ^327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of ^21429.17, per bigha Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ ^327083 per LA.App.N6.266/2008 & connected matters P^ge41 of 74 bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the . said price is considered on account of land, the figure connes to ^654166. If the amount is deducted from sale _ _ .Mi.ce^per bJgh_a. i.e. ^24700000, figure comes to ?1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." -2©. do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was .20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in La! Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

¶30It is no doubt true, as held even by-the iGorncd Reference Court, that with development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Chands case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands.

¶32The third submission in the alternative was_ based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram's case (supra), and the submission is as noted In para 12 herejn above. The land owners require price determined in Dharambir's case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page42 of74 /i-

30.10.196^ in 5urn_of-X16^-75QA--pet^-bigb3--£0i^/Ulage Mamurpu to be treated as the basis and progressivelyincreased,firstly by 6% per annum, tfien by 10% per.annum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question.

¶33It be highlighted that in Bedi Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date as of the year 1959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied, the progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years.

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

¶47The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi . and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at . cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patef^ this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) "-?5. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining market value by providing gppiQpi j^L^-ngscalation over~th^~pToved~market value of nearby lands in previous years (as transaetfons-cH"—acquisftmns), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr. acquisitions of comparable lands in neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page43 of74 where the - - -FeHed-on transaetions/acquisitions precede subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it reiates to a neighbouring iand. What may be a reiiabie standard if the gap is of oniy a few years, may become unsafe unreiiabie standard where the gap is iarger. For example, for determining market value of a iand acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase, method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts In. prices affecting the very standard of increase." (emphasis supplied)

¶48Even If the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports discJose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came dovyn by more than 40% to 50% from the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing price with reference to old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any use for determining market value for a 1981 acquisition."

¶35it is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi /?gm^s-Gase-4sypFa)runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra), which decision follows-an—earlier decision of the Si^eme Co^rt reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. 1/5. Rameshbhai iivanbhai Patei. LA.App.No.266/2008tfe.cotinectedmatters Page44 of74 0^ 36; In Lhe insLdnt case there is another good reason not tcT ^ follow the law laid down In Bed! Ram's, case (supra) for the reason I find that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) SaraswatJ Devi & Ann Vs. UP! & Ors.. pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in DharambiYs case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur-Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ ^2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ ^1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would have come to approximately ^50,000/- per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at 03,000/- per bigha.

¶37That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinah l/5. IJOI & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, I highlight that one village with which 1am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining tp a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha blswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate I.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of

15.11.19#6 was determined @ ^1,99,904.68 bigha which equals to ^9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the Government was ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 45.of 74 determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. If I were to take-^bhe-^ice—as—o1^-tS.ll.l§§6 @ ^9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of • progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason,- as assured by me herein above, I would be hoNstically discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notifications in question.

¶39The ^fojjrth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e.. LA.APP.Mo.292/2008, is as noted in para .13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning ?1 lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce.

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

¶41The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on

4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3''^ week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page46 of74 sV^ sown around the first week or the second week of November each yeax.

¶42But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he was working as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi till 31.3.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a.pension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning ?1 lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annual IncomG would be^19 lakhs and one. finds it strange that not -a penny was invested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined. No proof of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tube-well, if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by canal wa'ter, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly rejected.

¶43|f there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found in decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (1) SC 444 State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors.. pertaining to the yield from agricultural land, only then It would be safe to determine fair market value by applying principle of LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, the capitalizing being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 times as was sought to be projected.

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

¶45In para ,7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000. 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,. 22.8.2001,

7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of

1.4.2000,

1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there wpuld be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under notification

24.1.2008 which is w.e.f.

8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years away trom the last year with which 1am concerned

1.^. the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which 1am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would be clo^sest to the-point fof wbich the mean average has to be determined.

¶46I am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which 1highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to notification

27.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References with respect to a sale deed

20.5.2002 where under bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page48of74 has determinedthat based thereon the price as of said date -worksoutto ?17,74,109/-per acre and^fncreasmgthe sdirrefor 8 months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price would be ?19,16,037/-per acre rounded off to n9,16,040/-per acre.

¶47With reference to the Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05it is apparentthat land comprisedin Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category'C land. The sale deed in questionpertainsto the same land and indeedthere Is logicthat if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflectfair market value of Category'C land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collectorn.7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum of KIJ lakhs per acre-would—berequired to fill up the depressionsin Category'C land, meaningtherebydepressionsin Category'B' J^nd were less vis-a-visCategory'C land. In other words, with reference to Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C land would have to be reduced and vice-versa,vis-a-visCategory'C land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land would be required to be increased suitably.

¶48I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the reasoning adopted by the learned Land AcquisitionCollectorand the learned ReferenceCourt, I pose the question: What should be the fair market value of the subject lands as of 7.8,2000,

11.9,2000, 2,5,2001, 22,8,2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5,2002, i-6-dates on which notificationswere issued underSection4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. para 37 above, noted a decisionof a Div|ision Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page 49 of74

11.5.2006, Mahender S'mah i/s. UP! & Ors. whemin pprtaining tn village-B^watm, fair market value determined as of 15.11.1996 is n,99,904.68 per biqha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre. The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i.e. the lands with which the Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the • Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural Delhi were identified for providing major health facNItiesy schools, markets rural industry, one of which was vNlage Bawana. It was noted that G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and. that the Master Plan for Delhi notified in the year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed in the future to industrial commercial, but had also -observed that notwittrstanding this, for the reason no zonal pf^ was notified as contemplated by Section llA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, lands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being known to all as being required in the future for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capable of being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so expressly stating, would be a prop"(^fib"rrffi^ there is a difference between undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.'266/2008&connectedmatters Page50 of74 potentiality in present! vis-a-vis a land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was f9,59,542.46 per acre and which I.highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. notification 25 J,1997.where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was no iakhs per acre. Interestingly, the same Division B6nch had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gairai Singh vs. UOf & Ann where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification

15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was •^9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ^9,51,121/- per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to be highlighted that while, determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development work carried out in the surrounding lands was considered. 1 would highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same V i.e. between GT.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ ^1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. t6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is r-eportecLas-2004

(4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chancier vs, UOf an6 the same-iivisioR-Bench,as perthe declsion^^ported-as-lll (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vs. UOl. pertaining to a notification

14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ ^1,40,230/-per bigha i.e. ^6,73,104/-per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page51 of 74 ~3^~. ^TFie aforesaid ^uclgments—notecU in preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from tinne to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in. para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant t^ determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ?4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 1997 prices grows fairly sharply good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gairafs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

¶51I need to elaborate a little more with" respect to the decision in Gairafs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair mai"ket value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of

15.11.1996, in paras to Court discussed valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,000/- for multiple cropped land having good irrigation facilities thus capitalized the land price at ^9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing second method of land prices of comparable lands in the -surroundiftg-afeas-including potenttaftty7~HTpara 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining viiiage Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and tewd^on sate instances found that based on said sale LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters instances and gwrng-benefHr-of-mtfestn^zatCT land price —z: would come to ?10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices-notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands ^9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f.

1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price • notified as of 1.4.1997 at ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ^10,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in Mahender Sinah's case, pertaining to viliagje-Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, commercial industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As 1 have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs case Mahender Singh's case -highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could "be' that pursuant-to Master Plan fnr Delhi 1Q90 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and Industrial probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the.market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which 1 have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e.

20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be ^19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for f5,39,690/- and ?70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price T17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶54' Thus, best which could be said as most favourable situation for the land owners would be that with reference to the sale deed dated

20.5.2002 for Category 'C lands the price I.e. fair market value of lands in the area would be ^17,74,109/- per acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land the price would have to be suitably enhanced and here we find another area of dispute for reason, as noted by me hereinabove In sub-para

(a) of para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App.No.266/2008 & connected matters sometimes n.2 lakhs per acre, sometimes ^1.56 lakhs per acre and sometimes ^1.7 lakhs per acre from the price of Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C as well the price has been deducted further by ?1.7 lakhs per acre.

¶55Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the -laflds and I note that categorization is bas-ed-ofllyon the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths -fequiring the-same to be leveled and this would require money -to be spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that n.2 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ^1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ^1.7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There is just no clue.

¶56In Ga/rai Singh's case (supra), price differential worked out was ^25,000/- per acre. I have noted herelnabove that the acquisition in Gairai Singh's case pertained to the date

15.11.1996. In Gairai Singh's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was ^9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was ?9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about

2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.

¶57I thus hold that Gairai Singh's case should be my guiding star for.price differential in the instant cases as well and thus I hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' Category 'C Piave to be differentiated on price, the differentia! should be 2.5%.

¶58Thus, if ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17.75 lakhs per acre" woijlirbe^the price^oT a Category 'C'"larrdlTrvillage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No.266/2008.& connectedmatters admittedly pertains to a Category 'C land, the price for Category 'B' land "would be fl8.20 lakhs per acre and for Category 'A' land would be ?18.655 lakhs per acre.

¶59Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was ^3.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was ^5.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at n8.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately n6.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at ^15.7 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is ^70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held good evidence to~work but"a land price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page56of 74 14^000,

2.5.2QQ1,

22.8.2QQ1 and 7.12.2001, the differential period Is small inasmuch as the / sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be.a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account while determining the market value of-land as on the dates

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001.

¶60The argument that village Narela had always been treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of Narela was in existence since long and this was . recognized when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, vis-a vis the adjoining villages ^2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambir's case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational advantage was keeping in view the realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which included areas in North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with which I am concerned today, the price differential faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.

¶61I thus hold that, pertaining to the notifications

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8,2001

7.12.2001 land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by Government as also with sale deed dated 25.5.2002 for the reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates could be determined! Pertaining to the notifications ~dated 16:5.2002,

23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed

25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Ayecnuse .with ref^enee-to thc-satd sale price tt4s-&ppafent that land price as of said date comes to more than if determined with respect to the notification

9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was ?15.7 lakhs per acre with effect from

1.4.2001.

¶62With respect to the price differential for Category 'A' Category 'B' lands, noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village Pooth Khurd Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification

22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela Alipur (pertaining to the notification

22.8.2001) I hold that vis-a-vis said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine the price for Category 'B' land.

¶63Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases substantially in the other, a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification

23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined fair market value at ?22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, Hratf-need to~hightrght ttrat pertaining to the same notification

23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur learned Reference Court has determined-the fair market value at ^17,85,240/- per acre I find that pertaining to village Rajapur-Kalan and Sanoth, pertaining to the notification the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is ^9,16,040/- in some cases ^19,13,760/- in a few, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters y meaning thereby that much lesser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-a-vis the compensation worked" out for Holahibi Kalan pertaining to the notification

23.5.2002 reason for abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Gairafs case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. Village Pooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000

¶64With reference to notification

9.8;20pi wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13.82 lakhs requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 with reference to the sale deed

25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to.T17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre further increasing by

2.5% prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for date

7.8.2000; mean average price for Category 'A' lands In village Pooth Khurd comes to ^14.75 lakhs per acre decreasing same by

2.5%, it comes to ^14,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands uniform price awarded is ^14,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager ?1,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. ~

¶65All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page59 of 74 appeals filed by land owners in respectwhereofgrid has been^ . prepared and labeled as/GRID-A'hereinabove are dismissed.

¶66All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appealsfiled by Union of India are allowed by decreeingcompensationpayable for Category A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertainingto the notificationdated 1.4.2000in sum of T14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands compensation awarded at m,37,280/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶67Pertaining-to such appeal where the compensation stands enhancedstatutorybenefitsas per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgmentreported as Sunder Vs. UQl 2Q01 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, exceptfor the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection,for which period of delay no intereston the enhancedcompensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Holambi Kaian Notification dated 7.8.2000

¶68For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertainingto the notification(same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensationto n4.75 lakhs per acre and I highlightthat as per the award and even as per the referenceall subject lands were of uniformcategory. Needlessto state appealsfiled by the Union of India and cross objectionswhereverfiled are dismissed. Appealsand crossobjectionsfiled by land ownersare allowedby enhancingthe compensationto n4.75 Fakhs per acre together with statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page60 of74 i explainedin the judgmentreportedas SunderVs. UOI.70()'\ (93f DLT 569, exceptfor the period where there is a delay in filing ^the ap|)eal or cross objection, for which period of delay. no interest on the enhanced conipensatiori shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. ' . ' ViilaQe Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2QQQ

¶69Pertaining to villag_e Bawana_j:elating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court -haS-abt enhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for CategonpA'l^nds is fixed at n4.75 lakhs per acre an^^^ Category lands at ?i4 per acre and noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C hereinabove are allowed by fixing compensation as hereinbefore mentioned needless to.state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgrnent reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest, on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Viilaae Khera Khura Notification dated 11,9,2000

¶70With reference to notification

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17,74,IQ9/=,-xounded -off to-Xl-7,75,000/- per acre, for^ Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page61 of74 to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and furtherincreasingby 2.5% the prices comes to n8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and— decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000;the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to ?14,83,500/-per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comesto n4,46,413/-per acrefor Category'B' lands.

¶71All Land AcquisitionAppealsas per'GRID-D'filedbythe land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing 'compensationpayable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera. Khurd pertaining,to the notificationdated 11.9.2000in sum of fl4,83,500/-per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^14,45,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Inote that pertainingto this notificationand the village,the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensationstatutorybenefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explainedin the judgment ' reportedas SundeLYsJJQl^m(93) DLT 569 shall be granted, exceptfor the period where there is adelay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These appellantswould be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001

¶72With reference to tiie notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from'L4.^i rriinimum price notified per acre is ^15.7 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

2.5.2001 and with referenceto the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes,to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page62 of74 V '>A to ?18.2 lakhs peracre and furtherincreasingby 2.5% the pri(!^ comes to. ^18,65,500/ pef^aefe-^Foi^Category -AMands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average^price for Category 'A' lands In village Narela comes to ?16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ns,76.087-per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned ReferenceCourt has, withoutany reasons,done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded-, is n5,85,570/- per acre and since for Category'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by ^9,000/-per acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category 'B' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the price stands enhancpd tn

¶73All Land AcquisitionAppealsas per 'GRID-E'filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Narela pertaining to notification

2.5.2001 in sum of ?16,16,500/- per acre as per the reference order for Category -B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by. land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA;App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page63 oT74 interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These "appellants wouia be entitled to proportionate cost. —-VHIage-Holambi-Kafan Motification dated 22,8.2001

¶74With reference to notification

9.8.2001 -wherein with effeLl fiuin

1.4.2Q0rTninimum price notified per acre is fl5.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre connes to ^7,74,109/-, rounded off to n7,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; decreasing the .said prices by 11% to ref-feetT-the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22!8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kaian comes to n6,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ^6,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.. Noting that learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is n6,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager ?9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶75All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶76All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page64 of74 Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of n6,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands compensation awarded at ^16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶77Pertaining to such appeal where compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross pbjection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Villaae Ali Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001

¶78With reference to notification

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ^15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i,e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ^18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices-comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date-22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category-A^lands in village Ali Pur comes to ^16,74,500/- per acre decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl6,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting LA,App.No.266/2008 & connected matters •"^g'tearned R^fence Courtiaas,-witJ->0utam reasons, done away, with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is n6,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager ^9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶79All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union of-fndta-in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-H; hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court.

¶80There shall be no order as to costs. Village Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2001

¶81With reference to notification

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed .dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to 109/-, rounded off to n7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ^18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category. 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean _ayerag-e_price--foiiXategory 'A' 4ands in vflla§e-Hoiafnbt-Khurd-comes to ^16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ^16,32,637,50._per.acre_forCategory 'B' lands, tmtrng thaT the learned Reference Court has, without any awarded is ^6,43,811/- per acre, the price differentia! worked out by me comes to a meager ?9,000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page66 of74 Category 'R'. lands i—paaintain-theamount aA-varded by the learned Reference Court.

¶82The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has been prepared labeled as 'GRID-r hereinabove Is dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court.

¶83There shall be no order as to costs.. Village Raiapur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2QQ1

¶84With reference to notification

9.8.20,01 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with "reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to n7,74,109/-, rounded off to n7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to tl8.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Ka\an comes to ^16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ^16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ^16.43.811/- per acre, the price differential worked .Qut by me. comes to a meager ?9,00Q/-.p_er_a.creL_andthus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶85All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page67of 74 appeais-fWedbyiand ownersirrTespect-whereofgrjd has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J'hereinabove are dismissed.. .

¶86All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appealsfiled by Union of India are allowed by.decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands m village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notificationdated 22.8.2001in sum of ^6,747500/-peracre and for Category 'B' lands compensation awarded at .^16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. ' .

¶87Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection; for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate, cost. Village Sanoth Notification dated 7,12.2001

¶88^ With reference to notification

9.8:2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saicj price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification I.e.

7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ^17,74A0-W:i^lmuMedoff ?17,75JD.00/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the sarrie by 2.5% the price comes to T18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices con=^s-to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page68 of74 reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean . average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to - ^17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notification dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of ?17,29,500/-.

¶89All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-K' hereinabove are dismissed,

¶90All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of ?17,29,500/- needless to state on enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village ShahourGarhi Notification dated 16.5.2002

¶91Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by me hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at ^18,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a difference of 4 days between the date of sale and the notification I maintain that for the notification in question

16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of ^18,65,500/- LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page69 of 74 per acre and I highlight that as per the award and^TfTe f^fence all lands are in the sanae category. Appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowed needless to state on. the enhanced compensation land owners would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Village Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 23-5-2002

¶92Pertaining to notification

23.5.2002 pertaining to village'Shahpur Garhi, rioting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differentia! of only 3 days i hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of^l8,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001

(93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and all appeals cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Village Hoiambi Kaian Notification dated 23.5,2002

¶93As noted by me pertaining to the notification

23.5.2002 relating to village Hoiambi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page70 of74 Collector learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awarded^ cornpensaJlcm in gum at. ?22,14,239/- per acre which 1 have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have held that fair market value would be ^18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court reducing the compensation payable to ^18,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced price with reference , to the award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. Viliaae Ali Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002

¶94Pertaining to the notification

23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at ^8,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and "cross objections filed by Union of India as per 'GRID-0' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing compensation payable to ^18,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid save except in such appeals or crosfe objectionswherethere is a delay, interestwould not be paid fof the period ofdelay. Proportionatecosts as well. Viilaae Sanoth N(5tification dated 27.1.2003

¶95Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as per 'G.RID-P' pertaining to the notification

27.1.2003 relating to village SanOth, 1 note LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page71 of74 that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation.

¶96On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the -same—with ref^ence-^ the sale deed

20.5.2002 taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to ?19,43,5Q0/- per acre and for Category 'I' land the price comes to ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ?18,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at ?19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of ^19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001

(93) DLT. 569 shall be paid" save except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by mecHfyifvg—the-~relatable--deefee—tfi the Reference Order by reducing compensation for Category 'B' land to LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page72of74 ?18,94,912.50 per acre for Category 'C land to ^18,47,539.68 per acre. Village Raiabur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2Q03

¶97For parity of reasoning as per para 96 above pertaining to village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to notification

27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of n9,13,765/- per acre in some cases at ?19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to notification issued by Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed

20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' landsi price comes-to-fi:9743,500/- per acre^and for Category 'B' land the pricecomesto ^18,94,912.50per acre anc^ for Category 'C lands the price comes to ^18,47,539.68 per acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of Jndia pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by "decreeing compensation payable in sum of ^19,43,500/- per acre and needless~to "State-orr-tlre enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 20pi-t93^l:T-569-steil -be-patd-save-ami .except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No,266/2008&connectedmatters 73 of74 'm-would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate cost^ as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by modifying relatable decree in the Reference Order by -reducing—t^^^e—compensation——Category 'B' land to fl8,94,912.50 per acre for Category '€' land to ns,47,539.68 per acre. AUGUST 23, 2011 mm/dk (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters ^ Page74 of74

r \ $-•101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.98/2011 % UOl Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr.Siddharth Panda, Advocates versus RAIVj RATTAN & ANR. Through : None Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG