Nar Singh Decd Thr Lrs & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

ORDER %

08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JULY 08, 2011 mm 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. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELH! AT NEW DELH . . pate ofDec5iO12 8th/uI',. 2OLL. L iAP• 784/2005 , . tI?4i i4c jAMNA Appellant Through Mr L B. Ral, Advocate, Mr. I .S .Da hiya, Advocate, Mr.D.S.Lakra, Advocate, Mr.K.SUflil, Advocate, Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate Mr.Shadam Farashat, Advocate Versus UOl& ORS Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing ' Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms.Deepika, Mr.Sachifl Nafl and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocat '. Mr.Ajay Verma,, .MsKänika Agnihotri, Mr.Funal Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharma, Ms.Shobhna Takiar and Mr.Arur b.c. Birbal, Advocates for DDA \çf . AND ±LA.APP. 879/2005, LA.APP. 880-881/2005, LA.APP. 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dted

25.02.1997 & Award No.2/1999-2000, VillageMundka) AND ' +LA.APP. 583/2009, LA.APP. 603/2009, LA.APP. 604/2009, • LA.APP. 606/2009, LA.APP. 610/2009 74/2010, LA.APP. 78/2010, • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected V • • • V • .- ,• •. - NOW 12 11 all 4 . • - .• V • • LA APP 79/2010, LA APP 12 1/2010, LA APP 122/2010, LA APP 12512010, LAAPP 164/2010, LAAPP 185/2010 1 LAAPP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LAAPP 238/2010, LAAPP 239/2010, LA.APP, 243/2010, LA.PPP 244/2010, LA.APP.'. 245/2010, LA.APP. 47/2010, LA.APP. 251/2010, LA.APP. • . 252/2010, LAPP.

26.6/2010, .LA.APP: 267/2010,. . . 27j4 ,k.APP. 274/2010, LA.APP.. 275/2010, LAAPP. 14-i2/201/LA.APP. 324/2010, L.A. APP. 326/2010, LA.APP. .'. . . 32 77öT0, LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP 331/2010 ; LA.APP. 332/2010, LAAPP. 33.3/2010 with CM .APPL :.' Nto. 5524/2011, .LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367/20.10, LA.APP..: 368/2010, . LA.APP. 36912010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & .CM •APPL. No.20099/2010, LA.APP, 374/20101 LA.APP. 375/2010, LA.APP.. 377/2010, LA.APP. 379/2010, LAAPP. 423/2010, LA.APP. 452/2010, LA.APP. 461/2010, LA.APP 472/2010, LA4PP. • 64/2010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No. 6340/201.1; LA.AP. 697/2010,. LA.APP. 698/2010 & CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APR • . . . 706/2010 & CM APPL. 17215/2010 LA.APP. 707/2010, LA,APP.'

• 708/2010, LA.APP. 709/2010; LA.APR. 710/2010 with CM APPL. No.256812011, LA.APP. 713/2010 with CM APPL. No.7473/2010., LA.APP. 715/2010,.LA.APP. 717/2010, LA.APP. 719/2010., LA.APP. .766/2010, LA.APP 796/2010, LA.APP; 797/2010, LA.APP. 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP

81.9/2010, LA.APP. 829/200, LA.AP.P; 831/2010 ,& CM APPL

i• 955/2011,, LA.APP. 832/2010, LAAPP. •833/2010 & CM .APPL...• • . 6392/2011, LA.APP. • 834/2010, LA.APP., 842/2010. LA.APP; 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP • 876/2010, .LAAPP. .877/2010, LA.APP. 878/2010, LA.APP. 879/2010, LA APP 880/2010, LA APP 881/2010 & CM • .. . APPL.6505j2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP. . . 884/2010,: LA.AP. 886/2010, LA.APP, 888/2010, LA.APP. . • •. 889/2010 & CM. APPL.224.9/2011, LA.APP. 890/2010.,: LAAPP., 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA APP 894/2010 & CM No.23353/2010, LA.APP. .895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP H 897/2010 & CM APPL.728/2011, LA.APP. 903/2010, LA..APP.. LA APP 784/2005 & connected • '. : . .. .. H • : • • . •: • . . : • •: • .• • • • .• . . • . • •. • . . . . 07/2010 LAAPP 93812010, LAAPP 939/2010, LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM A'PPL. 3086/2011, LA.A'PP. 1040/2010 :& CM.. .. APPL 5673/2011, LAAPP 1041/2010, LAAPP 1043/2010, LA.APP,. 1045/2010, LA.APP. .1046/2010, LA.PP 1048/2:010, LA APP 1049/20 10, LA APP 1050/2010, LA APP 1056/20101 LI.APP. 1060/2010, L•A..APP. '1.061/2010, LA.APP. 1071/2010, LAAPP 125/2011,LAAPP 126/2011,LAAPP 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No.3/2005706, Village-Mundka) I .. AND + LAAPP 600/2009, LAAPP 605/2009, LAAPP 615/2009, LAAPP. 310/2010, LA.APP. 325/2010, LA.APP. 376/2010, LA.AP. ç 383/2010, LA:APP. 384/2010, LA.APP. 385/2010 LA.APP 473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP: 586/2010, LA.APP. •:. 591/2010, LAAPP 638/2010, LAAPP 690/20101 LAAPP H 692/2010, LA.APP. 711/2010, LA.APP. 716/2010, LA.APP. 763/2010, LA.APP. 872/2010, LA.APP 873/2010. LA..APP. 885/2010, LA;APP: 887/2010, LA.APP. 891/2010, ••LA.•APP. 892/2010, •LA.APP•. 898/2010, .LA.APP. 906/2010 & CM APPL. No4443/2010, LAAPP 937/2010 & CM APPL 23299/2010, LA APP 1042/2010, LA APP 1047/2010 (Relating to NOtification: u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award. No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND LAAPP 1003/2010, LAAPP 1017/20101 LAAPP 1019/20101 ' LA.APP. 1022/20101 .LA.APP. 1023/2010,. LA..APP. 1044/2010.1. .. . . LA..A'PP. 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1,053/2010, :LA..App. 1054/2010 & CM APPL No 5656/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LAAPP 1057/2010 1 LA.APP. 1058/2010, LA.APP. 1059/2010, LA.APP. 1068/2010, LAAPP 1069/2010, LAAPP 124/2011, LAAPP 127/2011., L•A.APP.128/2011,' LA.APP. 259/201.1

•.. : ',. ' ,. .. LA.APP.784/2005 &'connected ' ., ,. . " . Page 3 of 19 .. .... . pursuant to a notification dated 25'2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a potification dated 21 3 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a ntifiCation dated 17.6.2005 issued..under Section 4 oflhLand Acquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006-07. 8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 issued ünder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 (the some notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector,

determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi 10 For clarity. I may note that pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in • thëréven.ue estate of,village Mundk were acquired, the làrnd • Land Acqukition CoIlector determined the fairmarket value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural !ahd notified with effect from 1.4.1997 © 10iacs per acre and since the. date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted LA.AP.784/200 &conneted • the price for one year @ 11 5%per annum This price was adopted for, category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertaining to t h es • notifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003;, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the 'notificatidn fixingl the • minimum price of agricultural land as of. 1.4.2001 and gave no

• benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated

17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in 'the revenue •estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector :• determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi a's of 1.4.2001 and gave no increase 'Aggrieved by.the'.determination o'fthe fair mrkët value of the' lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought a 'reference Undr •Sectidn 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference beingmade, vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Réference Court, and enhanced the fair market value In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 vide which agricultural lands rn village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP.784/2005 & connected , ' • , • • • ' • • : • U 4 .' ' ,. • ' ' '• • 44 • .• ' '• • . Government of. NCT Delhi had fixed the mpimum ialue for agricultural lands in Delhi i. e

1.4. 1997, but as against t h e Land, Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for category A lands a'nd-. for category B lands; with :reference to the values •f• - . category A-land depressed the same-by 90,0001-per acre. . • 1-3. - Thus, for category .A lands the-Reference Court . determined the fair market value © 9,89,288/- per acre and for category, B land the same was determined © 8,99,288/- per - . acre.

14.. - - -; Pertaining to the notifications-dated 21.3.2003 and 4 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and -village. Bakkarwala respectively were cquired, the Reference

Court took note of the fact that after the Gbvernment had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the minimumprice notified by the Government of NCT - - • - Delhi,. the Reference - Court adopted the principle of. mean average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by. 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 as also - - 24.9.2003. - Thereafter th -e Refeence Court took the value - - • • - - - notified as -of .30.8.2005 and depressing-the same by 10%- per

- -- - LA APP 784/2005 & connected annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also V 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and divided by,

two to arrkie at th.e mean figure as Of 21.3.2003, which 1 hote comes to U5,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisiOns I note the sum arrived at is fl5,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000I-per acre

¶15Pertaining to the notification dated 1.76.2005: pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the 1earned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for, agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.2.001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account oI locational • advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255/- per acre 16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advaned beforeme during hearing today. •

¶17•• With • reference to the evidence led in LAC 0•• •, • • . No 384/2004 /amna Vs 1)0/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh L B Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA Ap.No784/2005, which • •• arument was adopted by Other learned counsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not: •. • justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected ' •' • ' ': and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of U,75,000/- 38,000/- was ihcUrred tow.rds sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would cOme to 4,46000I-as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of ag frlcultural lands in viflage Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25.2.1993., 21 3 2003 and 17.6.2005, i e the dates when notifications under section: 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant wherto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum It is urged that on the same basis, • • land price.; should be deterihed for the :aricUlturaI lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages., and in :fact village Tikri Kalan is fUrthr towrds the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the • land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to tlie judgment - and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding, a batch of •.' • • Land' Acquis.ition Appeals, . •iead matter being LA Appeal. No 193/2 006 Pratap 5/ncjh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs UQI as iier which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined jn the revenue I estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 195, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land LA APP 784/20q5 & connected and fl,73,5001-for categOry B land; Z2 1 35,850 for ctegory A land and Z 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4 02,850/- for category A land and 3124,850/- for category B land, respectively

¶18I may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex.P1. . . . ..

1.9. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel fOr the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex.:P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate - proportion to the whole For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage of stones are mixed i h . a'bag of rice it would not ba safe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grin of rice one wb.ild lëd to the cbnclusio.n that theb is IO0x full of ric and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one wou11 reach to the conclusion that the bag is full Of stones. At least fistful, should •be Iifted and then checked as a representative sample, is-the example, given. The second reason on Which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being represent'tive of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey it

'.. wold be difftcult to issue even the notification under Section

4.: LA APP 784/2005 & connected f the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deed's Ex.R-1 to R-4. referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8.9..1997 relied upon by UOl would show the actual market value of the land and lhus learned counselwould urge that the said four sale deeds should be considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected •thereiri Is less than the minimum price notified by, the Government, the price fixation should be with reference o the m.inimü.m price notified hytjie Gbvernrnent which is nearst.to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act An independent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned counseL for the Union. The: same.rests. itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 /a,Stngh Vs 1)01 The decision in /aiSincjh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at U,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch tA APP 784/2005 & connected as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adpting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/-per bigha, the fair, market vafte should be ascertained by increasing the price pro.gressiv,aly by 10% per : : . anum to deerrnine the markt value of .ind in village . Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Larned counsel l would urge that in view of the locational advartage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mudka should be deterrinedas of 25.2.1997, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, by , giving : 5% increase With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25 2 1997 It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land AcqLisition Act, survey's are carried out With the object of , •. determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra nunbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposed acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to know that very soon there is every Hkéhood that the lands would be acquired In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy enjoins upon,the Governmet tollot, at pre determined rats,.a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . . .. acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persotO purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitior 'e likely to take place, these transatiofl5 are speculative a cannot be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of, land as on the date of the sale. Further, the prncip1e of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averae5 and the principles of sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned efeence Court, but for the twin reasoning .hitheto-fore noted, l hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional reason notto rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R-1 to Ex R-4, dated 6.1.1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8.9.1997 .

are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex.P-j. In fad,, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Dei notified by the Government Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the.dcision of. this I . Court inJ5inghScaSe (supra) or Pratap5inah5€45e ( supra) I highlight that both decisior, penned 1 the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court

2.5. The decision in j5ingh's ease (supr) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwaa in sum of T1,32,000/- I per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof LA APP 784/2005 & connected S.NO'. Date Village : Price per Big ha • 1.

24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan - 2,15,160/ for Block

16.11.1995 A& 1,73,500/7 for.

- • - • • Block Bland. 2:

11.06.1996 • Tikri -Kalan & 2,35,815/-fOr-Block Ghéyra •-• A & 1,90,15-6/-for Block: B land• -

3.

17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan • : 4,02,850/- for Blok .A & 324,850/ fr - • • :Block.B land • - •--• •: •' - .1 K would show that the Court assessed the fair marvalue with reference to sale deeds executed between the yars 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale • price of agricultural land Jn the: 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agicultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Vijlage named Ghevra and pertaining to various notificationsIssl4ed under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural'lands in Village TikriKa.lan and Ghevrã as under:- Acquisition Appeal No 489/2009, Chirnhi La/,vJEQn011fldL • Anr on 2.6 2011 I have determined the fair market value of the lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425I-per big ha as of 6 2 200k On the issue of comparabilitY of, land in village BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that wereaS iilage Bkkarala does. not abut NH-10, as do the other villages1 but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximte to the urban areas of Delhi vi5--ViS Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters. f assessing faft compensation, it is the broad probabilities an similarities which matter. ,. Thus, .1 hold' all 4 villages to be equivalent,, unless qua some land special features can be shown 28 Since the decision in P@tp, 5igh case (supra), deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just, fair.and ropero dee'rmifl the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in PratP 5ing case (supra) As pthe decision in Praa,p 51phi5 case (supra) for the date

24.7.1995, for CategOry A lands fair compensation assessed wa . 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73,500I-per bigha for Category B land. The first notificatiOn with which I am 'concerned' is 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 days In Pratap 5nq' case (supra) the flr9/ Lncrease was determined to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Category A' LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 16 of . 19 lnçJs, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 per bigha I e 0 97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess the fair market value at 2,b1,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre The next notification with which I am concerned.j dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chiranht Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6 2 2003, the fair market value assessed was 4,03,425I-per bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21.120031 2003, fair market value of, land in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425I-i e 19,36,440/ per acre, which I hereby fix 1 propose to deal with the notification dated 24 9 2003, after dealing v4jith the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala As noted hereinabove, in Chirani' Lal's case (supra), pertaining tothé notifiation dated 62.200,3, fair. market value asessed by me was 4,03,425I-per bigha and thus, incresiflg the same by .10% for 2 years and 131 days; the figure comes to 4,98,589/- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 per acre The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17 6 2005 I decree the same LA APP 784/2005 connected !23 1 93,227.20 per acre as oh.17,06.2.005. For the land situated in Village B•akkarwafa the fair H . market value Js fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigh,a i.e. 20 43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003

vi) Appellants and cross-objectors w hb have succeeied would lso be entitled tosoltium and interest as per statite and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(O01) DLT 569 Sunder vs 110/, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgmept and decree. 'iii) The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers rnde therein. . . . ... (PRADEEP NANRAJOG) :. .. JUDGE JULY 8, 2011 mm . . LA,APP.784/2005 & connecte. . .. . . . :1:

$-47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.312/2010 NAR SINGH DECD. THUR LRS & ORS Appellants Through: Mr.L.B. Rai, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Sumer Sethi, Advocate for DDA S CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG