Mir Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

II..i THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.A. No. 193 of 2096 1l ,lt I I : : ', / i/vI % o/o IPr i i Pratap Singh (dead) through Lf,s. etc.etc. through : . . . APPellants ..1 Mr. 8.5. Maan with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Mi. O.M. Prakash, Mr. Jai Prak'ash, Mr. HardeeP Singh Advocates for the aPPellant in LA.A. No. 193/2005 E.750/?008. I I I I I U.e. No.,tg3/2005 & ntk Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. I r: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate for the aPPetlant in LAA Nos' 298-98/06' Mr. 5.S. Panwar, Advocate for the aPPellant in LAA Nos' 354/06 &' 376/2005. ''J Mr-1.5. Dahiya for the appellant in LAA Nos. 634,182, .194'182' '[94, 195, 197 , 198, 264, 268; 282,283,284' 28;,5' 312' 322, 323, 324, 355, 356, 357,358'59' 360, 361, 362, 363, 371' 372' 373, 374, 375, 378, 382, 443, 444, 445, 587,763 of 2006' 215, 218, 219, 221 and 237 /2007 ' Ms. DeePika' Advocate for the aPPellant in LAA No' 235/2007' Ms. Savita Rustagi, Advocate for the appellants in LA.A. Nos. 621, 622, 623, 624, 525, 626, 628, 629, 634, 698, 699,702 798, 713, 771, 772, 212/2006-Mr. Satpal Singh with Mr. R'B' Singh, Advocates for the appelfants in LA.A. Nos. 528/05 529-40/06, 588-89/06. VERSUS Union of lndia & Ors. . . . ResPondents Mr. SanjaY Poddar, Advocate for the LAC. Mr. Gaurav Sarin with Ms. Charul Sarin, Aduocates throt4gh : for the DDA. Ms. Savita Rustagi, Advocate for the resPondent No'2 in LA.A-Nos. 711, 7't2, 726' 727 and 775/2005. COMM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K SIKRI THEHoN'BLEMR.JUSTICEMANMoHANSINGH U.A. NQ. 193/2005 e b ntk .'! ';+4 - 1' I I.l of 3{ I ,-."_-l I I I I I I I I i Hr I I I .-_____) whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJ1. SlKRr,. l. l. Alt these appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the market value of the acquired land fixed by the learnbd Addl. District Judge in the impugned award(s). The appeals which were heard on Z6.lL20O8 relate to the land situate in Village Estate of Tikri Kalan acquired by different awards. Some other appeals were thereafter ' subsequently reserved on 4.12.2008,. which though belong to different village, namely, 6hevra, but the legal submissions made by the counsel for the parties while arguing Tikri Kalan cases were adopted in these appeals. Therefore, while reserving these appeals on 4.'l2.2OOB, following order was passed :- "Learned counsel for the partieS'subtnit that the arguments in these cases are the same which have been advanced in appeals ,.tutint to Village Tikri. Additional submissions relevant to this case hive beenhade by tearned counsel for the parties' The judgmentinthoseappealspertainingtoVil|age.Tikrihave already been reserved on 27th November' 2008. Since learned counse|forthepartiesareadoptingthesa.Fearguments' judgmentintheseca5e5isalsoreservedtobepronounced along with those cases"' Subsequently, sQme other appeals were also heard on l8'12'2OO8 and parties agreed about the commonality of the issue in those appeals as well. lt is because of this commonality that we are proposing to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment' l.

2.

3. Y { I \}

¶2.f-va qrii.?,.- oi.*}.{* :rill'r.? "t I -----)

¶3we would first take up the matters relatinS to village Tikri Kalan and the decision in respect of these appeals we form the basis for the appeals relating to other villages' ln respect of Tikri Kalan, various notifications have been issued from time to time acquiring different portions of land of that village' A

4.

¶5glimpse of the passed in those at hand. Land of village Tikri following manner:- details of the various notifications and the awards cases would be necessary-before discussing' the issues Kalan was acquired by different awards in the Shown as, fffili"k JoTl"?;" Purpose ;*,g. No' Bisha - Biswa struction of check lTikriKalan,De|hi39-03l.lo.lgSobarrieratTikriBorderon Dated 21.10.1982 Dethi'Rohtak Road Possession taken over on 24.4'1992 of land 39 bigha O3 bisuras' 91/1983-84 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 14.2.1984 60-08 Widening of Rohtak

28.11.1981 Road fossession taken over on 28.7'lgSlof land 60 bigha 08 biir'vis'

24.7.1995 possession of 561 bigha 10 bisuas rand notified under sec 6 of the lA Act has been takery'handed over on 21.9.1995 17/1997-98 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 23.12.1997 502 -06 Possession taken over on 30.1.1996 of land 5o2 bigha 06 binuas' 140 -o2

16.11.1995 Construction of 40 meter wide road for PVC Market under PDD. MV fixed @ Rs.168000/- pb Possession taken over on 30.1.1996 of land 14O bigha 02 bispas' I U.A. No. 193/2005 & batd ntk 2/1997-98 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 23.7.1997 18/1997-98 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 23.12.1997 560 - 11 :;';:,;:1"..,',::: ll Settlement "irPVt dealers rc

16.11.1995 Jawalapuri' under PDD' E #J;8ffii?' - Page4 of 34 .._-- -- _-J Possession taken over on 21.4.1997 of land 84 bigha ll bisrrras. 3/DCW/1998-99 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 16.10.1998 4/DqV/1998-99 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 16.10.1998 84-11

11.6.1995 156 - 15

11.6.1996 480 -14

17.12.2002 For expansion of LPG bottling plant lndian Oil ' Corporation Ltd. under PDD. M.V. fixed @ Rs.168000/- pb For setting uP sPorts school near Ghevra More, M.V. fixed @' Rs.208333/- pb For KV. Grid Sub Station M.V. fixed @ Rs.3,27083.33/- p.b. ,/ ( i :l Possession taken over on 21.4.1997 of land 84 bighh ll biswas

¶6The AK$ Sirza of village Tikri Kalan, Tehsil Punjabi Bagh, Distiict West Delhi is drawn below -itn the colours of different lands acquired from time to time :- AI$ SIZR/\ OF VILTAGE TIKRI KAIAN THE. PUNJABI BAGH' DISTT. WEST ELHI. NO. HADBAST I2O YEAR I98O-8I c .MME Rc I AL Acr rv rrr EiilPrTEYi,lS$li,HiFJll Possession taken over on 27.4.7997 of land 84 bigha 11 bisuras 2/DCW/2004-05 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 16.10.1998 2nd phase of PVC Award No. 17/97-98 l- -t Bottllng Plant of tob Award No.4 DC\IV 98-99 For Sport School Award No. 3/Dcw98-ss For40O/220 K.V. Grld statlon Award No. zlDsNlz0f/.'os 3a phase of P\K vide Award No. 18 ACw/98-99 ffi-I ,J

¶7Here itself, in order to properly understand the exact location of'the Village Tikri Kalan, we reproduce the portion of the city Map' as prepared by Eicher, over which there was no dispute :- '! ,./ I / f-' ; er:t{'?tr ,::l*|l! I[HF} IA.A. Na 193/2N5 & batch . ru* Page 6 ot 34 1) Since LA.A. No. 193/2006 is made the lead case' which deals 'ry Notification dated 24.7.1gg5, we shall initiate our discussion on tl'/b basis of awards made by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and the Addl. District Judge (ADJ) respectively in this case' lt 'is also for the reason that being a lead case, arguments were addressed taking into consideration these awards as well as documents and evidence produced by the parties in this case before the learned ADJ' The LAC, in his award No' 2/19g7-gg dated 23J'1997 diviiled the land in two blocks, nurn.iy, Block-A and Block-B and fixed the market value of the Block-A land at Rs.l,68,000/- and Block-B land at Rs.1,26,84O/- per bigha' On this market value' he allowed solatium @ 3}o/o p.a. under Section 23(2) and also gavei additionat amount @ 12o/o p.a. and interest as well under Section 34 of the Act' It is stated in the Award that while fixing the market value' he took into consideration the date of Notificltign under Section 4 of the Act as the relevant date and kept in mind several factors such as location of the land, nature of the soil, awards announced in the recent past of the same area or adjacent villages, pronouncements of different courts, claims filed by the interested Persons and price policy of the Government regarding acquisition of agricultural land' After discussing these factors in brief, he ultimately. made policy announcement of the Government dated 1'4"lgg7 ut ih" basis of fixing the market value. Vide the said policy for the financial yeqr I 1gg7-g8, which came into effect on 1.4'1gg7, the Governmerlt of Delhi has fixed the indicative price of the agricultural land :' ryf,, PapeT of 34 U.A. No. 19?/1006 & bakh nsk I

¶9.l ,i ,t,/ 'w 'ri IJ I I i I Ij lacs per acre. Since the notification is of an earlier date, i"e'

22.8.'lgg5, going backwards, he made deduction from the said IO amount at Rs.ll .5o/o p.a. on compounding basis and in this manner arrived at market value of Block-A land Rs.8.05,400/- per acre (or Rs.I,68,000/- per bigha). ln respect of Block-B land, compensation at lesser rate is given for the reason that this land had Oadhas & BhattasGrand and earth had been taken out for making bricks-The LAC, thus, opined that land owners had already got some compensation for their land by removing the earth from the land for making bricks and, therefoie, the land had now become of inferior quality.

¶10The learned ADJ, while answering the reference under Section 18 of the Act, has rejected the demand of the appellants for increase in the market value fixed by the LAc. As would be noted in detail at the relevant stage, after discussing the evidence 'and the material produced by both sides, he returned'hif'findings holding that it was not advisable to fix the market value on the basis of the evidence produced by the land owners and appropriate course of action would be to fall back on the policy decision of the Government' iThus, he agreed with the exercise undertaken by the tAC and did not iinterfere with the price fixation made by the LAc. According to the appellants, they deserve better and higher price for the land that what is fixed by the authorities below. i/ / I \l i

¶11.$,r.1', rffi-l.Fo, ,)

¶12Mr. B.S. Maan, Advocate opened arguments in this appeal, which were adopted in other appeals filed by him. Mr. l.s. Dahiya, *n7 / .r/ appeared in LA.A. No. 534/2006 and some other appeals made ' additional submissions while adopting the arguments made by Mr' Maan. Mr. 5.5. Panwar appeared for some of the appellants who are the owners of the land classified in Block-B and submitted that the differentiation made by the LAc and accepted by'the learned ADJwasnotproperandhisc|ientswerealsoentit|edtothesame compensation which would be admissible for the land owners of Brock-A. -W

¶13Following foundation was sought to be laid by Mr' Maan for i -l claiming higher comPensation :- I I

(a) DDA itself had chafged rate of Rs.l,02'56,600/- per acre for the ; r..i acquired land while allotting this land to Pvc Bazaar' His I submissionwasthat|andinquestionwasacquiredfor'. i". settlement of pvc dealers'-of 'Jawalapuri and before the possessionofthelandcouldbetakenintheyearl99T, allotment was made to various dealers in the year 1996 itself it theaforesaidrate.Theappellantshadproducedal|otment I |etter dated 26,9.1996 issued by the DDA in favour of one Shri Kirpalsingh,PVcdealerinJawalapuri,whichshowedthe allotment at the dforesaid rate. He submitted that even if half of the land was used for other purposes in the development of PVCmarketandadjustmentthereofistobegiven,themarket \J value of the developed land would come U.A. No. 193/2005 8' tuffi ntk to Rs.50 lacs Per Page9 of 34 I acre. He had also submitted that the Supreme Court in var8y2l --- )- cases had held developmeni charges can be deducted, which may range from 2Oo/o to 53o/o and even if in the instant case development charges are deducted at 33o/o. i.e. Rs.l7 lacs, the market value of the land would be approximately Rs.33 lacs per acre (Rs.6 lacs per bigha). Therefore, his submission was that the compensation claimed by the land owners, who are asking . enhancement by Rs.2 lacs per bigha only over and above Rs.I,68,000/- per bigha granted by the LAc andlear:ned ADj, was quite reascinable, was the submission' He also sought to rely upon certain Sale Deeds. He submitted that five sale deeds were of the same area and same village and two sale deeds of two sale deeds wee of the land-belonging to the neighbouring village. His submission was that these sale deeds were proximate to the date of Section 4 Notification videwhichthelandwasacqu':9'thesewerebonafidesa|e deeds: were also of the same village of which land was acquiredorthenearbyvillage.Accordingtohim,allthe relevant considerations, which could be the basis for arriving at the market value, were fulfilled. He submitted that as per the law laid down by the supreme court, once sale dee{s of the same village of proximate dates were available, those furnish the best evidence for fixing the market value. 'According to him, there was no reason to discard these sale deeds and the I learnedADJerredinignoringthesesaledeedson|yonthe

(b) I II ffi' @nsk ! ground that the land was purchased by a company, namely, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) for the purpose of setting uP Readymix Cement Concrete Plant, as against the land user bring agricultural. He also submitted that these sale deeds'may pertain to small area but what was to be kept in mind was that majority of the land owners owned less than 1000 sq.yds. in the said village, which was clear from the award of the LAC as well wherein particulars of various land owners, along with measurement of the land belonging to them, were given. He further submitted that sale deeds produced by1he respondent had to be ignored as the consideration depicted in those sale deeds were even lower than the market value' indicated in the Government Policy, which would clear:ly demonstrate that those sale deeds were of suppressed value.

(c) He submitted that the appellants had given sufficient evidence showing development of the said area'and potentiality of the land. He pointed out that though the land in question was acquired in the year lgg5, for which Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 24.7.1995, first acquisition took place way back in the year 1980 when the land was acqirired for. construction of Check Barrier at Tikri border. . Therefore, vide Award No. 9l/1983-84 dated 14.2:1984, 60 bigha 8 biswas land was acquired, for which Section 4 Notification was issued on 28.11.1981. The public purpose stated therein was ?\, i 2-" ', I I U.e. Xp. PEAOOi A Oatch ntk a 'Widening of Rohtak Road'. According to him, therefcre, development ln the said area had started at that time and 'rl*e potentiality of the land could not be undermined-He referred to"the evidence of one of the appellant, namely' Sl'rri Tej Pal (LR of Shri Pratap Singh (deceased)) wherein he had stated in his affidavit as under :- u4. That, the |and of the vil|age Tikri Kalan, De|hi has Sotpotentia|ityofthebuildingsite'as.thelevelof I.quired land is as good as provided, for residential colonies, set up by thi DDA. However, it is stated that the land of the petitioner was acquired for setting up of the PVC market of Jawalapuri, devastated by the broken fire.

¶7That National High Way No' 10, from Delhi to Firozpur, passes only 1/2 K.M. away from acquired land' which was come in existence before independence. This road is also used for transporting the raw and ready material from the acquired land by the occupaht of the PVC market.

¶11That, lndustriat area know as M.E.t Phase I & lt on the border Town, Bahadurgah, Haryanb were developed by the Haryana Govt.. in..year 1977-78, which are adjacent to the acquired.- land. which is full-fledged township and North lndia's famour grain Mandi, at Bahadurgah is next to village Tikri Kalan, on its western side. tt is also stated that HUDA has developed 10-12, residential sector, in the Bahadurgarh, where the market value of the land in the year 1995 was @ Rs'3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- Per sq.Yards." In this affidavit, other development which has tak en place in the neighbouring area is also mentioned. On the basis of the aforesaid material and evidence, Mr' Maan pleaded that the prayer for enhancement of compensation by R.s.2 lacs per bigha was reasonable and should be allowed. He also referred to the following judgments in support of his contentions :- 3? .l xx xx \

¶14+'$$*

(a) Ram Kishan (deceased by LRs) v. Union of India AIR 2004 Delhi 270 "4. We have gone through the Supreme court decisions in the above referred case and in our opinion the reliance of the learned Additional District Judge on these judgments was wholly misplaced because in the case in hand, there is neither any plea nor it has been shown that the land which was transferred by means of.the sale ',1{ deed which formed the basis of the impugned judgment, was a -D developed piece of land or was in any other way in an ; advantageous position than the acquired land. ln support of his contenti6n that cut of 2Oo/o towards development charges is justified, Mr.Sanjay Poddar has heavily relied uPon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the ..r" oi Kasturi and 6ri" v' State of' Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 ; (AlR 2OO3 SC 202). on the facts and circumstances of that case, the court held that in respect of the agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compe-nsation is deducted out of the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land subject .to certain variations depending on its natuie, location, extent of expenditure involved foi development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial puipor.r. ln that case, tho.ugh the lgnd .of the claimants was undeveloped but it was specifically pleaded that the area adjoining his land was a developed area and claimed the price of his land at par with the develop.a lapd. lt was in these facts aird circumstances that the Court toot the.view that a cut of 2Oolo as compared to the price of developed land was justified. ln our view' this authority cunnoi govern the facts of the present case as here the appellants-claimants a-re not claiming price of thejr lqld a!. Rar rlith the developed land. lnfact, their cliim was restricted to the extent of same kind of tand, i... agricultural land which was sold about a year before the notification under*Section 4 of the Act was issued' Thus, in our considered view, the learned Reference court fell into error by making a deduction of 2oo/o from the average price of Rs.32,4Oo/- p.r"bigha as established from the sale deed' However' having regard to the fact that the aiea of acquired land is quite large as comparea toite area of the fan! y!ich-w3.s the subjeclT::l :i the sale deed dated 14th May, 7986, (Ex'P-2)' We a,re-p-rePerqd-tg Theiefore, on consideration of the @ndcircumstancesofthisca5ewe.holdthatthe average market price of similar tyPe of laM ^ would come to *s.zgi6o/- per bigha in the month oi May' 1986'"

(b) Thakarsibhai Deuiibhai & ors. v. Executive Engineer & Anr" AIR 2001 sc 2424 -12. As we have said abovb the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of .otp"nrutiori on this basis. The reduction has been made for two reasons, on" ihut the present acquisition is of larger area and the second the distance between the land under ' Page rl or lf I i I I I i-I I I t ,.ri U.,q. No. 193/2006 & batuh ntk acquisition and Ex. 16 is about 5 kms. with refergncg.to qgestlqo 9f ffi tqg.thgt thgn th" u."? bq.g-ql leE".. Eu:h ? l*rd"-*ri ttotaings aire of small area. Even otherwise visioning in) the line with submlssion for the State we find Ex. 16 is about two hectares of land which cannot,be said to be of small piece of iland' 5o far the other question of distance between the Nvo clasjes of lands, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some suchi other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such laprd is inferior. However, distance between the iand under Ex. 16 andithe present land even if they are 5 kms' apart would not be relevant, the relevancy could be, their distances from the Viramgam town. We find, as per maP produced UV llg S311 tn1 present acluired tandiis about. 3 kms. away from it, while--tl3e tanf under Ex. 16 is aSout iwo kilomet'ers away from it. This'diffeience is not such to lead to'rgduce the rdte of compensation, specially on tfre facts of this casej.'ln the pr'esent'cdse, as'we'have recorded ;;;;, i, hur u..n found that the quality iniluding potentialiy of land between Exh. 15, and the present one are similar. No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find difference between the two. ln view of thisl the. inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compehsation by Rs. 1O/- Per sq' mtr' cannot be I -,-) sustained.l' RRal Singh &, Ors.v. 2006 (Be) DRJ 527 ( tnion of lndia & Anr., B) and ChimanLal thus giving a value of l-ess than Rs.9 ,OOO/- per bigha' To this extent' the sJbmiision of the respondents cannot be accepted." . Pagel4 of 34

(c) II .IG. Learned .ounrh appearing for the respondents clainls that Ex.pWl/2 was not the true index gf tf,e market value of the lbnd at the time of issuance gr tne notification. According to him, the court should rely upon Ex.R2 to B5 a-nd there is no justification for interfering with thelirJgment bf.tbe-reference court. ln support of this contJntion he r"ti"i upon Ex.Rl, the Award of the Collector in relation to the acquirbd land wherein a sale instance was referred to at item No. 22 of Ex.Rl wherein the vendor had sold 3'15 bighas of land for a sale consideration of Rs.l,70,000/- on 29tt'July, 1986'by a registered sale deed. Reference was also made to the other sale instances recorded in the reference. tt was further urged on b-ehalf of the respondents that deduction, if not 1/3'd, at least of 20 per cent should be n'iade towards development charges bbfore determining the amdunt of compensation payable to the claimants' ln this ,.guid he relied upon the judgmentl of the Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi uria oif,"rs v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC -354 vlrrs,S: Yr.v vv,v..,,.)-;'; ----,-- -'. ' vid. E"R2Jh. tfra |n.uiuring amount 4 bighas 16 biswas from the revenue estate of village Bamnoli was sold for a sum of Rs'37'000/- ffi U.A. No,-193/2OPq &htd ntk

(d) The Land Acquisition officer Revenue Divisional officer Nalgonda (A.P.)v. Morisetty Satyanarayana &, Ors.' 2002 (1) LAcc (Vol. 24) 1 "8. lt is true that normally while fixing the market price of tnb land under acquisition, when the sale instances are for small piece land then appropriate reduction is required to be made while fixi the market price of land under acquisition. However, in the case, the land which is acquired is out of the same survey n Various sale-deeds produced on record reflect the increase in of the portions of land of the same survey number. other ev on record indicates that in the village there is increase in ma . tit/ / price of land during the relevant years. Therefore, considering t increasing trend of ine market price and the fact that'small pieces land owned by different persons are acqi.rired, this would not be'a fit case for reducing the amount on the ground that relevant sale deeds is for a small piece of land."

(e) RameshwarSolankiv. IJnion of India' AIR 1995 Delhi 358 I

(33) [n answer to this contention, .ount"l for the appellant has 'ieferred to the judgment of the Supreme Court, rbported ?l 19?1 Land Acquisition iurll, 318 (Bhagwatmla Samanira v. lp::t,t] Talhsildar mid Land Acquisition officer), wherein Justice FatlTa Bibi, speaking for the Court, stated: I ,,The proposition that large area of land cannot possiblY f:lth tt price'at the same rate which the small plots are.1old,.::,1:i absolute proposition, and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into accoun"t the price fetched by small ploti of land. The land in the said case was found to be "even level and fit for construction" without the necessity for levelling or reclamation. if'. Higf, Cciu$-h.ad itself concluded on.t.h? evidence that the land covered by acquisition, are locateo DY the side of the National Highway and the southern railwaY stal quarters with the Town Planning Trust road on the north' lhe neighbouringdreasarea|readydevelopedonesandhouseshave been constructed, and the land has potential value for being usedasbuildingsites.Havingfoundthat.thelandistobe va|uedonlyasabuildingsiteandstatedtheadvantageous positioninwhichthelandinquestionliesthoughforming.part of the larger ur.u,. the High court should not have applied.the principles of deduction. it is not in every case'that such. a deduction is to be allowed. where the acquired land is in the midst of already developed land with amenities of roads, electricity etc. the deduction in the value of comparable land is not warranted". I Ir I I I i I -,) Thepropositionthat|argeareaoflandcannotpossibly'::.1:.{:: at the same rate at which'small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances sit would be permis:iqlq.:' take into account the price fetchad by the small plots of land' lf 'the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which thl smaller plots ut" I.1tu11, U.e. No. tg3/2oo5 &bfth nsk PaSe ll of 3a t' i t. is also situated in a developed u."u *itf, little or no requirement of further development, the princiirte of deduction of the.value for' purpose of comparison is not warianted"' ,r./\r

¶15Mr. 1.5. Dahiya made the following additional submissions : -/ As per Ex.PW2/\, 44 sq.mt. of land was allotted @ Rs.2535/- per sq.mt. * damages. Further, as Per the statement of PW-3, 1306 allottees at Tikri Kalan had already sold out the plots @ R1348O/- per sq.mt. even before the possession was taken. He also referred to certain sale deeds which were of 1 bigha and 3 biswas and the sale consideration was Rs.3,02,400/- per bigha' He referred to the evidence of PW-5, '12,14 & 15 regarding the nature of land, which is on the same lines as the evidence of the appellants in LA.A' No' 'tg3/2xx6already extracted above. Referring to Ex.P-l, he submitted that development of village Ghevra, which was an adjacent village' had started long back, which fact was also to be taken ' into consideration depicting potentiality of the land. He also pointed out that neighbouring land on ihe-other side of Delhi' i'e' in Haryana, had developed which was also a valid consideration in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the tu'" oi Mehtab Singh & Ors. etc. etc.v. State of Haryan4 AIR 1995 SC 667'

¶16The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants were countered by Mr. Gaurav Sarin and Mr. Sanjay Poddar' learned counsel appearing'for the DDA and LAC respectively' Mr' Sarin referred to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act which stipulates those matters that are to be excluded in determining compensation. Clause eighthof this section was specifically relied upon' as per which I .1 ffi-U.4 Na,.!9A/2Ae6,e h nsk any increase to the value of land on account of its being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or opposed to public poliry, is not:"o be taken into consideration. On this basis' he submitted that sale) ) I1 deeds produced by the appellants for sale of land in favour of L&T \ would be totally irrelevant and extraneous as the official of L&T wlto appeared as a witness had admitted that the land in question was purchased for commercial purpose. Such a use was not permitted as the land in question is meant only for agricultural purPose' As there was no notification under Section 5A7 of the Delhi Municipal corporation Act, 1957 fcir urbanization of the area in question" it remained rural area. ln view thereof, provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 apply to this area and, therefore, the learned ADJ has rightly answered lssue No.| against the appellants and holding-- that area in question was agricultural and keeping in view this aspect in mind the market value of the tand was to.be fixed' Under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 'tg54^ rights are conferred upon the .- .r*t Bhoomidarr coupled with the duty to cultivate and in view of this restriction on the use of the land, such a bhoomidar would be entitled to the market value which the land used for agricultural purpose would fetch. ! t/ Itrl / .-j t. I I I I I I I I I I I I : I I I l, .l ln these circumstances, relevant consideration submission of Mr. Gaurav Sarin was that the was to see as to what was the usage permissible, which was agriculture in the instant case' He also submitted that use and development of the neighbouring land could not be taken into consideration. He further submitted that sale ntk $ft-PagelT of 34 deeds in favoUr of L&T were not genuine and, in any case, comparable with other land in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kanta Devi &, Ors. v. State of Haryana &, Anr.,Vlt (2008) SLT 499 to the following effect :- *21. lt was submitted on behalf of the State-respondent that the observations made in the Lucknow Development Authority case was more by way of caution than laying down the general law Which finds consistent expression in various other decisions of this court, such as l)nion of tndia v. -Ram. P.hool and Anothen(2003)loscc16Tinwhichitha3beenheldthatan isolated deed of sale showing a very-high price cannot be the sole basis for determining the market value.

¶25lt was also submitted that in the instant case excluding all the other exemplars, the High Court had chosen to rely on Ex.P6, where a.small tract of iand (148 sq.yards) had.been sold at the rate of Rs.9,60,000 per acre and the compentation had been worked out on sucl'r basis after applying deduction of 7oo/o of the market value towards developmental charges, since the lands acquired were agricultural and huge investment was required to be made by the State to make the same suitable for the Purpose for which they had been acquired, namely, the setting up of a new grain market with all the ancillary infrastruciure needed by the Market Committee' lsmailabad. Vra ( I -,J ; ;. \ xx " 1X*- XX

¶29Having carefully considered the submissions mdde on behalf of the respective parties we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court.

¶30The learned Single Judge of the High court has taken into consideration the nature of the land sought to be acquired in relying on Ex.P6 in assessing the market value thereof and has apptiea a deduction of 7Oo/o in arriving at the compensation to be awarded to the claimants in respect of the said iands. The various other documents which wereproduced on behalf of the claimants were in respect of the lands which were similar to the lands forming the subject matter of Ex.P.6. The learned Single Judge has given reasons for not relyirig on all the other exemplars in choosing to rely on Ex.P.5 alone. But the rate of deduction applied aPpears to be o.n the high side in relation to the developmental work involved in making the acquired lands suitable for the purPoses for which they were so acquired. The acquired lands are adjacent to the viflage abadiwhich is already developed. Having regard to the consistent view that a deduction of 1/3'd of the market value is i I II t''l -.ffi-U.e. No. PSnOOd A O ntk Page l8 of 34 normal, though a higher deduction is permissible, we are of the view that deduction of 600/o would meet the expenditure towards developmental charges considering the proximity of the acquired lands. to the areas already developed"' t4 I I r-l

¶18Attempt on the part of .Mr. Poddar was to show that ar:a in question was not develo$ed at all, which was far away froJl tf'e l---' -"' ' I habitation and on Delhi-Haryana border. He also referred to the judgment of this court in the case of Raniit singh v. union of lndia, i . 4g (lgg1) DLT 138. That was a case concerning acquisition of land in i village Ghewra which was acquired vide Notification dated 'l8.3.1985 issued under Seetion 4 of the Act. This Court had fixed the I markdt value at Rs.26,775/-per bigha' He submitted that if increase @ l[o/op.a. is added, the:n the market value of the land in question . #sr would be approximatelyl Rs.90,00 O/-Per bigha. Lea-rned tfft'$ also submitted that for v{rious reasons sale deeds on which refiance other judgments on which reliance is placed are as under :-

(a) Union of tndia & Aqr.v. Ram Phool & Anr"

(2003) 10 scc 167

(b)lJnionoftndiav.Pramod6upta(dead)byLRs&ors.

(2005) 12 SCC 1

(c) sankaranarayanan Potti (Dead) By L.R.Sv. K Sreedivi &' ors'

(1e88) 3 SCC 7sl I i

(d) Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Speciat Land Acqukition Officen Poona and Anr. ArR 1988 5C1652

¶19we have considered the aforesaid submissions and have gone through the records and perused the judgments cited by counsel for either side. U.A. No. Ig3/2p06 & batd ntk Pagel9 of 34 / ( I 'ffi-

¶20ln a case like this, the first and foremost issue would be to determine the nature of land acquired in respect of which even the learned ADJ had framed lssue No.l in the following manner :- "\OUhether the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable to the land in dispute and if so' to what effect?"

¶21We may note that the learned ADJ has held that though the Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable, but it did not have any adverse effect on the market value of the land. The appellants did not challenge the finding regarding applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act' Though respondents tried to take mileage from this finding and submitted that in such ? circumstance it is to be taken into consideration that land in'question was used for agricultural purposes and the rights of the land owners/cultivators as bhoomidarr only--- were available to them. To this extent there is a finding of the learned ADJ in the impugned judgment holding that the Delhi Land ReformsActwasapplicableand.Til""ocouldnotbeusedfor purposes other than agriculture. we reproduce the following observation of the. learned ADJ in this behalf as contained in the imPugned judgment :- ..lnthelightoftheevidenceledonrecorditmaybeobserved tfrat vittale Tikrikalan is on border of Delhi and is bearing Bahadurgarh(Haryana)onitsWesternBoundary.Thelandis pr.ao|ni"nantly agricultlral. The evidence led by the petitioner revealsthatdbverop*.ntu|activityhadalsocommencedinthe areaofvi|lageGhewara.Somedevelopmentactivityhadalso commenced in village Tikrikalan as iand was acquired for purpose of construiii""n of check barrier and the land had also been acquired ro, wia.nin! of r.oad as per Ex.P2 and Ex'P4' However the acquir.i tuniin village Tikri kalan could not be usedforpurposesotherthanagriculturalundertheDLRAct and no other commercial activit! had commenced on the'lan$ i.';ii;;. Tikrikalan .*..pt that it had been acquired for purpo,Jof resettlement of PVC market"' U.At No-PA/rq06,&-ba!fi n* rr's'rr Page2oof 34 ri '1 ,/") I "l - ; ..._l I ffi'

¶22Since the applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act could not be U > .> questioned by the appellants, we find ourselves in alreement with the aforesaid view taken by the learned ADJ. The land in question was in rural area and there is no notification under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act declaring it as urbanized area. Therefore, the purpose for which the land could be used remained agricultural. I -J

¶23Coming to the potentiality of the land, no doubt the same evidence is led by the appellants showing the development activity which had commenced in village Ghevra and part of the land acquired from this very village, namely, Tikri Kalan, on an earlier occasion used for the purpose of construction of Check Barrier and widening of road. That_ may only indicate that the area in question could also be put to some other use than agricultural in future. However, in the absence of any notification under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporatlon Act till the acquisition of land, it is totE borne in mind that evenjas I on the date of acquisition of land it remained agricultural land. the potentiality of the land means the use to which the land can be put to in the near future. While determining the potentiality, the relevant factors which are to be taken into consideration are: whether the area is urbanized, the suitability of the acquired land for being used as building sites, availability of water and electric supply, I accessibility of land by way of roads and pathways' lt has come lon record that the land was being continuously used as agricultural la'nd even on the date of acquisition. lt had remained so but for the u.A.,No. t?3/20q44 it* i I I i I i I : ''3$pi ' _;..r ! t. i I t. i{ I \t ffi . Page2li.of 34 acquisition of the land and the land is acquired for the purpose of. resettlement of PVC Market. No doubt, the land would be used for agricultural purpose after acquisition as it is being allotted to the PVC dealers whg would put it to commercial use. However, before it is put to commercial use, it would be necessary for the Government authorities to change the land user. Section 24 of the Act specifically puts an embargo on the Court not to take into consideration factors mentioned therein which are to be 'included in determining compensation'. Clause fifth thereof would be relevant in the present context, which reads as urider :- :" fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired." Therefore, when the tarla in question was used for agricultural- ---' ..' purpose, merely becausel it is likely to be used for commercial I purpose would not be a ielevant consideration in fixing the market value. This was so held by this Court in Kehar Singh (deceased) v. untbn of India, 2OO5 V AD @effri i wf,ite making the following comments :- "lt is also required to be noted that the lands situated far aw4y from the municipal limits and possibility of imposition of statutory restrictions to develop the lands for.building PurPoses are relevant circumstdnces in determining the market value of the land. The Coqrt must bear in mind that where an agricultural land is acluired which is not ordinarily put to use other than agricultural or if it is required to be put to other use some permission is reitruired to be taken or conversion charges are required to be ipaid. Such various other aspects are required to be borne in mind by the court."

¶25To the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officen Hyderabad & Ors. v. Male Pullamma & U.4. wo. tg3/2o06 & tu4 n* :/ ; i t I1

¶24\, I Page22 of 34 ffi-Ors., (1996) 8 SCC 247 and Tarlochan Singh &, Anr. v. State of Punjab, (1gg5) 2 SCC 424. Therefore, the learned ADJ rightly commented that value of the land cannot be determined consid the purpose for which the acquisition was made. i I I I

¶26In the beginning of this judgment, we have shown the location iof the area acquired, including with reference to the Eicher Map. This area falls beyond the railway track on the other side wherein there is no developmental activity. The entire area was agricultural area and was to put to the same use. The other factors which appellants want us to take into consideration have to be ignored in view of the specific prohibition contained in Section 24 of the Act. Therefore' further discussion in thisj case has to proceed keeping in vie.w the I aforesaid settled factual flosition. I I I With this we proceed toldiscuss the evidence produced, on the basis , of which the appellants seek enh*:.::nt in the market value. The evidence is in two formsi, namely, certain sale deeds and the rates at which the land is allotteb by the qDA to the PVC dealers and other bodies. We may first deal with the pre-determined rates fixed by the DDA at which lands are gllotted to the PVC dealers. I i-

¶28After the acquisition oFi tfre land, it had to be developed. While I developing the land mt{ch area is to be left out for other services, including roads, parks, other facilities etc. That apart, after the development of the land in the manner that it is used as PVC market, the plots were to be sold to the PVC dealers. Thus, the laiid in U.a. tttp. tgg/2006 & b ruk Page23 of 34 erin9 a u"\ ; \!.

¶27,ffi-question which was used for agricultural Purpose after acquisition' it -.l was to be put to commercial use. When the land is developed in this ' 4t/ manner by changing the user from agricultural to commercial and on \'b ' i; that basis rates are fixed by the DDA, to our mind that cannot be the consideration for fixing the market value. Doing so would be contrary to clause fifth of Section 24 of the Act'

¶29That apart, no evidence is led showing disposal cost' lay out of PVC market, percentage of land auctioned, where the portion of the land is located which is allotted to the dealers as well as cost of development. ln the absence of such evidence produced on record' it is difficult to make particular deductions from the pre-determined ratesandcometoaparticu|arfigure.lnouropinionthelearned ! ADJ, in these circumstances, has rightly discarded the proposed ratet onwhichallotmentsweresoughttobemadebytheDDAinthe following manner :- ..Theevidenceofrecordshows-thattheacquiredlandwas agricultural|and.obviously,thevaluationwou|ddiffertoa considerable extent from the iand used for commercial sites' ln suchacase,necessarya.a,aionsfortheextentofland acquiredfortheformationofroadsandothercivicamenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads' drains,Sewers,waterandelectricitylines,andtheintereston the outla;;-6 irr" p.riod of defeiment of the realization of the price' the profits on the venture etc" are to be made' Furthertheprofitifanyearnedby.thedevelopingauthorityis also to be taken into account prioi to allotment of said land in small plots after development' The amount spent by the developing u,inotitv and profit margin if any has not been brought o-n record. No "uid"n.. has been led on record to show the expenses in.uri.J after the development by the acquiringautnorityandotherfactorsinvotvedforca|culation. Assucht|.,ep,opos"dratesfora|lotmentofp|otsasPer Ex.PW3/1 cannot be applicabt" fot calculation of market value' Also the rate of tuna nolined by DDA for developed lands cannotbeautomatically'ua.applicabletotheassessment.of ! *6Ft I I I I i i

¶30agricultural land as considerable amount is spent for development." ,42 This leads to the next question, namely, sale deeds which are produced by the appellants. lt was contended that five sale deeds of the same village and two of the rieighbouring village, which sales were of dates proximate to the date on which the land was acquired and they were bona fide in nature and, therefore, should have been made the basis for fixing market value. lt was also contended, as ncited above, that sale deeds produced by the respondents were of depressed value, as was'clear from the fact that the consideration shown therein was much lesser in value than the. one fixed bythe Government in its policy which is made the basis of fixing the market value of the land by the respondent. {tr Contention of the appellants qua the sale deeds produced by the respondents appears to be correct. When, the Government itself had ' fixed the price of land at Rs.lO lacs per acre as on 13.4.1997 on the basis of "rfti.n the LAC determined the value of the land at Rs.8,O5,4OOl-per ..r. ur on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act (corresponding to Rs.1,68,000/- Per bigha)' the rates mentioned in sale deeds Ex.R-3 to R-7, which show much lesser consideration, do not inspire any confldence. One can reasonably infer therefrom that the 'rates shown in these sale deeds are of of the actual consideration which was ., -J I I I Ir --l

¶31\ depressed value and not exchanged between the Deuiibhai (supra)). U.e. tlo. tg3/2006 e baffi nsk parties to such sales (See - Thakarsibhai Page25 of 34 I-l i alstr $$ts'{,

¶32As against that, most of the sale deeds produced by the appellants, . except one, are those whereby L&T had purchased the land in question. we may mention that L&T is a limited company and actual sale consideration paid by it would reflect in the sale deeds' lt would not pay part consideration in cash not depicting the s?me in the sale deed. This becomes clear from the comparison of the sale deeds executed in favour of the L&T on the one hand and Ex'R-3 to R-7 on the other hand. Though the sale deeds in favour of L&T are of the year 1gg3, the total cost as per these sale deeds works out. to Rs.3,25,510/- per bigha' whereas the consideration shown in Ex'R-3' R-4,R-6&R-T,thoughexecutedintheyearlgg5'rangesbetween Rs.l5,000 /- Perbigha to Rs'l '37'OOO/-per bigha' Not only there is a q( / I \ drastic difference in price in thbse sa,le deeds, it'is much lesser than;.-- ' the price at which L&T had purchased the land two years earlier' This atso lends credence to the argument of the appellants that sale ' deeds produced by the respondeot: 1: of depressed value' lt is a knownfactthatinacitylikeDelhitherealconsiderationatwthich the property deals are struck is never reflected in the sale deeds' particularly when these are between private parties'

¶33The contention of the counsel for the respondents still was these sale deedsaretobediscardedforthefollowingreasons:-

(a) the sale deeds are of small area;

(b) the land was PurPose which purchased bY L&T for is not Permitted in law commercial/induqtrial as the land could be Page26 of 34 U.,q. No. tgg/20048' fuffi ntk used only for agricultural purposes and, therefore, it would be forbidden under clause eighthlyof section 24 of the Act. qr8 ( 34'. lnsofar as the first contention is concerned, no doubt, the land purchased by L&T is throlgh five sale deeds. However, they are of ; contiguous land and the total area covered by these sale deeds is 8-9 bighas. Reason is simple, most of the land owners had small holdings . ranging between 1 bigha to 2 bighas. Therefore, necessarily these sale deeds are to be of the small areas. Since L&T was in need of bigger land, it had to purchase the land from few land o*n"" u' requirement could not be met by purchasing the land from one land owner. No cultivator was owning the extent of land rbquired by lti/ii ( L&T. Therefore, the arg{ment of the respondents that sale deed: ":-"" of very less area as agaifrst the total area bf 1162 bigha acquired in i this case and on this iground these sale deeds should riot be considered, cannot be accepted. At the most, some deduction from j this sale consideration cqn be made'fO?"this reason' as done in Ram Kishan (supra)

¶35Coming to the second contention which eighthty of Section 24 of the Act, it would i of this provision, which reads as under :- .eighthty, any increase to the value bf tfre land on account of its being put io any, use which is forbiddel by law or opposed is predicated on clause be apposite to take note applicable. lt only states that where this is forbidden by law or opposed to public Page27 of 34 to Public PolicY."

¶36Ex-facie this clause is not land is put to use which ,ffi q#tr-E U.A. No. 1"93/2006 t batd nsk policy and because of the said use, its value has increased, that is not to be taken into consideration. .ln the instant case, value of the land n\ has not increased because of the reason that it was put to commercial I L-) use. No doubt, this may be the consideration in the mind of the purchaser, i.e. L&T while purchasing the land. Fact remains that it was not put to the said use. Had it been put tb such a use and because of commercial/industrial use, contrary tO. law,'had the value been increased, that was liable to be discarded. Here the land is purchased at a particular rate before even it is put to commercial use'

¶32The learned ADJ was, therefore, not right in discarding these sale deeds altogether. At the same time, the sale consideration reflected in these sale deeds needs to be discounted keeping in view the purpose for which the land in question was purchased by L&T, namely, for Readymix Cement Concrete Plant and that the plots were of smaller size. lt is possible that having that purpose in mind' L&T paid higher rate. Even if we-rcduce the sale consideration substantially,saybyl/3'a,itwouldworkouttoRs'2'15'l6O/-Per bigha.

¶38lf we look into the matter from other angle as well, we shall reach almost the same figure. Some of the sale deeds produced by the respondent show the consideration 'of Rs.l.,37,000/- per bigha. Whereas, L&T purchased the land at Rs.3,26,600/-. Average rate of the sale deeds produced by the respondent workj out to tittle more I I It I l,r* \ : I I I-[ I 'At,igi i,Fi). U.a. no. !93/20p6 f b nsk

¶39than Rs.1,OO,O Oo/-,say around Rs'l ',O5'OOO/" lf we take the average of the two sale deeds, it would work out to the same figure' {-c 2t What cannot be lost sight of is that the market rate of the land in question, even when it was agricultural land, was more than the rates fixed by the Government in its policy dated 1.4.'.1997. It is an accepted principle of fixation of the market value that sale transaction relating to the same village or neighbouring land of the dates proximate with the date when the land is acquire-d would furnish the best evidence. This is so held by the supreme court in Pramod 6upta(supra). As there was evidence available in the form of sale deeds pertaining to the land of same village, which.are of the year 1gg3, i.e. two years before the Notification under section 4' -oJ'*"" the Act was issued, and even if the price of these lands is to be reduced having aforesaid considerations in mind, we are of the. opinion that the minimum mar(et Value which can safely be fixed would be Rs. 2,'t5,16}/-per bigha ioi-fotf-A lands' coming to Block-B lands, the reasons for which the lesser compensation is given by the LAC as well as the ADJ than compared to Block-A land are justified in our opinion. .However, since we have enhanced the market value of the Block-A land, the owners of Block-B land would also be entitled to proportionate increase. The LAc while fixing the market value-of Block-B land reduced the value by Rs.41 ,650/-. Reducing this value from the market value fixed by us ; i/t/ Y I

40. I I ) \

¶41ffi-U.A. N?. WP0e6 6,-batch ntk for Block-A land, the market value of Block-B Rs. 1,73,500/- (2,'15,160 - 41,560). land would arrive at i -\+

42.

43.

¶44\ .rtr-tt^. ,'"'SiS,- i.r'iiq";.' i' t) Accordingly, in respect of appeals relating to village Tikri Kalan, for which Notifications dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11 J'1995 were issued and land acquired vide Award No. 2/97-98, 17/97-98 and l9/97-98, the market value is fixed at Rs.2,15,76Q/- for Block-A land and Rs.l,73,5OO/- for Block-B land. These appeals are LA.A. Nos" 354, 325, 299, 469, 274, 296, 267, 3gg, 3gg, 297, 297, 620, 460, 391, 518, 479, 390, 475, 391, .473, 506, 396, 637, 463, 493, 5gg, 665, 376, 528, 541, 7gg, 563, 6g2., 663, 6g7, 617, 3g3, 3gO, 4gg, 4gO, 672, 649, 69l, 649, 432,609, 693, 437, 635, 529-540, 56,4,580-581 and 703/2006, 296, 37, 34, 35, 39, 7, 74, 36, 150, 751, 22, 38, 217/2007 and 750/2008. These appeals are accordingly partly allowed in the aforesaid terms with proportionate costs. The appellants shall also be entitled to usual statutory benefits of solatium and interest etc., as awarded by the learned ADJ. Decree shall be prepared accordingly. Appgpls qriqing opt of Awafd No. 3 & 4 'CW98-99 Two notifications of the same date, nambly, '11.6.1995 were issued whereby lands in village Tikri Kalan were acquired for expansion of LPG Bottling Plant for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and for setting up Sports School in Ghevra More. The learned ADJ proceeded on the basis that market value of the tand acquired vide I I Notification dated 24.7.1995. is filed at Rs.l ,68,000/- per bisha [or . Block-A land and Rs.1,26,840/- Per bigha for Block-B taha. - i(\ Thereupon, he has given enhancement for the intervening period, iA--- from 22.8.1995 to 11.6.1996 @ 12o/o p.a. On this basis, he has gi{en an increase of Rs.,77,514/- per acre. The land owners have filed ihe appeals seeking further enhancement. On the other hand, Indian pil Corporation has also filed appeals contending that incease @ l?o/o p.a. for the period in question should not have been given. I I

¶45Since we have fixed market value of Rs.2,15,160/- in respect of lJnd acquired vide Notifications dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11 .'1995, the land I owners in these appeals shall be entitled to enhancement for ithe period from 22.8.1gg5 to 11.6.1995 on the aforesaid urno,]ln,. . l. .- .- -*'"'. Having regard to the fact that in 1995-96 the prices of the land r,vlere increasing and the period involved is less than 10 months, we ur{ of 'l the opinion that enhancement @ 'l2o/o p.a. is rightly given frat'iing I regard to the principles laid ao*n tftf,i, Court in Bedi Ram d brs-v. Union of tndia & Ann, 93 (2001) DLT 150. The enhancement,for the period in question, at that rate, would work out to ns.ZO,65l/" On that basis, the market value for the land covered under tl'tese appeals for 'A' category land is fixed at Rs.2,35,815/- and forl'B' I category it amounts to Rs.l,90,1 56/-. These appeals are LAA njot. 77'.1,775, 622, 621,772, 62.3, 529, 698, 534,72V,.625,711, 6?8, 726,,712, 626,798, 624,713,702, 555, 699 &.605/2006,2/2007 &. 212/2007. I I la \j i-I "11ili4r" 1#itft$ 6E#.1 U..e. tto. tPg/2006 & batd n* Page 3l of 34 I -!{

¶46Consequently, the appeals preferred by the lndian Oil Corporation Ltd. are dismissed and those filed by the land owners are partly (L ,/ allowed in the aforesaid terms with proportionqte costs. The,/ t appellants/land ownels shall also be entitled to usual statutory benefits of solatiurn unl interest etc., as awarded by the learned ADJ. i Decree shall be prepared accordingly. The land of Ghevra village, subject matter of these appeals, was acquired vide Award bearing No. 3/98-99. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 11.6.'tgg6 and Section 6 declaration was issued on 7.10.1 996. For the identical ieasons given in respect of Tikri fklan village, the learned ADJ took l::: consideration Governrtrent Policy dated'1.4.1997 and refused to act li upon the sale deeds inl farour of L&T. 'Here aiso, land wasiacquired for expansion of LPC Bottling Plant by lndian Oii Corporation. Therefore, for the same reasons;'tff€ market value for the Block-A lands pertaining to thi{ Village is fixed at Rs.2,3 5,815/-and in respect of Block-B it is Rs.1,9O,156/-. These appeals are LA.A. Nos. 443;445, 444, 361, 378, 382, 187, 363, 355, 763, 362, 357' 372, 197, 182, 1g8, 373, 356, 282, 264, 284, 268, 371, 358, 375, 374, 285, Zgi3, I' 360, 1g4, 195, 312, 3)2, 323, 324/2006, 85, 237, 2'.18, 219, 221 and 215/2007.

¶48Accordingly, the appeals preferred Ltd. are dismissed and thote filed by the lndia by the land n Oil Corporation owners are PartlY U.a. Np. ryg/2006 e ba&h ntk allowed in the aforesaid terms with proportionate costs. The appeltants/land owners shall also be entitted to usual statutory

¶49the Act was issued on '17.'12.2002 and the Award was rendered on

20.9.2004. The learned ADJ has made the Award No. 2/1997-98 I dated 23 .7.1gg7 as the basis, as per which the market value of ifre ,. land for Block-A is fixed at Rs.l ,68,000/- per bigha and for Block-B the market value is fixed at Rs.1,26,84O/- per bigha. On this, enhancement @ 12o/o p:a. is granted. Since we have revised the market value in respect of the aforesaid Award at Rs.2,3 5,815/- for Block-A and Rs.l,90,15 6/- for Block-B, further enhancement has to be given on these rates for the \t.' period from 17.11.1995 to 17.12.2oo2.-*llowever, at the same time, we are of the view that in these cases enhancement @ l2o/o p.a. should not be given bdcause of the reason that in some of these areas the market vatue of the land had even gone down. Therefore, taking holistic view of the matter and balancing the upward end downward trends, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if enhancement is granted @ lOo/o-p.a. On this basis, market value for Block-A land is fixed at Rs.4,02,850/- and for Bfock-B land it is fixed at Rs.3,24,850/-. LA.A. Nos. 284,229,228, !'ir, . .:p benefitsofsolatiumandinterestetc.,a5awardedbythe|earnedADJ. a /-1 ./ ./ Decree be prepared accordingly. ^, ) I )J i Appeats arising opt gf Award Nb. 2 \gW ag.f05 dpigd p9,9.?Q04 It/ In respect of these acquisitions, Notification under Section 4 of 'l Page 33 of 34 * I I Ir* I I I I i U.e. ttq 193^406 & bafi ntk 226, 230, 282, 283, 133, 226, 84, 225, 227, 125, 132, 231, 236' 234, 235, 27 4, 27 5, 27 6 &.286/2007 are decided accordingly. These appeals are, therefore, partly allowed in the aforesaid terms with proportionate costs. The appellants/land owners shall also be entitled to usual statutory benefits of solatium and interest etc., as awarded by the learned ADJ. On this basis, the decree. shall be prepared. rdffiinu JUDGE ll:; --/ /f(/b I \i e .1"r-'",,f, tr -'rr, . .*.Fej6{tt\f+rss\'- (MeNtucffiex sNGH) JUDGE December F , 2008 nsk I d 'i" ; ! Page34 of34 . rblc i,didid i'sFi