Aman Goyal v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

23.08.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.266/2008.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. AUGUST 23, 2011 rk * IN THE HIGH COURT OF. DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved On: 12thAUgUSt, 2011 I Judgment Delivered On: 23' August, 2011 ± LA.APP.266/2008 .. .. . f Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Mr.Deepak Khosla Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.M.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana, Mr.Raj Singh, Mr.Uday Ram, Mr.D.R.Tomar, Mri.S.Dahiya, Mr.N.S.Dalal, Mr.S.M.Bhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta, Mr.S.K.RoUt, Mr.S.S.Rana, Mr.Suhil Dalal, . Mr.D.S.Khatri and Mr.T.P.S.Kang, Advocates Vs. Respondents I. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani 1 Mr.Siddhaçth Panda and Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1, Ms.Anusuya Saiwan, Advocate, for DSIDC. Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan . Mathur, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Surder Sethi and . Ms.Beenashaw Sthni Advocates for DA. JAI SINGH Through: UOI & ANR. Through: AND (GRID-A) + LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP. 264/2008, LA.APP. 265/2008, LA.APP. 267/2008, LA.APP. 268/2008, LA.APP. 270/2.008, LA.APP. 271/2008, LA.APP. 272/2008, LA.APP. 273/2008, LA.APP. 278/2008 CM APPL. 5338720 Cr0 S bjections), LA.AFP. LA.App.No.266/2008 & coimected matters . .. I 279/2008, LA.APP. 280/2008 & CM APPL. 5261/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 281/2008, LAAPP. 284/2008, LA.APP. 286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP. 289/20TT8, EA.AFP: 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP. 292/2008, LA.APP. 293/2008, LA PP7-2-94f2O&8 & CM APPL. 12918/2011 (Crüss Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP. 296/2008, LA.APP. 299/2008, LA.APP. 301/2008, LA7APP. 303/2008, -L A.AP P. 304/2008, tAAPP3I17ZOtY8, LA.APP. 337/2008, LA.APP. 339/2008, LA.APP. 357/2008, LA.APP. 394/2008 LA.APP. 401/2008, LA.APP. 413/2008, LA.APP. 443/2008, LA.APP. 472/2008, tA.*PP. 483/2008, L&-APP -- 48412 487/2008, LA.APF. 492/2008, LA.APP. 493/2008, LA.APP. 495/2008, LA.APP. 496/2008, LA.APP. 526/2008, LA.APP. 527/2008, LA.APP. 535/2008, LA.APP. 537/2008, LA.APP. 541/2008, LAAPP. 545/2008, LA.APP. 546/2008, LA.APP. • 548/2008, LA.APP. 554/2008, LA.APP. 563/2008, 566/2008, LA.APP. 621/2008, LA.APP. 623/2008, LAAPP. 627/2008, LA.APP. 628/2008, LAAPP. 635/2008, L..A.APP. 648/2008, LAAPP. 649/2008, LAAPP. 662/2008, LA.APP. 724/2008 & CM APPL. 5353/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 756/2008, LA.APP. 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP. 861/2008, LA.APP. 875/2008, LA.APP. 879/2008, LA.APP. 880/2008, LA.APP. 888/2008, LA.APP. 894/2008, LA.APP. 895/2008, LA.APP. 905/2008, LA.APP. 906/2008, LA.PP. 907/2008, LA.APP. 910/2008,. LA.APP. 911/2008, LA.APP. 925/2008, LA.APP. 926/2008, LA.APP. 927/2008, LA.APP. 931/2008, LA.APP. 932/2008, LA.APP. 933/2008, LA.APP. 934/2008, LA.APP. 936/2008, LA.APP. 939/2008, LA.A\PP. 941/2008, LA.APP 942/2008, LA.APP. 944/2008, LA.APP. 946/2008, LA.APP. 955/2008, LA.APP. 958/2008, LA.APP. . 999/2008 & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.IAPP. 1014/20081 LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP. 1023/2008, LA.APP. 1026/2008, LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA.APP. 1071/2008, LA.I\PP. 1244/2008, LA.APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, LA.APP. 1268/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008, CM APPL. 2377/2009, (Cross Objections) LA.APP. 86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 97/2009, LA.AP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP. 111/2009, LA.APP. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, LA.APP. 251/2009, LA.APP. 252/2009, LAAPP. 265/2009, LA.APP. • • • 266/2009 & CM APPL; No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 267/2009, LA.APP. 268/2009, LA.APP. 269/2009, LA.APP. 27012009, LA.APP. 271/2009, r LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APP. 273/2009, LA.APP. 300/2009, LA.APP. 306/2009, LA.APP. 454/2009, LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 521/2009, LA.APP. 532/2009, LA.APP. 535/200.9 & CM APPL. 12886/2.0 11 (Cross • Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009 & CM APPL. 12917/2011 (Cross • Objections),.... A•PP 544f2 LAApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters INIM

566/2009, LAAPP. 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, LA.APP. 643/2009 & CM APPL13878/2011, 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, LAAPP. 171/2010, tA.APP. 220/2010, LA.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, LA.APF. '430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APR. 520/2010 CM APPL.13968/2011, LA.APP. 521/2010, CM APPLi. 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 (Cros Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, LA.APP. 527/2010, LA.APF. 528/2010, LA.APP. 529/2010, LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL. • 229/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 531/2010, LA.APP. 532/2010 & CM APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.AP. 533/2010 & CM APPL. 12898/2011.(Cross Objections), LA.APP. &34/2010,tA*PP. - 53..../2010 & CM APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010. & CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross ObjecUons), LA.APP. 537/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010. & CM APPLI.. 1297212011 (Cross ObjectiOns), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPI. 1290012011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.AP.F. 541/2010,. LA.APP. 542/2010 & CM APPL. 1.9857/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. 12903/2011 (Cros Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL. 12888/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010,. LA.APP. 566/2010, LA.APF. 581/2010, LA.APP. 592/2010 & CM APPL. 227/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 593/2010 & CM APPL. 12969/2011 (Cros Objections), LA.APP.. 594/2010, LA.APP. 595/2010 & CM APP. • 226/2011. (Cross Objections), . LA.APP.

5.96/2010, LA.AP!. 597/2010 & CM APPL. '228/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.AP!. 598/2010 & CM APPL. 487/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 600/2010 & 'CM AP•PL. 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. 663/2010 & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 666/2010 & CM APPL. 6748/2011 (Cross Objections'), LA.APP. 675/2010'& CM A.PPL. .9988/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 761/2010, LA.APP. 792/2010 & CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross Objections), L.A.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& connected matters . 392/2011, LA.APP. 420/2011, LA.APP. 424/2O11r.4AAPP. 425/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No.. 19/2002-03, Village-Pooth Khurd) AND (GRID-B) + LA.APP. 972/2008 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1122/2008 & CM 2099/2009 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 1150/2008 & CM 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, LAAPP. 1187/2008, LA.APP. 1188/2008, LA.APP. 1189/2008, LA.APP. 1218/2008, LA.APP. 15/2009, LA.APP. 82/2009, LA.APP. 1QO/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, ViUage-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRID-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.

96.9/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No 08/2001-02, Village-Bawana) AND (GRID-D) + LA.APP. 144/2011, LA..APP. 145/2011 & CM 12911/20111 (Cross Objections), LA.APR 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), - -(Retating-to 1\fotiftcatron 4dated 11 -092000- & Award- -No-- 20/2002-03, ViiIage-Khera Khurd) AND (GRID-E) + LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, LA.APP. 646/2009, LA.APP. 91/2010, LA.APP. 93/2010, LA.APP. 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP.191/2010 & 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, LA.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.APR 509/2010, LAAPP. 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 1 .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. 841/20.10, LA.APP. 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross • • : Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM No. fEctios 855/20i0, LA.APP. 856/2010 & CM No. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010 & CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.-APP. 100-812-01-0-&--CM No. 9966/2011 (Cross Object1ons), LAAPPtT0T21i20I0, IA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP. 79/2011, LA.APP. 80/2011, LA.APP. 81/2011, LA;APP. 82/2011, LA.APP. LA.AP84/20±1rtkAPP. 85/2011, 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP. 300/2011, LA.APP. -322/2011, LA-AP-P. 324/2011 & CM APPL.15110/2011, LA.APP. 385/2011. .. It (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 02.05.2001& Award No. 24/2003-04, Village-Narela) AND (GRID-F) + LA.APP. 497/2008, LA.APP. 141/2009 & CM 5302/2010 (Cross Objections). (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award NO. 18/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRD-G) + LA.APP. 777/2.010 & CM APPL.3808/2011, LA.APP. 778/2010 & CM 2686/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 779/2010 & C 12966/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP., 213/2011, LA.APFj'. 261/2011, LA.APP. 326/2011, LA.APP. 327/2011, LA.AP'. 328/2011, LA.APP. 330/2011, LA.APP. 331/2011,LA.APFj. 332/2011, LA.APP. 333/2011, LA.APP. 334/2011, LA.AP!. 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 (GRD-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, Village-Au Pur) . AND (GRID-I) + LA.APP. 481/2010 LA.App.14o.266/2008 & connected matters . Page 6 of 74. . 1/ No. 9/2003-04, Village-Holambi Khurd) AND (GRID-)) + 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 No2667/2011 (Cros Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Crbs Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 & CM No.14333/2011(Cros Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011 (Cros Objections), LA.APP. 977/2010, . LA.APP 978/2010, LA.APP.. 979/2010. & 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.APF. 983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APF. 984/20I0 &. CM No.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APJ. 985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APIj. 986/2010, LA.APP. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP. 990/2010, LA.APPI

991/2010 & CM No.9984/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.AP'. 1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 & CM No.9970/2011 (Cros Objections), LA.APP. 1018/2010, LA.APP. 1020/2010 & CM No.12939/2 (Cross Objections)011, LA.APP. 1024/2010 & CV1 No.6771/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1/20.11 & CM No.12964/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 2/2011 & CM LA.APP. 25/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 53/2011 & CM No.6766/20111 73/2011 & CM No.12922/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM No.6775/2011 (Cros Objections),. LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.AP!P. 110/2011, L.A.APP. 111/2011, LA.APP. 112/2011 &.CM No.10050/20 11 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP. 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011 No.6752/2011 (Cross Objections), 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, (Cross Objections), LA.APP. (Relatng to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.20/2003-04, Vittage-Rajapur Kalan) AND (GRID-K) Page 7 of 74. + LA.APP. 488/2008, LA.APP. 490/2008, LA.APP. 491/2008, LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/2008, LA.APP. 8872DDZ & CM No.10393/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 896/2008 & CM No.5364/2010 (Cross Objections)-LAAPP;- 897/2008, IA.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 4 dated 07.12.2001 & Award No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth) AND (GRD-L) .

+ LA.APP. 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, LA.APP.. 352/2008., .APP. 364/2008, LA.APP. 38/2008, LAAPP. 387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP. 464/2008& 1 CM No.11333/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. • 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP. 468/2008& CM No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP. 470/2008, LA.APP. 471/2008, LA.APP. 560/2008, •LA.APP. • 561/200.8, LA.APP. 611/2008, LA.APP. • 663/2008, • LA.APP. 676/2008,, LA.APP. 678/2008, LA.APP. 679/2008, LA.APP. 68I/2008, LA.APP. 682/2008, LA.APP. 683/2008, LA.APP. 722/2008, LA.APP. 731/2008, LA.APP. 754/2008, LA.APP. 786/2008, L.A.APP. 825/2008, LA.APP. 826/2008, LA.APP. • 842/2008, LA.APP. 850/2008, LA.APP. 853/2008, LA.APP. 883/2008, LA.APP. 903/2008, LA.APP. 904/2008, LA.APP. 924/2008, LA.APP. 935/2008, LAAPP. 937/2008, LA.APP. . 938/2008, LA.APP. 940/2008, LA.APP. 943/2008, LA.APP. 945/2008, L.A.APP. 956/2008, LA.APP. 957/2008, .LA.APP; 998/2008, LA.APP. 1001/2008, LA.APP. 1004/2008, LA.APP. 1007/2008, LA.APP. 1065/2008, LA.APP. 1077/2008, LA.APP. 1079/2008, LA.APP. 106/2009, LA.APP. 172/2009, LA.APP. 309/2009, LA.APP. 374/2009 k LA.APP. 464/2009, LA.AP.P.' 465/2009, LA.APR 468/2009, LA.APP. 539/2009, LA.APP. 546/2009, LA.APP. 547/2009, LA.APP. 565/2008, LA.APP. 624/2009, .LA.APP. 628/2009, LA.A•PP. 63012009, LA..A•PP... • 23/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010, LA.APP. 35/2010, LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010. (Relating to Notification uls 4 dated 16.051002 & Award N Q. 29/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) AND (GRID-M) • + LA.APP. 338/2008, LA.APP. 343/2008, LAAPP. 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 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. 562/2008, LA.APP. 68012008, LAAPP. 715/2008, LA.APP. 716/2008, LA.APP, 720/2008, LA.APP. 723/2008, LA.APP. 757/2008, LA.APP. 760/2008, LA.APP. 767/2008, LA.APP. 793/2008, LA.APP. 823/2008, LA.APP. 824/2008, LA.APP. 837/2008, LA.APP. 908/2008, LA.AP.P. 909/2008, LA.APP. 952/2008, LA.APP. • 1022/2008, LA.APP. 1024/2008, LA.APP. 1025/2008, LA.APP. 1063/2008, LA.APP. 173/2009, LA.APP. 307/2009, LA.APP. 308/2009, LA.APP. 311/2009, LA.APP. 384/2009, LA.APP. 385/2009, LA.APP. 463/2009, LA.APP. 467/2009, LA.APP. 540/2009, LA.APP. 542/2009, LA.APP. 548/2009, LA.AP 1P. 627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/2010. • (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated. 23.05.2002 & Award No.22/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) AND (GRAD-N) • + L.A.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2098 • (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2099, LA.APP. 304/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 • • • • •• • • • (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.052002 & Award No. 16/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan) • AND • • • (GRD-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 7&30-]M-, L-AAPP 85/2O1O,_LA APP 9/2011 & CM 9 960/20 11 - 1ossO0jections), LA APP 58/2011; L-A APP 289/2011 & CM 14850/2011 (Cross Objection's), 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-All Pur) AND - ..-----------.------- - (GRND-P) . + - LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009 (Cross Objections), 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 & CM No. 7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008, LA.APP. 882/2008, LA.APP. 885/2008, LA.APP. 891/2008, LA.APP. 898/2008 & CM No.2355/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 902/2008, LA.APP. 92212008, LAAPP. 923/2008, LA.APP. 929/2008 & CM No.2351/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 930/2008 & CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 960/2008, LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2008 &' CM No.1261/2009 (Cross Objections), LA..APP. 982/2008, LAAPP. 983/2008 & CM No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 & CM No.839/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/200.8, LA.APP. 997/2008, LA.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008, LA.APP. 1027/2008, LA.APP. 1078/2008 & CM No.224712009 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. ' 1127/2008 & CM No.2111/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP. 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. • 1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 & CM No7791/2009 (Cross 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. 122/2009 & CM N6.14321/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, LA.APP) 174/2009, LA.APP. 250/2009, LA.APP. 260/2009, LA.APP. 261/2009, LA.APP. 26272D09, TA'APP. 264/2009, LA.APP 293/2009, LA.APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. '" 301/2009, LA.APP! 302/2009, LA.A.PP. 303/2009, LA.APP. 36512009, LA.APP: 43312009, LA.APP. 449/2009, LA.APP. 461/2009, LA.APP'. 471/2009, LA.APP. 487/20091 LA.APP. 501/2009, LA.APP. . 51877009, LA.APP. 527/2009, LA.APP. 530/2009, LA.APP. 531/2009, LA.APP. 533/2009, LA.APP. 537/2009, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . I-r 538/2009, LA.APP. 545/2009, LA.APP. 554/2009, EKAPP, 555/2009, LA.APP. 558/2009, LA.APP., 585/2009, LA.APP. 588/2009, LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP. 625/2009, LAAPP. 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. 48312010, LA.APP. 484/2010, LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP. 486/2010, LA.APP. 487/2010, LA.APP. 604/2010, LA.APP. 606/2010 & 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.AP.P. 785/2010 & CM No.12968/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 786/2010 & CM No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. • 787/2010, LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. 789/2010, 790/2010, LA.APP. 820/2010 & CM No.12880/2011 (Cros Objections), LA.APP. 821/2010, LA.APP. 915/2010, LA.APPJ • 916/2010 & CM No.6773/2011 (Cross Objections),. LA.APPJ 14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APPJ 26/2011 & CM No.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP • 55/2011 & CM No.12894/2011 (Cross Objections),. LA.APPJ. 59/2011, LAAPP. 63/2011, LAAPP, 69/2011, LA.APP. 70/2011). LA.APP. 72/2011 & CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APPJ 16/2011 & CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APPJ 114/2011 & CM No.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.L 135/2011, LA.APP. 136/2011 & CM No.12971/2 (Cros Objections)011, LA.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 143/2011, LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APPJ 203/2011 & CM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APPI. . 273/2011 & CM No.13289/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APPJ 338/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003 & Award No.11/2004-05, Village-Sanoth) I) Si + LA.APP. 336/2010 & CM 624/2010, LA.APP. 625/2010, 627/2010 & C.M. No.3853/2011 629/2010, LA.APP. 630/2010, 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, APPL.14845/2011, LA.APP. L.A.APP. 626/2010, LA.APP (Cross ObjectiOns), LA.A.PP LA.APP. 642/2010, LA.APP LA.APP. 645/2010 & C.M No.3587/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 646/2010, LA.AP. 664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. 667/2010, LA.APP. 668/2010, LA.APP. 669/2010 & C.M. No.676912011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. b70/2010 &tM71T0T3818720TI (Cross. Objections), LA.APP. 672/2010, LAAPP. 673/2010 & C.M. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, L.A.APP. 701/2010 & C.M. No.3850/2011 (Cross Obiections), LA.APP. 702/2010, LA.APP. 703/2010 & C.M. 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 .& CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 800/2010 & C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP. 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 . 815/2010, LA.APP. 816/2010 & C.M. No.3862/2011 (Crtss 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 Objections), LA.APP. 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP. 98/2011, LA.APP. 99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011, LAAPP. 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 4 dated 27.01.2003 & Award No.10/2004-05, Village-Rajapur Kalan) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not? Wht.er,the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOGI L.

10 villages; namely, P00th Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi' Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, Ali Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue District (North-West) and if we seethe map of the city of Delhi we would find that these villages lie in the North-Western part of Delhi. They lie wi.thin an area between the 'V formed by Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 and G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-i. The Delhi-Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-i. Whereas villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway line and NH-i, the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the.railwäy line. Narela and Shahpur Garhi are, towards the east of the railway line. The urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has .beei developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is situated in the land within the aforesaid V. Bawana lndustrii 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 bee'n treated as equivalent with respect to their location. .. . The instant decision decides the issue as to what shouId 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 a..fr atddates under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition At 1894, vast tracts of land in said 10 villages were acquired ard save .and.. except lands in the Revenue Estate of village Narela where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential .ar?d,. partly industrial', in the other villages, acquisition wasfor the purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a . Page 13 of174 road .orfrei.ghtcom.plex. 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. . .1

¶3I must highlight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in all appeajs filed by them as also cross-objectiors 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 !ands in village Narela had abetter 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 2/- per sq.yd. vis-à-vis the price determined for lands in village Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight that learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi being in Mamurpur: •

¶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 ieveal that the Learaedtand. Acquisition Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from time notifying the minirnum rates for agricultural lands . in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between. (. 4" to 6', the 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 categbrie' L€'.CategOry 'A', 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 determined1 fair market value on different principles and for purposes of clarity I may note the basis on which the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court have, determined the compensation payable. The same would be as under:- Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 issued under-Seetion 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 again.st !13.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and fl2.26 lacs pen. 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. T13.82 lacs per acre andhas 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 fai 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. . . Pertaining to the same notification dated 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 and determined fair market value wit reference to the policy for minimum rates in sum of fl3.82 lac9 . LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters , per acre which has been enhanced by the learned Reference Court to U4,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decision of a Gairal Vs. UO/wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market value determined was 9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and treating the said date and the said price as the base, giving 12% per annum appreciationfor a period of 3 years, 8 months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been determined. . Pertaining to the same notification dated 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 T13.82 lacs per acre for Category'A' lands and

12.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. The learned Refe.rence Court maintained the same. Pertaining, to the notification dated 11.9.2000 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd were acquired for shifting industrial units, the Land Acquisition Collector has, for Category 'A' lands determined fair market value, with reference to the policy effective from 1.4.2000 in sum of1382 lacs peracre and for category 'B' lands has fixed the same at 712.62 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted the policy wherein minimum price fixed as of

1.4.2000 was T13.82 lacs per acre and for 128 da.ys i.e. the number of days between 1.4.2000 till 11.9.2000, appreciating the same by 12% has determined fair market value at U4,40,157/- and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands... Pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 pursuant whereto 1140.5.8 bigha land.' was acquired in Narela for de\(elopment of sectors 1 to 4, Phase I, Narela, with respect to the policy of minimum price with effect from 1.4.2001 the LA.App.No66/2OO8 & connected matters . 2IJ learned Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value • in sum of U5.7 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category 'B' lands determined the same at U4 lacs' pe-r-acre 'The learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price notified by. the Government as of 1.4.2001 and gave appreciation for a period1 of 1 month for the reason the notification under Section 4 of the' ±and AcquisftiorrAct1894'is dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced the compensation to fl585,700/- per, acre which has uniforñily awadd. . . Pertaining to the notification dated 22 8 2001 • whereunder 512.16 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2,001 i.e. T15.7 lacs per acre which has been held to be the fair market value for Category 'A' lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determined at fl4 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. fl5.7[ lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum.. for

143 days and the price so fixed is 16,43,811I-per acre which has been uniformly awarded. Pertaining to same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 512.16 bigha land was acquired in villag Alipur, 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 the learned Reference Court who has done away with cat-egOffZatOfl -. --- • . Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 192.15 bigha of land was acquired in villag LA.App.No.266/2008' & connected matters Holambi Khurd, the reasoning of the LAC and the learned Reference Court and the price determined is the same as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that: in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in the same uniform category. Pertaining to the same notification, dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural, lands in village Rajapur Kalan were acquired the reasoning and the fair market value I determined.by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the sam.e as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, H.olarnbi .Khurd and Alipur save and except in this village the acquired land was of uniform category. . Pertaining to the notification dated 7.12.2001. pursua'nt whereto 222.05 bigha land was acquired in village Sanoth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township, the learned Land Acquisition' Collector has assessed compensation uniformly in sum of T15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per the policy for minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the learned Referen'ce Court has adopted the same price and given' appreciation for 250 days at the rate. of 12% per annum to reach the figure of U6,99,042/- per acre. • '

Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural• lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has determined compensation in sum of'tt5.7tacs'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 learnea Reference Court has not worked out the compensation and has left it to the Executing Court to do so, however I fi.n.d that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be ' . Page 1$ of 74 . 2~ , fl7,75,369.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as T472001 and the äëpriceat ?15.11acs, fôrFyearänd 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. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village ShahpOr Garhi were acquired the learned LAC and the learned Reference CoUrt • have determined same compensation as per the reasonin pertaining to the same village for the notification datei

16.5.2002 and Ifind that sincethere is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision • of the Reference Court comes to fl7,79,781.78 per acre. Per aining--t-o--the same notification -d-ated--2-3.5.200 pursuant whereto 445.81 bigha land in village -1olambi Kala was acquired, the learned_LAC has determined fair market valu in sum of 15.7 lacs, per acre which is the same as per minimurh price w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopte the same reasoning as was adopted while determining the fair market value, of lands in village Holambi Kalan which we,e acquired pursuant to the notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the decision in Gairal's case (supra) and appreciatingthe same by 12% compounded per annum the price determined is 22,14,239/-per acre. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.5.202 pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Alipir were acquired the Collector hs • awarded compensation at the rate of 715.7 lacs per acre basd 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 annum w.elf. Page 19 of 7-

1.4.2001 till 23.5.2002, the price determined is 1785,240/- per acre • 0.- Pertaining tor the notification dated 27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha land in village Sanoth and --------2+8-8--O3 -bg1i--+and-in-vfllage-Rajapur Kalanwere acquired,,the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the minimum pricenotified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the same value as the compensatipn payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages i.e. T15.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of 714 • 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 the minimum price in sum of fl5.7 lacs per acre-as • appreciating the same by 12% per annum fOr a period of 666 days has fixed fair market value at fl9,13,765/- 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 the 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:- . . -SLNo-Date of— Effective Date Price - (in lakhs/acre) increase per annum Notification of the price . 3.5.1990

27.4.1990

4.65 .

25.7.1997

1.4.1997

10.0

11.5 -.

24.9.1998

1.4.1998

11.2

11..2

21.11:2000 -

12.32 ,.

9.8.2001

1.4.1999

1.4.2000

12.16 .

13.82

9.8.2001

1.4.2001

15.7

11.5

30.8.2005

30.8.2005

17.584

2.98

24.1.2008

18.12.2007

89.51

¶8From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum price was last. fixed

27.4.1990 in sum of 4.65 lakhs/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 11.2 lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e•.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to 12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.1999 to fl2.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% per . annum with reference to the price determined as of I.41998anth_. vide same notificon±thé.1price. was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to 1382 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum: visà-vis the previous i.e.

12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-à-vis the previous price of U3.82 lakhs/acre to - reach the ftgure of 15J - lakbs/acre. -The pnce was next - . enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to !17.584 lakhs/acre which gives us an increase of only 2.98% per annum and then the price rose to 53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annum with reference to the base figure of T17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005.

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

7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated

22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated

7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5.2001 for village . . Narela;'and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Ali Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2003' for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands Were of uniform character and it ... . was urged that Corrective_action .is re4uired 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 - %per annurn increasewas ecess1vewith 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 ft the TèaL Secondly, the lea rhed Reference Court was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C' by the Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C', on account of pits and depressions of varios 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 dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also Th:ste'deed dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the sam LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 1.2 biswh agricultural land in village Mamurpur was ,sold @ 26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19. biswa of land was sold in the revenueestate of village Kher Khurd for a sum of Z32.4 lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land pricea of 25.3.2000 under' Ex'.PW-1/3 would be 28.89' lakhs/acre and • pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be 63;478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deed 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 notification 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 learnefi counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' Page 23 of4 and for which the argument was that when in the -st 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 Marnurpur-Narela by giving a. price benefit of 2I-per sqyd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 In C.A.No.4405/1997 UO/ vs. Dharambir& Ors. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in sum of 6,650I-determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to 16,750/- per big ha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to 22,000/- 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 . 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 Rohini 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 DSIIJC and DDA i.e. the implementing agencies, • which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate and for which learned counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged. Alternative to the second submission, being the third T submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this J Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram. vs. Un/on of/nd/a, it was permsjbleto determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving1 suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bed! Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6°/q per annum with reference to the base price 16,750/- per bighâ as of 30.10 .1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in • Dharamb/r's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till

31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per. annum till the various: dates whèh the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with - which Lam..concerned.i.njiie prcentap.paLs. 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 réaso.n 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 the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2.000,

11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12:2001, 16.5.2002 and

23.5.2002.

¶13The fourth argument advanced was, and for which -refe-re-nce was made by learno1 for the parties in the. evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which is subjectmatter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.No.268/2008 filed by the land owners .and LA..APP.No.292/2008 filecLby Union of India, 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 7 z> testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agriculturalm. produce from his lands he used to earn fi lakh per bigha per iiiüi, i.e. th&fálr 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 720 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 inLA.APP.No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008. • 14. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kahg, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for each of the notification in question the fairTharketválue ought to have been determined with reference to the notification which was closest in point of time whera_under minimum land value was fixed by the Government' and the notification dated: 24 ! 1.2008 where under Z53 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 dated 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 No.200 • (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for 5,39,6901-, determined the fair market value as per the said, sale deed in the following words: (Refer ,oara 17 of the decision dated 71 2010 in LAC No 117A/2009) "If we add stamp duty in the sale price 3,69,9061-per big/ia 5,3 OL± 70,160 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes tb T 17, 74,109/- per acre or 3,68,9061-per big/ia. Further if we give 12% in crease on said amount for intervening period between the date when the sale deed was executed and the date of nüt/f/cat/an u/S 4 720.05.2002 to 27.01,2003) i.e. 8 months if comes to 19,16,0371- (round off 19,16,0401-)" The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisitiod i.e. Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the

award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 big ha and 18 biswa land_was put in Catego 'A', 45 bigha and biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 bisw in Category 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred toth land being comprised in Khasra N0200 and that page No.56-57 otthaward would evid thatiatid comprised in Khasra' • No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in1 Category 'C'. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of fl5.7 lakhs per acre based upon the

notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had been' fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by 1.7 lakhs per acre for Category lands, fair market value determined whereof was fl4 lakhs pe acre and further depress the same by another Z1.7 lakhs pe acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value dëtermined whereof was fl2.3 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 naci to be increased by T1.7 lakhs pe(acre for each category.

¶16I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced by Sh.Sanjay PoddarHearned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above andhence I need not repeat the same.

¶17In various sub-paras of para 6 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 my 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. . H. But before dealing with the arguments I need to highlight various anomalies which strike the reader at the outset. The same would be:- • A. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 wherein lands were acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for Category 'B' lands, having depressions and pits, deduction effected vis-à-vis the price for Category 'A' lands is T1.56 lacs per acre and pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 where price has been determihed for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd, said...price-differential has been worked out at U.2 lacs per acre and while determining fair market value for agricultural lands in viUage Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 2.5.2001 the deduction effected is 71.7. lacs per acre, which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan was determined as of the date 22.8.2001. Pertainin9 to thenotification dated

27.1.2003 and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential on said count has again been taken at fl.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 .i.7 lacs per acre. 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. C -------- The-learned Reference Court hasadopted 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 Kalan.where acquisitions were made pursuant to the notifications dated 78.2000 and

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

15.11.1996 and 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. Whereas for the notification dated 27.1.2003 the 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 dated2O5.2002. Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Collector has classified lands in Category 'A', 'B' and 'C' reasons thereof have been giverrtrF The award but the learned Reference Court, while UifOfhi coñlipensation, has Wën no rëabns as to why it was treating all lands to be of same_character andquality.

¶19Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act! 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant Village Date of LAC compensation ADJ compensation Section 4 (in lakhs/acre) with (in lakhs/acre) with Notification reasons reasons Pooth

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' T13.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd Cat. 'B' 12.26 T14.3728. Minimum price as- -Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi

7.8.2000 T13.82 T14.12995. Kalan Minimum price as Price as in Ga/rats of 14.2000 case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A'15.7 Cat. Uniform. Kalan Cat. 'B' T14 T16.43811. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi

23.5.2002 U5.7 Z22.14239. Kalan Minimum price as Priceas in Ga/rats of 1.4.2001 case as of

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

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' 13.82 No enhancement Cat. 'B' U2.62 given. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 Khera

11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' fl3.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd Cat. 'B' fl2.62 fl4.40157. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with ofI42OQfl 12% increasep.a. Narela

2.5.2001 Cat. 'A'15.7 Cat. Uniform. Cat. 'B' T14 U5.857. - Minimum price as Mnimurn price as • .• of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with S is 1acts WThch woUld be thy data for further analysis_Put in a tabular form the data would be as under:- LA.App.No .266/2008 & connected matters 12% increase p.a. Ati Pur

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' U5.7 T16.43811. Cat;'B' 14 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. All Pur .23.5:2002 Z15.7 fl7.8524 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi

22.8.2001 Z15.7 . fl6.43811 Khurd . Minimum price as MiniMum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a'. Rajapur

22.8.2001 U5.7 fl6.43811 Kalan Minimum price as Minimum price as . . of 1.4.2001 . of 1.4.200 1 wfth 12% increase p.a. ______L Rajapur

27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' 1S.7 fl9.13765 for Kalan Cat. 'B' fl4 . Uniform categor'. Cat. 'C' 12.3 Minimum price• Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. in some cases. Z19.1604 for Uniform category based on sale deed .• dated

25.5.2002 with 12%. increase p.a. Sanoth

7.12.2001 U5.7 fl6.99042. . I Minimum •price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Sanoth

27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' 15.7 U9.13765 . for Cat. "B' 14. Uniform category. Cat. 'C' fl2.3 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. Page3lof74 Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2001 Cat. 'A' 15.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.200 1 17J5369__. Minimum price as of. 1.4200 1. with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. Shahpur

23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' T15.7

17.79781. Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. I now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by, learned counsel for the land owners and the 2 submissions • urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India). The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to T26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ Z63.478 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 bythe 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 the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The saIe 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 o of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organizati had to 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) 5CC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. RaUfuddin Vs. Land Acquis/t/on Officer (Refer para13) sale transactions evidenced, in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of SectiOn 51A of the L.AAct 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances whfth 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 ually well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumtances or the fancy to buy a particular piece land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailir1ig prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, may pay a much higher price and this would not be a go1d index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would 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 dated

27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kaln was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much less 1er price i.e. 17,74,109/- peracre as against the price which corns to T63.478.iakhs 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, Page 33 of7' themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price —anxfatidestroythother.

23.Ths parL_fto.m the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 aove quJb_eaddillonaI 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 between 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 sate deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya beinge_decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Prataø S/ngh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. uor& Or. It was highlighted thfthe ale déedthereifl by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had, been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by. the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in 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 Undthat if the 'price therein, was reduced by 113rd, the price arrived at would be the same as Pagô 34 of 74 . would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of 1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave theprice 3,26,600/- per bigha and the average woild come to 2,31,800/- which was near about the price of 2,15,160/- per bigha, if 113rd would be deducted from the sum of 3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as L of the said dates at the same sUm arrived at as aforesaid i.e. 2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as 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 contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutuallV destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds. reflecting fair, market value. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately , highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to1 vilIage-NareIa, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced would be dea!t with by me at the end when.l determine the fair market value of, lands for the villages in question. . The second argument, contours whereof area to be found in para 11 of mi decision herein above, I need to note the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . Page 35 of74 latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UQI. But before that 1 must highlight that the decision in L al

Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure. whereunder, on lease-hold basis, 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-i and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal • Road and Rohtak Road. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing the same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts, in paras Ii to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- S "Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence? ii. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: Sl;No. Plot size Category Rate (per square metre) 26sqm 32sqm 48 sq m 6Osq m 5_ 9Osqm Economically weaker sections ( EWS)

Low income group (LIG) Low income group (LIG) Middle income group (MIG) Middle income group (MIG) Rs 100 Rs 125 Rs 150 Rs 200 Rs 200 4(

¶1The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the said provisional rates, should be taken as indicative of the ruling market price. On careful consideration, we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determined'with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates, of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to 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 fand7 whereas the aflotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made toarrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon S the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. The "deduction for development" consists of two components.' The first' is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc. 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, underground drainage and sewage facilitiesTàiñvëi lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil kJ "of the vaitte -of-the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised privateresidential 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 . plcts in unauthorised layouts, woUld be only about 20% pIus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout. . The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will . also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.) Therefore the deduction, for the "development factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of. undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is aIsoweWknown that the development cOst incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard-to higher overheads and expenditure. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residential- -c-um-commerc1al--or4ndust-,laJ-; and--even-among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community parks and playgrounds provided. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authors 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/ciic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor isa variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%. Second factor. DDA and other statutory development authorities • adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon the economic status of t1e allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and eConomicalfr weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layOit, • plots may be earmarked for persons belonging ço • economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Fs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be.s 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middie income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons belonging to high incOme groups. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market valu" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA_statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the applicants for allotment. Third factor LA.App.NO.266/2008 & connected matters Page 39 bf 74 Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DfJA allot plots on leasehold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership), rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the market value of the property. However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market 'value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." 22-. The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting from LAC 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 frtfte_petitionersJias. further submitted thatDDA &DSIDC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate He has relied upon allotment letter dated 04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the pre-determined rate of 3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-OS area measuring 70 Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as T3,989 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. S plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela industrial Complex at the rate of Z650 sq. metres which is Ex PW3/1 and another allotment letter dated

25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at 3000 per sq. metres.. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW9 Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PW11/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent I that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = 248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ 3208 would be 2531408I-per big ha. 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 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 Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 'sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is 2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area under plots =

112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in the year 2000 at = which DSIDC sold plot

3000/- per sq. yards Total earning ' = 4083750000 Total expenditure = 720526901 Total profit = 3363223099 Profit comes to 2470'pêrsq. yardTh . 270000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and the LAC has paid compensation @ 327083 per bighá only, meaning ther.ebythat DSID.0 has earned a profit of ?2142K7 per bigha. ,

Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further arguel that LAC has 'awarded compensation @ T327083 per L bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the said price is considered on account of land, the figure comes to Z654166. If the amount is deducted from sale - .nric.per bigha i.e. T24700000, the figure comes to. fl8 15834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." 29-r--------Now 7--we 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 Lal Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases. It is no doubt true, as held even by -the learned Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Li Chancis case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as S 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. The third submission in the alternative wa 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. here;in above. The land owners require the price. determined in Dha ramblEs case (supra) relating to the notification dated 3fl1Oi96 in sumof 1ñ75.0/pebhf Marnurpur to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% per annum and lastly by 12% pr annum for different 'periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question. It be highlighted that in Bed! 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. However, in La! Chano's case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the a ward 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 wa& awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to . the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rateof 12% per annurn. This. Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. RameshbhaiJ/vanbha/ Pate/id this Court. • held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) •,_Nprmally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing ---'-'---'---"- 'appropriate -escalation over'thprovedmarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by—s-ale transa-etfo-ns--Oc---acq-u+sftfons)', where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr, acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA.AppNo.266/2008 & connected matters t1 S —sa-fe wer-e----th''jefl-é&gp sate transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that It may be unsafe, even If It relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a rellable standard if the gap Is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unrellable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a 1and 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 disclose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will 'not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 - acquisition."

¶35It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the D i v i s i o n B e n c h in Bedi Rs--ca-se--supra) runs in the teeth.of the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case (supr which decision follo arIier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai /ivanbhai Pate!. LA.App.No.266/2008 &, connected matters 3 6. -- IntheirIstdnt case there is another good reason not to follow the law laid down in Bedi 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) SaraswatiDevi & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage ; increase with reference to the price determined in DharambIr's case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted mi the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.11980 @ 2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ 1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was' applied the price wouldhave come to approximately T50,000/- per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at 33,0fl0/- per bigha.

¶37That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair marketvalue of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on11.5.2006, MahenderSingh vs. UO/ & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one. village with which I am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land • Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of • agricultural land in village Bawäna was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of I

15.11.1996 was determined @ fl,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 prce for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the Government was Z10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266!2008 & connected matters Page 45°f 74 determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. 9,59,542.46 per acre, pertainingto 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 holistically discussing the subject while opining upon. the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notifications in question. The fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chat•urvedi, 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.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning Z1 lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no.proof in support of his oral testimony. S

¶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 falIacous no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3 Id 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.266i'2008 & connected matters _ 5/f sown around the first week or the second week of November -- ... ...eachyear................. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form of documents is relevant. Now.as per the testimony of Ram Kishan hewas working as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi till 313.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter,earned a.pension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning U lakh per bigha ; for the lands belonging to the family, 'which admeasure 18 biga and 18 tswa, the annual-income -would be 719 lakhs and on1e, 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 whon 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 th pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the field 1s were irrigated by.canal water, no proof of any payment, made the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by S . 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.

. If there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found in the

decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (1) SC 441 State of Gu/arat& Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to he yield from agricultural land, only then it would be safe to determine fair market value by applying the principle of 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. In 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 the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001,

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

1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years awayfrom the last year with which I am concerned . the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would be closest-to—the--point for which the mean• average has to be determined. I am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification date.d

27.1.2003 determined the fair marketvalue in some References with respect to. a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and . has determined that based thereon the price as of said date —work-s-out to l7,74,1O9/- -per acre andHncreasfng -the-sarnfor 8 months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price would be 19,16,037/- per acre rounded off to 19,16,040/- per acre.

¶47With reference to the Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004..05 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasiring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C' land. The sale ded in question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflect fair ma 'rket value of Category 'C' land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collector !1.7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the • depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum Of .1.7 • _ Jakhs_prart-ewouId be -eq'•'- ' t up the de'pre ions in Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were less vis-à-vis Category_'C' land. In other words, With reference to Category'A' land, the price of Category 'C' lnd would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-à-vis Category'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land - would be required to be increased suitably. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In viev of • • the evidence herein -above noted and reflecting upon the • • reasoning adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector a 1nd the learned Reference Court, I pose the question: What shoiild 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 1 •

25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the dates on which the • • notifications were issued underSection 4 of the Land Acquisftion Act 1894. I have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on • • LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • ,~ l

11.5.2006, Mahender 5inah vs. UOI& Ors. wherein pertaining to --------------V4 Bawafla-,fajf -mark ---vaftre determined as of 15.11.1996 isfl,99,904.68 per bigha 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 ôfthe.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 factiities schools, markets and rural, industry, one of which was village 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 and commercial, but had also ubserved that notwithstanding this; for the reason no zonal IáffJ was notified as contemplated by Section hA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant • case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, 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 propOitiorrthaf there is a difference between the undeveloped land having building Si potentiality in presenti 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 9,59,542.46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. the notification dated

25.7.1997 where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was 710 lakhs per acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gaira/. Sincih vs. UO/ & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land Was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was 9,51,12I/- 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. I would highlight that another.Division Bench of this CoUrt, in another adjoining village in the same 'V'. i.e. between. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Snghola determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ 1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. 6,26,5 10.40 per acre. The decision is .repoed.as...2004 (4) AD(Delhi) 20 Ram C17andervs. UO/and the ----same•DMsicn-Benc•h•, as per the decision-repoited-as -111 (2004) - DLT 95 Hukum Sinqh vs UQI, oertaining_toa notification dated

14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair marke.t value @ 1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. .6.73,1O4/- per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . 5' .: 50 - The aforesäidudgmentsnote in the preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued frOm time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant tO determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was T4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to T10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is T5.35 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 by11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years. and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as. of 1.4.20:01. . It shows that due to urbanization, between the year. 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ga/rats case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

¶51I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Ga/rats case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was 95,000/- for multiple cropped land_and having good rigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at TY.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land . prices_of comparable lands in the —suffou-d+ng--a-re-asiflcludirig poteriti -alfty, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land. prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and b-as—ed—on -sale instances found that based on the said sale 5 -) instances and 9 g—b - fft—of—Fn Fa-za,--t-h-e land price would come to 10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices notified by the Government as pe policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of 9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and, 9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in whenj the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f.

1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to saleE transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at T10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was U0,03,364/- per acre. • 52. The decision in Mahender S/ngh's case, pertaining to villageBawana, 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 and 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 I 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 Ga/rats case and Mahender S/nqJjs case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality betwer 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that _.pursuantioJYIastesPl an for Del hi 19 9.0a lain arg..area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the, market got saturated. The 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 I 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 rehed upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has heId 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 agricuftural 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 T5,39,690/- 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 17;74,109I-per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. Thus, the best which could be said as the 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 the reason,. as noted -by me hereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 1.8 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA.App.No;266/2008 & connected matters sometimes T1.2 Iakhs per acre, sometimes fl.56 Iakhs per acre and sometimes T1.7 Iakhs per acre from the .price of Categcry '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 T1.7 takhs per acre. Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the -----•-•-•--Ian4s---a-nd-l--note-that ca-tegerizati-o-nisb-as-ed-oftfy on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various deptlis 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 Z1.2 lakhs per acre would be • spent and in some that T1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent an d in some that Z1.7 lakhs per, acre would be spent? There is jut no clue. In Gairal S/na/i's case (supra), the price differential worked out was 25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabov that the acquisition in Gairal S/ngh's case pertained to the date

15.11.1996. In Ga/ra/ S/nab's case the price for Category land determined was 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B 1 ' • 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. • I thus hold that Ga/ra/ Sincjh'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' and Category 'C' have to be differentiated on price, the differential should be 25%. Thus, if fl7,74,1091-, rounded off to fl7.75 Iakhs per. 'CtaiidThviHage Rajapu Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 1 ...---- - • •• admittedly pertains to a Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land would be 18.20 lakhs per acre and for Category 'A' land would be T18.655 Iakhs 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 T13.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was 15.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at f18.655 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

16.40 Iakhs per acre and this would highlight that when • contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at T15.7 lakhs per acre as of L4.2001, 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 S rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date• is normally not held gbodevidencetO work ouf Tañd 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 M 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. The 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-à-vis the adjoining villages f2 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. I thus hold that pertaining to the notifications dated

7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.82001 and 7,12.2001 the land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with reference to the sale deed dated 2 5.5.2002 for the reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates could be detenjñedJ 'Pertaining'to the-notificationi dated

16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003,.the land price needs to'be determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' Ll - tecause with reference to-the -s-aidTé price it TS pparent-that--------- land price as of said date comes to more than if determined with respect to the notification dated. 9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was T15.7 lakhs per acre with effect from

1.4.2001. 62; With respect to the price differential for Category 'A' and Category 'B' lands., noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village Pooth Khurd and 'Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the • notification dated 22.8.2001) I hold that vis-à-vis the 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 and substantially in the other, .a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value at 22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, -butImeed to highlight thatpertattiing tothesame notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village . Alipur the learned Reference Court has deterniined— the -fair market value at 17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village RajapurKalan and Sanoth, pertaining tthe notification dated 27•00 the .air market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is 19,16,040/- in some cases and 19,13,760/- in a few, . meaning thereb/ that much lesser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-à-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Kalan pe rtaining to the notification dated

23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Ga/rats case (supra) as of 1.5.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. Village Pooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000 With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is f13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably , updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for CategOry 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to.17,74,109/-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Cateor.y 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to t18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 25% 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 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to T14.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing the' 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 and uniform price awarded is 14,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a mea.ger 1,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. . All 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 beem prepared and labeled as'GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶66- All 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 decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village P00th Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of T14.75 lákhs per acre and 1 for Category, 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 14,37,280/-. per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. • 67. Pértainthg -tO such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in thejudgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 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. Vil!age Holambi Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000

¶68For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensation to T14.75 Iakhs per acre and I highlight that as per the award and even as per the reference all subject lands were of uniform category. Needless to state aØpeals flied by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are allowed by enhancing the compensation to T14.75 takhs per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 1)0/2001

(93) DLT 56.9, except for the period where there is a delay in filing --4 peaI 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. . . Viflacie Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2000

¶9...............fertaining cviUage....Bawana.... relating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court has not enha.nced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A' lands is fixed at 14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category lands at 14,38,125/- per acre and • noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cros objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned an neediess to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellants sha be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisitioi Act ii4 as explaned in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 1)01 201 (93) DLI 569, except for the period where there is delay ft filing the appei, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionath cost. Ylllae_Kt.KhurJiiflcation dated 11.9.2000

¶70Wfth reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified pe ri acre is T13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the 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 17,74,10-9j...,....rounded....off tfl7,75,000J-per acre, and fori Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters * I . to T18.2 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 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to 14,83,500I-per acre and decreasing the same by,

2.5%, it comes to 14,46,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands.

¶71All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed bythe. 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 Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum of 14,83,500/- per acre for Category'A' lands and fl4,46,4131-peracre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertaining to this notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensationstatUtory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. U012001 (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 interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001

¶72With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.7 takhs per acre and requiring said price to be •suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. • 2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 255.2002 - wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes.to 17,74,109I-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.2 Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices IALFands; a n d 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%1 it comes to 15,76,087-per acre for, Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price, awarded is 15,85,570/- 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

¶73All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-E' filed by the (and owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeirg compensation payable for. Category 'A' lands in village Narel'a pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 in sum of 16,16,500/- per acre and 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 appeal 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 Ac 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, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appeUants would be entitled to proportionate cost. ••• Notification dd 22.8.2001 With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 — whren-with--effect--frorn--tooi minimum price notified per acre is t15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach, the 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, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to f18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to fl8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to refteet—the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 228.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in _village Holambi Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to 16,32,63 7.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.. Noting that the 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 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. All 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. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed bythe land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters' • 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 fl6,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or crass references which. pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. 77: Pertaininy 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. UO/ 2001 (93) DLI 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 All Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001

¶78With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is f15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification iè.

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 dif to 717,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to t18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices........ H 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 forthe date'22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category....At-lands in village All Pur come.s 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' thatthetearned RëfrTnce Court has,_without any reasons1 done away. with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me

¶1comes toa meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Unin 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. There shall be no order as to costs. ViHage Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2001 With reference to the notification dated 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 the 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 fl7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to f18.2 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 aveaepricefor. Category. 'A' an4s—-•viHage--HefambHEhu rd-comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it cOmes to 16,32,637.50peracre.for category 'B' lands. NOthfthë1ê6jned Reference Court has, without any reason .. ' ldsd Uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . . Page66 of 74 Category 'B'. lands Imaintain theamountawarded by the, learned Reference Court. • 82. The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect.. whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. 83; There shall be no order as to costs.. Village Rafaur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001

¶84With reference to the notification dated. 9.8.2001 I wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the dateof the notification i.e. S 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 17,74,1091-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.2 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 Kalan 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 the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price 16,43,811/- per acre,. the price differential worked u.tby..me. ..co.mes to a meager 9,0001-....p.e....acre...and...thus, qua • Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the • learned Reference Court. 85; All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the .appeaIs: -fHedby1andown -ersin --respectwhereofHgrid has been - prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereinabove are dismissed.. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the 1and 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 Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of 16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the 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. Pertaining 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. 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 appellahts or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001 With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

7.12.2001 and with referenceto the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to

17.74,109iLouldedQ.to17,75.,0-Q0/ per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to 18.2Iakhs 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 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comesto 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 entitld to the enhanced compensation in sum of 17,29,500/-. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of lndia 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. All 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/- 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 Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period wh.ere 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 Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2002 Pertaining, 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 dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- -7, V peracre and I highlight that as per the award ar1dffië"refërëricé .................... all lands are in the same category. Appeals and cross objections filed by the land, owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowed and needless to state on the enhanced compensation the 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. UQI 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 and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. ViHage Shahpur Garh9 NotNfIcatlon dated 23 5 2002 Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5200.2' pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential 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 18,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported'as Sunder Vs. UQI 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 and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 23.52002 As, noted by me pertaining to the notification dated

23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition 7c-Collector and the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awarfterL cbmpensatinn in sum of 22,14,239/- per acre which I 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 and 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 b' the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensatiori payable to 18,65,500I-per acre on which, needless to stateJ with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No cOsts. Village Ali Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002 Pertaining to the notification dated 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 18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India as per 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to U8,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT. 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or crosS objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid fot the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Village Sanoth Notification dated 27.1.2003 Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as per 'GRID-P' pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sanoth, I note Page 71 0174 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 categdry while awarding compensation. ---'

¶96On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to te notification issued by the Government as also by increasing tle' ---------same--wF --reference-to the sate deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average; for Category 'A' lands the price coms to 19,43,500/-'per acre and for Category 'B' land the price corn.s to U8,94,912.50 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 saidappeals 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. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid "saVe and 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 -- medifyi-n-g-the---r-&atabie-"-deevee-4R the Reference Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to l894,91250 per acre and for Category 'C' land to 18,47,539.68 per acre. Village Rajapur Katan Notification dated 27.1.2003

¶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 dated

27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of 19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at 19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform: category. On the mean average basis which 1 have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sate deed daed

20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' land9 The pf -comes--to19,43-per acrfi&for Category 'B' land the price comes to U894,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to fl8,47,539.68 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 tIe 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-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 needtessto statearrtheenhance6 compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ • 2i -(3+ -OL-T--5&9 —s*afl be paids-- except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest Pag? 73 of 74 7t would not be paid for the period Of delay. Proportionate costa well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by • . modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by educing the compensation -fr ---Category: 'B' land to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' land to 18,47,539.68 per acre. . . (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE AUGUST23, 2011

• . mm/dk . . .. 0'

$-276 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 76/20 11 & CM 12974/2011(Cross Objections) AMAN GOYAL Appellant Through: None versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr.Siddharth Panda, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG