UOI v. Jagdish Gulati & Anr

ORDER %

23.08.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.266/2 008. A AUGUST 23, 2011 AK fl)

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. FA cf1 '93)u Of is' cP * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI • . % /ud iud + LA.APP. 266/2008 • JASINGH Through:. UOI&ANR; Through: S. ment Reserved On: 12th August, 2011 ment Delivered On: 23rd August, 2011 AppeUant Mr.S.Chäturvedi, Mr.Deepak KhosIa, Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.M.C.Verrna, Mr.V.P.Rana, MrRaj Singh, Mr.Uday Ram, Mr.D.R.Tomar, Mri.S.Dahiya, Mr.N.S.Dal&, Mr.S.M.Bhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta,. Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.S.S.Rana, Mr.SuñU Dalal, . Mr.D.S.Khatri and Mr.T.P.SKang, Advocates Vs. Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1. • Ms.Anusuya. Salwan, Advocate, for DSDC. . Mr.Ajay Verma, • Mr.Pawan MathUr, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi and . Ms.Beenashaw . Son] . . Advocatesior DDA. . AND (GRID-A) +. LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 267/2008, LA.APP. 26812 271/2008, . LA.APP.. 272/2008, 278/2008 • 5338701 LA.A.No.266/2OO8 & connected matters /0 LA.APP.28Ut2. CM APPL. 1/ 2797204J•, 286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP. 289/20U8, 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP.• 292/2008, LA.APP. 293/2008, LA*PP-19412008 & CM APPL. 12 82 1 - (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP: 296/2008, LA.APP. 299/2008,. LA.APP. 301/2908, ........ LA-APP /OO9- --LAPP 304/2008, LA.APP 3fl72t708, LA.APP. 337/2008, LA.APP. 339/2008, LA.APP. 357f2008, -tA.App. 39412008, LA.APP. 401/2008, LA.APP. 413/2008, LA.APP 443/2008, LA.APP. 472/2008,.... {App 48312008, 4S41208tAApp-.--- 487/2008; LA.APR. 492/2008, LA.APP. 493/2008, LA.APP. 49512008, LAAPP. . 496/2008, LA.APP. 526/2008, LA•.APP. 527/2008, LA.APP. 535/2008, LA.APP. 537/2008, LA.APP. 541/2008, LA.APP. 545/2008, LA.APP. 546/2008, LA.APP, 548/2008, LA.APP 554/2008, LA.APP. 563/2008, LA.APP 566/2008, LA.APP. 621/2008, LA.APP. 623/2008, LA.APP. 627/2008, LA.APP. 628/2008, LA.APP. . 635/2008, LA.APP. 648/2008, LA.APP. 649/2008, LA.APP . 662/2008,. LA.APP. 724/200,8 & CM APPL. 535.3/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 756/2008, LA.APP. 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP. 861/2008, LA;APP. 875/2008, LA.APP; 879/2008, LA.APP. 880/2008, LA.APP. 888/2008, LA.APP.. 894/2008, LA....pp 895/2008, LA.APP.. 905/2008, LA.APP. 906/2008, LA.APP. 907/2008, LA.APP. 910/2008 1 LA.APP. 911/2008, LA.APP. 925/2008, LA.APP. 926/2008, LA.APP. 927/2008, LA.APP. 931/2008, LA.APP. 932/2008, LA.APP. :933/2008, LA.APP. 934/2008, LA.APP. 936/2008, .LA.APP. 93912008, LA.APP. 941/2008, LA.APP. 942/2008, LA.APP. 944/2008, LA.APP.. S 946/2008, LA.APP. 955/2008, LA.APP. 958/2008, LA.AP 999/2008 & CM APPL, 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1014/2008 0 L.APP. 1019/2008, LA..APP, 1023/2008, LA.APP. 1026/2008; LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA.APP. 1071/2008, LA.APP. .1244/2008, LA.APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, LA.APP. 1268/2008, LA.APP, 1273/2008, CMAPPL. 2 377/2009, (Cross Objections) LA.APP. 86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 97/2009, LA.APP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP. 111/20094 . LAAPP. .. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, LA.APP. 251/2009, LA.APP. .2152120.0.9, U .APP. 265/2009, LA.APP. 2661200-9--&-CM.APRL. No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 267/2009, .LA.APP. 268/2009,. •LA.APP. 269/2009, LA.APP. 77012009, LAAPP. 271/2009,. LA.APP. 272/2009, LAAPP;.... 273/2009, LkAPP. 300/2009, LA.APP. . 306/2009, LA.APP. 454/2009, LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 521/2009, LA.APP. 532/2009, LA.APP. 535/200.9 &. CM APPL. 12886/2.011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009 & CM APPL. 12917/2011 (Cross Objtions),.... LA.APP --543/2O09----LA . , .. . APP .... &44/790.... LA.App.No266/2008 & connected matters . 566/2009, LA APP 570/2009 & CM APPL 13873/2011, LA APP 589/2009, LA.APP. 93/2009 'LAAPV: 59412009, LA1'FI". • .634/2009., LA.AP.P. 63-5/20.09, LA.APP. 636/2009, LA.APP............ A . . 637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 & CM APPL.I3878/2011, LA.APP. 112010, LA.APP. 29/2010, LA.APP. 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010; LA.APP, 107/2010, LA.APP. 108/2010, LA.APP. 109/2010, .LA.APP.

1.68/2010 •LA.APP. 169/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LAAPP. 171/2010, LA.APP. 220/2010, .LA.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, LA.APP.. '430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 (Cross Objections) LA.APP ........ 520/2010 CM APPL.13968/2011, LAAPP. 521/2010, CM APPL 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 522/2010, LA.APP.

52.3/2010, LA.APP. 524/2010 & cM APPL. 1291412011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 526/2010, •LA.APP. 527/201.0, 'LA.APP. • . . . . 528/2010, LA.'APP.' 529/2010, LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL. 229/2011 (Cross Objections), 'LA.APP 531/2010, LASAPP. •. . 532/2010 & CM APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 533/2010 & CM APPL. 12898/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 534/20 - " -f - pP"53'5f2010 &.CM APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 & CM APPL. 1288.7/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 53.7/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010. & CM APPL. 1297212011 (Cross Objectiôhs), LA.APP. 53912010 & CM APPL. 12900/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP. 541/2010,. LAAPP. 542/2010 & CM AP:PL.

1.9857/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. 12903/2011 (Cross • ' . Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL. 12888/2011 (Cross • . . . . Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010, LA.APP. 566/2010, LA.APP: • . . • . . 581/2010, LA.APP. 592/2010 & CM APPL. 227/2011 (Cross' • Objections), LA.APP 593/2010 & CM APPL. 12969/2011 (Cross • • Objections), LA.APP.. 594/2010, LAAPP. 595/2010 & CM APPL. O 226/2011. ('Cross Objections), . LA.APP.

5.96/2010, LA.APP.. 597/2010 & CM APPL.. '228/2011 (Cross Objections)., LA.APP • 598/2010 •& CM APPL. 487/2011 (Cross . Objections), 'LA.APP. • ' , • . 600/2010 & 'CM APPL. 12897/2011 (Cross Objections), LA..APP. 601/2010, LA.APP. 602/201.0, LA.APP. 603/2010. & CM APPL. 12881/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP. • 663/2010 & CM APPL.. 12916/2011 (Cross Objecti.ons, LA.APP.. 666/2010 & CM APPL 6748/2011 (Cross Objections), LA APP •675/2010'& CM A•PPL. 9988/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 761/2010, LA.APP. 792/2010 & CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross • Objections), LA.APP. 793/2010 & CM APPL 12899/2011 (Cross' • • . Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. 795/2010,. LA.APP. • • .40/2011, LA.APP. 195/2011 & CM APPL. 12892/2011 (Cross • Objections), LA.APP. 215/2011, LA.APP. 228/2011, LA.APP. • 229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011, LA.APP. • 231/2011, LA.APP. • 232/2011, LAAPP. 233/2011, LA.APP. 389/2011, . LA.APP LA.App.No.266/2008'& connected matters • 392/2011, LA.APP. 420120n;. 425/2011

07.08.2000 & Aard • (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated No.. 19/2002-03, Viltage-Pooth Khurd) AND . . (GrnD-B) + LA.APP. . 972/2008 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 1122/2008 & CM 2099/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1150/2008 & CM 12216/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1151/2008 & CM 2345/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. .1152/2008 & CM 2102/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 1153/2008. & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1154/2008,. LAAPP: .1187/2008, LA.APPO. 1188/2008, LA.APP. 1189/2008,. LA.APP. 1218/2008, LA.APP. 15/2009, . LA.APP. 82/2009, LA.APP. 100/2009, LA.APP. 102/2009., LA.APP. 113/2009, LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009, LA.APP. 214/2011. . .. (Relating to Notffication u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No. 11/2001-02, Village-Holambi Kalan)

AND (GRD'-C) . + LA.APP. 35912007, LA.APP. 202/2007, LA.APP. 382/2007, S .LA.APP. 383/2007,LA.APP. 269/2008, LA.APP. 811/2008, LA.APP, 928/2008, LA.APR 134/2009, LA.AP.P. 182/2009, LA.APP. 969/2010, , (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated' 07.08.2000 & Award No 08/2001-02, Village-Bawana) • AND (GRD-D) + • LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP, 145/2011 & CM 12911/2011 (CrOSS Objections)', LA.APP 146/2011. & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), •. . •• • LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters - -(ReLating-to Notification u1sitated 11 09 2000- &- Award-No-All 20/2Q0203, Vitiage-Khera Khurd). ErMem ± LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, LA.APP. 646/2009, 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP. 191/2010 . & CM No. • 22402/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 192/2010, LA.APP.. 193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, LA.APP. 196/2010, LA;APP. 197/2010, LA.APP. 297/2010, LAAPP. 299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, ux.App; 309/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 & CM No O 3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 37312010, LA.APP. 493/2010, LA.APP. 494/2010, LA.APP. 495/2010, LA.APP. 496/2010, LkAPP. 497/2010 & CM No. 22728/2010. (Cross. Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, LA.APP. 499/2010, LA.APP. 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& CM No. 23186/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 .& CM No. 10382/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. .. 503/2010, LA.APP. 504/2010, LA.APP. 505/2010, LA.APP. 506/2010, LA.APP. 507/2010, LA.APP. 508/2010, .LA.APP.: 509/2010 LAAPP. 510/2010, . LA.APP. 511/2010, LA.APP. 512/2010, •.LA.APP. 513/2010, LA.APP. 514/2010, LA.APP. 515/2010, LA.APP. • 516/2010,. LA.APP. 517/2010 & CM No. 7702/2011 (Cross, Objections), LA.APP. 518/2010, •LA.APP. 519/2010, LA.APP. 610/2010, LA.APP. .611/2010, LA.APP. 612/2010, LA.APP.• 613/2010, LA.APP. S . 618/2010, LA.APP. 619/2010, LA.APP. 620/2010, • LA.APP. • . 621/2010, LA.APP. 622/2010, LA.APP, 623/2010, LA.APP'. • 628/2010, LA.APP. 6471 12010 & CM No. 3847/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM No. • .. 3560/2011 (Cross Objections), • LA.APP. 65212010, LA.APP. • 841/20.10, LA.APP. 845/2010 •& CM No. 3563/20.11 (Cross • . Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM No, • 108j20Tht' Objectiuns), tAAPP855/2010, LA.APP. • , 856/2010 & . CM No. 9610/2011 '(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010. &CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross (Cross • . ObtectMnSr, LPP.I021t20 10, I.APP. 7812011, LA.APP. 7'9/20fl .APP. 80/2011,tAAPP. 81/2011, LA;APP. 82/201 ,1 -- -- ....... 85/2011, LA.APP. 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP 300/2011, LA.APP. 3221201.1, ....... - LAAPP. 324/2011.& CM APPL.1511012011, LA.APP. 385/2011. LAApp.No.26612008 & connected matters . Page 5 of. 74 AND (GRD-F) + LA.APP. 497/2008, LA.APP. 141/2009 & CM 5302/2010 (Cross Objections). (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.. 18/2003-04, Viii age-Holambi Kalan) . AND (GRD-G) ; + LA.APP. 777/2.010 &CM APPL.3808/2011, LA.APP. 77812010 & C14•2686/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 779/2010 & CM 12966/2009 (Cross Objections:), LA.APP. 213/2011, LA.APP. 261/2011, LA.APP. 326/2011, LA.APP. 327/2011, LA.APP. 328/2011, LA.APP. 330/2011k LA.APP. 331/2011, LA.APP. 332/2011, LA.APP.. 333/2011, LA.APP. 334/2011, LA.APP. 335/2011, .LA.APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, LA.APP. • • 341/2011, LA.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP. 350/2011, LA.APP. 351/2011, LA.APP.. 365/2011, LA.APP.377/2011, LA.APP.388/2011. • (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No. • 33/2003-04•, Vifiage-Hotambi Kalan) • AND (GRD.H) + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, LA.APP. 409/2011. ' (Retattngto Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No. 15/2003-04, Village-All Pur) + LA.APP. 481/2010 LA.Am:.No.26!2OO & con.rec trs C 6 nf 74 'I Ii AND (GRD-)) + LA APP. 780/2010 & CM No.2661/2011 (Cross Objections) LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM No.3833/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 900/2010 & CM No.3541/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 970/2010, LA.APP. 97112010 & CM No3805/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 972/2010 & CM No2667/2O11 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Crbss. Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 & CM No.. 14333/201].(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM . No.9992/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP.•. 977/2010, . LA.APP. 978/2010, LA.APP: 979/2010. & CM NO.9990/2011, •LA.APP. 980/2010 . & CM No.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP. 982/2010 & CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections), L.APP.. 94fl] .... CM ....No.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.' 985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 986/2010, LA.APP. 988/2010 CM No.3836/201.1 (Cross Objections), .LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP, 990/201.0,, LA.APP. 991/2010 & . CM No.99.84/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.• 1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 & CM No.9970/2011 (Cross Objections), A.APP... 1018/2010, LA.APP. 1020/2010 & CM. No.12939/2 . (Cross Objections)011, LA.APP. 1024/20 10 & CM No.6771/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1/2011 & . CM NoJ2964/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 2/2011 & CM No6752/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 25/2011, LAAPP. 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, LA.APP. 53/2011 & CM NO.6766/2011: (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 73/2011 & CM No.12922/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM No.6775/2011 (Cross. Objections), LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.APP. 110/2011, LA.APP. 111/2011, . LA.APP. 112/2011 & J, CM. No.10050/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP.. 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011 . (Relating . to Notification u/s 4 dated. 22.08.2001 & Award No.20/2003-04, Village-Rajapur Kalan) AND (GRIE LAAppNo.266/2008 & eonneted matters / / I + LA.APP. 488/2008, LAAPP. .49072G8LA.App. :491/2008, LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/2 GOL LA.APP. a6/2Dua& CM No.10393/2009 (Cross ObjectiOns), LA.APP. 896/20OS & .. &971209&, LA 1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP. 34/2010 . & CM No.7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 488/2010, LA.APP. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. .66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011, • LA.APP. 421/2011 . .. . • . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.12.2001 & Award No.17/2003-04, ViUagé-Sänoth) . • •.• AND (GRD-L) . . •••• + LA.APP 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, e •• •LA.APP.. 3.5.2/2008., LA..APP, 364/2008, LA.APP. 385/2008, LAAPP. 387/200.8, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP.. 454/2008,. LA.APP. 464/2008& CM No.11333/2008 (Cross. Objections), LA.APP. 465/2008, LA..APP. 466/2008, . LA.APP. 468/2008& CM No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, .LA.AP. 470/2008,. LA.APP. 471/2008, LAAPP. 560/2008, LA.APP; 561/200.8, LA.APP. 611/2008, LA.APP. 663/2008, 1 LA.APP. 676/2008., LA.APP. 678/2008, •LA.APP. 679/2008, LA.APP... 681/2008,' LA.APP. 682/2008, LA.APP. 683/2008, LA.APP. 722/2008, L..A.APP. 731/2008, LA.APP. .. 754/2008, LA.APP. 786/2008, LA.APP. 825/2008, LA.APP. 826/2008, LA.AP. 842/2008, LA.APP. 850/2008, LA.APP. 853/2008 1 .LA.APP. 883/2008, LA.APP. 90312008, LA.APP. 904/2008, LA.AP.P. 924/2008, LA.APP. 935/2008, • LA.APP. 937/2008, • LA.APP. 938/2008, LA.APP. 940/2008, LA.APP. 943/2008, LA.AP?. • 945/2008, LA.APP. 956/2008, • LA.APP. 95712008, LA.APP. .998/2008, LA.APP. 1001/2008 0 •LA.APP. 1004/20.08, LA.APP. • • 1007/2008, LA.APP; 1065/2008, . LA.APP. 1077/2008, LA.APF. • 1079/2008, LA.APP. 106/2009, LA.APP. 172/2009, LA.APP. • • 309/2009, L.APP. 374/2009, •LA.APP. 464/2009,. LA.AP,P. 465/2009, LA.APP. 468/2009, LA.APP. 539/2009, . LA.APP. • 546/2009, LA.APP. • 547/2009, LA.APP. • 565/2008, LA.APP. • 624/2009 0 LA.APP. 628/2009, ILA.APP. 630/2009; LA.APP., • • .23/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010, LA.APP. 35/2010, LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010. ; • • • (Re1at.n-g to Motiftcation u/s 4 dated 16.05.2002. & Award Nb. 29/2003-04, Vifläge-Shahpur Garhi) • • • LA.App.Nô.266/2008 & connected matters • . . AND S (GRD-M) +. LA.APP. 338/2008, LA.APP. 343/2008, LAAPP. 356/2008, LA.APP. 366/2008, LA.APP. 367/2008; LA.APP, 368/2008, LA.APP. 369/2008, . LA.APP. 370/2008, LA.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP 384/2008, LA.APP. 386/2008, LA.APP. .388/2008, LA.APP. 389/2008, EAPP 434/2008 LA.APP. 435/2008, LA.APP. 436/2008, LA.APP. 444/2008, LA.APP. 456/2008& . CM N0.11332/2008 (Cross Objectio.ns), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. 562/2008, LA.APP. 680/2008, LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. 716/2008, LA.APP. 720/2008, . LA.APP.: 723/2008, . LA.APP. 757/2008, LA.APP. 760/2008; LA.APP. . 767/2008, LA.APP. 793/2008, LA.APP. 823/2008, LA.APP. 824/2008, LA.APP. 837/2068, LA.APP. 908/2008, LA.APP. 909/2008, LA.APP. 952/2008, LA.APP. 1022/2008, LA.APP. 1024/2008, LA.APP. 1025/2008, LAAPP. 1063/2008, LA.APP. 173/2009, LA.APP. 307/2009,. LA.APP. 308/2009, LA.APP. 311/2009, LA.APP. 384/2009, LA.APP. 385/2009, LA.APP. 463/2009, LA.APP. 467/2009, LA.APP. 540/2009, LA.APP. 542/2009, LA.APP. 548/2009, LA.App; 627/2009, LA.APP. 63112009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/20.10. - . . (Relating to Notification . u/s 4 dated. 23.05.2002 & Award No.22/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) . AND (GRD-N) + LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 3.04/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 . . . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 2105.2002 & .A'ard N 16/2003-04, ViIIage-Hoiambi Kaan) . . . . ,.. AND.................... (GRD-O) . . ... + LAAPP 379/2008, LAA 381/2008, LAAPP 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, LA.APP. 4991/2008, LA.APP. 530/208, LA.APP. 83612008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 31012009 & CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 782/2010, LA.APP. 1,A.App.No.266/2008 &connected matters (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated. 23.05.2002 & Award No. 17/2004-05, Village-All Pur) -i (GRID-P) .. LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP. 674/2008 & CM No.7818/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, , LA.APP.• 706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 & CM No. 7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008, . LA.APP. 882/2008, LA.APP. 885/2008, LA.APP. 891/2008; LA.APP.' 898/2008. & CM No.2355/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 902/2008, LA.APP. 922/2008, LA.APP. 923/2008, LA.APP. 929/2008& CM .o.2351/2009. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. .....30/2008 & CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 960/2008, LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.ARP. 981/2008 & CM No.1261/2009 (Cross Objections) LA APP 982/2008, APP 983i2 008 & CM No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 & CM ' No.839/2010 "(Cross Objections),. LA APP. 985/2008, LA.APP.: 997/2008 0 .LA.APP. 1002/2008, L.A.APP. 1006/2008, LA.APP." 1027/2008, LA.APP; 1078/2008. & "CM No.22.4712009 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP; 1.127/2008 & CM No2111/2009 (Cross.' Objections), LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP. 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1257/2008, LA.APP 1258/2008 & 'CM No;7791/2009 (Cross ObjectiOns), L&.APP. 1,3/2009 & CM No.2151/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 22/2009, LA.APP. 83/2009, LA.APP. 99/2009, :[fipp. 103/2009, LA.APP. 104/2009, LA.APP. 107/2009, LA.APP. 115/2009 & CM No.6482/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 122/2009 & CM No.1432112009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, LA.APP. 17412049, ••LA•.APP. 250/2009, LA.APP. 260/2009, LA.APP'.'. 261J200&_ LA APP 26212OO9, LAAPP264/2009 LA APP 293/2009, LA.APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. ' 301112009, LA.APP. 302/2009, LA.APP. 30312009, LA.APP. 365/2009. ....LA.APP_______ 433/2009, AA'P 449/2009, LA APP 46112009, LA APP 471/2009, LA.APP. 48712009, LA.APP. 501/2009, LA.APP. ' 5187zo09 ........ LA.APP. 527/2009, L&APP. 530/2009, LAAPP. 531/2009, LA.APP. 533/2009, LA.APP. 53712009, LA.APP. LA.App.N6.266/2008 & connected matters , - - - 53O9APP545/ 2oo9, APP554/2oo9Ã P. 555/2009, .APP. 588/2009, 626/2009, LA.APP 619/2009; L.A.APP ........62912009, LA.APP.. 625/2009, LA;APP. 38/2010 1 LA.APP. LA;APP. 43/2010, LA.APP131/2010, 649/2009, LA.APP LA.APP. 202/2010, LA.APP.. 203/2010, LA.APP 204/2 10, tAAPP. 22512010.,. LA.AP.P 227/2010, 372/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010,. .LA.APP. 410/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 303/2010, LA.APP. 479/2010, LA.APP•. 480/2010, .LA.AP.P. 418/2010; 482/2010, LA.APP.• 483/2010, LA.APP. 484/2010, LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP. 486/2010, LAAPP 487/2010, LAAPP 604/2010 LAAPP 606/2010 & CM No.19878/2010 (Cross Objections), .LA.APP. 607/2010, LAAPP 608/2010, LAAPP 609/2010, LAAPP 614/2010, LAAPP 615/2010, LAAPP 671/2010, LAAPP 695/2010, LA.APP. .705/2010, LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.APP. 785/2010 .'& QvJ No.12968/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. H 786/2010 & CM No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. • 787/2010, LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. : 789/2010, LA.APP. 790/2010,. LA.APP; 820/2010 & CM No.12880/2011 (Cross ,.Qction, APP. 821/2010, LA.APP.• 915/2010, LAAPP 916/2010 & CM No.6773/2011 (CrOss Objections), LA.APP. 14/2011 '&.. CM No.6754/2011 .(Cross Objections), LAAPP. 26/2011 & CM No.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 55/2011. & CM No.12894/2.011 I (Cross . Objections), LA.AP.P.:.. 59J2O11,LAApp, 63/2011,LA.App. 69/2011, .LA.APP.70/2011. .LA.APP.72/20.11.& CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 76/2011 & CM No 12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA APP 114/2011 & CM No 12869/2011 (Cross Objections), LA APP 135/2011, LAAPP 136/2011 & CM No 12971/2 (Cross Objections)011,LA.App. 137/2011. & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objectionsj, LA.APP. 143/2011, LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APP. • 203/2011 & CM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections); LA.APP.•.. 273/2011 & CM No 13289/2011 (Cross Objections), LA APP 338/2011 . . . . . . (R&ating to Notification u/s 4 dàed 27.01.2003. & Aiàrd No 11/2004-05, Vitlage-Sanoth) AND .. .. . (GRD-Q) + LA.APP. 336/2010 & CM APPL.14845/2011, LA.APP.

6.24/201.0,., LA,.APP, 625/2010, LA.APP. 626/2010, LA.APP. 627/2010 & C.M. No.3853/2011.. (Cross ObjectiOns), LA.A.PP. 629/2010, LA.APP. 630/2010, LA.APP. 642/2010, LA.APP. 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA.APP. 64512010 & . C-MI. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . . • ___ ______ No 3587/2011 (Cross Otjtins), LA APP 646/2010, '1 LA APP 664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. .667/2010, LA.APP... 668/2010, LA APP 669/2010 & C M No 676912011 (Cross - ( ss Objections), LA.APP 672/2010, LA.APP. 673/2010 & C.M. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, LA.APP.. • : 701/2010 & G.M. No.3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. • . . 702/2010, LA.APP. 703/2010 & C.M No.9941/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 & •C.M. No.12878/2011 (CrOss Objections) LA.APP.....73.5/2.0.10, .LA.APP. .736/2010,. LA.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, A.APP. 739/2010 & C.M. No.35690011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. .• 740/2010 .& CM No.14322/2011. (Cross Objections), .. .LA.APP. 800/2010 & C.M.No 3217/2011, LAAPP 801/2010, LAAPP 802/2010, LA.APP. 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010 LA.APP. 809/2010, . LA.AP.P. 810/2010 9 LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP. •• 812/2010,.. LA.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010, LA.APP. • . 15/2 -0 LA.App 816/2010 .& C.M. No.3862/2011. (Crss V Objections), LAAPP 817/2010, LAAPP 838/2010, LAAPP 839/2010 &. C.M. No.10335/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 870/2010 &. C.M. No.9946/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.

9.17/2010 1 LA.APP; 922/2010 . LA.APP. 923/2010, LAAPP. 924/2010, LA.APP. 925/2010, LA.APP. . 945/20.10 . & C.M. . No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), .LA.APP. .975/20.10 .&. C,.M... No.2664/2011 ..(Cross ObJections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M. No3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/20.10, LA.APP. . 56/2011 . & CM. No.9939/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. • 74/2011, LA.APP..96/2011, LAAPP. .97/2011, LA.APP.. 98/20.11, LA.APP. 99/2011, LA.APP.• 100/201. 1, LA.APP. 103/20 11, L.APP.. • 104/2011, LA.APP. 105/2011, .LA.APP. .106/2011, LA.APP.. 107/2011,.. LA.APP. 108/2011, . LA.APP.. 109/20.11, LA.APP. 113/2011, LA.APP.165/2011, LA.APP.32912011

. . . (R&ating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27 01 2003 & Award No 10/2004-05, Village-Rajapur Kalan) CORAM: • . . . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG . . . Whether the Reporters of local papers may be aUowed to see the judgment? . . . . To be referred to Reporter or not? Whet.er the judgment should be reported in the Digest? . - v' 10 villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, AU Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue District (North-West) and if we seethe map of the city of Dlhi part of Delhi. They lie wtthin an area between the 'V' formed by Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 and G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-I. The Delhi-Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-i. Whereas villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between therailway • line and.NH-i, the other viflages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line. Narela and • Shahpur Garhi :are, towards the east of the railway line. The urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rôhini exists has been developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is situated in the iand within the aforesaid V. Bawana inoustri.ai • Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid. "I'. Historically, except for village Nareta, all villages have been • treated as equivalent with respect to their location. The instant decision decides the issue as to what should be the fair market value of agricuftural lands in the said villages as of the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 • , 7:12.2001, 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003. Needless to • state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time 1 on arairt Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 184fffãfTãnd insaidI0ViiWt acquired and •vend exceptiandsin the Revenue Estate of vifiaqeNarela • . where the purpose of acquisitio.n was partly residential and.: • . partIy indusbiaL in the other vUtages, acquisition wasfor the • . . purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a LA.App.No.26612008 & conrected matters roa.d u.r freight cGmp e.x. Threson... 'hy, suth large atcof .. lands were needed was to set up an industrial estate pursuant to a decision taken to shift all industries operating in non-conforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas 3 • must highiight.that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the. s.mein a . by them' as also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and except pertaining to village Nareta, 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 abetter value.an.d for which it was urged that way back in the year 1963when iands in the revenue estate of village Narel.a and....adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of 2/- per sq.yd. vis-à-v!s the price determined f lands in village Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I mUst further highlight that learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Marnurpur comprised . . the same revenue estate, with the market i e Mandi being in village Narea and the villageabadi .beingin Mamurpur; .. .. . • 4.. The position of the awards made from time to time and the relatable notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have been detailed by me while noting the various Land Acquisition_Appeals and the Cross Objections, as per the index hereinabove and thus! need not repeat the same.

¶5. . A perusal of all the awards announced from timeto. t wo:Lthat L.e&nedLand... Acquisition Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to

notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from .... ......t .. time notiing the minimum rates for agriculturaF lands in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between LA.App.No166/2008 & connected matters Page 14 of 74. w to o, tne iana value nd this is to be 'found in afewawardwhere aoTh'v .e been put in 2 or 3 categories ...i'"Ctgory 'A', Cateo 'B and Category 'C,

¶6A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the learned Reference Court has determined fair market value on different principles and for purposes of clarity .1 may note the basis on which the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court have determined the compensation payable The same would be as under:- . . . . . . . . . . Pertaining to the notification dated. 78.2000 issued thS-e€tieR 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village P00th Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial .units, as against fl3.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A!... lands and fl2.26 .'las per acre,, for Category B' lands awarded by the learned' Land. Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the, policy for minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. M.82 lacs. per acre andhas granted' increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000 till 7 8 2000 i e the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fair market value of land. in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and has ignored that there was Category 'B' land for which he had to make necessary adjustment Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.812000 pursuant whereto 211.14 bigha land was aqu:.ired in village Holambi Kalan, the Land'Acquisition Collector treated the land as of same character and determined fair market value with reference to the policy for minimum' rates in sum of fl3.82 lacs: LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters" . per, acre which has been enhanthdby-ttie -ieai-nd_Reé4r e Court to U4,12,995/- per acre by reIyng upon a dec ision of a ivsfonBencFof-this-eourtreporiecl 2OO6(Vj-a -De+H-13 Gairal Vs. UOI Wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market value.' determined was 9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and treating the said date and the said.. price as the base, giving 1.% of 2 years, 8 months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been. determined. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.82000 pursuant whereto agncultural lands in village Bawana were qufred, the. Acquisition Collector determined fair market' value for Category 'A' lands, with reference to the policy and fixed the same at 13.82 lacs per acre for' Category'A' lands and

12.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. 'The learned •.. ,.Rf.rece Court maintained the same. . Pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 pursuant whereto.agricultural Iands in village KhCra Khurd were ; . acquired for shifting industrial units, the Land Acquisition CollectOr has, for Category 'A' 'ands determined fair market' • . value, with reference to the policy effective from 1.4.2000 in • sum of1382 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands has fixed the same at fl2.62 lacs per acre. The, learned Reference Court : has adopted the poitcy wherein mnmum pnce fixed as of

1.4.2000 was T13.82 lacs per acre and for 128. days i.e, the number of days. between .1.4.2000 till 11.9.2000, appreciating . the same by 12% has determined fair market value at 14,40,157/-and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands... ' Pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 pursuant whereto 1140.5.8 bigha land was acquired in Narela for development of sectors 1 to 4, Phase l,Narela, with respect to the pollcy of minimum price with effect from 1.4.2001 the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market alue in sum of T15.7 läcs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category B' lands. determined the same at 14 lacs percre.The learned Reference Court adopted the minimum . price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001 and gave appreciation for a period of 1 month for the reason the notification under Section 4. of th e is dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced the compensation to 15,85,700/-per. acre which has uniformly .... - . aWME'd. . • F Pertanng to the notftcaton dated 22 8 2001 .. wherunder 512.16 bigha land in viflage HoImbL Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision On the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2.001 i.e. .15.7 lacs per acre which has been held to be the fair market value for Category 'A' lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determined at fl4 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e.. 715.7 lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum... for 143 days an, the price so fixedis fl6,43,811/-per acre which has been uniformly awarded. . . . . Pertaining to same notification dated 228.2001 pursuant whereto 512.16 bigha land was acquired in village Alipur, onthe same reasoning which has been adopted for village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same compensation as determined for village Holambi Kafan has been worked out by the learned Land AcqUisition Col!ector as also by the learned Reference Court who has done . away with ca-t-egorizatioft-

. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 192.15 bigha of land was acquired in village LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . Holambi Khurd, the reasoning of the LAC and the learned . :4 Reference Court and the price determinedis the same as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in the same uniform category. . . Pertaining to the same notification, dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural la.nds in village Rajapur: Kalan were acquired the reasoning. and the fair market value determined: by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan Holambi.Khurd and Ajipur save and except in this village the acquired land was. of uniform category. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.12.2001.. pursuant whereto 222.05 'bigha land was acquired in village Sanoth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township, the learned Land Acquisition' Collector has assessed compensation uniformly in sum of .15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per the.policy for minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001 '. and the learned Reference Court has adopted the same price. and given appreciation for 250 days at the rate, of 12% per annum to reach the figure of 16,99,042/- per acre. K. Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi. were acqUired, the learned Land. Acquisition Collector has determined compensation in sum 01 '15 7 -iacsper acre which is the 'minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has simply held that the land owners would be entitled to enhance compensation at the rate of 115% per annum compounded.. I may highlight that the learned Reference Court has not worked out the compensation and has left it to the Executing Court to, do so, however I fi.n.d that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be LA.App.No.2.66/2008 & connected matters .. . . . . Page 1$ of 74. fl7,75,369.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as L42OJIñdffIëThJ priceat 15.Täs, f 1 3earah..d 45 days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned Addition& Sessions-Judge.. . :. L. Pertaining to the hofication dated 23.5.2002. pursuant whereto agricultural; lands in village Sh'ahpir Garhi were acquired the learned. [AC and the learned Reference CoUrt have determined same compensation as per the reasoning pertaining, to the same village for the notification dated...

16.5.2002 and.{ find that sincethere is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision of the Reference Court comes to fl7,79,781.78 per acre. same

pursuant whereto 445.81 bigha land in village i-Ioiambi Kalan was acquired, the learned_[AC 'has_determined fair market value in sum of.fl5.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per minimum price w.eJ. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopted the same reasoning as was adopted while determining the fair. market value of lands in village Holambi Katan , which were.'. • . . 'acquired pursuant to the notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. ado'pted, the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the,decision in Ga/rat's case (supra) and appreciating the same by 12%' compounded per annum the price determined is 22,14,239i-per acre. N. , .Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.5.2002 .., whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Al:ipUr wereacqIr ....' the learned Land . Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at the rate of 15.7 lacs per acre based on the minimum price as, of 1.4.2001, which price has been adopted as the. base by the (earned Reference Court and after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w !e.f. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . Page 1.9 of 7 L4L2QaLtaLZ35 2002, the pn e_deermmed '5T T 8&14Qper 0 Pertaining the notification dated 27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bighà . land in village Sanoth and ------21883 -bi - ant1 in-- ffiage--Rajapur Kaianwere acquired,,the learned Land Acquisition Collector1 resting his reasoning on the minimum price.notified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the same value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages. i.e. T15.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of .fl4 lacs per acre and for Category 'C' lands in sum of T12.3 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted' different reasoning in some impugned decision and different in a few. In some, decisions the learned Reference Court has. a.dopted the minimurn price in .sum.o of fl57 lacs per acre as ofL4;0G1a8 appreciating the same by 12% per annum fOr a period of 666' days has 'fixed fair market value at 19,I3,765/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court: has.' determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder'I bigha and S 13, bi,swa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue 'estate of village' Rajapur Kalan was purchased for',. 5,39,690/-. .' . . .

¶7Since the learned. Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned Reference F Court have 'relied upon the notifications: issued, from time to time by the Government of NcT.Delhi, fixing minimum price for agriculturat lands in Delhi, let me therefore note the' dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi sirce the same would be réevant for the present decision. The same would beas under:- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' ME H. E E1Pfl% (in iakhs/acre) I increase per annum +• I Notification of the price

3.5.1990

27.4.1990

4.65

25.7.1997 •1.4.1997

10.0

11.5

24.91998

1.4.1998

11.2

.

21.11.2000 -

12.32

9.8.2001

1.4.1999

1.4.2000

12.16

13.82 ...• 11 .

9.8.2001

1.4.2001

15.7

11.5. .7. .

30.8.2005 3082005

1.7.584 .

2.98 8,,. 1 24.1.2008 118.12.2007

89.51

¶8.: From the tabulation hereinabove noted it woild'. be apparent that after minimum price was iast fixed w.e.f,

27.4.1990 in sum of. T4.65 lakhs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to flO lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. .w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price was enhanced by 1.1.2% to reach the figure of fl1.2 lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to T12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001.. was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f; :

1.4.1999 to f12.16 .Iakhs/acre i.e.. the price increased by 11 11/6 per annum with reference to the price determined as of _1.4J998 and. vide. same notif.icatiI:thé1Irice......was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to T13.82 lakhs/acre. i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-à-vis the previous i.e. !12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 'the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-à-vis the previous price of T13.82 lakhs/acre.to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . . - reath the fiur ce wa 'next enhanced w e f 30 8 2005 to 17 584 Iakhs/acre whith gives us flflCutoJy 2.98% per annum and then the price rose to 53 iakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annum with reference to the base figure of T17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 308.2005. -refiedF upon by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court, it would be beneficial for the reader of the present decision, as I feet,. that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. o would hiç. hlight that from the side of the land owners, each • argument was in the afternative and it was urged that they • 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 soon. From the side of Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed byl the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 7 8 2000 for village Pooth Khurd, the notification dated

22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated • 7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notificationdated 11.9.2000 fOr • village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.52001 for viflage . Narela, and the notification dated 22 8 2001 for village All. Pur, and the notification dated 27 1 2003 for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands •were of.uniform character and It ..........was urg—ed.that_corrective_action isrmijed by doing 2 things. • . Firstly, with reference to the. minimum price notified by the • Government from time to time, 11.5% increase per annum and tncreasew-s ecs1vwith reference to the dates of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; requiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annun: in thèTfèat Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters .• requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C' by the Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of which categorization it was . urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the cOntrary i.e. to show that such lands which were •put in Category 'B' and Category 'C', on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect . . . .

¶10Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference.Court was not justified in : ignoring the 2 sale deeds .dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acq.uisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also Th stedeed dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same L&Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricuftural land in village Ma.murpur was sold @ U6.75. takhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-112, 2 bigha and 19. biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village .Khera Khurd for a sum of 732.4 lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price.. as • of 25.3.2000 y4nder Ex.PW-1/3 would be T28.89 lakhsfacre and pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be 63;478 .lakhs/acre. It was .thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair marköt value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, . 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002

25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications. were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument, pertaining to village Narela, it was urged that the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% no.re LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . b. and for which the argument was that when.. .in thpas R

pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the ReferenceCourt had given said benefit to agricuftural lands in . village Mamurpur-Narela by.giving a.. price benefit of 2/- per .sqyd. This was upheld by the. Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C A No 4405/1997 UO/ vs D/iaramb,r & Ors The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in sum of 6,650/- determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to 16,750/- per, bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to 22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by...the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored

¶11Learned 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, Nareia Residenti& Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed into residential and industrial estates, had resufted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, • required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSIDC and DDA i e the implementing agencies, which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini • Residential Scheme and Bawana lhdustrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial .. . - Estate and for which learned, counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by the learned. Reference Court, . which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged. . • 12. Aiternatjve to the second submission, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram.. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . • . -vs--Unioii üf/nd,a i t was permssib'e to determne fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% perannum for different periods. ShJ.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, ; with, reference to the decision in Bed/Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per'annum till 30.3.1965 had to.be @ 6 0/q per annum with, reference to the base price fl6,150/- per bighá as of 30.10J963.i.ethe price affirmed by the Supreme Cáurt in S Oharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till

31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12%.per annum till the various dã[ëèh the 8 notificäfis under Sëtion 4. of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with ____which Lamconcerned. i.nlhè prcent.appals... So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to 56,88,759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the rèaso.n he was appearing in such 'appeals where the price fixation has to • '

be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned coUnsel urged that on the same principle: market value should. be assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2.000,

11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7:12.2001, 163.2002 and

23.5.2002.

¶13The fourth argument advanced was, and for which -reference was made by learned_counsel for the parties in the evidence led in 'LAC No.99/2005, which is subject matter of 2, cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.NO.268/2008 filed by the Iandowners LAAPP.No.292!2008 fUedby Union_of India, that fai.r market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA'.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . testimony of Ram Kisharito t-he effect that byseffing agncuftural + produce from hjs-tands-he.ijsed to earn fl lakh per bigha per iiüi i.e. thefáir market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Ad 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged: that the fair market value as of said date should be-20 lakhs per bigha'. I may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by • Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2.008 and the • respondents in LA.APP.Nb.292/2008. . - • .14. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged th.at for each of the notification in question the fairTharket'vátue Ought to have been determined with reference to the notification whic.h was dosestJnpDint of time, where under minimum (and value was fixed by the Government and the notification dated':

24.1.2008 where under T53 lakhs per acre Was the minimum price fixed as of 18J2.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument. . .... . . • 15. The last argument, which was in the alternative tothe first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.200.3, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for 5,39,6901-,. determined the fair market value as per thesaid.. sale deed in the foUowing words: ,'Referpara 17 of the decision dated 71 2010 in-L4C No.117h009J: "If we add stamp 4u'-in-- the sale price 3,69,9061-pérbiqha 701 160 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes to T 17, 74,1091-per acre or 3,68,9061-per b/ghà. Further if we give 12% increase on said amount for intervening period bet7a--te fl2the date when the sale deed was ..executed_and . . the. of notOication u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003). i.e. 8 moflths it comes to 19,16,0371- (round off 19,16,0401-). " The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition. i.e. Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land;was put in.Category 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred to.the land being comprised in K srao.Z00and that page No.56-57 .otthe award.would evidce .... th t1nd .... comprised. in Khasra.. No 200 ad-measuring I 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 US 7 {akhs per acre based upon the notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by U 7 lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value, determined whereof was U4 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another U.7 takhs per acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determined whereof was fl2.3 lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument preciseiy was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sate deed in question, the sane had to be...Or Category 'C' lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price had to be. increased by 71.7 .lakhs per acre for each category. . . .

16.. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced_by Sh.SanJay Poddarjearned senor counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected.in para 9 above and hence I need not repeat the same. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Pagç 27 of 74

¶17In various sub-p•ras of. para 6 heréinábove, I hav, capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition• CoJlecto--- - -and-the leanedRefererce Court pertainingtóthe 8 notifications issued under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act. 1894 and • relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence my journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts • noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector, and the learned Refere.nce Court as per various sub-. parasofpara6above.

¶18But before dealing with the arguments I. need to highlight various anomalies which strike the reader at the outset. The same would be:- • • A. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 wherein lands were acquired in village Pooth Khurd,. for Category 'B' lands, having depressions and pfts, deduction effected vis-à-vis the price for Category 'A' lands is 71.56 lacs per acre and pertaining to the notification dated 11.92000 where price has been determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd, said price differential has been worked out at fl.2. lacs per acre and while determining fair market valu.e for agricultural lands In village Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notification: dated 2.5.2001 the deduction effected is !1.7 lacs per acre, which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of agricultural land invillage Holambi Kalan was determined as of the date .22.8.2001. Pertaing to the nqtificipn dated

27.1.2003 and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential on said count has again been taken at fl.7 lacs per acre to inter Se differentiate the..price between Category 'A';Catgory 'B and Category 'C' lands. In other words, the price differential has varied between T1.2 iacs per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and .i.7 Iacs per acre. LA..App.No.266/2008 & connected matters B. The learned Land Acquisition Coflector has adopted the minimum price notified closest in point of time to the date when Section 4 notification was issued without appreciating the land price with reference to the date of the Section 4 tiotificationi.e. no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has been given. . €- eearned Reference Court ha....adoped the minimurn pric.e notified and has given appreciation ranging between

11.59/6 per annum and 12% per annum and in some cases has compounded the same and in some given said benefit at the simple rate.: . . • .. D. Pertaining to viDage Holambi KaJan..where acquisitions were made pursuant to the notifications dated 7.8.2000 and

23.5.2002. the learned Reference Court has adopted the price determined by this Court in Ga/rats case (supra) as of :15.11.1996 and has given appreciation, at the rate . of 12% simple per .:annum for the former notification and at the rate of 12% compounded per annum for the 'latter. . Whereas for the notification dated 27.1.2003 the learned Reference Court, in some references has determined • ," the fair rnarIt value with reference to the minimum pride notified as: of 1.4.2001 and has given appreciation, in some cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale deed dated203.2002. ... Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Col)etor has classified lands in Category 'A', 'B.' and 'C' reasons thereof have een given in the award but the learned Reference Court, while T wWTh'iai1fofm . Ort'pensation, has..giMen no. re. to why rea,tingafl_lands. to be of same.characte.r_an&qiiality.

¶19Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages ahd8 notifications issued. under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, 1 think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 'fcts, .,.Which ..Wôu d ..b.é Ithy. .dataforfuer tabular form the data would.be as ucer:- . Viflage Date of LAC. compensation ADJ compensation Section 4 (in lakhs/acre) with (in .lakhs/acre) with Notification reasons reasons Pooth

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A'I3.82 Cat. 'Uniform. I Khurd •, .. Cat. 'B' 12.26 t14.3728. Minimum. price..as- --Minimum price, as of 1.4.2000 of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.s. Holambi

7.82000 T13.82 . . .

14.12995. Kalan . . . Minimum' price as Price as in Ga/rat's of 142000 ., case' as of

15.11.1996 ' with 12% increase p.a. Holambi

22.8.2001 ' Cat. 'A' T15.7 'Cat. Uniform. Katan , Cat. 'B' fl4 ' •16.43811. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 , of 1.4.20.01 with 12% incréasé p.a... Holambi

23.5.2002 U5.7 ' ,

22.14239. Kalan ' Minimum price as Price.as in Ga/rats of 1.4.2001 , case.. , as , of

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

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' 13.82 No enhancement Cat. 'B'12.62 given..

Minimum price as'

of 1.4.2000 Khera. ' 11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' 13.82 Cat. Uniform., Khurd' ' Cat. 'B' 12.62 '

14.40157. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2000, with 12% increase'p.a. Narela

2.5.2001 1 Cat. 'A'15.7 Cat. Uniform. . Cat. 'B' 14

15.857. . Minimum price as Mthirnum price as of 1.4.2001 . of 1.4.2001 with LAApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters -4 . I/fl 12% increase .p.a AU Pur

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' t15.7 T16.43811. Cat. 'B' !14 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with • of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. AU Pur .23.52002 . T15.7

17.8524 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 . Minimum price as tL42D0i wfth.j 12% increase p.a. Holambi

22.8.2001 T15.7 f 16.4381'1 Khurd Minimum price as Minimum price as • . of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p,a. Rajapur

22.8.2001 fl5.7 . fl6.43811 Kalan Minimum price as Minimum price as .. of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with • . . . 12% increase p.a. Rajapur

27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' fl9.13765 for Kalan . , Cat. 'B' 14 . . Uniform category. Cat. 'C' fl2.3 Minimum price as. Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. in some cases. . fl9.1604 for Uniform category based on sale 1 .deed . dated. • . .

25.5.20.02 with 12% increase pa. Sanoth

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

2.7.1.2003 Cat. 'A' fl5.7 fl9.13765 . . for 1-a. 'b'1 -OL . \j ,-4-riitr., '' J: I Cat. 'C fl2.3 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with I of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Shahpur

16.5.20 1 at A'-i53 Mninum—prii of L4.2001 Minimum price as of. •L42OO1. Wit compound interest @1L5%p.a. Shahpur

23.5.2002 7•797 .................... Garhi . . Cat..'A' fl5.7.......... Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.42001 of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p. I now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by !med counsel for the land owners and the 2 . submissions S urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 heretnabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to .fllOfl of India) . ............. . The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3• which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sate deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to T26.75 Iakhs per acreand the latter @ T63.478 lákhs per.acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine • fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages ifl question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchasedby a religious trust by the nameof 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for regious pu.rpose and was bemg.. used for a religious pu ................T.............

The sale deed Ex.PW-112 has Ukewise been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . . Page 32 of 74. of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization staed —Th-the zation rthe said piece of land as it was the only plot of the.requisfte size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee. . . . . .

¶22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land A cpu/sit/on Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rob/ni & Mr. (Refer. para'6) and 2009 (14) 5CC 369 fvlohd. RaUfudd/n Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para13) sale transactions evidenced in • a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section • . . 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sa!e deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may. be special circumstances which have led the buyer, to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a. well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the. area and the, prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a .good index of fair market value of the lan'ds in the area. 'I would. be failing if I do.not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification datedI'

27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist fora much leEser price i.e. fl7,74,109/- peracre' as against the price which comes' to T63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and 28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic eVideiiceof the fanciful price

¶23dpart_ftQ.[. the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in pa,ra 21 above_wouiiLbe_actditianal reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair more so • for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between • 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the morea reason to be circumspect on sate ..deeds having intrinsic . evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the • •. buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 1912.2008 disposing of abatçh of appeals,' lead matter being. • . LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap S/ncih (since 'deceased) 'thru LRs Vs. UOT& Ors It was highlighted thif the sale dééd€herein by. which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory Which had, been ignored by the ; learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by.the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. . The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did' not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic, as indicative of the market value, bUtfbUM that if the 'price therein, Was reduced by 113rd, the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 11? would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds p.roduced by the Government were giving a price of 1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price 3,26,600/.. per bigha and the average wofld ......which was"_near about , the price of 2,15,160/- per bigha, if 113rd would be deducted from the sum of 3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the Sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as.. of the said dates at the same sUm arrived at as àforesaid.Le, 2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read, pedantically but meaningfully. it is not that the Court treated the sale deed in questiOn as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to .be given. L would highlight once again, that Ihave hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutu&' destructive evidence of the 2 sale.deeds reflecting fair, market value. Thus, the first argument as. noted in para 10 above is rejected and i immediatei highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market vaiue of the land, pertaining to VillaeiNar&a,' 'in view of the decision in Dharambir's case be suitably enhiduld be dealt with by me at the .end_when.l determine the fair market value of lands for the villages in question. The second argument. contours whereof area to be. found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the 1! L.A.App;No.2661/2008 & connected nitter Page 35 of.74 . - latesfionouncement_oi_the_Supiime_Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) 5CC 769 La! Chand vs. UO!. But .before that I must highlight that the decision in Lai handcase (supra) predicated a claim on a .DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for resIdential housing sch.ern.e and the_argument was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands. in village Rfthala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V 1 formed by NH-i and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and ROhtak Road. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, dëvéloping the same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts, in paras ii to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence?

¶11The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications from members . of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the RohiniResidentiat Housing Scheme. The brOchure stated; that the plots were in. a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the:surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: SLNOLPIOt size Category Rate (per square metre)

26 sq rn 32 sq rn 48 sq .O.s.q rn 90 sq m Economically weaker sections (E-WS) . _ ........ Low income group (LIG) Low. income gpJG) Middle income group (MIG) Middle income group (MIG) WI Rs125 Rs15Th ....... .......... Rs200 Rs200 LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters S The appellants .• contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the -said proviionaj rte.; hould .be taken as indicative ofthe ruling market price.

¶12On careful consideration, we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cani-iot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several, reasons. Firstly, 'market value has to be determinedwith reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates, of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area. Secondly, D'DA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value' determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of 'freehold iand whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. ' First factor ' The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential r for development), with reference to the sale price of small ,devel'oped plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the pric'e of such devetoped plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first Is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a, 'residential 'layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utifise aroUnd 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and . civic amenities (community fadlities), etc. The , development authority will also . incur considerable ' expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout,.which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost. of providing roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities, Taying wi lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil developed, plot. The two factors taken together would be • . the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. • . . On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthori.sed private residential layout, the percentage of —_-----___-___4educton_f_oprne.!!.rnay ....be....far tess. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities.. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to .be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for.' movement of vehides., The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and mihimal. Thus.:• • the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in "unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% • . .

pl,us 20% in all 40% as against '75% in regard to DDA . plots. . The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the • . standard....and..q ua.iity of the layout. . .. . The position with reference to industrial layouts wilL be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq rn to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no.playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities), will be farless; and the cost t 6 be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made• from the cost of an industrial plot . may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% • . for residential plots. .

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

¶20Therefore • the deduction for the "development: factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a' developed, layout, to arrive at the cost of. undevelopediand, 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 or an industrial layout. ft is • . that the development cost incurred by • statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incUrred • . by private developers, having reg d--to.. higher overheads • and expenditure.

21..' Even among the layouts formed by •DDA, the • percentage of land utilised for roads, civic 'amenities, parks and playgrounds may varywith reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residential- ----------- mefccndUstJ1 aRd-even-among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard' to' the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community ---' --fac-ilities, parks and playgrounds_provided.

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

¶23DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different ratesfor allotment of plots in the same layout, depending .upon the economic .,status of the allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically . . weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots m'ay. be earmarked' for 'persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs .100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may beR 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle income group and Rs 250 per squaremetre for persons. belonging to high income groups. 24; The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates', as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the applicants for allotment. Third factor . . LA.App.Nô.266/2008 & connected matters Some develOPment authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some - development.authot, like ODA aiiotplSQT101 basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others, have lesser premium1 and more substantial annual rent There are standard methods for determifling.the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods or étermifling the value of freehold (ownership) rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very, difficUlt to arrive at the . market value of a freehOld property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by ODA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease premium. rate (allotment price) charged by DDAI as being equal to the market value of the propertY HoweVer, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in etermifliflg the market value of the adjoining undeveloPed freehold lands. The bOA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant.' 1 2-8-. The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the • learned Reference Court and i reproduce the same by extractiflQ from LAC Reference NO.117A/2009. The argument advanced before the teamed Reference Court, being the same as was n noted by the iearned Reference advanced before me, has bee Court with reference to the evidence relied UOfl. it reads:- "Ld. Counsel fQr .tbepe tIDnerS_h5: further submitted that DDA &DSIDC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate. He has relied upon allotment letter dated 04.01.2000 issued by ODA of the plot no.521 Pkt. 03, Sector A-51 Narela which was allotted to. Sh. Hem Chander at the .pre*determifled rate of 3028I-whlch he has proved as Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of plot no.55 pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring 70 Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as Z3.989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW612 both this and allotment letter,

09.07.90 of industrial plot all otted by DS1DC i.e. - - LA.App.N0.2661'2008 & connected matters . . . ...... Total area under plots = 112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in = 3000/- per sq. yards I the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot

Total earning ' = T4083750000 Total expendfture = T720526901 Total profit . 3363223099

11-0 plot no.270, measuring .350 sq. yards at Narela Istnat Complex at the rate of Qq metreswh ch is Ex PW3I1 and another allotment letter dated

25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3I2, which was sold at Z3000 per sq. metres.. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW9. , Kanwal Singh & document 'Ex. PWII/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is '7209 bigha. Thus total cost f-dev&enper big ha = 248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that 'DDA by selling afternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ would be25314o8/..perbjgha.

And if 30% of the total area utilized, for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price, of per bigha 'would come to (2531408 - 759422 = 17719866 per bigha). And . after dëdUctjn development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. 1771986 - 248911 1523075 per bigha, where a& petitioner has been given rate only 3,27,083/- per, 'Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW7 Asstt.,aDSIDC who has prodUced documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expendfture incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDCwas 7205269,01 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectarei.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is 2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: 247 q - T247O0OO per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and theLAG-.has_pajd compensatIen-@---3-2-7083-per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSID.0 has earned, a profit of .2147perbigha. ... .. H Ld. Counsel fOr, the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ fl27083 per LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters _ ?' said lint evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with referéncé to the Bawana industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors; being 3 in nUmber which were nótéd by the Supreme Court in Lal C7iand'5 case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases:

¶30It is no doubt true, as held even—by-4he—Ieamed-Reference Court, that with the dëvelcØment of Bawana kdustrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself. • . 31. 1 hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view. the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in /j Chands case (supra) has rightl.y rejected said evidence as reliable. On the Issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair marketvatue of the lands. . . . 32 The third submission....in the alternative was based upon the.observatjons.of a Division Bench of this Court in Bed/Ram's case-(supra), dnd the submission is a5 noted in para 12 hrein above. The land owners require the price determined. in Dharambips case (supra) relating to the notification dated, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Mamurpur to be treated as the basis and gsiveIy ased, firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% per.,annum and iastly .by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question. It be highlighted thati.n Bed/Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date, as ; of the year 1959,' for the year 1976 i.e. a,period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied the progressive. increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973and finally by 1% for the remaining 3 years. 'However, in Lal C'hands case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under: "Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-10-1961 is relevant? . . . ..

¶47. The appeliants contend that some 'lands in Rithala were acquired. under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and. compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs 7000. per bigha. Their contention is that as the .presen.t acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the S . ' acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by , providing an . appropriate. increase ' at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This. Court .had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. RameshbhaiJivanb/ia/ Pate/ia this Court. held: (5CC p. 751, para 15) . •"15.Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value . byØrovidig pproprTate alation overhvmarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as ' —deedale tra where . there is no I evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions ' .qr. • acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method' is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters -safe where- - -- -the - —iehd t.ransactionsiacquisjtjons precede the acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even If it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a rellable standard if the gap is of only a . few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example,. for determining the market value of a land thafi 2huaj1ntrease method with reference to a sale.or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may. have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of :. • . • . increase." • . . i (emphasis supplied) .48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if the• acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year,. as the newspaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the 2007. rates.. Caution is therefore necessary before O increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition.."

35• It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi Rarn!s_case_sup4a.) runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Suprerre Court in - La! Chancis case (s-which decision follo rlier decisiOn of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) 5CC 745 OIVGC Ltd. Vs Bameshbhai Iivanbhai Patel. LA.App.No.266/2008 &. connected matters t6 follow the law laid down in Bedi Rem's case (suprá) for 1 the reason I find that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswat/Dev/ & Anr. Vs. UO/ & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur' - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambfps ease (supra) as of the year 1963, whih would have resultd in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Nareta as • of 14.3.1980 @ 2010/- per annum per bigha and.gave the increase @ 1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle L'as S applied the price wouldhave come' to approximately 75'0,000/- • per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at fl3,OflOI-per bigha.

¶37That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market value of subject lards, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in • LA.APP.No.86612005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Singi) vs.1 • '. UQI & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one. village with wtich I am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued wider Section 4 of the hand Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 bisw: of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an indusfrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Etate, the fair market value as of

15.11.196 was determined @ fl,99,90468 bigha 'which equals to 9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to • ' highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which price • for agricuftural land being the minimum price determined by, the S • ' Government was T10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, theprice LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. ------3&----4f--t-efe—to--take --the---prtce--as--of--15' 11 196 @ 9,59542.46 per acre, pertainingto the notifications With which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the !earned Reference Court if . I give benefit; of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein :ab0e, I would be hoUsticafly discussing the subject while, opining upon. the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8' notifications in question. . . ...

39...The. .fo.urth argument, which was advanced only by • .. Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appearedfór Ram Kishan' and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India' i... LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para . 13 above i.e. the testimony of..Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the.family they were earning T1 .Iakh per .bigha by sale of agricultural produce; , . .. . The learned Reference Court has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan béca use he gave no.proof in support Of his oral testimony. . . . . . .. . . ' . . . The reasoning of the Court . that there. was' no crap standing on the land when its possession was taken over on

4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired . lands belonging to the family were not 'being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is faIIacoLis no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common know!edge that by the 3rd week of September. rice is , harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the 1and is left fallow, for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters - sown 8 ro u nthe frst week or the second week of Novembe

¶42But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form of documents is relevant. Now as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he.. was working as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of .D&hi tifl.3L3.1996 i.e. was not tffler hims&f tifi said pêriodand thereafter earned a. pension. if the family, as claimed by him, was earning 71lakh per bigha, for the Iand.s belonging .to the famUy, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annual4ncemew be .],9 .....khs and one ..................it strange that not penny was irwested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest .or, dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being :effect ed in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined.. No proof. of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the. tube well, if any, to irrigate thefields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electricafly driven has been furnished and If the fields were irrigated by.canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned • Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the. fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has. been .rghtly rejected . . . . .. . . . .. . . 4-3.................If there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or ----thece---Es--other-wlse-reHab!e evidence1-as--was—found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT1.997 (1) Sc 444 State of GtiJarat& Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to the yield from agricuftural land, only then it would be safe to determine fair market v&ue by applying the prindple of LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters • no. being 10 tFmes the annuatytetdand not 20 mé was so - ught . to be. projected. . . • . 44.The fifth argument which was advanced, as. noted • herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle be adopted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008. . . . . .

¶45In para .7 above, I have put in a tabular form; the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which 1 concerned are dated 7.8,2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,: 22.8.200' 1 1 • . 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the tabie in para 7. ahoywe find....that.... minimum prices have been notified as of

1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.82005. Thus, there wouid be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the notification dated .24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years away...from the last year with which I am concerne ; the year 2003. I. highlight that.reckoned v.e.f. the year 4000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The Jaw of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would be desest4o4the--point.fo-r. wh4ch the mean average hastobedetermjned. . . L6 ....,T:am 1.eft.to deal with the last submission, as nOted in p-ara 13 herein - above; --andforwhicht highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaininq to the noUfication dated

27.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References With réspect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under •1 LA.App.No.26612008 &:connected matters . . has determined that based thereon the price as of said date - - -wocks-ut_te1 4T9per aere-a-nd for 8 • months by .12% per.annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the. price • would be fl9,16,037/- per acre rounded off to ?.19,16,040/.. per • acre. 47 With reference to the Award No 1 0/DC(NW)/200405 it Is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No 200 admeasuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C' land The sale deed in question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflect fair market value of Category 'C' land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collector 1 7 Iakhs per acre would be required to fill up the • . depressions for.iand in Category 'B' and further sum Of .1.7 in Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were less vis-à-vis Category tC' land In other words, with reference to Category'A' land, the price of Category 'C' land would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-à-vis Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land would be required to be Increased suitably.

•. 48. . I.now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the reasoning adopted bythe learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court, I pose the question What should • ......be the fair. market value of the subject lands as of 7.8.2000.,

11.9.2000 1 2.5.2001, . 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 2552002 and 2712003 te the dates on which the notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition • . Act 1894; . . -- - 49 I have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on LA.App.No.266/2008 & connect d matters . . Page 49 of 74, -z

11.5.2006, Mahender S/nab vs. UQI & Ors. wherein peiainingto determined as of 15.11.1996 is1,99A904 68 per bigha which equals to 9,59,542 46 peracre The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality,. an issue which lhavprQsed, to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands ie the lands with which the Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural Delhi were identified for. providing major health fadllities schools, markets and rural. industry, one of which was village Bawana It was noted that . G T Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village .Bawana and, that the Master Plan for Delhi notified in the . year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area tobe chaned' in the future to industrial and commercial, but had also - observea that notwirhstanth gthis, for the reason no zonal ptañ was notffied as contemplated by Section hA of the Dlhi Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence .:that tUl the year 1996, any land use had been actually, changed and put to . the use contemplated by the Master Plan As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a . potential land value with reference to the area being knowi to all as being required in the future for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valued wfth reference to the potentiality i.e. the lánds.being, in the near future capbie of being built upOn. To put it differently, the. decision, though not so. expressly.stating, would be a propOitiOn . fflätthere is a difference between the undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters .. . . Page 50 bf 74 • .. .. . • . potentiality . in presenti vis-à-vis a land having •a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted byrne in para 36 above, as of the date .15.11.1996, fair market value determined was 9,59,542.46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as wouldbe determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of . time i.e. the notification dated

25.7.1997...where-under for, agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was flO lakhs per acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had 'pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Ga/raT SfnQh vs. UQI & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in S village Holambi 'K&an where 940 bigha and 6 biswa 'land Was acquired, pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996, fair market value determined 'for Category 'A' lands was 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was 9,51,121/- pe.r acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in viflage Ba.wana. It needs to be highlighted that vt'hUe, determining the fair market value as of. 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations Of the Court in para 19 and .20 of the decision, location and potentiality Mth reference to çevelQpment work carried out in the surrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that anotherlDivis.ion Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V',. i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ fl,30,523/-. per bigha i.e. 626,5 10.40 per acre. The decision is ..repoas..2.004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram C17ander vs 'VOl and the same:Diise.nc.h, as per the'deciion•reporteds111 (2204)" DLT 95 Hukum5inqh vs. UO/, pertaining_toa notification dated

14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ 1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. 6,73,104/- per acre. '

¶5:Th.L..,aforealffjudgrnentsnotedi.. in :..T préédf'g paragraphs as also the variou notifications issued frOm time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in. para : above bring out two very important facts relevant tO determine. the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. .... As of 27.41990 minimum price was T4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to T10 lakh.s per acre as of 1.4.1997 i,e. the increase is 5.35 Iakhs spread over 7 years which gives usa 115.054% increase in 7.years and the average price increase woUld be 16.436%. The price rise S 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 and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ga/rats case (supra), which I have discussed in • . para 49 above. . . . .

¶51I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Ga/rats case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to • fair market value of agricultural land in viHage Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was95,000/- for multiple. cropped landand having good g!tibn facilities and thus capitalized the Ind price at 9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land . prices_of comparable lands in the para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjOining v.UlageBhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and bsedbn ....säEe instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.N.o.266/2008 & connected matters stances and would come to 10,031364/-'per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered 'the"prkes"notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus, worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/- per .acre for Category 'A' lands and 9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B'. lands. The decision highlights .tha.t the..potentiauty had benwe_ll4actred in when: the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f.

1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even' with respect to sale t'ransactions'the Court'found that as against the minimum price' notified as of 1.4.1997 at fIO iakhs per acre, sate instances were highlighting that, the price was 10,03,364/-. per acre.

¶52. The decision in Mahender Sing/i's rase, pertaining to 'viUageBawaaa, referred to, by me in para 49 above., highlights with reference to para 28, to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, commercial and indüstri& ,future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring 'a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that tilt the.year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with whih the Division Bench was concerned, virtuaUy no development had taken place in vivage Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential.. As 'I have already highghted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected .to be th"market growth and what the market actuatfy grows. Gaifs case and labender'SThg/i's case hiqflght that potentiality translated ftseff into a a!ity betwén 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about .16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with tte LA.App.No.266I200 & connected matters . Page 53 of 7-4 requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10 0/0 to-11°t pursu.r,t to.r.Finfny — Thi .. t1yJar4e..area. came to be developed, both residential, commerc ial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed 'land and the hunger of the, market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds reUed 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 h€reinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful: sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the • sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Cotlector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the.... !eamedReferece. Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e.* 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be !19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that I bigha and' 13' b'swa of land which was sold for 539.;690/. and 70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that. 6,09,850/- (5,39,690/- + 70,160/-) were spent would yield the price 17,74,109/- per'; • . •acreas of the date of the sale' i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶54Thus, the best which could be said as the most' • favourable situation for the land owners would be that with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C' lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would be17,74,109/-. per acre For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land enhanced and here we find another area of dispute for the reason, as noted by me hereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned Land quisthon Collector in different awards has deducted H LA,AppNo.266/2008 & connected matters sometimes T1.2 Iakhs per acre, sometimes 1.56 lakhs per acre and sometimes fl.7 1akhsper ace from thep4ce .of-...:Category TA lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C' as well-the price has been deducted further by T13lakhs per acre. 55 .: Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the --•—Ianth-and note-that categei4zatien -isbased-o-t1y on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths - -----requ+ring--thesarne to be leveled and this would_require money to be spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that T1.2 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that T1.56 fakhs per acre would be spent and in some that fl.7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There is • just no clue. in Ga/i-al Sing/i's case (supra), the price differential worked out was 25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Ga/i -al Sing/i's case pertained to the date

15.111996. In Ga/Pal Sing/i's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was 9,51,121I-per acre and the .

price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the pric.e of Category 'A' land. 1 thus hold that Ga/raiSing/i's case should be my guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as well and thus I hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' and., Category 'C' have to be differentiated on price, the differential should be 2.5%. Thus, if fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7.75 lakhs per • acrwouid-beTheprice1or a Category 'c ndliivillage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No.266/2008. & connected matters Page 55 of 74. admfttedly pertains to a Cate.gory...±Ct.Jand,the .price'fdr' • Category . 'B' land would be fl8.20 takhs per acre antl --fo-r--- • Ctgulan-dwo-utd-ber85...takhs per acre. • 59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was f13.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.200? the-saewas--fl5.7....lakhs....per....acre i.e.....the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum; if I treat Category 'A' land priceat T18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sate deed Ex.R2, deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as.of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately ?16.40 !akhs per acre and this would highlight . that when • contrasted with the minimum price, notified by the Government at T15.7 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is 70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved white determining fair market value of a large .chunk of land with reference to a few sate deeds where smau parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%.. What I wish to :highiight is that even the sale deed.in:question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum, price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability. it needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held good evidence.tO work Uf1ñ'd price on 'a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determihe. land price on subsequent 'dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various 'market forces/conditions. having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the '5 LA.AppNo.266/2008 &, connected matters and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sate deed in question, which itself has been projected by 'the Union of India as an. evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be.. a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account white 'detèrmining the market value of land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000,

2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001. . . The argument that village Nareta had always been treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of Narela was in existence since long and this was recognized when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1.963, vis-à-vis the adjoining villages 2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in viHage Narela in Dharambi,'s case, looses sight of the fact that the price, differential due to locational advantage was keeping in view the realities in the•year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which included areas in 'North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with which I • am concernec?today, the price differential faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent. . I thus hold that, pertaining to the hotifications dated

7.8.2000 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001 the land prices wou'd have'to be determi'nd on the basi.s of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with reference to the sale deed dated 25 52002 for the reason I frnd no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates could be determined; Pertainingthe notif'icatioñdated

16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 2.7.1.2003,ithe tand'price neecs to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters because with refecence teThe -s-aidiTi price itis-apparent-that-- land price as of said date comes to more than if determined with respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was T15.7 lakhs per acre with effect from

1.4.2001. • 62. With respect to the price differential for category 'A' and Category 'B' lands., noting that pertaining to the said • notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalàn (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Villáé • Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001) 1 hold that vis-à-vis the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine the price • forCategory'B' land. . .

¶63. Before I work out the compensation and since it woutd be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land • prices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantially in the other, . a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi. Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value at 22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.52002, : -butt-need tolTighflghttharpertaThingtothe same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court has determ+ned-....the ....-fair market value at. 17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village RajiKalan and Sanoth, pertaining notification dated

27.1.2003 thefair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is 19,16,040/- in some cases and 19,13,760/-. in a few, a LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters S me - Th-ereby tha.t much lesser Co npensaton has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-à-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Kalan pertaining to the, notification dated

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

¶64With . reference to the notification dated 9.20O1 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is 13.82 •lakhs and requiring said price to be siitably updated to reach the.date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Catègdy'C'iánds, land price per acre comes to.17,74109f-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands. increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to t18.2 Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 23% the prices comes to

18.65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasftg the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village P00th Khurd comes to 1475Iakhs per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 14,38,125/- per acre for Category'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is I4,372801-per acre, the price differential worked out by me •comestorneager,zi,000/- per acre .-thus-qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded b' the learned Reference Court.

¶65, All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters appeals filed by land PcePafdand4abeledas i theremabovearem,ssed__

¶66TAWLand Acquisftion Appealsfii hand owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensatjon payabie • for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 fri S .urn of 14.75 Jakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 14,37,280/- per 'acre is maintained and thus such 'appeals' or cross references which pertain to Category "B" lands are dismissed..

•

¶67PërtaThihg -to such appeal where the Compensation' stands enhancedstatutory benefits as per the Land Acquisitioh . ..Act 1894 as explained in thejudgrnent reported as Sunder. 110/200]. (93) DLI 569 shafl be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appeflants or cross objectOrs would b entitled to proportionate cost. . Viflage Holambi Katan Notification dated 7.8.2000

¶68For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (same) da'ted 7.8.2000 relating to village :Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove H and cross objections stand disposed of enhandng the • compensation to T 14.75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that a ' per the award and even as per the reference all subject Iand were of uniform categoi. Needles,.tc.state appe eals filed bythé Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismssed Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are aliowed.by .enhanctnç thecompensatjon to ?14.75 iakhs per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 a LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 1J01 2013) • DLI 56.9, except for th.eperiod where. there4s-ady.th fifing " -- '--the- "appeaior cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced 'compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. . . . . . Village Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2000 Peaining to_vifiae....a.w.ana.re1ang to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court . h.nôt enhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A' lands is fixed at Z14.75 lakhs per a c r e and for Category 'B lands at 14,38,125/- per acre and noting that Union of India has neither fUed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by fiing the compensation as hereinbéfore mentioned and needless to, state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled tostatutory benefits as per the.Land Acquisition Act 1894as 'explained in the judgment reported as Sunder' Vs. 110/ 2001 (93) DLI 569, except for the. period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest. on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost.

Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000 With reference to the . notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is •13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to. be suitably ' updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.'

11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002. wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to off t17,75,000/ pe r acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.2 lakhs per acre and furtherinc-re-asing-by. 25-9/o_therichs " comes to fl8,65,500/-per acre for Category 'A landsad -

decreasinthe said pricébTTI% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to 14,83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by lands. All Land Acquisition Appe&s as per 'GRID-D' 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 Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9:2000 in sum of fl4,83,500/- per acre for Category.'A' lands and fl4,46,413/- per.acre for Category B' lands. l note that pertaining.to this notification and the viflage, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory • benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOi 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted,. •except for the perio.d where there is a delay in filing, the appeal, .. for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. . . ViHape Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001 With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 mfrrnum prce notified per acre is T15.7 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 2552002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes:to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B'lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters to f18.2 Iakhs. per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the rices V -comes to. 18 f 65?OO/ —per-•ac --f _..tgof..s*L fldS and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the safe deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Naréf a comes to 16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing. the same by 2.5%; it per acre for-Cat-egory-'w lands. t4oting• that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away. with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is • . . 15,85,570/- per acre and since for Category 'B'fands the. price • . worked out by me is less by 9,000/- per acre which is a meager • . amount, I hold that for Category 'B' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category. 'A' lands the pfice stands erthncethtnfl6,16,5opJ-pr-acra.... • 73.. AU Land Acquisition Appeals. as per 'GRID-E' filed by the land owners and cross-objections_fifed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of india are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for. Category 'A' lands in village Narela pertainng to the notifcatton dated 2 5 2001 in sum of U6,1.6,500/- per acre and as per the referenceorde. f or : • Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by. the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are thsrnissed 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 enhahced compensation statutory ben efits as per the Land Acqutstior1 Act •_•__•94 the judgmentre .ported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001(93) DLT 569 shal. .be granted, except faLtheperiod where there isa delay in filing the appeal ,for which period of deIa no LAApp.No .266/2008 & cannected matters Page 636f 74 interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These.... .. ...-- . p-s w be ent.it1e:t .co ...... ionate Notification dated 22.8.2001

¶74With reference to •the notification dated 9.8.2001 -- wher'effect-from-1.i....minimum price notified per acre is f15.70 iakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date.uf the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 17,74,109/-, rounded off to 17,75.,000/- per acre, and for Category.'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to f18.2 Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to I8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% tO refleet—the price with refererc to the s.le ...deed for the .date 22:8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan comes to 716,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons,. done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform pride awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/ per acre:and.thus qUa Category 'B' lands I maintain the amoUnt awarded by the iearned Reference Court. . . 75 All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union' of lndi,a and cross objections wherever.fiied by Union of India in the fiId by tand owners in resØect whereof grid has ' prep Te'da'rid1abeted... 'GRID-F & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed. .

¶76AU Land Acquisition Appeals filedby the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation able for Category 'A' lands in viiFage'Hfarnj 'Kalan per rrthg to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of 16,74,500/ peracre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or • cross references which pertain to Category 'B'. lands are dismissed.

1] Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the' judgment reported as Sunder Vs, UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except' for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Vlllage All Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001 With reference to the notification . dated 9.8.200 1 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is .fl5.70 lakhs. per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 17,74,109/-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes. to .18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the rtces........ comes to 18,65,5.00/- per acre for Category A' lands; and . decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date'22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category-'A4ands in village Ai P.ur comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5 6/o, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for. Category 'B' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters that tha med 7 Rëfrehce COurt haw4ho I done 'iay. with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awaed is l€4 -pr-a-cre .the pricedFfferentiaI worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and.thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. . . ±All Land quLt Appeals flled.... by...the .... in respect whereof grid hasbeen prepared and labeJed as 'GRID-H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal ch'allengingthe decision of the Reference Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

Village Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2001 ' With reference to. the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein, with effect from 1.4.200 1 minimum price 'notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be .suitably.. updated to .each the date of the notification i.e. .............22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 17,74,109/..,. rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price'comes to18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices •, , comes ,to18,65,5.00/- per acre for Category 'A' lands;' and decreasing the said prices by 1,1% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean 'A' ,comes to 16,74,500/.. per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to I6132637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. 7Nttht'thëTé'áThed Reference Court has, without any reaQfts done_away wtth_Catoa unforrn pnce awarded is f16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked OUtby me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' • •: Category W. Lands I maintain.theaowt_award.ed. by. tF learned Reference Court. The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. There shall. be no order as to costs., . Village Ralapur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001 . With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 Iakhs per acre, and requiring said price to be suitably updated" to reach the date Of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price, per acre comes to 17,74,1091-rounded off to' fl7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price crn.es to ?18.2 lakhs per acre' and further increasing by 25% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said ,prices by 11% to reflect the price' with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average pricefor Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per.acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without . any reasons, done away with 'Category 'B' Inds and uniform price • awarded is16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked' out by me cores to a meager T9,000i. p.er.acreand .thus..qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by , the learned Reference Court. AU Land Acquisition Appeals 'filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India' in the LA.App.No.266/2 008 & connected matters aISTfffedbytafldOWfl11TTeSpeCt'Whereef-gfld-ha been. prepared and !abeled as 'GRID-J' hereinabove are dismissed.. • 86. AU Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed bydecreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the • notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of 16,74,500I-per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such ppeaIs or cross references which pertain to Category. 'B' lands are • . dismissed.

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

Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001 • 88. . With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is f15.70 Jakhs per acre and requiring saiq price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification he.

7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein, for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 1774J0•91rojnd.éd. .oWito. 17,7501..0/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to 18.2 Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes-to 18,65,500/- per acre . for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . ............ . ... . ... reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to • 17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in vWage 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 • ..nQ.Wicationdte 7.12.2001 the entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of 17,29,500j-.

¶89AD Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of india and cross objections: wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and. labeled as 'GRID-K' hereinabove are dismissed. • 90. AD Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners . 9sTobjections filed by the land owners in. appeals filed by Union of India are aVowed by granting compensation in sum of 17,29,500/- and heedless to state on . the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as.per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 1)0/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall. be paid. These appeVants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. . . Village Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2002

¶91Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by .me hereinabove the land price, would have to be determined with reference to.the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at 18,65,500/- per acre —and just

days between the date of sale and the notification 1 . maintain that fOr the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of18,65,500/- LA.App.No.266!2OO & connected matters _per acre and I highlight that as perth a 'd aria the refernce -- - - all lands are in the same category. Appeals and_cross objections filed by the land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowed and needless to state on. the enhanced compensation the land owners would be entitled to. all statutory benefits as per the Land Acqusition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as SUnder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. V11qe5hahür Garhi Notification dated 23.52002 Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2.002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 hold thatpertainina to this notification., since land is of same category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported'as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, nO interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and . a!l appeals and .cross objections filed by Union of india. are dlsmsed. - ViffeHoamb K&an Notification dated 23.52002•- . As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated

23.5.2002 relating to village Holariibi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisitioh LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . . . Page 70 of4 C Collector and the learned Reference Court The lea n Reference Court has award,ed. cothpensation In cum Of 22,14,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as forthe date 23.5.2002 1 have he1that fair market value would be 18,65,500/-. per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to I8,65,500I-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. Vll1ae Ali Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002

¶94Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Alt .Pur, for parity of reasons .qua the said notification • relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine • fair market value payable at 18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and, cross objections filed by Union of India as per 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to ?18,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT. 569 , shall be paid save' and', except in such appeals or, cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as welt. Village Sapth Notification dated 27:1.2003

¶95' Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as per 'GRID-P' 'pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sanoth, I note, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters , that the learned Land Acquisition CoHector has placed- s--i---- in-3-catego-ri-es---and-I-find-that the (earned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation:

¶96On the mean average basis which I have been following by to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes. to 19,43,500I-per acre and for Category 'B' land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court. has uniformly determined fair market value at 19,13,7651-and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by . Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed, Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' • lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of l9,43,500/ per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 5h1l be paid seand except in such appeals and cross objectiOns where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union.. of India • pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' ians are allowed by .... - mothfyTng--the-Treiatable -deePeeHft the Reference Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters l81941912.50 peracre and for Category 'C' land to 18,47,539.68 per acre. Village RajaDur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2003

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

27.1 72003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that the learned Reference Court has in some ccc wrrd compensation in sum of 19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at ?19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform. • category.. On the mean average basis. which I have been foflowin.g by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated

20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category W. Iands theprice per CtegOry 'B'• land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68 per acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land: owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category '' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by •decreeing compensation payable in sum of 19,43,500f-per acre a.ndeedtesstostate—on—the - êithanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitiOn Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported .as Sunder V.tLQi 2001 --(3) DET-569--shaII -bps+d—save--and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Pag? 73 of '14 L would not bep . id for the period Of delay. Proportionate costS4 well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by 'B'. land tto 18,94,91250 per acre and for Category 'Cl Iánc to • ?18,47,539.68 per acre. (PDEEP NAND.RAJOG) . jUDGE • AUGUST23, 2011 . . • .. . . m m/dk . •. . •

$-417 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 494/2008 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus t , JAG DISH GULATI & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.B.P.Gupta, Advocate for R-1 Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG