Vijay Pal v. Union of India & Anr

BIM THE" HIGH COURT-OF PELHB AT •W DELS-iifl 0/1 Vo judgment Reserved On: 12''^Auoust. 2011 ludament Ddlivered On: 23''^ Auoust, 2011 LA.APP. 266/2008 JAI SINGH Through-: Appellant Mr.S.ChatLirvedi, Mr.Deepak Khosia,' Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.M-.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana, Mr.RaJ Singh, ' Mr.Uday Ram^ MnD.R.Tomar, iVlr.hS.C Mf.S.M. ahiya, Mr.N.S.Dalai, Bhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.S.S.Rana, Mr.Sunil Dalai, iVir.D.S.Khatri lMr.T.P.^^J<ang,Advocates Vs. UOI .& ANR. . Through: Respondents iVjr.Sanjay Poddaf, Senior Advocate with' l^r.Sanjay' Kumar Pathak, Mr.Saci-in NaWani, Mr.Siddharth Panda iVis.K.Kaomudi iCiran, Advoca :es for R-l. • i ' Ms.Anusuya Saiwan, Advocate, for DSIDC. ' Mr.Ajay Verma, ' Mr.Pawan IViathur, Ms.Shobhna Tal<iar, Mr.Arun Birba MnBahkey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi Ms.Beenashaw Advocates forODA. Sor /AND ! (dPip-Ai + LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP. LA;APP. 267/2008> LA.APP. 268/200 271/2008, LA.APP-272/2008, 27S/2DD8 CM kVPL. 5338/2Utrg LA.App.No.-266/2008 & connected matters ^64/2008, lA.APP. 265/2008, 8, LA.APP. 27O/2-0O8, LA.APP. APP. -273/2008, LA.APP. (Cross Cmj^t1lilTS)~tATAFP. LA. Page j of 74 279/2008, LA.APR. 280/20p8VSt Objections), LA.APP. ,28l|2068 286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, 293/2008, LA.APP.' & Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008 299/2008, . .LA.APP. 301/2GG8,- 3T172t)t):8, 357/2008, 413/2008,, 4B3/2(K)8, 492/2008, 496/2008, 535/2008, 545/2008, 554/2008, 621/2008, 628/2008, 649/2008, CM' APPL.- 5261/2009 (Cross LA.APP/ 284/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP.: 289/20118, LA.APP. LA.APP: 29^/2008, LA.APP. CM APPL. 1^^91;S/^lir-(^rDS5 LA.APP, 296/2008, LA.APP. latApp^—aoamm-.—izt^vpp-- tPOKPPr LA.APP. LA.APP. -LA.APP: LA.APR. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAttScPP-.---4S4/^-0&87 LA.APP. 493/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-LA.APP. 337/2008, 394/2008, 443/2008, 526/2008, 537/2008, 546/2008, 563/2008, 623/2008, 635/2008, 662/2008, 304/2008, 339/2008, 401/2008, 472/2008, 487/2008; 495/2008, 527/2008, 541/2008, 548/2008, 566/2008, 627/2008, 648/2008, 724/2008 756/2008, 861/2008,

8.80/2008,- 895/2008, 907/2008, 925/2008, •931/2008, 934/2008, 941/2008, 946/2008, 999/2008 & CM APPL. 535.3/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP,. LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. U\.APP. LA.APP. 846/2008, 875/2008, 888/2008, 905/2008, 910/2008,, 926/2008, 932/2008, 936/2008, 942/2008, 955/2008, 847/2008, 879/2008, 894/2008, 906/2008, 911/2008, 927/2008, •:933/2008, 939/2008, 944/2008, 958/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. -t:A:A'PP-.' LA./APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. • LA./APP. LA.APP. LA.AVPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cro LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), , LA.APP. 1023/2008, LA.APP. 1071/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, CM APPL.- 2377/2009, •1014/2008-, 1026/2008r .1244/2008,'^ 1268/2008, LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA.APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008, Objections)LA.APP. 86/2009, LA.APP/96/2b09,LA.APP. 97/2009, LA.APP. 98/2009, LA.APP. :I0l/20 .lll/20m:. LA.APP. 114/2;009, 251/2009, i LA.APP. - 252/2009,, 266/2009 & CM APPL. N6.5366/2( 267/2009, .LA.APP/ 268/2I0Q9,. . 270/2009,. LA.APP. 271/21009, 273/2009, LA.APP. 300/2i009, 454/2009, 'LA.APP: 455/2009, 532/2009, LA.APP. .535/200.9' 5^ 09, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. • . 120/2009, LA.APP. 'lAvAPP.' -265/2009, LA\.APP. I'lO (CrosS'Objections), l_A.APP. •LA.APP. 269/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APP. •LA.APP. 306/20d9, LA.APP. LA.APP. -521/2009, LA.APP. CM APPL 12886/2-011 (Cross CM APPL 12917/2011 (Cross rfi'p- .Objections)^ LA.APP. 536/2009 Ea DB]eOTbns:)r-l-A.Af4^---S^.-3/^697jr-tATAPP LAiApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 2 o("74 566/2009, 589/2009, .63.4/2009, 637/2009, LA.APP. 570/2009 CM LA.APP. 593/2009, LA LA.APP.- 635/2009, LA.APP. APPL.13878/2011, LA.APP. 1/2010, 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010,• LA LA.APP. 109/2010, LA LA:APP. 17O/201O, LA LA.APP. 276/2010'. LA 108/2010, 169/2010, 220/2010, 638/2009, APPL.13873/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. la;app. iS( CW\ LA.APP, LA.APP, .-LA.APP. 'LA.APP, 594/2009, 636/2009, 643/2009 LA.APP. 29/2010, .APP. 107/2010, •APP.

1.68/2010, .APP: ' 171/2010, APP. 426/2010, •APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 430/2010, , CM APPL. 9994/20ill j(Cross Objections), LA.APP 520/20.10 CM APPL.139'68/20ll,- LA 9564/2010 (Cross ' Objections)/ ' LA 523/2010, • LA.APP. 524/2010 Gi CM Objections),- LA.APP. 525/2010; Si C Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, 1/! 528/2010/ LA.APP. 529/2010, LA.AP 229/2011 (Cross .Objections); LA APP; 521/2010, CM APPL .APP. 522/2010. LA.APP., APPL. 12914/2011 (Cross M APPL. 192/2011 (Cross ..APP. 527/2010, LA.APP. P. 530/2010 Si CM APPL. APP.

5.31/2010, LA.APP. 532/2010 St Ci^ APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), LA APP 533/2010 Si CM APPL. 12898/2011. ( 534/2-eW7^-i:A-.7W.-535/2010 & CM Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 & CM Objections), LA.APP.-.53.7/2010,:LA'.AI^^P. 538/2010. St CM 12972/2011 (Cross Objections),^ LA.A 12900/2011 (Cross Objections), 541/2010, LA;APP. 542/2010 Sc CM Objections), LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM Objections). LA.APP., 544/2010,: CM Objections). LA.APP. 545/2010,. LA 581/2010, . LA.APP". 592/2010 St' QN Objections), LA.APP-. 593/2010 CM ross Objections), LA.APP. APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross APPL. ^P. .539/2010 Si CM /APPL. ,.APP, 540/2010, LA.APP. APPL.

1.9857/2010 (Cross APPL 12903/2011 (Cross APPL 12888/2011 (Cross .APP. 566/2010, LA.APP. APPL 227/2011 (Cross APPL. 12969/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 594/2010, ,LA:APP. 595/2010 Si CM APPL. LA.APP. ross

5.96/2010, LA.APP-Objections)., LA.APP; ross Objections), LA.APP. ross Objections), LA.APP. 603/2010 Si CM APPL. 226/2011 • (.Cross Objections), 597/2010 & CM APPL.'228/2011 .{C 598/2010 Sc CM APPL 487/20il :(C

6.00/2010 &. CM APPL. 12897/2011. (( 601/20.10, LA.APP. 602/2010, LA.APP. 12881/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP. 663/20TO & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 666/2010 & CM APPL 6748/20ai'(Gross Objections), LA.APP. ,675/2010.^St. CM: APPL. 9988/20!ll (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 761/2010, LA.APP. 792/2010 St! CM APPL 12889/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 793/2010 St CM APPL Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010;, LA.APP. 40/2011; LA.APP. 195/2011 St -CM Objections), LA.APP. 2,15/2011, LA 229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011,= 232/2011, LA.APP. 233/2011,' LA.App.N6.266/2008&' connectedmattersi 12899/2011 (Cross 795/2010,- LA.APP. APPL 128'92/2011 (Cross APP. 228/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 231/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. 389/2011, . LA.APP. 392/2011,. . LA;APP. 420/2011, . iLA.AFfP. 424/-2-0i-V -4A^P.P. 425/2011 • • (Pveiating to Notification u/s 4 ;datec No.,19/2002-03, Vilfage-Pooth IChLird) AND. CGRQD-B) ri-LA.APP. .972/2008 & CM 2349/2(1)09 (Cross .Objections), LA;APP. 1122/2008 & CIV| ,2099/2009. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1150/2008 & CM 12216/2011 (Cross Objections), & CM 2345/2009 (Cross -Objections) & CM 2102/2009 j(Cross. Objections), El cm 2338/2009 {Cross Objections), LA.APP. ;il87/2008, 'LA.ARP. 11-88/2008, 1189/2008',. LA.APP. 1218/2008,. LA.ApP. 15/2009, 82/2009, LA.APP. 100/2009, LA.APP. 102/2009, 1151/20a8-1152/2008 1153/2008 1154/2008,

07.08.200,0 Sl Award 113/2009, 214/2011. LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.AP P. 622/2009,- LA.A\PP. LA.APP. LA.APP: LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP: LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 11/2001-02, Viliage-Holambi Kalan) AND LA.APP. 359/2007; LA.APP. 202/2(p07, LA.APP. 382/2007, LA'.APP. 383/2007,^LA-.APP. 269/2008, LQ^.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,. Vlllage-Bawana) ! AND I + LA.APP." 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2 (Cross Objections), LA.APP; 146/2011. & Objections), LA.App.No.266/2008& comiecteclmatters [)11 St CM •12911/2011 CM 12957/2011 (Cross NoliricciLion-a/s-^—d^ted 1 i";t39..2000-SrAward No^ .• 20/2002.-03,Viliage-KheraKhurd)- ! •-/ AND (GRID-E). + LA.APP. 586/2009,, LA.APPJ 620/2009, •Ij\-AP.P: 621/2009, LA.APP. 646/2009, LA.APP. 91/2010, L 94/2,010/ LA.APP. 190/2010, lA'.APP A.AI^ 93/2010, LA.APP. 191/2010 Si CM No; 22402/2010 (Cross •193/2010, LA.APP. •196/2010, 299/201,0, 309/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. Objections), •194/2010, i 197/2010,. ^ 300/2010, ^ LA.ApP. 338/2010, LA.APP 3555/2011 (Cross. .Objections),

49.3/2010; • LA.APP. 494/2010, 496/2010, LA.APP. "497/2010 St Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, 500/2010, . LA.APP. 501/20105; Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. .. 503/2010,: 505/2016,.. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.A LA.A P. pp. LA.APP. LA.APP. Civi-No. LA.APP. CM-CM LA./ : .LA.A , LA.A uLA.A : LA. \lo. No. PP. 'P. 'P. 'P. ApP 508/2010. 511/20T0, 514/2010,' 517/2010 • 518/2010,- 611/2010, 618/2010, 621/2010,.- 628/2010, Oi:)je.ctions), LA.APP. • LA.APP. LA.APP. CM No. 506/2010, 509/2010, 512/2010, 515/2010, 7702/2011 -LA.APP. 519/2010, LA.APP. 612/2010, LA.APP; 619/2010, - LA.APP; 622/2010, i LA.APP. 647/2010 LA.APP. 650/2010, lA.AP 192/2010, 195/2(310, 297/2010, 308/2010", 170/2010 373/2010, 495/2010-, 22728/2010 , (Cross 499/2010, LA.APP. 23186/2010 (Cross 10382/2011 (Cross 504/20101 LA.APP. 507/2010, 510/2010, 513/2010, 516/2010, • (Cross. Objections), LA.a'pP. 610/2010, LA.ApP. 613/2010, LA.APP. 620/2010, la.a' CM LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. CIV| No: LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ^P. 623/2010, LA.APP. No. 3847/2011 (Cross P. 651/2010 Si CM No. 3560/2011- (Cross Objections),/ LA.APP. 652/2010, LA.APP. "No. 3563/2011 (Cross 841/2010, LA.APP. 845/2010 & CM Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, iLA.AFP. 854/2010 Si i.-057W^0» 856/2010 tCrubs Oijjectians')'; Sc .cm' N.O'.- 9610/2011 •857/2010,' LA.APP. 920/2Q1P Objections); LA.APP. 100^/2010! T^bjections), ilATAPPT 79/2011, LA.APP. -±A:KpPr- •LA.AFPr-84T201rl7 tAjAFP:—855/2010. CM No. LA.APP. (Crbss Objecti.ons), LA.APP. CM .No. 3829/2011 (Cross Sr-feNM^o.- 9966/2011 (Cross X021/2010, itAlAPP." 78/2011, LA.APP. 80/2011, LA.APP.i81/2011, LA.APP. 82/2011, fcATTAPf. 85/2011. LA.APP. • 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP. 300/2011, LA.APP^ 322/2011, 11, LA.APP. 385/2011. L/W\PP. 324/2011.& CM APPL.15ri0/20 LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters ;• (Relating : to Notification u/s 4 dated

02.05.2001& Award .No. 24/2003-04, Village-Nareia) AND -I-" LA.APP. 497/2008, LA.APP.; (Cross Objections).. . ; (Relating to Notification u/s 4 date 18/2003,-04, Village-Holambi iCaian) AND + • LA.APP. 7-7,7/2.010 Sc ClVj APPL.3 Sl cm 2685/2011 (Cross Objections 12966/2009 (Cross Objections), 261/2011, ' LA.APP. LA'.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 328/2011, 332/2011, 335/2011, 41/2011, 50/2011, 326/2011, 0/2011, 333/2011, ^•^.9/2011, 342/2011, LA.APP. •351/2011, LA.APP.377/2011, LA.APP.388/2011. 41/2009 U CM 5302/2010 d

22.08.2001 & Award No. 308/2011, LA.APP. 778/2010 ), LA.APP. 779/2010 & CM LA.APP.. 213/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. • 327/2011, L/X.APP. 331/2011, L/LaPP. 334/2011, lA.APP. • 340/2011, lA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 65/2011, (Relating to Notification u/s 41 date 33/2003-04;, Village-Holambi Kalan) d 22.08.2001 Sl Award No AND + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/ 2011, LA.APP. 409/2011. (Relating "to Notification u/s 4i dated 22.08.2001 Si Award No 15/2005-04, yiiiage-Ali Pur) - . - AND + LA.APP. 481/2010 •LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters fRefdiii'iy Lu. NuUrication u/s 4 \d^tec 9/2003-04-, Viilage-Holambi Khurcl) ' No, AND + LA.APP. 780/2010 & CM No.266 LA,APP. 899/20i0 & CM LA.APP. -900/2010 CM Noi3541y LA.APP. 970/2010, LA.APP. 971/2010 Objeetions), LA.APP. 972/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 &. Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 ^ & Objections),' LA.APP. 976/2010 & • Objections), LA.APP.- 977/2010, LA 979/20,10.. CM 1^0.9990/2011/ No.3551/2011 (Cross Objectibris), L "982/2010 CM No.6742/2011 (C 983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (C 9d4/ZU10 " Si". CM- "N'o.5746/2Oil- (Cross Objections) 985/2010 CM No.9-980/2011 (Cross Objections), N03833 1/20.11 (Cross Objections), 2011' (Cross^ ^Objections), 2011 (Cross Objections), St CM No;3805/2011 (Cross CM Nov2667/2011 (Cross CM NO.3703/2011 (Crbss pM No.l4333/2011(Cross CM' No.9992/2011 (Cross .APP." 978/2010, LA.APP. 980/2010 ^.APP. 981/2010, OSS Objections), OSS Objections),- i-A.APP. Gi CM LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 986/2010,. LA.APP. - 988/2010 I & CM No.38.36/201.1 (Cro Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP. 990/2010, LA\.APP. • 991/2010 & - CM No.9984/2011 (Cross Objections); LA.APP. aOOO/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 & pM' No.9970/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.- 1018/2010, ', LA.APP. 1020/2010 ^ " No.12939/2 (Cross •Objectidns)011, No.6771/2011 -••(Cross Objections), No.12964/2011 (Cross Objections),. No.675272011 (Gross Objections), 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011," LA.APP. 53 (Cross Objections), LA;APP. 73/2011 Sl Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011-Objections), LA.APP-. 101/2011, LA 110/2011, LA.APP. 111/2011; LA No. 10050/2011 (Cross Objections), CM -A.APP. 1024/2010 & CM LA.APP. 1/2011 & CM LA.APP. 2/2011 CM LA.APP.• 25/2011, LA.APP. /2011 CM No.6766/2011 CM No.12922/2011 (Cross CM No.6775/2011 (Cross .APP. 102/2011, APP. 112/2011 lJa.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP. & CM LA.APP. 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/20.11, LAiAPP. 252/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dat No.20/2003-04, Viliage-Rajapur ^alan) AND. LA.App.No.266/2008 & conneuled matters ed

22.08.2001 & Award Page 7 of 7'll + LA.APP. 488/2008, LA.APP. :490/2 LA.APP. 549/2008,-LA.APP. 755/2008, #0t^3€4/-2O1O (-Gr-e 1003/2008, 4/2010 . & (Relating to Notification u/s 4 idatec [\!o.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth) 008, LA.APP. , 491/2008, JK.APP. SW2Utr8: "St CM iMo.103.93/2009 (Cross' Objections), :L/|^iAPP. 896/2008 CM ^P-;--897/240-&-, LA.APP. LA.APP. 587/2009, ^LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP. CM No.7072/2010 ;(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 48^/2010, LA.APP. ' 605/2010, iLA.APP. - 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APFJ. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011, LA.APP. 421/2011

07.12.2001. 6( Award AND 87/200.8, 561/2008, 67,6/2008., 681/2008,^ 722/2008, 786/2008,- 842/2008, • 883/200,8, •

92.4/2008, 938/2008, 945/2008, 998/2008, . 1007/2008, 1079/2008, 309/2009, 465/2009, 546/2009, 24/2009, LA;APP.- 445/2008, LA.AP 464/2008Sc CM No.11333/2008 (Cros 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, 1_A.. .No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP. .470/2008,; LA.APP'. 471/2008, -L/A.APP. 560/2008, LA.APP. 611/2008, • LA.APP. 678/2008, -LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP." LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. i-A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. • LA.APP. LA.APP: LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP-. LA.APP; LA.APP. 682/2008, 731/2008, 825/2008, 850/2008, 903/2008, 935/2008, 940/2008, 956/2008, 1001/2008, 1065/2008, 106/2009, 374/2009-, 468/2009, • 547/2009, 628/2009, -h . LA.APP.,' 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, LA.APP.-352/2008,-LA.APP, 364/2008, LA.APP. 3SS/2008, LA;APP. P. P. iLA.AP LA.AP .LA.AP lA.AP LA.AP iLA;AP LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. :LA.Ai=|P. ILA'.APP. LA.AP LA.AP lA.AP LA.AP P. P. P. P. D 663/2008, 679/2008, 683/2008, 754/2008, 826/2008, 853/2008, P. 904/2008,, P. 937/2008, 943/2008, 957/2008, 1004/2008,, 1077/2008, 172/2009, 464/2009, 539/2009, 565/2008, 630/2009, P. . 454/2008, LA.APP. Objections), LA.APP. f\PP. 468/2008& CM LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. i_A.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 3/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010, LA.APP. 35/2010, " • ^ W> LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010.' .(Reia^iag to...N.atUlca±i-on .u/s 4 dat&d; 29/2003-04^ Viliage-Shahpur Garhi) : LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connecled matters L5.Q5.2002 ^ Award No. Pages of74 384/2008, 389/2008/ 436/2008/ LA.APP., 444/20;08,: No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), 467/2008, LA.APP. .550/2008'i Si C Objections), 680/2008, .720/2008, • 760/2008, 823/2008, 908/2008, 1022/2008, 1063/2008, 308/2009, 385/2009, 540/2009, AND CGWOfivi LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. - 715/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP.. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 723/2008, 767/2008, " 824/2008, 909/2008, 1024/2008, 173/2009, 311/200:9, 463/2009, 542/2009, + LA.APP. 338/2008. U\.APPr^3^3/2008,:-.'.LAVAPP:356/2008,. LA.APP. 366/2008, LA.APP. 367/2008, LA.APP; 368/2008, LA.APP. 369/2008, : LA.APP. 370/200:8, LA.APP. 383/20G8, LA.APP. .LA:APP. 386/2008, L LA.APP. 434/2008. . L ^.APP. 388/2008, LA.APP. ^.APP. 435/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 456/2008& CM LA.APP., 458/2008, LA.APP. M No. 16150/2008 LA.APP. 562/2008, LA.APP. 716/2008, LA.APP. 757/2008, LA.APP. 793/2008, LA.APP. '837/2008, LA.APP. 952/2008, LA.APP. 1025/2008, LA.APP. 307/2009, LA.APP. 384/2009, LA.APP. 467/2009, LA.APP. 548/2009, (.Cross LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 0/2010. 627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/S' 4; dated N,o.22/2003-04, Village-Sliahpur Garii) AND

23.05.2002 Si Award -h LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 CM 13228/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 304/2009 &. CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 . ..(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.05..2002 &-Award 16/200'3r04, Village'-Holambi ICalan). lo. AND LA.APP.379/2008, "LA.ARP. 1/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, LA;APP. 499/2008, LA.APP. 530/208, LA.AVPP. 836/2008 &-CM 5300/^010 (Cross 0 Sc CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections bjections),'LA.APP. 310/2009 ), LA.APP. 782/2010. La.APP, .LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters :._izsa/-2ma,:-^ LA;AP^'^,f~^/2GiiSi .cm•9950/2011 --iCross-^bjed^^ l^iARP, 7fiQ/7nli cm 1485_Q/20UL (Cross Objections), (LA *l'4^52/20rrTCfo55^0bjection^LA.A (Pvelatmg to Notification u/s 4 dated. : 17/2004-05, Village-All Pur) APP. 290/2011 Sl cm 381/2011. ^3.05.2002 Si Award No ' AND CGIRID-P) .+ . LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No;2357/ LA.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP: 674/2008 & Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008,! LA.A 706/2008, lA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP ' (Cross Objections), LA.A LA.APP. - 885/2008, Si CM - No.2355/2009 LA.APP. 922/2008, 7837/2009 882/2008,- 898/2008. 902/2008, '929/2008 930/2008 960/2008, , Objections), Objections), LA.APP." No.2347/2009 (Cross No.2351/2009 & "CM Si CM No-.78^1/2009'. (Cross Objections), LA.APP." 980/2008 ,CM No.855/2010 LA.APP. 9S1/2008-&' CM No.1261/2009 982/2008, LA.APP. 983/2008 Objections), -lAAPP. 984/2008 LA.A (Cro LA'.A (Cro No.839/2010•(Cross Objections)^ LA.j\PP. 985/2008, 9-97/2008, LA.APP. 1002/2008>iLAiAIpP. 1006/2008, 1027/2008, LA.APP." 1078/2008 : St 'CM No.22.47/2009 Objections),.. LA.APP. 1123/20081, 2009 (Cross Objectio.ns), CM NO..7818/2009 (Cross \PP. 705/2008, LA.APP. . 808/2008. & PP. 878/2008, 891/2008, Objections), 923/2008, Objections), ^P. ss =>p. ss CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross (Cross •Si CM Si CM LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross LA.APP. 1127/2008 Sl cm No.2111/2009 (Cross Objections}, LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP. 1246/2008 Si CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 ' .CM NO-.7791/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 13/2009 Si 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.6482/20lOi (Cross ' Objections), LA.APP. 122/2009 Si CM No:i432i/2009"TCross Objections), LA,APP. 123/2009; • LA.APP. 124/2009, ; LA:AbP. 128/2009,^ 17,4/2009, 261/2009, LA.APP. 250/2009, ' LA.Af^P. , 260/2009, LA.APP. 262/20PyrrPO^. ;~264/2009, LA.APP. 299/2009. : LA.APP. " 301/2009, 'LA.A|PP. 365/2009, 449/2009, f LA.APP. 461/2009, 487/20.09,.i LA.APP. SOl/2009, 527/2009, ' LA'.APP. 530/2009,. 53372009, ^ LA.APP. 537/2009, 293/2009,' LA.APP, 299/2009, 303/2009, 302/2009, LA.APp. 433/2009, LA.APP. 471/2009, LA.APP. 5I872UD9; LA.APP. 531/2009, LA.APP. -LA./APP. LA.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.App.Nd.2.66/-2008 & connected matters 538/2009, 555/2009, 588/2009, 626/2009, [^.APP.. 545/2009, >L/\.APP. 554/2009, LATAPP. LA.APP. 558/2009, . LA.APP., 585/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 619/2009, • L/^.APP.-•625/2009, LA.APP. iA:App;r •52972009, - M.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/i2010, 227/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010"-.i LA .LA.APP. 410/2010|, LA LA.APP. 480/2010, LA LA.APP. 484/2010, LA LA.APP. 487/2010;, LA LA.APP. 225/2010,- LA.APP. APP. 303/2010, LA.APP. APP. -418/2010, APP. - 482/2010, APP. 485/2010, APP. 604/2010;

37.2/2010, 479/2010, 483/2010, 486/2010, 606/2010 607/2010, 614/2010, 695/2010, 785/2010 786/2010 787/2010, 790/2010, St CM -[^d.19878/2010• (Cross . Objections), 608/20101 •615/2010:, 705/2010;, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA-APP. CM & CM LA.APP. LA-APP..: 820/2010 ! : C Objections), LA.APP. : 821/2010. j.LA.APP. 915/2010, "916/2010•Sc CM l\i,o.6773/2011 (Cross Objections),. 14/2011 •&. CM No.6754/2011 .(Cross Objections), 26/2011 •;S[ CM No'.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), 55/2011. -CM No.12894/2011 (Crass Objections), 59/2011, LA.APP.. 63/2011, LA.APP." 69/2011, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 'LA.APP. (Cross LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 70/2011. LA LA LA APP.- APP. APP. •.609/2010, 671/2010, 734/2010, No.12968/2011 .(Cj^ross Objections), No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections), 788/2010,.!- LA.APP. 789/2010, Wi No.12880/2011 LA.APP. 72/2011-& CM NO.6777/2011 ,76/2011 CM No.12974/2011 (C (Cross Objections). LA.APP. OSS Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 .5i CM iNo.12869/2011.(Cjross Objections), LA.APP. CM No.12971/2" (Cross CM No.12902/2011 (Cross .APP. 153/2011, LA.APP. 135/2-011;' LA.APP.136/2011; & 0bjections)011, LA.APP.^ 137/20lL1 & Objections), LA-APP. 143/2011,• LA 203/2011 273/2011 338/2011 & & •CM CM. N.o.12913/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. No.13289/2011 (C "oss Objections), (Relating to. Notification u/s No.ll/2004-05i Viljage-Sanotii) i dal ed

27.01.2003 Award AND LA.APP. 33 6/2010 Gl cm:: a 624/201.0,.. LA.APP. 625/2010: ;lA 627/2,010 St C.M. No.3853/2011: (C 629/2010, LA-APP. 630/2010; LA 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA. •LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters I PPL14845/2011, APP.-^ 626/2010, ross Objections), APP. 642/2010, APP. 645/2010 LA.APP. LA: APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. it C.M, Pslge 11 of 74 No.3587/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 646/2010, LA.APP. 664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010,; 668/2010, . LA:APP-669/2010 &r UDjections),. LA.APP." LAJAFfPf. -.667/2010, C:IV| tTF LAv.APP. No;676^2011 (Cross •NU38T8r2trri (Cross pp. 673/2010 Si C.jVl. LA.APl^. LA.APP. No.9941/2011 (Cross PP. .733/2010 St C.M. b/0/201U Objections)^ LA.APP. 672/2010^ LA.A No.38.12/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 687/2010, 701/2010 ..C.M/ No.3850/2011i (Cro^s Objections), 702/2010;- LA.APP. 703/2010 C.M Objections), LA.APP. .721/2010; |;LA;.A No.12878/2011 (Cross Objections), :l:A .736/2010, 739/2010 740/2010 .8i .CM No.14.322/2011 KCross Objections), :800/2bl"0..&-C.M/.No.3217/201i; LA./kpP. 801/2010, 802/2010, LA.APP; 803/2010, iLA.AF

8.09/2010, . LA.APP. 810/2010/' .LA.AF 812/2010, LA.APP.• 813/2010, iLA/AF 81^2010,; l^^app:: 81672010 Eci c.m Objections);- LAVAPP. <817/2010,.! LA.A 839/2010 St-G.M. No.10335/20111 (Cro 870/2010 St C.M. No.9946/,201li (Cro 917/2010; LA.APP." 922/2010, .LA.AIRP. 924/2010, LA.APP. 925/2010, "LA.ARP. No.3844/2011" .(Cross .Objections), ,LA. No.2664/2011 (Cross Objections), LA No.3547/2011 .(Cross Objections),' LA.A 56/2011 ,St' C.M.-I. No-.9939/201l4 (Cro LA.APP. 737/2010, APP. 735/2010, LA.APP. 738/20.10, • .C..M.,. No.3569/2011. (Cro 55 .• Objections), LA.APP. LA.ARP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP: LA.APP. LA.APP, (Cross LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. St C.M. St C.M. P. P. P. 808/2010, 811/2010, 814/2010,. No.3862/2011 P. 838/2010, Objections), Objections), 923/2010, 945/2010 APP. 975/2fll0' .APP. • 987/2010S( C.M. PP. 1006/20.10, LA.APP. :s Objections),•, LA.APP. ss s 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP. 98/2011, .LA.APP. -99/2011, LA.APP.^ 100/2011, IP 104/201.1,' LA.APP. 105/2011, 1A:AF 107/2011,-' LA.APP.. 108/2011, •• LA.AR .APP. 103/2011, U\./-\PP. P. 106/2011, LA.APP. P. > 109/2011, LA.APP. 113/2011, LA.APP.^165/2011, LA.APP.329/2011 [Relating to Notification u/s 4 idated No.10/2004-05, Viilage-Rajapur Kalan)'

27.01.2003 St Award HOBBLE iVBR;Justice i^iAs^Di^AjoG

¶1Wlietlier the. Reporters of local ,pap to'see the judgrhent? •; i

¶2To be referred to Reporter orjnot? •. * ^

¶3Wheth.gr the judgment should be reported in the Digest?-^ •" - ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ers may be allowed PRADEEF IMANDRAiOG. L" ' i. •• villages; namely, i Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kaian, Holambi-Khurd^ Bawana> Khera Khu'd, Narela, Ali Pur, Rajapur Kalan, ShahpurGarhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue District (NorthrWest) and if we/see'tie map of,the city of Delhi we would find that these villagds .lie in tiie North-Western part of Delhi. They lie within an area fcietween the 'V' formed by Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 G.T.Karnal Rc Ambala railway line runs somewhat ad i.e. NH-l. The Delhi-parallel to NH-1. Whereas villages IMarela and Shahpur Garhi are'in between the railway line and.NH-1, the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the.railway line. Nareia and Shahpur Garhi .-are. towards the east of the railway line. The urbanized 'city of Delhi'.where the co developed on the agricultural lands ony RohinI exists has been acquired post 1961 and is m •situated in the land within theiaforesaid'V'. Bawana Industrial Estate came up on lands which we re acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid.'V Historically, except .for village Narela, all villages have been treated as equivalent with respectto their location. .

¶2The instant decision decides the .is.sue as to what should • ^ be the fair marketvalue of agricultu|"allands in the said villages as or the • dates

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,.

22.8.2001, 7-12.2001,

16.5.2002,

23.5.2002 ar state, pursuant to notifications issL aforeSatd^dHtes under Sectior} o 1894, vast tracts of land in said-10 d 27.1.2003. . Needless to ed, from time to timei on I the Land .Acquisition Act villages were acquired sayfi-Bn.d..except lands in the iReveriue'Estate of village Marela where the purpose of acquisltio-n partly industrial', in the other:villag was partly residential es, acquisition was'for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a L.A.App.No.266/200o & connected matters m road or freight .complex. The reason why such,-tracts of -lands were needed'wasto set ,up an irjidustrialestate pursuant to a decision talcen to shift al! i industries operating in non-conforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas.;

¶3I must highlight,that argiliments by learned counsel for the land owners were the sanie ih all, appeals filed by them as also cross-Objections wherever filed., and similar is the'position with respect to the .stand taken by the Union of lndia. Save and ex,cept pertaining to village Narela where an additional argument-was advanced; being that, the township.of Narela had . existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Narela . had a better value.and for which jit wa^;.urged that way back in the year 1963 when lands in the revenue estate of village Narela and adjoining villages Bhorgarh M lands in village Narela were given a pri sq.yd. vis-a-vis price determine Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I mustifurth counsel conceded that village Narela a amurpur were acquired, ce advantage of ^2/- per d for lands in village, er highlight that learned nd Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi.beir g in Mamurpur.- ,4. The position of the awards made from time to time and the relatabie notification under Section Act 1894 have been detailed by me 4 of the Land Acquisition i/vhile noting the various Land Acquisition Appeals and the Cross Objections-as per the index hereinabove and thus I need not repeat the same.

5.. A perusal of all the awards announced from -time to time would, reveal that the learned-Land..AcquisitiQn Collector has determined compensation., payable with, refsjrence to *om "nment of NGT Delhi tes for agriculturar lands notifications/orders issued by the ;Gover t-ii=ne time notifying the minimum ra in Delhi wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavatedearth resultingjinpitp having depths between LA.App.N6.266/2008 & connected matters : i ' • \ 4' tne land value has beeiy appropriately depressed and this is to be found in a few awards where lands have been put In 2 or 3 categdlMesrer-Categbry 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'c. ; , ; . • . • .

¶6A perusal of the various; decisions pronounced by the Reference Couii: in various. Land.jAcquisitionrReferences made, would shoW that the learned Re^erencs Court has determined fair market value on different principles and for purposes of clarity I -may note basis on wiich the. learned Land Acquisition Collector-and learned determined the compensation payable. under:- A. Pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.20Q0 issued uftdef^r-Seetiwi 4 t)f the Land Acquisi whereto •1372.00.10 big.ha -land was a Khurd, for the purpose, of shifting ind ?13,82 iacs-per acre" for Category;'A'.Ja acre for Category 'B' lands awardec Acquisition Collector (by, adopting the p minimum rates as of 1-.4.2000), the lear adopted: the same .rate j.e; ^13.82-lacs, per acre and'has granted increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000 • I till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notificat 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 a •' • ' I - market value of land in village P6oth acre and has ignored that there W;asiCa -he had to make"hedessaryj adjustniient. I u. Pertaining to the samfe not pursuant whereto 211.14 bigha jland Hoiambi Kalan, the Land Acquisition C as of same character determined » , ' • i reference to the policy for minitViumirates in^sum of ?13.82 lacs t ' , LA.App.No.266/2008& ppnnectedi'inatters-i • i ' Page15of"74 Reference Court have The sanne would be as ion Act 1894 pursuant :quired in village Pooth ustrial .units," as against nds ahd tl2-.26 lacs per by learned Land 'ice as per the, policy for led Reference Court has on issued under .Section nd thus determined fair Ihurd at 14,37,280/- per tegory 'B' land for v^^hich fication dated

7.8.2000 was acquired in village Dllector treated the land fair market value with per acre which has been enhanced .by GoUrt to fl4,12,995A" per, acre by i;elyrnc -^-^\nsroir-BCTirir:aHtits^'eotn1^ Galfaf Vs. L^(?/wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market value . cjetermined :was ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and . treating the said date and the said pride a per annum appreciation for a period [of 3 y • days, to reach the .date 7.8.2000, fair .market .value has been determined. Ck Pertaining to the same-,jnotification dated 7.8.2000 pursuant whereto" agricultural lands in . acquired; the. Land Acquisition Collector c •• value for Category. 'A' iands, with, refere fixed the same at ^13.82 lacs per acre for ^12.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' iReference Court maintained the sarne.; "Pertaining . to notification dated

11.9.2000 ffursuantwheretoagricultural latidsjinvll age Khera Khurd were acquired for .shifting industrial' units, Land Acquisition Collector has, for Category 'A' lands dt?termined fair market value, with reference to the. policy effective from 1.4.2000 in sum, of T13'.82 lacs per.acre and forjCatec •the same at ^12.62 lacs per acre.. the |e he learned, Reference •upoh-':a'decisi a - • s the base, giving 12% ears, 8 months.and village Eawana were etermined fair market nee to-.the policy Category/A' lands and lands. •"The - learned m, ory 'B' lands has fixed a rned. Reference-Court :has adopted policy wherein':minimum price .fixed as of

1.4.2000 was. ?13.82 lacs per acre nurrib.er of days...between1.4.2600f•till 1 •J:he same by 12% has deteritiip.ed: ^(1^4,40,157/-and has uniformlyawardedthe samefor all lands.. E. , Pertainingto'theinotificationdiated 2.5.2061pursuant .whereto 1140.5.8 bigha land wasi acquired in Nareia for de>^.elopmentof sectors1 to 4, Pha'seM, Marela, with respectto policy of minihnum price with effect frdnri 1.4-2001 j VA.App.No.^66/2008&connectedmatters• j Page16 of74 for 128. days i.e/ the

1.9.2000, appreciating fair market value at iearned Land Acquisition Collector determined fair marlcet value in sum of ^15.7 I'acs per acre for Categ price notified , as of

1.4.2001 a.nd. determined same at ?14", lacs :: ^ *1 Reference-Court adopted nninimi^m, price notified by-the Governmentas of 1.4.2001andjgave . of 1 month for the reason the notificat ofy 'A' lands i.e. the same for Category 'B' .lands per"Bure: .The learned appreciation for a period on under Section 4 of the iraTTd-ALquisiLiorrAct' 3:&§4-is dated 2.5.200;r"and enhanced compensation to ^15,85,700/- per. a "OTcTrd'ed. ' :re which has uniformly _ "./.P^rta'ning . to notlficatipn dated

22.8.2001 whefeunder-512.16 bigha land in vil age Holanribi Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on minimum price notified as of 1.4.,2"00i i.e...^15.7 lacs per acre which has been, held to be the fair marl<et value for Category 'A' lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determined •at fl4 lacs per acre. The' learned Fleference Court, with - reference to the minimum rates'notified as of 1.4.200T i.e. ^15.7' lacs per acre has appreciated the sarrie by 12%-per annum for 143 days and the price so fixed!is 43,811/- per acre which has been uniformlyaw.arded. .. j G. Pertaining to same ; notifjcation dated 22.8.2001 •-•• -pursuant-whereto 512.16 -bigha land was acquired in village • Alipur, .on the same reasoning! which has been, adopted for village Holambi Kalan, for the |two categories of land same compensatldn'as determined fon'villageHolambi Kalan has been worked out by the learned Land'Acquisition.Collector as also by learned Reference Courtj whc has .done away with, categorfeatf^rt^- H. ^ Pertaining to. the sanne^noiification-dated

22.8.2001 pursuant whereto T92.15 bighajofjlarid was-Required in villag.e LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters • i ' '. ^ Page17 of74 learned Land Acquisition • Col lompensation uniformly in sum of ^15.7 the same as per the. policy for minimui and the learned Reference Court has a given appreciation for 250 days a annum to reach the figure of ^16,99,042/ -Holambi Khurd, reasoning of the LAC and learned Reference Court and the price determined is the-Sahie as has.- been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in, the same uniform.category. • L Pertaining to the sameSnotifi pursuant whereto agricultural-lands .in were acquired reasoning aind tl determined,by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the sam.e as adopted for village Holarnbi ICalan, Holambi Khurd - and Allpur save and-except in this village'the acquired land.was. of uniform category. . : . J. ' Pertaining to notification dated

7.12,2001. pursuant whereto

222.05 bigha land v/as acquired in village Sanoth for laying a 80 rheter approach road to Na.rela township, :ation. dated. 22.8.2001 village Rajapur Kalan le fair market value ector has. assessed lacs per a.cre which is n price w.e.f.

1.4.2001 dopted the same price t the rate, of 12% per - per acre. K. Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural" lands in village acquired, the learned Land,Acquisition C Shahpur Garhi were oliector has determined compensation in sum cyf"Tr5:T"lBcr^)er acre which is the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4^2001. The arhed Reference Court has simpiy held that the land owners would be entitled to enhance conripen^ation at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded.. ' I may highlight that the learned Reference Court has not worked out the compensation and has left it to the Executing Court to dp so, however i' find that the ' enhanced compensation . which iwoulc work out would be LA.App.No.2.66/2008&connectedmatters ! • Page 3,3 of74 m •^17,75,369.44 per acre for the reasp^o,,treatingthe base date as T:^72QU1 ahd. the bas'e'price "'at ^l.S./ 'lacs, for"! year and 45 days to reach,the date i6.5.2i001,appreciation-would be at the rate of 11.5% .per annum compcunded as per the learned Additional Sessions Judge.. L. Pertaining to hoi:ificatlon dated

23.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural,lands in village Shahpui Garhi were acquired the learned LAC and have determined same compensc pertaining to same village the learned Reference Court tion as per the reasoning for notification dated 16,5.2002 and.1find'that sipceithere is a gap of 7 days in the two nodfications. the compensation payable as per the decisloi of the Reference Court comes to"?17,7-9;781.78 per acre. -- Peftatniftg-to-th^sa^nrm-^ ^otrf-teathD-n-dBte d-2-3.5.200 2 pursuant wliereto 445.81 bigha laid in village Holambi Kalan \N3S acquired,the learned LAC has (determinedfair maiket:value in sum of.fl5.7 lacs per acre which is the sahne as per minimum price w.e;f. 1.4.2001. The learned ReferenceCourt has adopted the same reasoning as was adopte market value ,of lands in village d while determining the fair Holambi Kalan which were acquiredpursuantto the notificatioi*!dated 7.8.2000i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11'1£ case (supra) -and appreciating the per annum the price determined-is - N. Pertaining ;to the same pursuant whereto .814.19 bigha ag 96 in the.decision in Gairaj's same by 12%" compounded :22,14,239/- per acre, notification dated

23.5.2002 . I . cultural land in village Al.ipur were acquired the, learnedj Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensationat the rate of ?15.7 lacs per acre based onyne minimum price'as.of 1.4.;?001, which price has been -adopt^asthe. base'bythe,learned ReferenceCourt and after grantin.g appreciation at the rate of 12% pei annum w.c.i. LA.App.Mo.266/2008&connectedmaltejs Page 19 of 7-'

1.4.2001 till 23.5.2Q.02, the phceidetermined is ^17,85,240/- pm acre. Pertaining to-notification dated

27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha ian •^-16-ST03-bf^^f:mTdHrrVHi3gH-Haja pur d in village Sanoth-and Kalan.'were, acquired,, the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the mihimum price:notified as of 1.4.2001 the compensation payable for Category i.e. ^15.7 lacs per acre and for Catego fixed the same value as ' 'A' lands in both villages 'y 'B' lands in sum of Tl4 lacs per acre and for Category 'C lands in sum of ^12.3 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Courl reasoning in some impugned decision some decisions learned Referenc minimum price in sum of f 15.7 lacs pei appreciating.the same by 12% per annum for a peripd ot 666 days has fixed fair market yalue;at ^13,13,765/- per acre which t has adopted difPerent and different in a few. In Court has adopted r acre-as-e-ftl-' •J:-G has been uniformly awarded and in sc me references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value with 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002

13.bi5wa of agricultural land compriseid in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for ^5,39,.690/~. ." ^ • i' 7, Since the learned. Land Acquisition Collector as also the reference to a sale deed whereunder 1 bigha and learned Reference "Court havei relie issued, from time to time; by the Gover minimum price for agricultural lands note the^d^tes and the minimum! rates pertaining to agricultural lands irri.Delh relevant for the present decisionl The d upon 'the notifications iment of MCT Delhi, fixing in Delhi, let me therefore notified .from time to time: i since the same would be same would be-as under:- LA.App.No.266/2003& connectedmatters; Page 25) of 74 c;[ i\io-plnf-p pf • 0/ ^0 increase per annum Motificatipn of the^prl V.4 LL- :e . (in lakhs/acre)

¶1.

3.5.1990

27.4,1990 .

4.65

¶2.

25.7-.1997 . r.4.1997 ,10.0

11.5

3.

24.9.1998

1.4.1998

11.2

11.2

¶421:11.-2000

12.32

5.

9.8.2001

1.4-.1999

1.4.2000

12.16 , .13.82 . •

6..

9.8.2001 ,

1.4.2001 •

15.7

11.5 .7. .

30.8.2005

30.8.2005

17.584

2.98 '8. .

24.1.2008

18.12.;2007 •89.51 • •8. From tabulation hereihabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum^,'price was last fixed w.e.f.

27.4.1990 in sum of ^4.65 lalcils/acr nearly 7 years to tlO lakhs/acre and t e it was increased after 18'annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple); The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price wa.s enhanced by 11.2% to' lal<hs/acre and. thereafter w.e.f. '21 enhanced • .to ^12.32 iakhs/ape, ' superseded, inasmuch''as when the notification dated 9.8.2Q01 ^^as issued the price .was rejt:rOspectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.19.99 to X12.16 lakhs/acre.: l.e-. ;the pej .. a.iinum, with . reference to .i-the reach the figure of Til.2 .11.2000 price was which notification wa: price increased by 11% price? determined as of t;4:1998'" and vide /same •jnotifiAaticiQLjhj^l..:.J3rice was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. |i.4.2 300 to.n3;82 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum ^v fl2.15 lakhs/acre and w.e.f.

1.412001 per annum vis-a-vis the previous pric LAApp..Na.266/2008& connectedmatters is-a-vis previous i.e. the price rose by, 11.5% i of tl3.82 lakhs/acre to -Fea^ .viaiJ-aidik/am:--—Th-e. ."&ri-Ge was next enhanced ysi.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ?17:,584 lakhs/acre which gives us an increase of only-2.98% per annum ai ?53 lal<hs/acre as of 18,12.200:7 i.e. annum with reference to the basle figt and the date 30.8.2005.

¶9• Before n.oting the evidehcei'ralied'lupon by the land owners and Union of India before^he'iearhedf.Referen.ce Court, it nd then the price rose to increased - 89.51% per re of ..?17.584 lakhs/acre would be beneficial vfor the reader of tl ^e present decision, as 1 feei, that arguments advanced oil. either side may be noted. wouid' highllght that from the side of argument was in-the alternative; would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second, argument, failing ** • ^ which as per the .third argument ;and so on. From the side of . . I ( Union of India it was urged that''the' land price fixed by the iearned -Reference Court •pertaining ' tc the notification .dated

7.8.2000, for village Pooth Khurd;

22.8.2001 ..for yillage Holambi, kaian;

7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera IChurd; the notification dated 2i5;2001 for village . Narela;'and the hotlflcatio.n dated 22.8.2001.for village Ali Pur; and the notification dated

27.1.2003-'for village Rajapur Kalan .and San.oth treats as if all lands were of was urged that corrective action is reqi land owners, each it was urged'that they notification dated notification dated jnlform character and it iirfid by doing.2 things. Firstly,' with reference to the mifiimuni price notified by the ncrease per annum-and Governm^ent.from time to time, 13i;5.%';i ^"2^^per aiiiiunT~i'ncre"as"e"^as excessiv 2 with' reference to the -dates of the notifications under Section of the Land Acquisition ' Act 1894; requiring.the same to be redLiced to 10% per annum m tTie least. Secondly, the learned'Reference Xourt was not justified in treating all lands as ofijthe same-dharacter and thus i LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters i • requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such.lands which were put in Catepory 'B' and Category 'C by Land Acquisition Coile^ctor categorization it was . urged tha challenged the same by leading ev show that such lands which wer Category 'C, on account of: pits depths, as per the awards ;passed, by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect

¶10Learned counsel for the ila the learned P\eference Courl: was n in respect of which : neither land owner had dence to the contrary i.e. to e put in Category 'B' and' depressions of varioLis nd owners firstly urged that ot justified in ignoring the 2 sale -deeds .dated

25.3.2000', Ex.lfW-I/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matte also tJated 25-4.20 LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-agricuitural land in village ,Mam lakhs/acre and as per the sale dee(J Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa-of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of 02.4 lakhs and adding, on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urge of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 wou pertaining to the sale deed E^c.PW-of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as 31, Ex;PW-1/2, -in the same 1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa urpur was sold @ ^26.75 d that per acre land price, as Id be'^28.89 lakhs/acre 1/2 the land price would-be f63;478 jakhs/acre. It was thus urged that-the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to d.et^riin agricultural lands in the aforesaid ;il.9.200p,

2.5.2001,

22.8.200]

25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i^e. the 8 .were issued under Section 4 of the Ine the'fair markqt value of 10-villages .as of 7.8.2000, ,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002, dates on which notifications Land Acquisition Act 1894 by suitably increasing or decreasing ths price. As an extended limb of this argument," pertaining'tp villcge Narela,. it was-urged that , the price needs to be suitably enh anced and for which learned counsel submitted that the same s;hould be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008&corilicctedmatters Page23 of i4 for '.which argument w'as ' tt pertaining to a notification Issued Ion :3C at when ,'.in , th .1963 under . -past,.. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894,'th e Reference Court had given said benefit to agriculturali lands in village Mamurpur-Narela by. giving a~ price benefit uplield by the Supreme Court in its .dec C.A.No.4405/1997 (JO! vs. Dhararribir. & would revea! that-the price per blgt determined by the Land^Acquisitio,n Coi - per sq'.yd- . This was ision dated

6.8.1987 in Ors. The said decision a in . sum of ?6,650/" ector was enhanced to •^16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to ^22,000/- per bigha by this Court aid the decision of this Court was reversed-by-the Supreme'Couit and the one rendered by the KeferenCie Court was restored.

¶11• Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, ,having accepted that due, to Bawana industrial Estate, Marela i * * Residential Scheme - and RohinijResic resulted in areas around the acquired jar developed into residential and industrial .th^ subject, lands having acquired a required fair marl<et value to be determi price at which DSIDC and DDA j.e. the i i _ - • . which acted as the Nodal :^Agencies for entlal' Scheme having ds being urbanized and-estates, had resulted in building potentiality, ned with respect to the Tiplementing agencies^ development of Rohini Residential Schem.e and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Sel^eme ! • ' Estate and-.for which learned, counsel ^evidence led' and as noted bythe lea Tich I would -be noting hereuader Ahiie dealing with submission;urged. - ' . . |

¶12Altexaative-to thel secondj suhnjiissiDn,being the third \ submission, it was urged that as held^;by i- • - - Court in the judgment reported as 2001 , LA.Af):p.No.266/2008 & connected matters Bawana. Industrial took: me through rned :Reference Court, a Division Bench of this

(93) DLT 150 Bed! Ram. 1/5. Union of India, it was permissiiDle to determine fair market value of acquired lands with referenced to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase'In the market value of the land by percentages ranging bet.ween 6% per annum to 12^0 per annum for different periods. /Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned'counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked with, reference to the decision \x\'Bedl jpon by learned counsel, 'Yarn's case (supra) as' per which price increase per annum till 3C per annum with reference to the base as of 30.10.1963-1.e. the price affirmed Dharambir's case- (supra) and thereaft

1.3.1965 had to be @ 6% price fl6,750/- per bigha by the Supreme Court in er @ 10% per annum till

31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per-annum-till the various dates when notifications ^unde Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from, time to-time, and with which I am concerned in the present appeals. So. worked out, [earned counsel highlighted that as of Z7.1.2003 the fair market value would come to ?56^88,759/- per acre and 1 may highlight that learned counsel had'worked'out as,aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel \ urged that on the same principle, iViarket value should-be assessed for preceding notifications dated'

7.8.2000.

11.9.2000,

2.5.2.001, 22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002 and,

23.5.2002. .

13." The ,fourth-argument' advani:ed was, and for which was made by learaedj-coLunse!for the parties in the evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, wliicli is subject matter of 2 I cross appeals, i.e. LA.APP.No.268/2008filed by the land owners "and LA.APP.i\lo!292/2008filedJ3y;UniQriJ3±lndia,that fair market value should have been assessed qn yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the • ' i • LA.App.lSfo.266/2008&connectedmatters ' ! . Page25 of74 Section of the Land testimony of Raim: Kishan to the effect t produce from his lands he used :to ea i.e. the fair market value as of the notification issued under Section ^ hat by.selling agricuiturai . "0, ^1 lakh , per blgha per

7.8.2000 i.e". the date of of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant wheretcj the land of Ram ICishan and others were acquired. It was .thus urged that the fair marlcet 'val.ue as of said date should b s ^20 lakhs per blgha. I may highlightthat the fourth argument was,only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedl, learned counsePwho, appeared for Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008and the respondents in LA;APP.No.292/2008.

¶14The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared In a few matters and urged that for each of the notificationIn questionthd fairliiarKet value ought to have been determined with reference to-the notification which w^s r|nQ^qi-in pniiTt of time whereoindeiiJiiL^ land value was fixed by the Government-and the notificationdated

24.1.2008 where under ?53 iakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007;the-mean average principleto be adoptedwas the preciseargument.- j

¶15The last argument,which wasj in the alternativeto the first 5, pertained to the notification(jated 27.1.2003, dealing • with which, in some References;, the had, with reference to a sale deed under1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprisedin iChasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenueestateof villageP.ajapurKaian was sold foi ^5,39,690/-,determinedthe fairimarkstvalue as per the ^aid Sale deed in the following'wordsii (RefeLpara17 oflhe deobion earned Re'ference Court dated

20.5.2002, where dated 7.1.2010 in LACNo.ll7A/Z009). the sale price t3,69,906/- Ber^Mha ' 6,09,850for1bigtiaand13 biswa) Which com&s^0X17,74,10^/ per acre or X3,68,906/-per bigha. '[ Further if we give 12% , j • Paee 26 of 74 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters ; ^ If we add stamp duty in 70,160 = increase on. said amount for intervening period between the date when the sale deed; was ex -mtifkratioh a/S-4 (20.05.2002 to 27 comes:to-X19,16,037/- (round offXlQ, ecuted date of

01.2003) i.e. - 8 months it 16,040/-). "i The argument was that If we look at the award;relatuble to the said acquisition i.e. Award No.l0/DC(i\!W)/2004-05, award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 bigha and 18 biswa land^was put in Cat^ory 'A', 45 bigha and biswa in Category 'B' and the remaindler220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C. The subject sale de|ed clearly referred to the t would reveal that biswa land.:of which 1922 land being comprised in l<hasra~NQ'.2C0and that page No.56-57 of the award would evidence^ha^•"land'comprised, in IChasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in 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 ^15.7 lakhs notification dated •9.8.2001 where ui fjxed 35 the minimum price as of 1.4 depressed the same by ?1.7 lgkhs lands, fair market value determined v/hereof was ?14 iakhs per acre and further depress, the same by another ^1.7. lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair i"harket value determined whereof was ^12.3 lakhs per.acre. ' It would, be apparent what the argument was. The argument" market value had to b^ determined deed in question, the same had to be for Category 'B' and Category :'A' la increased, by ^1..7 lakhs per acre,for ea .16. I have alreadynoted hereinaipovethe argumentswhich •were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, I'sarned senior counsel who per acre based upon the ider said price liad been .2001, and tiiereafter iiad Der-acre, for Category 'B' precisely was that if the with .respect to the sale for Category 'C' lands and nds the price haa to oe ch category. . appeared for the Union of, Indiajand the same are reflected in para 9 above and hence 1need not refieat the same. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters { Page27 of74

¶17In various sub-paras ofi para herelnabove, I have capsuled the reasoning of the .learnedlapd.Acquisition Collecto and the learned Reference Court pertairimg.t6~the^^^^^^^^ issued under Section 4/of the Land iA' relatabie to the 10 villages and thus I c fieal with the .arguments advanced keieping In view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the hsarned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference'C^urt as per various sub-paras of para 6 above.-

¶18But before dealing with highlight various anomalies which st outset. The same would be:- A.. Pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.2000, wherein lands'were acquired in village Pooth Khurd,".fo.r Category 'B' lands, having depressionsand pits, decjuctioneffected vis-a-vis the price, for Category 'A' lands is ?jL.56 lacs per acre and I pertainingto the notificationdated ll!9.2000 wliere price has .1 been .determihed for agricultural ;lands in village Khera Khurd, sa-id:price-differential has been worked out at?1.2 lacs per acre and while determining fair market value for agricultural lands in village IMarela v^hich were acquired pursuant to the notification dated

2.5.2001 the deduction effected is tl.7 lacs per acre, which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi ICalq date

22.8.2001. Pertaining to cqulsition Act. 1894 and bmmence Fny journey to arguments' I need to "ike reader at n was determined as of notification dated

27.1.2003 and relatabie to village Sanoth the; price,.differentia on said count has again been takeh at'f : differentiate the-price between Categ category 'C lands. In.other words, the price differential haS' varied between ?1.2 lacs per acre, i:56 lacS per acre and xl.7 lacs per acre. L.7 lacs per acre to inter ory 'A', Category 'B' and LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters The learned Land Acquisition Collector has adopted mininnum, price notified closest in'point of time to the date v/vhen Section 4 notification was issued without appreciating the land price with,reference to the date jof^the Section .4 "notification i.e. no benefit of price rise for the inte given. ' . G:—•- TheHearned Reference Court rvening period has been nas adopted the mininnum price notified and' has-given lappreciation ranging between

11.5% per annum and 12% per^annu compounded the same and In some simple rate, ' D. Pertaining to village Holambi were nnade pursuant to the notificat

23.5.2002 the learned Reference Court has adopted the price determined by this Court in Gairafs case (supra) as of Ti and in some cases has 'given said benefit at the Kalan .where acquisitions ions dated

7.8.2000

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

27.1.2003 •learned Reference Court, in,some references has determined the fair market value with reference to the nninimum price notified-as, of 1.4.2001.and has givfen appreciation, in some cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale deed dated'.20:5.2002. F. , .Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Collector has classified lands-in Category 'A', 'B' and 'C' reasons thereof have been given iTfthe'award but theilearn award ing'unifolTTi'com^ ed. Reference Court, while ivefi ho reasons as to why It VVias treatingall landsto be of sarn^JiLam^Iejiand-Quality.

¶19Since I am dealing with acquisltipns in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued, under Section 4 of the Land'AcquiSition Act 1894, i think it advisable to put in a itabular form the relevant •LA.App.No.266/2008,& connectedmatters ^ ' - j '• Page29 of74 facts,....wnic.h;w^ fp-ri-fujither^anal^ Put in a tabular -form the data would.be as iunder Village Pooth Khurd Holambi Kalan Kalan. Holambi' Kalan Bawana Khera-Khurd Narela Date of Section • 4 Notification

7.8.2000

7.8.2000

22.8.2001

23.5.2002

7.8.2000

11.9.2000

2.5.2001 L/\C Gomperisatlon (in iakhs/^cre) vvith reasons Cat. 'A; .^1 Cat.'B' =U Minimum of 1.4.20C ^3.82 Minimum iprice oi^ 1.4.2000

3.82

2.26. price ^ Cat. 'A'?15.7 Cat. 'B' Ti:4 Minimum 1price of 1.4.2001 n5.7 •; , • Minimum iprice of 1.4.2001 Cat.'A' n3.82. Cat. 'B' a?.62 Minimum.Lp rice of! 1.4.2000 ' Cat. 'A' ^13.82 Cat. 'B' ^1|2.62^ Minimum | price of 1.4.200.0 Cat. 'A' ^T5.7 Cat. 'B'n4 . Minimum price ofl.4.2001 as-as as as as' as as LA,App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ADJ compensation (In lakhs/acre) with reasons Cat. Uniform.- ?14:3728- -Minimum price as of

1.4.2000 with 12%. increase p.'a. n4.12995. Price as in Ga[raj's case as of

15.li.l996 with 12% increase p.a. Cat. Uniform. • T16.43811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. ^22.14239. Price;as in Gairafs case • as of

15.11.1996 With 12% increase p.a. (compounded) No enhancement given.. Cat. Uniform. ?14,40157. • Minimum price as of

1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Cat. Uniform. ^5.857, Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 'With • 12% increase p.a. Ali Pur

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' ^15, Cat.'/B' ^14 Minim^um ' p of 1.412001 i1 rice as ?16.43.811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a, Ali Pur

23.5.2002 ^5.7! • Minimlum p of 1.4l20dl rice as n7.8524 Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with. , 12% increase p.a. Ho Iambi f<h urd

22.8.2001' ^5.7 Minimum p of 1.4^2001 rice as n6:43811 Mininrlum price, of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur . Kalan V

22.8.2001 ^5.7) yiinimum'. p of 1.4:2001 rice as ^16.43811 Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur. Kaian

27.1,2003 Cat. 'A'TlS Cat. 'B'^14 Cat. 'C' ?12 viinim.um p of 1.4i2601 • • 1 •:? rice as \ \ 1j (

¶1n9.13765 tor Uniform category-Minimum, "price as of,

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

¶2^19.1604 for Uniform category based on sale .deed dated

25.5.2002 with 12% Jncrease .p.a. ( Sanbth

7.12.2001 : n5.7i Minimum -of 1.4i200] \ i orice as - \ . n6.99042. •Minimum price as of.. 1.4.2001 with 12%.increase p.a. Sanoth

27.1.2003 ' Cat: 'A' Cat/'S'n^ Cat. 'C' n: iviininium of 1.41200 3 7 • \. ?.3 price as L , •?19-13765 • foi-Uniform category. Minimuni price ais of

1.4.2001 with " 12% increase p.a. LA.App.Np.266/2008& connectedmatters Page 31 oi /4 Shahpur Garhi Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2001

23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' ti5.7 Min.imumi price 'aS of 1.4.2001 Cat./A' fl5.7 Minimum! price of 1.4:2001 ' as ^17.Z535a_-. Minimum price as of ; 1.4.-2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. ^17.79781. Minimum price - as of 1,4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a.

¶201 now propose to deal witjh the 6 submissions urged by learned counsel for the land owners 2 . submissionb urged by the Union'as noted" in paras 10 to 15 hereinab.ove (pertaining to the land owners) arid para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India).

21.- The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3-which is dated;25.3.20p0, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated

25.4.20G1. As per value for the former, comes to ?26.75 j latter @ ^63:478 lakhs per .acre. i.The has rejected the 2.sale deeds as iteliabl fair maricet yaiue of agricultural|lands question on the reasoning that theiScle deed Ex.PW-1/3 was . t .purchased' by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated, that to his knowledge the! I the former, fair market lakhs per acre and the earned Reference Court e evidence to,determine , for all the villages in .eligious purpose and was being used nd was purchased for for a religious purpose, e been held not to be The sale deed Ex.PV\/-l/2 has likewis reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning, it was pudchase d by a Noh Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per,the .testimony LA.App.No.266/2008&; connectedmatters of PW-7 sister Annie, the secretary of the organization statec, said piece of, ^ land as it was the only plot of the, "equisite size suitable for the requirement of the organizatipn'ar d is being used for destitute women .i.e. there was a special: circumstance,' personal to tiie vendee.

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eiuru'iSc Ors-Vs. Isti Rohini Si Anr. (Refer para 6) and.2009

(l4) SCC 369 Acquisition Officer (Refer para-13) s l\^oiid. RaufUddin i/s. Land ale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not t( exemplar sale deed to determine tl* 3 be Ipso facto treated as an e market value of land in an area for the reason there nia^Liie-spactal. circumstances whic have led the buyer to pay a -highe price which a well informed willi price. The true test is the ng buyer would pay to an ut being influenced by any to buy a particular piece of e one who has studied all available land in the area; he area prevailing "dually well informed seller Iwithoi special, circumstances or the fancy land. An informed buyer would L market and has apprised himself of has understood the topology of prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value oflthe lends in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the LInion of India had relied upo' the sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which "was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertainir

27.1.2003 where-under agricultural was sold by an agriculturist t6 an a g to the notification dated land in village Rajapur Kalan griculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ^1-7,74,109/-per acre as against the price which comes to ^63.4/8 lakhs per acre for Ex.F'W-1/2 and ,t28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PV\/-l/2 and Ex.PW"x/-^, LA;App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page 33 of Reference Court, with which i c6hcur, themselves are having intrinsic evidei[ice of the fanciful price -arrd ex-fdCie desLi oy eacli uHrer" 2_i Thus, apart from .thei reasoning of, the learned afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additjQ.nai reasons to hold that the 2 sale d.eeds would advisably not be; good 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 evidence wherefrom fair Duld make all the more a deeds having intrinsic result of a fancy of the an unreported decision acquisition is of such large an area," it w^ reason to be circumspect on" sale evidence of* the transaction being the buyer. I would be failing not to note cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batc.h Of appeals,-lead matter being LA-.App.N.o.l93/2006 Pratap 5inQh\(since deceased) thru LRs 1/5. UUl Ors.. It was highlighted that the sale deed therein by which LStT had purchased 8 bigh|a anc land for expansion of its factory which learned Reference Court on the ground . • I •- the said land and hence the price|reflec 9 biswa of agricultural lad been ignored by the that L&J had a fancy for ted therein could not be treated as a good ^evidence ofvalue of land in the area, was rejected by, the Court and the price ir deduction on account of the parcel o question, with suitable land being. large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PV\/!-l/2 s nd 'Ex.PW-1/3 should be -•'".reated as the basis to, determine f^ir market"value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the Bench in paras 37 to 38^ wherein accept the value in the sale deed: on it of the market value, but foun^'jthat reduced by 1/3'"'^, the price arrived at LA.App.No.266/2008 Sc connected matters decision of the Division Division Bench, did not 5 own logic, as indicative f the price therein was would be the same as Page3^iof74 I would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union produced' by the Government were gi per bigha and-the sale deed under wh ch 1-StT had purchased the land gave the.price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would 'Gonne -.to f2,31,80.0/- which was near about price of t2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'"'^ would be deducted from the sum of ^3,26,500/-. It may further be' hii^hlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale ;was L993 and the notification underSection4 of the Land AcquisitiojiAct was dated 24.7.1995' and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of India i.e. the sale deeds vUiQ a price of fl,37,000/- m rrived at'as aforesaid i.e. ning-of the Division Bench of the said dates at the same sum' a f2,15,160A. In other words, the reasoi is not to.be.read.pedanticallybut meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so; the appreciation for 2 years had would highlight once again, that I h noted the inherent contradiction ;in the •per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutualiy destructiveevidence of the 2 sale depds reflectingfair market value. ' j

¶24Thus, the first argument as rioted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediatelyhighiightthat the extended limb of argument that after accepting required to be given. ave hereinbefore already value.of the land price as said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market vajue of the land, pertaining to vlllage--WareIa, in view of tl-iejdeci^ (supra), land price should be suitably ion in Dharambir's case enhanced would be dealt with by me at the.endwhen Idetermiriethe fair marketvalue of lands for the villages in question.- ; '25. The second argument, contours whereof are^ to be found in para 11 of my decisionhereir above, I need to note the I I -' • • i LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters i Page35 of74 latest pro-Rouncement of ttievSupneme.Court on the,issue as per the decision reported as 2009'(15) SCC 769 Laf Chand \/5. UOL

¶26But before that I miisf highlight that the deGisioh in La! Chand's case (supra) predicated a. claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basjs, Iresidential plots were allotted for residential hpusing scheme.and-t considered for fixation of fair market v le ar-gum.ent' was being alue of agricultural lands ..in village Rithala, where, furtheri lands were acquired for the sam& residential scheme I.e. 'Rohi Scheme'. 1,highlight that agricultural Ja situated within the 'V formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karna Road and Rohtak Road.

¶27' Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing same transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which obser relevant to industrial layouts, in:.paras Couil: observed and held.as under:- "Whether the DDA .bmchui\e.ls r^elevamt evldemce?

¶11The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1' dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications fHom 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;fo|rmed/tobe formed in Rithala and th.e surrounding village:s. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for leasehold basis: ni Residential Housing nds in village Rithala are vations would equally be 11 to 27, the Supreme allotment of plots on

¶51No. Plot size Category R ate (per square metre) m.

¶24, 5, 32 sq m 48 sq m

60..s.q m 90 sq m 26 sq m. Economicallyweaker sections . • iEV\lS) . Low incomeigroup Low.incomeiqrou!:

(LIG)

(LIG) Middle income.grdup

(MIG) Middle income group (MIG). L'A.App.No.266/2008& coimectedmatters Rs 100 Rs 125 Rs 150 Rs 200 Rs 200 The appellants contend, that; Rs which is the average of'the; said per square metre provisional rates, siiould be taken as indicMyeofthe ruling marl<etprice.

¶12On careful, consideration, A/e are of the view that such allotrneht rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form compensatipn for acq,uisiti(i)nrof several-reasons. 'Firstly,'^^rnark' determined-with reference to ;larc agriculturallands.In a ruraljlar^a" •rates. of development lauthorities are with reference to small plots in a developed lajyoutfailing within' urban area. Secondly, DDA and ' other .statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the sarr the economic capacityiof the'bby ascertain real .market'value, determination -for acquisitions ;is depend upon econoniic status, of the land' loser. thirdly, we are concerned vyith hiarket value of freehold fmntir-wto-Basthe:allotment" "rates" in the".DDA brochure refer tp the Initial premium p.ayat le on allotment of plots .on leasehold' basis. We nnay elaborate on these three factors. • ' First factor - • i

¶13• The'percentage of "ded-uct be made to .arhve 'at the-market undeveloped .agricultural', land development)', with reference to the sale price of.small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price Of such developed piots, the percentage depending upon the nature of deveiopmehtj of tfie layout in .which the exemplar piots are sjtuated. i

¶14The "deduction for .development" consists of tvuo components. The first is' with reference to area basis for award of undeveloped .lands for et value has to be e tracts of undeveloped whereas the allotment e area with re'ference to er, making it difficult to whereas-.market value uniform does not on for development" to value of large tracts of (with potential for required to be-utilised for develo second is cost of de example, if a residential layout p.rnental works and the velopment works. For s formed by DDA or similar statutory authority,'.it may utilise around 40% of land area . in layout,:: fo playgrounds and civic amepities etc. ; " - . " "!

15.. The ; development .'.authc considerable expenditure] , fc undeveloped land into a dev-eldpe roads, drains, park^, (community facilities), rity will also incur r development of d layout,,which includes the cost of levelling the laind, cost, of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' * underground drainage and sew'age facilities.Taying" w lines, electricity lines and deverop]ing parks and civil developed plot. The two factors takejn together,wouldbe fhe "deduction,for development" and can'account for as much.35-75% of the cost of the deve On the other hand, if the res unauthorised private residential; layoi "deduction' for development" may because in an unauthorised layout/ u set apart for parks, playgrounds Even if any land is setapart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains-will also be narrower just adequate for movement of vehicles.. The amount sr •work would also be cornparatlvely les the deduction on account of the two plots in unauthorised layouts,' would plus 20%'in al} 40% as against 15% in regard to DDA •plots.

¶17The "deduction for developmet^t" with reference to prices of plots In authorised privatg residential layouts .may range between. 50% to 65% c standards and quality of the layout.

¶18The position with reference to i be different. As the industrial plots ed plot. dential. plot is in an t, the percentage of oe far less. This is ually no land will be community facilities. ient on development s and minimal. Thus factors In respect of be only about 20% epending upon ndustrial layouts will will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the siz,e of residential plots measuring m), and as there will be very limited no playgrounds, the area to be set af: 100 sq m to 200 sq civic amenities art for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far .less; _and the cost to be incurred ajso be marginally less, with the re: be made from the cost of an indust only between 45% to-55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.

¶19If the .acquired land is In a semi-developed urban area, not an undeveloped-. rural area, then deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%,..as sorne .basic-infrastructure.will already be available. (/i/£?te The .percentages mentioned above are tentative standards a.nd. su contrary.)

¶20Therefore deduction, for factor" to be made with reference to or development will ult the deduction to rial plot may. range bject to proof to the "development the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped' land, will be far more than the deduction lA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters with reference to the; price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout c r^a.n industrial layout. It is a-teo-wetf-k-fiwm that tine development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much hi by private developers, having and expenditure. .

¶21Even among layo percentage ,of land utilised.' parks playgrounds, may nature of layout—whether . it gher than the cost"incurred rega^^d-tQ-higher overheads uts formed, by DDA, 'or roads, civic amenities, /ary with reference to the is residential, residential-md-ev-efl-among residential layouts, the percentage-will differ leaving regard'tc size of the plots,, width of the "oads, extent of community fadHttfesv parl<s and playgrounds provided.

¶22Some -Of.'the lavout^Iformed by Some of. the layouts d-eve-k>pment authorities may \ for water/sewage treatment pi substations, etc. in addition to for roads, drains, parks, playgr amenities. The purpose of the to show that the "deduction fc variable-percentage and the being very wide from 20% to 7 Second factor.

¶23' DDA and other statutoi'y d.evelopment authoritie adopt different rates for allot layout, depending upon -allottees, classifying them as income group, low income weaker sections. As a conseqijeiice, in the same plots may be earmarked tor persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premiunp charged may be.Rs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for parsons belonging to middle income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons belonging -to high incornel groups.

24.' The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HiG, MIG, LIG ahd'EWS may.also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allptment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotrnent rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by formed by statutory ave la-rge areas earmarked ^nts, water tanks, electrical the usual areas earmarked ounds and community/civic aforesaid examples is only )r development" factor is a range of percentage itself 5%. nent of plots in the same economic status of high income group, middle group, economically DDA statutory authority, ibut u t he'a pp1ica ritslw~a Hot iVie nt. pon the paying capacity of LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters Paee 39 of 74

¶25Some" development. iauthorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way q.f absolute sale. Some development authorities iike.DDA basis. Some have premiuni which price, with a nominal annual rent lesser premium, and more substan

¶26a 11ot "pluLb un ledsehroTd" is almost equal to sale , whereas others have :ial annual rent. There are standard methods for determining annual rental value with referen freehold property. There are also determining the value of freehold ce to value of a standard methods for (ownership)', rights with reference to the annual rental Indome in regular leases. But it is very difficult to, arrive at freehold property with reference the market value of a to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, - the rent is ^very nominal, teadency among the public to eqi rate (allotment price) charged by the market value of the property.

¶27:However, in view of the abovei it is not. safe or'.advisa allotment rates/auction rates ;in rec by DDA in a developedlayout, in cjletermin'mgthe market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The sometimes .there is a ate the lease premium DDA, as being equal to difficulties referred to ble to rely upon ard to the plots formed DDA brochure price has therefore t not relevant." The evidence on the subject h 0 be excluded as being 2,Q--. :w; as been discussed by the learned Reference Court and 1reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference No.117A/2009. The argument advanced before learned Reference Court, being the same as was advanced before me, has been noted Court with reference to' the evidence re 'Ld. Counsel fiir"iJD_e_^_etiijj3^^ that-DDA &;DSiDC allotted plots Area and Nareia industrial Area ut rnuch higher rate. He has relied upon allotment lettjer dated 04.01.200j) issued by 'DDA of tiie plot no.52, Nareia .which was' allotted tq: Sh. pre-determined ratelof ?3028/- wl" by the learned Reference lied upon. It reads:- as; furtlxer .submitted in Nareia Residential Pl<t. 03, Sector A-5, Hem Chander at the ich he has proved a: Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter! dated

26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-OS area measuring Sq. metres in which rate was; fixed as t3,989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both thijs and allotment letter •dated 09.07.90 of industrial Iplot ^Hotted by DSIDC i.e. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page 40 of' plot no.2-70, measuring .350 sq. yards at Narela industrial Complex at the rate of ^650 sq. metres which IS Ex: PW3/1 another

25.04.2000 of industrial; plot Allotment letter dated A/hich-is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at'?3O0O persq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel I has statement of PW9 iCanwal PWll/1, which is detail pfIan that total land acquired!is,'72 of development per bigha Jvould be 1794400000 t248911 whereas Ld. Cdunse has submitted that DD/A bysellingalternate plot in :Nai-^ela ResidentialScheme@ ?3208 would be ?2531408/-per bigha. ' And if 30% of the total area utilized, for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would comito (2531408-759422 == 17719866 . per bigha): ' And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. ?1771986 - 24891.1 ~ '1523675 per biaha, where as .petitioner ha.s. been given tjTgtTH?""—^ Similarly he has tr^ied td) demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relif^d upon testimony of PW7 harm^, Asstt. Manaqer,IdSIDC who has produced submitted that from Singh document Ex. d acquired, it is apparent 39 bigha. Thus total cost ate only ^3,27,083/- per R.D. documents Ex. PW7/A (Coljy). that total .expenditure incut Narela Project by DSIDC-was total area of plots withiDSID' 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore Ld.- Counsel has argued red on development of 720526901 til! 2001 and' Z was 11247 hectare i.e. total earning of DSIDC is ^2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: t Totalarea underplots 1] Vc .2.47 hec i.,e. 1361250 sq. rds. Price per sq. metre,in -the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot ^3 000/- per sq. yards Total earning ==• 083750000 Total expenditure ; = 20526901 . Totalprofit i = Tz 363223099 i.e. Proflt'cpmes to t2470'peir sq. yardror'f247'0000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099':divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and the LAC has paid colmpen only, meaning-thereby that C tZ14Z9J-7._per bigha. satlon @ ^327083 per bigha SID.C has earned a profit of Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further arg.ued •.that LA.C has awarded com pensation f327083 per LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters P.age41 of 7 4 bigha for the land in question if 2 said price is considered on'' a.ccc M!ce.._P,si" bigha i.e. =t24700000 ^1815834 per bigha & petitioner is -29-^ NOW, we do no-^^a-v-e evide extent of plotted land'sold by DSIDC the Bawana Industrial Estate develop ResidentialScheme developed by DdA. Whether it was 20% or 75%), we,dp not know. The inchoate the same factors, being 3 in number Supreme Court in La! Chand's Case ( evidence as most unreliable to deten ;lhe subject cases.

¶30It is no doubt true, as he Reference Court, that' with development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residentia . Scheme Narela 30% appreciation of the unt of land',, the figure conies to T654166. If the amount is-deducted from sale figure comes to entitled for the same." nee as to what was or DDA with reference to ed. by DSIDC Narela evidence has resulted in which were noted by the 5upra), which render this nine the value of land in d eyen—b^y-t-he—learned-Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be to which the building potentiality woulc

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

¶2The third submission in the aliiernative was,based upoi the.observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram's case (supra), and the submission is as noted in, para 12-herein above. - The land owners require :he price determined in Dharambfr's case (supra) relating to notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & conaected matters m V •in.10.T9Bl in sum-q£XI5t.75QA---[^t4amurpur jsively'increased, firstly by um and lastly by 12% per ereby determine tlie fair question. to be treated-as the basis and progre '• - i ; . .6% per annum, then, by 10%/per,:anr^ annum for -different periods ajrid itY • - .1 market value for the 8 notifications in

¶33It be highlighted that'in Bed/ Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base 0ate as^Jof th 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years Court applied, progressive . inc 2 year .1959, for the year the Division Bench of this rease method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till 'the year 1955 and then by" 10% per annum till the year 1 the remaining 3 years. 973 and finally by 12% for se (supra), Supreme

¶34However," in La! Chancfs ca Court categorically opined as under> "Whetherthe award feiatmg\t:o acquisition on 24-10-1961 is relevant:? I. -.' '

47., The-, appellants contend Pvithala, were .acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and cornpensation .was"'awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their"contentidh is acquisitionis in the>year19'81, th acquired land should be determi the market value, d'etermified for by " providing an; approjprjate cumulative/compounded ratejof Court .had occasion' to examine ONGC Ltd.-v. RameshbhaiJJvant^paiPataiM,this Court held: (5CC-p. 751, para 15); j. "15. Normally, Recourse "is ta determining - the market: ^p'pnjprridte^iHSGdlation; oveT value of nearby lands In -e^^i€leF>eed—by^ale trahsaet-tis where there ^ is . no \ sale contemporaneous acquisitions, ^of comparab^ neighbourhood. The said method is LA.App.No.266/2008& comiectedmatters that some lands in that as present e market value of the led with reference to the 1961 acquisition increase at 12% per annum. This :hi5 issue recently. In ken to the mode of value ;by providing tire •pioveTj~market orevious years (as rrs-or^-Eieq-tiisl-t-ions), viden'ce, of any transactions qr e lands' in reasonably -sa^e •"• -- i=elted^t34a: ^ saie-tFansaetions/acquisitions: precede subject acquisition by only a feWiyears, ttnat is, up to four to five years; Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it reiates to a neigiibguring jand. What may be D is of only a few unreliable rgef. For example, value of a land a reliable standard if ti^e 'ga{ years, • rnay become '•'\unsai standard-where-the gap^ is Ja for determining^ market acquired in 1992, adoptihg^^ arfhuai increase method with ^reference tp aisa 1970 . or 1980 may have ma le or acquisition in ny pitfalls." This is because, over the coursp of years, the 'rate' of annual Increase may jjtself undergo •..drastic change apart from the likelihood Of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation i spurts in prices affecting increase/' i ,48. Even if the relied upon' trans three years prior to the acqluisitia before adopting' a standard'escalat there were ho'adverse clrcumstar the• acquisition'is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the-market value, based on the 2007-or 2008 prices,;'byprovjjjingen increase'of12% or 15% per year,, as the newspaper "eports discJose that the price of immovable properties in most areas.of the country came down by ^more than '40% to 50% from the 2007. rates.CaLitiori is ..th^r^fore necessary before increasing' price with; reference "to old tran5actions.';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."

¶35• " It is apparent.that itatio Division Bench, m Bed! /?:g-fffe-£3-se-4-su * n prices or sudden very standard of (emphasis.supplied) action is only two to n, the court should, on, satisfy itself that ces. For example, if of law "laid down by -the p-ra) runs in the teeth of urt in-La! Chands case earlier decision of the law declaimed by the Supreroe'Co (supra), which decision : follows[-m-Supreme Court reported :as 2008, (14)" ' • i • • Rameshbhai Hvahbhai PateL LA.App.No.266/2008 &.cotinected matters see 745 ONGC Ltd. I's,

36." in the ii-isLdiiL-case there :1s another good reason'nbt to follow the law laid down \n Bedi Ram's^ case' (supra) for th reason 1find that a;Co-orymate Division Bench of this Court, in , the decision reported as-88 (ZDQpKDLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi & Ann 1/5. UO! & Ors., pertainihg tn agriri]li-i]ml lands In village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase tWith reference to theiprice determined in Dharamb'u's case (supra) as of the year 1963, wFiich would.have resulted in the land price being, determined in village Mamurpur r Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ T2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ ^lOOO/- per bigha. If Bedi Rarn's principle was • applied the price would have come to approximately ?50,000A per bigha but the learned Division B at 03,0.0£)/- ^er bigha. 37, That apart, as would .be note - ' I ' discussing on the issue :of the fiir ma snch'determined the sanne d herein after by me, while rl<et value of subject lands, In the unreported decision of' a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5 UOl & Ors. and connected Land Acqui agricultural lands in village B^wana village with v\/hich I am dealing is villa ,2006, Mahender Singh vs. sition Appeals pertaining to , and 1 highlight that one ge Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1995 issued ii'hder-Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under &604. agricultural land in village Bawajna we .bigha biswa of s acquired for an~ industrial estate i.e. Bawana IndUstrlarEstate,'^:he fair market value as of

15.11.I§§6 was detern;ilned @|1;99,904;68 bigha which equals ^ .to ?9,59,542.46-per acre and! relevcint would it be for me to highlightthat if the notificationldatecl 25.7.1997 by y\fhich price for agricultural land being the mihihriL Goverh.hnent was "10 lakhs per acre LA.App.N'o.266/2008 & connected matters; m price determined by the as of 1.4.1997,, the price Page 45.0174 determined -by the Division Benc,h ;would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. • If I— Krii .-1§96 f9,59,542.46 per acre, pertainirig'to . I am concerned, the price jwould ^b:&:a|pp .determined by the learned Reference C progressive.increase-by 10%'perdnnun^ for the moment for the reason,-as assuredjby me herein .above, would be holistlcally discussing the subject while, opining upon the fair market value; of.tile subje'ct: lands as. on date of the 8' notification^-in question. 3'9-. • The .foiirth-argument, which wfas advanced only by Sh,S.Chatunvedi, learned couhsel who.appeared for Ram Kishan and. .others,,.the appellants in LA.APP-.No the respondents in the Crqss Appeal file ^LA.APP.No.292/2008,is as noted" in p. notifications with which roximately the same as ourt if I give benefit of . But,. I leave it at that 268/2008 and who are d by Union of India" i.e., 3ra . 13 above i.e. testimony, of ..Ram Kishan that from; the ijubject lands belonging 1 per bigha by sale of ^^0 the family they were earning.^l.-lak agricultural produce.

¶40The learned ^Reference Court testimony of.Ram Kishan because h;e gav his oral testimony. • • • 41. The reasoning of the Court -that there was no' crop standing on the land when^ Its possess!

4.10.2000 .would require an inference uired lands belonging t:o the.family ricultural use and growing 3 to'4 crop has not accepted e no'proof in support of on was taken over o,n to be drawn that were not being put to Is per,year> is fallacious doubt, for the reason itiis matteh ofjcommon Icnowjedge that t?y the week of September ricei isi ha -i • vegetables are grown, even they'ai'e'ha rvested in Delhi if vested and.the land is left.fallow for some tifne, to be readied to grow wheat which is •LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters m sown around the" first week, on the ..e.ac,h_yeai\

¶42• But the othen; reasoning of ,ln the fornn of docunnents is relevant of Ram Kishan he. was workihg.'as the Municipal .Gorporation of Delhi • •• . "• ! " tllLer hirnsetf till said period arid the second week.of NoverhlDer there being no evidence led Now, as per the testimony an Administrative Officer in 1 31.3.1996 i.e. was not a reafter earned a pension. If the family^ as clalmedvby him,iwas e the lands belonging to the family, and 18 biswa, the annual4RG&R^e--\ finds 4t strange that not-a-penny-was-Inv-ested in a bank or s security wherefrom interest i or, c Besides, there is ho .proof of isuch effected in the local Mandi on othe arning -^l lalch perbigha, for which admeasure IS bigha be ?19 lakhs and one ividend could be earned, high volume of sales being rwise". The trader to whom produce was. sold has n6t;.be,en examined. IMo proof of number of workers-ernployed.'jdiese well/ if any, to irrigate the fields o purchased to. run the tube-r electricity bills paid if'the pump was electrically driven has bisen furnished and if the fields were irrigated byxanaj water, ino pr the-irrigation department has been 1 Dof of any payment made to urnished. Thus, the learned Trial judge is fully Justified in^ not adopting: the yield basis, capitalizing the same; to det'ermin lands. There.is .no/rellable eividen and the "self serving deposition of F^am Kishan has. been rightiv ' • . • ' I rejected'. j

¶43" If there.is reliable evidence ' "• ! • j ' there is otherwise." reliable ^evidemce, as was found in • . .1 , . . . decision of'.the Supreme Court repented as JT 1997 (1) 5C 444 State of Gufarat & Ors. Vs. Ra'ma Rans pertaining to the .yield from agricultural land>lonly determine fair market value by ! LA.App.No.266/2008 & connecied mattets e the.fair market value of :e on tine issue of the yield of an. independent expert or then would be safe to applying principle or capitalizing. on-the ;yield basls -and that too,, the capitalizing ' • ' ; ' . ! • ' being 10 times the annual yield a'nd not20 times as was sought to be.projected.

¶44The fifth argument which .:w ' herein abbye in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.I as advanced; as noted Icang, Advocate was-that the mean average "principle be Adopted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008. .. .

¶45in para 7 •above, I have put in a tabular form, minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7^8.2000-, 11:9.2000, 2:5.200.1,; 22,8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

25.5.2002!

27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000.,'2001, .2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 above, we find that minimum pqices have been'notified as of 1,4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8;20d5. ^Thus,, there would be no need to factor in the . minimum price notified under notification dated -24.1^2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 yeaTs'-awaytrohithe laSt year witlji which l am concerned1.^. the year 2003. I. highlightthatTeckonpd-w.iB.f.the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which Iam.concerKed,the notificationwould be 7 " years away. The .law of statistics!which governs mean average as one of the ' recognized modps to between 2 given values, requires the ones which would-be'ctese-stto-j:he-^ averagehas to be'determined. |, 46'. • I. am left tOt deal; with the last para 15 herein above, and for which Reference Court has, pertaining ;ito

27.1.2003determinedthe fair maTket\alue in some Reference with i-espect to. a sale deed dated .20.5.2002;wh.ere under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sqld'invillageRajapurKalan and LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters determine a value, in 2 .end points to be the Dint f&r-whi^cl^ the mean submission, as noted in lighlight that the learned notification dated has determined that based; thereo -^orksCM^tltofl7,74,109/-;-peF^a months by .12% per annum, ifor;tl-would be T19,16,037/- per aCne rpu acre. •47. With reference to thq Awa is apparent that land comprised-;in n the. price as of said date itTcreasmg-tjie-sanre for B e date 27.1.2003 the price ided off to ?19,16,040/" per d No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05 it Chasra; No.200 admeasurinci 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C' land. The sale deed In question pertains to the same land a if said sale deed had to be accepted value of Category 'C land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collectoi" ?1.7 lakhs per acre'would."be required to fill up the depressions for land in Categpry^ 'B' and further.sum of tl.7 lakhs per ; nd indeed there is logic that , it would, reflect fair market Category 'G' land, meaning thereby land .were less vis-a-vis Categdry 'C sions in depressions in Category 'B' land.- In other words, with m evidence herein above noted reasoning adopted by the leara^d La the ..learned Reference ;Cqurt,.lj pose reference .to Category :'A' land,' the price'of Category 'C land v/vould-haye;to.bereduced andivice-versa, vis-a-vis Category 'C ' j land, the price for Category 'B.' land and for Category 'A' land would'be. required to be increased suitably.

¶48I'.now enter the final stage cf mydiscussion. In view of and, reflecting upon ^d Acquisition.Collector the question: What should be -the fair .market value of'the .subject lands as of 7.8.2000,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

25.5.2002

27.1.2003 iie.^ dates on

16.5.2002, which no.tifications were issued unden Section 4 of the Land Acquisition ActlB94.

¶49. i-have. In para!37 abo'j/e;;;noited a^ decision of a DiVisioil Bench of this Court in lA.APP iMo.866/2005 decided on •• LA.App.No.266/2008Sc connectedmatters Page 49 of

11.5.2006, Mahehder Sinah vs;:LfDl& Ors. wherein pertaining to of 15.11.1996 ^1^99,904.68 per bigha which dquais The said "decision would be relevant or an Issue which ! haverpromised/itoidjs to ?9;59,542.46 per acre, the issue of potentiality, :uss. The cjecisiqn notes with which Division potentiality inasmuch as, ^cision, rural areas in the ig migrants. Based on De-ltil were Identified for -that the, subject lands ile. the jands Bench-was concerned, had acquired ;a as discussed in paras 25.,to 28 ofithe d Union Territory of Delhi! was attracti ' population growth,,5 villages in irural providing major health facilities'schools, markets rural industry, one of vyhich wias villagelBaYvana. It was noted that G-.T.KarnalRoad and Rohtak Road|,were village Bawana-and.that the MasteriPla year-1990had indicatedthe landjusein the area to be changed |in the future to industrial an| ;conmercial, but had also -observed tliat notwithstanding this^ifor providing good access to n for Delhi notified in the the reason no zon^~pIan ction -llA of the Delhi ntinued , to be used for was-m>tifted as contemplated byl.Se Development Act 1957, ^the lan^sl cc agricultural purposes .and there -jwa's no evidence .that till the year 1996, any land^uSe'had been':bctuallyGhang0.d and put to the use cbhtemplated:by the Master Plan. As in. the ipstant case, where all subject lands" Were continuously put to agricultural use, same'was the c^se ntted-in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use qf tt potential land yalue With ^reference'to . all as being required in the futurejfor building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential ;b,eing valued :w.ith reference to the potentialityi.e. thejlandsbejn^; in the.nearfuturecapable of being built upon. To put it differently,the. decision,though not so. expressly,stating, would be a pij-opoMioli'TI^'thereis a difference betweeh the: undeveiqped -land having building LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters [ - Page50 of74 e lands .giving birth to a :he areai'being known to potentiality" n presenti vis-apvis .a land having a building potentiality,in futuro. As alreadynoted ipy me in para 36 above, as of the date .15.11.1996, fair ma ^9,59,542.46 per acreiand whith I. •I<et value determined was highlight once again is the same as would be determined jwith neference to the notification being closest Hn point of time i e. notification dated

25.7,lM7.^where-undeiifor agrjcultupllands.in.DBihl minimum price fixed by the Government as-of « * ' acre. Interestingly, the same 'Divisi , another judgment reported as 200 Sinah vs. UOl & Anr. where pertain

1.4.1997-was TlO lakhs per on Bench had pronounced 5 IV AD; (Delhi) Gairai ng to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalah where 940 bl^ha and 6 biswa land wa.>-; acquired pursuant to the same noti fair mari<et^ value determined for kation dated

15.11.1996, Category 'A' lands was ?9,7^,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ?9,51,121/- per acre i.e. near approximate to .the fair marlcet value of lands in village Bawana; It needs: to he, highlighted that while determiningthe fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from lthe osservations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the'decisioii, location potentiality with reference to develophient-woric carri lands was considered. I would! high Bench of this Court, In anotheradjoinlingvillage In the same 'V i.e. between. G.T.KamaI Road iand Rohtak Road, re. village Singhbia determined:fair market vLlue as of'19.3.1993 @ .?1,30,523/-per bigha I.e. ?6,26,510,4(j)per acre. The decision is ^,xepo4tecLas-20Q4.(4)AD '(Delhi)^0 Ram Chandervs, Y/O/andthe ...same-5ivisiQ-n-&enGb,asipertheldecisioR-T-epDrted-as111 (2004) DLT 95 HukuiriSinah vs^JJOl, pertain ng to a notification dated m ed out in the. surrounding ight that another Division

14.1.1994'for Village,Singhola.determinedfair market value @ ^"1,40,230/-per bigha i.e: f6,73,104/- |:eracre. LA.App.No.266/2008, & connected matters 5tn • The aforesaid. ^udgments-JurM: ted-in preceding d; paragraphs as also the.various notifieafclpns Issued from time to l^ime by the Governnient of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price j:or agricultural lands in Delhi tabulated by hip In. para aboye bring out two very ;important^fac lihe growth/rise In the prices of agricultu years.'commepcing from! the. ydan' 1990." -As of 27.4..1990 minimum price was f4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ^10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4;i997 i.e. the increase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years whichigives us a 115^054% the average price increase wo.uld: be 1 over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by; 11% for the next 2 years-and

11.5% for the next;year i.e.: as, of. 1.4.2001. .It shows that due. to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply;, a ."•evidence for this would be the decision this Court in Gairafs case (supra), which 1 have discussed in •para 49 above. ...

¶51I need.-to elaborate a little-niDre with respect to the decision in Ga('rats case.. Discussing th^ evidence pertaining to fair market value of agriculturaNahd in /Illage.Molambi 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 annurji ;was '^95,000/- for multiple . cropped land having good Hrriga ts relevant t^ deternnine "al land in Delhi over the increase in 7 years and

6.436%. The price rise id good corroborative of the Division Bench of tibn facilities , and thus capitalized the land price;at f9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussingthe ^^second method of land; prices"iof; comparable" lands in the m para: 19 onwards the swFetm^iftg-^-eas'incl udti^ -potaM-rality Court discussed matter with' refe. •ence to land-prices in adjoining viilage Bhorgarh where.-BGlGodowns had come up and •t5'a^dT)n saTe instances found that Ipased^ on the said sale LA.App.N.o.266/2008 '8c connectedimatters m instances and •^vifl§--i!>eh«ftt^1HiTckstTrattratioiT^:lTe—l^andprice would come to fl0,03,364/- per acre then considered tlie-prices-notified policy dated 1.4.1997 and tlius. w.or (Refer para 31). The Court by the Government as per <ed out the mean average figure of f9,76,121/- per acre •for Category 'A' lands and ?9,51,121/- per acre for Category highlights that the potentiality]had the Government Issued the nplnimu 1,4.1997, evidenced by the fact tha transactions the Court found that as notified as of 1.4.1997 atflO lakhs p 'B' lands. The decision 3een well-factored in when m price notification w.e.f. t even with'respect to sale against the minimum price 5r acre, sale Instances were highlighting that the price was ?10,0;i,364/- per acre.

¶52. The,decision in Mahender Sing Us case, pertaining to villrigp Rawana, referred to. by me In para 49 above, highlights le decision that the MasV.ei into account by the Court commercia! industnai with reference to para 28 to 31 of t Plan for peihi 1990 had been^taker • i which was projecting: resideijitlal. future exploitationof agriculturalland in Delhi and on the issue of potentialityhad noted that,notwthstanding.the Master Plan so, projectingand the landstheoreticallyacquiringapotentiality, the same had not translatedlino a realityevidencedby the fact . thattill-the\year1996 i.e. the date of the notificationwith whicn irtuallyno development had Holannbi Kalan and nobooy have already highlighted in the Division Bench was concerned, taken place in village Bawana and had exploited the. potential. -As para 49.above there is agap jbetw«:enwhat,would be expectec the marl<et actually grow nd Singh's • to be the market growth, andhwh'at • The decisions in Gairafs c^se a highlightthat potentialitytran;slateditselfinto arealitybetween about .16.5% per annum anc y did not translatewith,the 1990 and 1997 when prices rose, by . thereafter the extended potentialit •LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page53 of 7^1 requisite momentum and the^acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum, i 0 .QUisuaQjLto jVIastRr Plahlfnr Rplhi 1QQ ne:vreason could be that 0 a fairLy-Iar:g&...ai:ea. came to be developed, both residential, con'mercial and industrial probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the; market got saturated.

¶53The.empirical evidenceHn 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 r ilying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied uppn by the learned Land Acquisition Collector -pursuant whereto in some refei'eiices in village Rajapur Kafar the learned R^eference Court has held ( deed E:^.R-2-as of the date of the ; j • market value of agricultural lands w acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning of land which was sold for f5,39)690/- stamp duty would mean that that as per the said sale lie-i.e.

20.5.2002 the fair ould be fl9,16,040/- per that 1 bigha and 13 biswa and ?70,160/- was paid as 09,850/- (f5,39,690/- -I- ?70,160/-) were spent would yield the price.?17,74,109/-per , acre as of the date of the sale i.el 20.5 2002.

¶54' Thus, the best which] could be said as the most Fayourable situation for! the land;owners would be that with reference to the sale deed datjed 2(L5.2002 for Category 'C lands the price i.e. fair i^arket value of lands in the area would be fl7,74,109/-per acre. For Category'B' and Category'A' land •the piice would have to be suitably enhanced and here we find another aiea of dispute for tjhe n?ason,. as noted by me hereinabove In sub-para (a) qfipara 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in • different awards has deducted m LA,App,No.266/2008& connectedmatterj Page 54 of 7' .sometimes T1.2 lakhs per acreVsoiTietimes^1.56 lakhs per acre and sometimes fl.7 lakhs per acre from the price of Category 'A" lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and whereverlands were in Categbry'C as W:ell"the price has been deducted further by ^1.7 lakhsjper acre. : 55. . Now, neither side ha^ brought any evidence on record as to what would be th.e money required to be spent to level the a-Rd—!--FV8^te-tbatCiSteei^H^fzs-ttofi certain lands having pits and dep :—ri=et|^utrfng-"the-5ame to be leveled ,ar m s based-o-n-iy on the basis of ressions of' various depths d this would require-money to spent. But on what basis has-the Land Acquisitior Collector held, in some awards, that n.2 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some'that fl.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ?1.7 lakhs per acre wc no clue.

¶56In Gairai Singh's case- (sipra). the 'price differential worlced out was ^25,000/- pen acre, that the acquisition \r\ Gairai Sinah'\

15.11.1996. in" Gairai Sinail's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was f9,76,12:l/- per acre and for Category 'B' land price determined was ^9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about

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

¶57i thus hold, that Gairai yinoh's case should be my uld be spent? There is just have noted hereinabove s case pertained to the date guiding star for.pricfe differential in the instant cases as well and thus 1 hold that wherever Categ Category-'C have to be differential should be 2.5%. ,

¶58Thus, if ?17,74,109/-,| rounded off to fl7.75 lakhs pe aCT^'iA?DTj!"d"b^frr0•prite~f^ a Tjateg^ Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and hlghlighti LA.App.No,266/2008. & connected matters ory 'A', 'Category 'B' ed on price, the differential ry 'C Ianci~m"village Rajapur ng that the sale deed Ex.i'V2 admittedly pertains to a Catego y .'C land, price for Category 'B' land would be i f 18.20v jakhs per acre for Category 'A' land .would be ?18.655 lakhs per acre.

¶59Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the ,niinirnum price notified by the Government as;0f 1.4:2000 the per acre price was ?13..82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001,the same iwas ^15.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the •percentage increase between tihe ye I treat Category 'A' land price|at.fl based.on the sale deed Ex.R-2, dedi annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately ^16.40. lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted' with the minimum price notified by the Government .at ^15.7 lakhs per acre as of J.4.2001, the price differential is ^70,000/- per acre i,e.

4.46%:- Sin achieved while determining fair marl ar was 11.5% per annum, if

3.655hakhs as of 20.5.2002 jcting the price by 11% per :e exactness can never be :et 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 w location, the frontage etc. of a piece ithin a colony, the size, the of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. iWhat 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 Govt^rnment has an element of rationality and" acceptability; •jit needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date •is normally hot held gdpci evidence.ti) woi'k aut a land price on t date prior thereto but: may be usec land price on subsequent-dates; fc particular date is the result offvario having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existepce of. t^arket forces/conditions walking bacl-cwards. But, in the instant ica^e, with reference to the 5 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters as evidence to determine r the reason a price on a js. market forces/conditions

2.5^Q-h~ 22.8.2001 and'7.12.2001, the differential, period is shnali inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus In the peculiar' facts of the instant case, the saledeed in question, which itself has• been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said .'date, wouid be. a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into accou . market value of viand as on the da

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001. 60, The argument that village Marela had always been treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of it while 'determining tes

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000, Narela was in existence since ;long when, pursuant to a notificationi issue vis the •adjoining villages x2. per squ.iire yard price advantage was given to lands -in village Narela in Dharambf!"s case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational advantage was keeping in view; the r this w.as recognized d in the year 1963, vis-a-m ealities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanizationtook place in Delhi and more and more areas came under p included areas in North^West of'Delhi am concerned today, the price differehtialfaded and by the year .2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.

¶611 thus hold-tha;t..pertaining to the ' notifications dated otted development which i.e. the area with which

7.8.2000.,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8 2001 7:12,2001 land prices would have to be determined on ,the basis of tlie Dvernment as also with .2002, for the _reason I find and price as on said dates , minimum price' notified by the i G reference to the sale deed dated 25.5 no other cogent evidence wherefrom could be determined: ' Pertaining"~t

16.5.2002,

23.5:2002 and 27.1.2003,- determined with respect to the sa LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters; 5~l:he notitlcatiohs dated the land price needs to be e deed dated

25.5.2002 .:tecadss-witH refererK: t-o-#te-s^fd-s-aI^e•price fgnt--t-hat iand price as of said date comes tojmore respect to the. notification dated'9.8.2 I . land price notified, was fl5.7 lakhs per

1.4.2001. ! I

¶62With respect to the pricerdiffei . and Category 'B' lands, ,noting, th^t notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village Pooth-'Khurd Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated' 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, IMareia anh Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated '22.8.20,01) i .hold that vis-a-vis said notifications, after Increasing the price for the date differential, fixing' the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be I effected by decreasing the same byi 2.5% to determine the price • for Category'B'. land.

¶63Before I work out the cdmpensa be evidenced that pertaining to Categc prices would marginally^ increase i in substantially in the other,, a striking :,no emerge with respect to the land price, determined pertaining to the notification .dated, 23.5'.2002 pertaining to village Holambi Xalan wherein the learned Reference •Court has determined thah-if determined with wherein minimum acre with effect from "entiai for Category 'A' pertaining to said :ion and since it would ry 'A' lands, land a few cases :e of discordant would fair, market value at ?22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002. ,.^brtrt-Hieed tanrtgnltght that" pertaining to the same notification dated 23,5.2002 in relation to villag eference Court has determin^Tthe- '^17,85,240/- per acre 1 find that R-ajapui-Kalan and Sanothy'perLa'itTijig~to i

27.1.2003 the fair market value ass'esseo LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Alipur learned fair market value at pertaining to village notification dated for Category 'A' lands is ?19,16,040/- in some cases aind ^19,13,760/- in a few, m meaning thereby tliat much 'lesser-woriced out in the.year 2003 vis4"vis out for Hofambi i<alan. pertaining t

23.5.2002 and the reason ,for jthe notification tlie land pride determined i compensation • has been the compensation woriced tiie. notification dated abrasion. is that in said ^ Gairafs case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken arid increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. I ; Village Pooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000"

¶64With . reference to the' noti kation dated

9.8.2001 . wherein with effect from' 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is fl3.82 lakhs and requiring s updated to reach the. date of the noti" 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,.a increasing the same by 2,5% the price acre further, .increasing' by

2.5°/ ^18,55,500/- per acre for Category 'A' hnds; and decreasing the said prices by ll% to reflect the price wiltU reference to the sale deed for the date -7.8.2000; mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth iChur per acre decreasing the: same fl4,-38,125/~ per acre for Category: 'B' f learned Reference Court has, without with Category 'B'. lands and i uniform price awarded is fl4,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me -comes to a meager ?l,0Qp/- per aicre aid thus-qua Category 'B' ands I nnaintain the amount awafded by the learned Reference Court. i I

¶65All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the aid price to. be suitably ication i.e. 7.8.2000 LA.App.Nd.266/2008 & connected.matters id for Category 'B' lands omes to T18.2 lakhs per prices comes to d comes to ^14.75 lakhs by

2.5%, it comes , to lands. Noting that the any reasons, done away appeals filed by land owners in-respect whereof ;grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' hereir above are dismissed.

¶66. Ail Land.Acquisition Appeals, f i •and cross-objections filed|by the Ibnd o .Union of India are allowed by deireeln for Category 'A' lands .In village footh notification dated; 1.4.2000 in-sum .Of ?; for Category 'B' lands the ; compensation awarded at fl4,37,280-/- per acre is.maintained and thus such appeals oi cross references which pertain; to' Category 'B' lands are •dismissed./

67." Pertaining'-to such" appeal w stands enhanced statutory benefits as Act 1894 as explained in the judgment ,UO/ 2001 (93).DLT -569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection,f,o( v\/hich period of delay no interest on the shall be paid. These appellants^or cr entitled to proportionate cost. Village HQlambi Kal^n NQtiflcation d

¶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 appeajsl as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove cross objections stand disposed of enhancing led by the land owners ^ners'ln^ appeals filed by g compensation payable Khurd pertaining to the .4.75 lakhs per acre and lere compensation Der the Land Acquisition reported as Sunder Vs. enhanced compensation oss objectors would be ated 7.8:2000 compensation to T14.75 lakhs per, acre per the award .and even as per the ref and I highlight that as srence .all subject lands were of uniform category. Needless to st:ate appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wher Appeals and cross objections filed by:ian enhancing tTie compensation to f 14.7,5 with statutory benefits as per the {Land ii LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 2ver filed are dismissed, d owners are allowed by fakhs per acre" together Acquisition Act 1894 as m m explained in the judgment reported as Sunder J/s. i/0/-200l

(93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing a^eal or cross objection, for interest on the enhanced compen^ appellants or cross objectors would i cost. . which period of delay no ation shall be paid. . These be entitled to proportionate

¶69Pertaining to village^ Bawana"relatmg to same notification dated

7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court _haa.aQt .enha_.nced the compensatior ,, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A' lands is fixed at tl4.75 lakhs per "acre arid for Category. 'B' larids ai ^^14,38,125/- per.'acre and noting that Union of India has neitt" objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C \ fixing compensation as hereinbefore mentioned needless to. state on the enhanced c:ompen5ation the appellants shall be entitled to,statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition er filed any appeal or cross hereinabove are allowed by lent reported as Sunder l/5. the period where there is a period of delay no interest Act 1894 as explained in the judgn i/^/2001

(93) DLT 569, except for delay In filing the appeal, for iwhicl' on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be: entitled to proportionate cost. VillageKhera KhyraiMotifacaliondated 11,9-20.QQ • '70. With j.reference to the r\otiflcation dated 9.8.200,1 wherein with effect from

1.4.2000 acre is fl3.82 lakhs per acre suitably•updated" to reach tihe dpte of the^ notification i.e. •11.9.2000and with reference^toth^ sale deed dated 25.5.200/^ whferein for Category 'C lands, lahd price per acre comes to f17J 4,10-9./.. f-ounded...off to^^l-7 ^ Category 'B' lands Increasing the sa LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters minimum price notified per requiring said price to be 75,000/-. p-er acre, and for me by 2.5% the price comes C'. I m casing by 2.5% the prices Category-'A' lands; to T18.2 lakhs per acre and further incn comes to. ^18,65,500/- per acre for decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the dEte 11.9.-2000: the mean average price for Category 'A' Hands comes to ^14,83,500/- per acre {and

2.5%, it comes to fr4,46,413/" per acre

71.- All Land Acquisition Appeals as land owners and cross-o,bjections 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 dc fl4,83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' per acre for Category 'B' lands. I noi notification and the village, the Union appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 6^0/2001^(93)[)LT 55.9 shall be granted,, except for the period where there is a jelay In filing the appeal, i '• for" which period of-delay no interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost.

¶72in village Khera Khurd decreasing the same by for Category 'B' lands, per 'GRID-D' filed by the ted 11.9.2000 in sum of ' lands and ?14,46,413/- e that pertaining to this Df India has not filed any

2.5.z With reference ' to the: noti fication dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from'L4.2O01 minimum price notified per acre Is fl5.7 lakhs per acre re 1 suitably updated-to reach the! date

2.5.2001 and with reference to the s; wherein for Category 'C landSi Maind T17,74/109/-, rounded off to ^^17,75, Category 'B' lands increasing the!same by 2,5%3 the price comes I ! LA.App;No.266/2008&connectedmatters ^ Page62 of/4 m quiring said price to be of the notification i.e. le deed, dated

25.5.2002 price per acre comes to 000/- per acre, for m to ^18.2 [akhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices • —pef^aer-e-^r—-eategc^ry •-A-~la-nds; •decreasing said prices by .11% to reflect 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 decreasing the same by

2.5%, 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 uniform price-awarded is • I .^15,85,570/- per acre and since fqr Category 'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by f9,000/- 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 _.pjic_e_3lan(l5_£riiia_DrRdJiL.1D_5,J_6,5LaOvM3J^

¶73AN Land Acquisition Appeals 'as per 'GRiD-E' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of. India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands,in village Narela pertaining to notification dated

2.5.2001 in sum of ^16,16,500/- per acre as.' per the reference order for Category 'B' lands. Thus,-appeals fiied by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Uni'pn of India ,as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced cor^pensationstatutory benefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 18^4 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. UOl 20qi (93) DLT 569-shallbe granted,exceptfor the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.Mo.266/2008&camiectedmatters • of 74 i. •<o 4: ^ yr\ shall be paid, •._ ®^^^^?ortionatecost

¶74With reference tn , «f^T^rBffrTmth-Bffe^^ 9-8.2001 acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acie and suitably updated to reach thP J P^ice to be

22.8.2001and with reference^to notification'i.e. -herein for Category'C f^ ^-^7.aoe/.,.rouL^o;rnr — - Category's'landsincreasinglihi sa to U8.2 lakhsperacre and furtheri comes to >18,65,5,OOA per acre fpr Catego^ 'I;;!; •decreasing the .said prices by U% to ref-teet-Hie price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22;8.2001; the mean _^erage price fo_r_Gategory 'A' lands in -village Holambi ICalan .;Com.es to ?I6,74,500/-per acre and de"^i^^^^i^he^sameby

2.5°/o, it comes to flG,32,637.50per •Noting that the learned Referenc i reasons,,done away with Category awarded,is fl6,43,811/-per acre, tlie price differentialwked out by me comes, to a meager?9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I: maintain the amount awarded by the iearned Reference Court. t

¶75•; All Land AcquisitionAppeaijjfiled by the Union of India and'cross objections wherever,filed by Union of India in the app.fais.filedby land owners in respect whereofgrid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-P Sf 'GRID-G' hereinaboveare -dismissed.

¶76Ail Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the ianc^ owners in appeals'filedby LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters These 75,000/- per acre, and for me by 2.5% the price comes •'creasing by 2.5% the prices acre for Category 'B' lands, s Court has, without any 'B' lands and uniform price .Page6'4 of 74' \ j Union of, India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Categpn^'A' lands in"vi!lagd4-lola'mbi''telanpertainingto tine notificatio,ndated'22.8.2001-in sum of-^16,74,500A per acre and for Category '-'B' lands the ^co ?16,43,811/- per acre is maintained cross references which pertain to 'dismissed. .

77.- •Pertaining to such appeal stands enhanced-statutory benefits s Act 1894. as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5, iJOI 2001^ -(93;) DLT '569. shaii be granted,, except for the period where there is a delay.in filing the appeal or cross objection, to which period of delay no interest on t\ shall "be. paid. ' These appellanls'. or entitled to.proportionate cost. •VlliaQe Aii Pur MotifacMron dated 22.8..2001

¶78mpensation awarded at and thus such appeals or Categoi-y 'B', iands are where compensation s per the Land Acquisition enhanced compensation cross objectors would be With reference to the ; notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1,4.200,1 minimum price notified pe acre is fl5;70 lakhs per acre jand suitably updated to reach datie of'the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 an.d with reference to the sale deed dated

25.5.2002 I wherein for Category 'C' landsl land price per acre comes to .f17,74,109/-, •rounded loff to-f 17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' l.ands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2' lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to fl8,65,500/~: per'acfe^ for 11% •equiring said price to p Category 'A' landsr to reflect price with decreasing the said prices by-i • reference to the sale .deed for the date-22.8.2001; rnear gyeraci£4idjQS-t&iU2ateg0ry-'Attends in village. All P.ur comes to •^16,74,500/- per acre decreasi ig the same by 2.5%, it comes to 'Cl6,32,b3/.50 per aerie for. Category 'B' lands. Noting LA..App.No,266/2008 & connected matters; , Page 65 of 7# thgtthg:tea.rn.ed^fpfefen:ce.^.C an-y feasens, done away, with Category 'B' lands aiid' u ^16,43,811/-per acre, the .price differ^ Qorries to a meager ?9,00p/- per acre a lands I maintain the amount awatlded t i Court.. . • I

¶79Ail Land Acquisition Appeals fil -in respect wiiereofgrid has been firepa H' hereinabove are dismis5egLj:.n".oteth fijed any ^appeal challengingthe decision of the ReferefTEe^oiTFt niform price awarded is ntial -worked out by me id-thus qua Category 'B' y thg learned Reference d by the Union of-[ndia- ["ed and labeled as 'GRID-at land owners have not

¶80There shall be no order as to costs

¶81With reference to the .nptif(cation, dated 9.8.2001 wherein, with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is fl5.70 ial<hs per acre and requiring •said price to be suitably updated to reach the -date

22.8.2001 and with .reference to the sal i wherein for Category 'C ^lands, iand price per acre comes to fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,ODO/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the s.ame by 2.5% the price comes to ^18.2 lakhs per acre and further^ncreasing by 2.5% the prices of notification i.e. e deed .dated

25.5.2002 comes to fl8,65,500/- acre for Category. 'A' lands; decreasing said prices by^ll% tc reference to the sale deed for'the .date

22.8.2001; the mean mLexa.g.e_jirice.-fox.--Caiegory'A' ••[a444s-ifih-v-tlte§e-iH0i6-mbi-H^^^^ I . 1 • comes to ^16,74,500/-^ per acre arid decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ?16,32;637,.5Q-..p.er-.acrp.for Category 'B' lands. Noting 'Thalr -Tri^learhed i Reference C reasons, donp away.wix awarded"is fl6/43,811/- per acre/| the price differentia! worked out by me. comes'to a meager f9i,000/-l per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/20b8& connectedmatters Page66of74 reflect price with ourt has, without any uniform price CategjiQ/ T/- lands I malntaiaithe amount awBr-4®d by the learned Reference Court.:

¶84The appeal filed by the Union of India In respect whereof .grid has-been prepared' labeled as 'GRID-!' hereinabove is dismissed. 1note;that any appeal challenging the decision of

¶83There shall be no order as to c and owners have not filed the Reference Court. osts. VBliaae Raiapur Kalan ^^oUficatioo dated 22,B,20Q1 With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from

1.4.2001 mi nimurn price notified per acre is fl5.70 lakhs per acre 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 'G' lands, Hand price per acre comes to fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,D00/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands Increasing the^sarns by 2.5% the price comes to flS.2 lakhs.per acre and further increasing by 2.5%-the prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; decreasing said prices by 11% l:o reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date

22.8.2001; mean j average price for Category 'A' -lands jin village'Rajapur Kalan } comes to ^16,74,500/- per acreland decreasing the same by • • I

2.5%, it comes to fl6,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the' learned Reference Court has, without any T ' * reasons, done away with. Category 'B'l lands and uniform price i. I awarded is ?16.43,811/- per acre,, thei price differential worked - , j oyt,_by, me. comes/t^ a .meager fi9,0QQ/-..p£]:-_a.cra_,and.thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain ;the amount learned Reference Court. ^ (

¶85All Land Acquisition Appeals ffled by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed ipy Union of India in the LA.App.No.26S/2008 Sc connected matters warded by a-}^^-.eais:-ftied"bi'~lBnd;'owneTyirrTC5pect'"'wtiereof-^^f4€J-f=i€^s-beeFi-prepared and labeled as 'GRID-r liereinabove are dismissed..

¶86Ail Land Acquisition'Appeals fi ed by the land qwners and cross-objections fiied by the land owners in appeals filed by compensation payable Kalan pertaining to the Union of India are allowed by.decreeint for Category 'A' lands in village ,Rajapur notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of t;.6,74,500/- per acre and for. Category 'B' lands, compensation awarded, at fl6i43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such -appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are Ciismissed, • . ' .

¶87Pertaining to such appeal' where compensation stands enhanced statutory"benefits as per the. Land'Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judg;ment reported as Sunder 1/5. UQl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be grante(i, except for the perjod where there is a delay in filing the appei^l or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the i^nhariced compensation shall be paid. These appellants 'or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate, cost. dai

7.12.2001

¶88With reference to :notifif:atibn dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum, price notified per acre is fl5.70 lakhs-per 'acre ap.d requiring saii^ price to be suitably updated to reach dc^te of the notification i.e.

7.12.2001-and with reference to.the:sa!e deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land pice per acre comes to i'l?J4,L0_R/^-_rQjjnde^5ff ..to,,?17,75J3J],0/- per acre, and for Category 'B! lands, increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ^18.2 lakhs per acre and furtherjincreasing by 2.5% the prices coiTi-es-to'?18,65,500/- per acre ,for C decreasing said, prices by 11% to LA.App.No.266/2008 8c connected matters ategory 'A' lands; reflect price witih <r\ reference to the sale ,deed for the average price for Category 'A'" lands ^17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that a date

7.12.2001; the mean in village Saiiotlr comes l:o II lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold that for. acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notification, dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of fl7,29,500/-,

¶89All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in res|:ect whereof grid has been prepared and. labeled as 'GRfD-K' hensinabove are dismissed.

¶90All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the lane owners in. appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation In sum ot fl-7,29,500/- needless to state on enhanced compensation statutory benefits-as p 1894 as explained in the judgment-reported as Sunder 1/5. UO! 2001.(93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period whert: there is a delay in filing the appeal o period of delay no interest on the en be paid. These appellants or cross objectors wouid be entitled to proportionate cost. er the Land Acquisition Act r cross objection, for which lanced compensation shall ificatidn 16,5.

91.- Pertaining to viiiage Shahp herelnabove the larid price would ,have to be determined witi reference to.the sale deed dated 20:5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me a,t fl8,65,500/- per acre and since there Is just a difference of 4 days between,the date of sale andjthe notificationI 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/- ur Garhi, as held by LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters per-acre and I highlight that as per-the all lands are in the same category;, App filed by. the land ownersl as per lthe' ' needless to state on enhahced ; • . ! owners would be entitled'to , all Istatu Land Acquisition Act. 1894-as jinterp reported as Sunder \/5. UOI 200lj:(93) i . , such appeals or cross objections: filed there is delay, no .interestiwould be pai Proportionate costs "stand awarded. objections filed by Union of India aire dis Vofliaqe ShaliMr Oarhi E\i@fdfi£g

¶92Pertaining to notifica 'I • • pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the i sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days 1 hold that pertaining to this notification/since land is of same category, the land owners v/vould be entitled to compensation at the rate of^l8,65,500/- with statutory iDenefits as per the l^^and I Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 ex|cept In such appeals or cross objections filed by iand owners where there is a deiaVr no interest v\/ould be-paid for the period, of delay. Proportionate I costs stand awarded. All.such aplpeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and all appeals cross objections filed by Union ' of India are dismissed. award andTh"e reference eals and;cross objections 3RID-L' are aljowed compensation land ory benefits as per the reted in judgment DLT 569 except that in by land owners where i for the period of delay. Appeals cross missed. tlon dsated-23p5"2i ion dated

23.5.2002 9o. As, noted by me pertaining to the notification dated •i

23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been treated in. the same category by the ibarned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Collector learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court .has awarcLejl.. c^omnenq^t-inn in ^iim nv ?22',14.,239/- per acre; which \\ have found to be excessive inasmuch as for.the date 23.5.2002 have held that fair market value would be fl8,65,500/-.per acre and thus all appeals cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and rjsducing the compensation • - i payable to 1^18,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced' price with reference to the •award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. I Village Aii Por Motiflcatldin dated.23.5.2QQ2

¶94Pertaining to the notification'dated

23.5.2002 relating to village All Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holarnbi Kalan and fair market value "payable at "^18,65, appeals and/cross objections filed 'GRiD-0' are dismissed-and all appea by land owners as per said Grid are Shahpur Garhi I determine 500/- per acre and thus al! by Union of India as per s and cross objections filed allowed by enhancing compensation payable to fl8,65,500/- per, acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acqui sitipn Act as interpreted in the judgment reportedi ss Surider Ms^., UOl 2001 (93) DLT 56^ shaii be-paid save and. except in such appeals or cross objections where there jis a delay, intsrest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Village SainQth INlQtilflcati

¶95Pertaining to the appeals a(id cross objections by the land owners and Union of Indiajas per 'GRiD-P'pertaining to the notification dated

27.1.2003 relating to village Sanoth, I note LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters dated 27.1.2Qi03 Pag'e71 of74 that the .learned-Land Acquisition Collectdr has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that; the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the la ids as of uniform category while awarding compensation.;-. -

¶96• On the mean averagelbasis which 1have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.;?001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing -san^re--w-it-h-^'€fer-ei'rce-^ the .sale to ?19,43,500/- per acre and for deett dated

20.5:2002 •taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes ^tegory land-the price com_es to fl8,94,912.50 per acre aiid for Category'C lands the -price comes to flS,47,539.68: per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair marl<et value at ^•19,1.3,765/--and thus such appea s or cross objections which have been filed by land owners.the| same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category and.Category 'C lands ana similarWould be the fate of appealsjand cross objectionsfiled by I ^Union of India-pertainin'gto Categorjy'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objectionsas per 'GRID-P are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to'Category A\ lands are allowed by decreeing cqnipensation payable in sum of . ^19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced ( compensationstatutory benefitsas per the Land /Acquisition/Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment repoiteidas Sunder i/s. UO! 2001 (93), DLT 569 shall be' pai|d s^^^^ in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, intereift I would hot be paid for the period ofjdelay. Proportionate co^ts as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India • pertainingto, Category'B' and Category'C lands are allowed by rftotHfyi-ng—th'e--r-elBt-a-ble-deeree-ri-n the Reference Order cy reducing compensation for Category 'B' land co LA.App,No.266/2008& comiectedmatters , -\18,94,9JL2.50 per acre and , for Cateqorv T' l^^nd t-. ™,47,5-39^68 ^ VillageRajapur Kalan Mbtificationdated 27.1.70(ni'^

¶97For parityof.reasoninga|s 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-relatingto village R'ajaaurKalan and where Ifind tliat the learned Reference .Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of ?19,13|,765/- per acre and in some cases at fl9,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform category. On the mean-average basis which f have been following by increasingtheipricejasof 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued! by fhe Government as also ijy increasing the same with reference to the sale deed datec

20.5.2002and.takingthe mean average,for Category'A' lands p«-e^^mes-tc^9743;frew=4per-acre-^nd for Category •B' land the pricecomesto ?18,94,91j2.S0per acre and for Category •C iands the price comes to. fl8,|7,539.68per.acre. Thus such .appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be disnfiissedin so far they pertain to . • Category 'B' and Category.'C lalnds and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertainingto Category 'A' lands.j.The said appeals and crosc, objections as per 'GRID-Q'.are cismissed. Appeals and cross objectionsfiled by land owners pertainingto Category'A' lands are allowed by decreeing, comfiensation payable in sum of fl9,43,500/--peracre and-heedli^ss^ta^-stater-OTrtiTeenhanced • . compensation statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOi -•2G:01-(H?3-)—Bt^569—,5l=ia-IH3e—patd—s-ave—aflcl-.except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest : LA..App,No,266/2008&connectedmatters. ; Page-.73 of74 not be paid for the period of dslay. Proportionate cos.ts as well. The appeals and cross.objec|l:ionsfiled by Union of India pertainingto Category-'B'and Category'C lands are allowed by modifying the reiatable decree in the .Reference• Order ioy -redwei-i^-g—t-he—eem-pen»ti-&h—fofr-~€ategory; 'B' ?18,94,912,50 per acre and' for - Category 'C fl8,47,539.68 per acre. i . AUGUST-23, 2011 mm/dk r:||i land land to to LA.App.No.266/2008 St connected mattersj. •' Y