UOI v. Attar Singh & Anr

ORDER %

23.08.2011 For orders see LA.APP. No.266/2008.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. AUGUST 23. 2011 dk % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludoment Reserved On: August 2011 ludament Delivered On: 23''^ August. 2011 + LA.APP. 266/2008 JAI SINGH Through: UOI & ANR. Through: Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Mr.Deepak Khosla,' Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.M.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana, Mr.Raj Singh, Mr.Uday Ram, Mr.D.R.Tomar, Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Mr.N.S.Dalai, Mr.S.M.Bhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.S.S.Rana, Mr.Sunil Dalai, Mr.D.S.Khatri Mr.T.P.SXang, Advocates Vs. Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1. Ms.Anusuya Salwan, DSIDC. Advocate, for Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi . Ms.Beenashaw Soni Advocates for DPA. AND (GRID-A) + LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP. 264/2008, LA.APP. 265/2008, LA.APP. 267/2008, LA.APP. 268/2008, LA.APP. 270/2008, LA.APP. 271/2008, LA.APP. 272/2008, LA.APP. 273/2008, LA.APP. 278/2D08 f:M APPL. 533872tro9nfGross O&i^ctn LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters h 279/2008, LA.APP, 280/2008 & CM APPL 5261/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 281/2008, LA.APP. 284/2008, LA.APP. 286/2008 290/2008 293/2008 Objection 299/2008 304/2008 339/2008 401/2008 472/2008 487/2008 495/2008 527/2008 541/2008 548/2008 566/2008 627/2008 648/2008 724/2008 756/2008 861/2008 880/2008 895/2008 907/2008 925/2008 931/2008 934/2008 941/2008 946/2008 LA.APP. LA.APP. s), LA.APP. LA.APP. tATAPPr-LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & CM APPL. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP. CM APPL. 295/2008, LA.APP. 301/2008, LAtAPPt-511/2008, 357/2008, 413/2008, 485/2008, 492/2008, 496/2008, 535/2008, 545/2008, 554/2008, 621/2008, 628/2008, 649/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA-.APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 289/2008, LA.APP. 292/2008, LA.APP. 1291,8/2011 (Cross 296/2008, LA.APP. 303/2008,—LA.APP. 337/2008, 394/2008, 443/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 493/2008, LA.APP. 526/2008, LA.APP. 537/2008, LA.APP. 546/2008, LA.APP, 563/2008, LA.APP. 623/2008, LA.APP. 635/2008, LA.APP. 662/2008, LA.APP. 5353/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP. 875/2008, LA.APP. 879/2008, LA.APP. 888/2008, LA.APP. 894/2008, LA.APP. 905/2008, LA.APP. 906/2008, LA.APP. 910/2008, LA.APP. 911/2008, LA.APP. 926/2008, LA.APP. 927/2008, LA.APP. 932/2008, LA.APP. 933/2008, LA.APP. 936/2008, LA.APP. 939/2008, LA.APP. 942/2008, LA.APP. 944/2008, LA.APP. 955/2008, LA.APP. 958/2008, LA.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 999/2008 & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), 1014/2008, LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP. 1023/2008, 1026/2008; LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA.APP. 1071/2008, 1244/2008, LA.APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, 1268/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008, CM APPL. 2377/2009, (Cross Objections) LA.APP. 86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 97/2009, LA.APP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP. lll/2009_,: LA.APP. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, LA.APP. 251/2009, LA.APP. 252/2009, LA.APP. 265/2009, LA.APP. 266/2009 & CM APPL. No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 267/2009, LA.APP. 268/2009, LA.APP. 269/2009, LA.APP. 270/2009, LA.APP. 271/2009, LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APP. 273/2009, LA.APP. 300/2009, LA.APP. 306/2009, LA.APP. 454/2009, LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 532/2009, LA.APP. 535/2009 & CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009 & CM APPL. Ubjections), LA.APF. LAlApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters 521/2009, LA.APP. 12886/2011 (Cross 12917/2011 (Cross -544/2009, "TLA.APP. "7 566/2009, LA.APP. 570/2009 & CM APPL13873/2011. LA.APP. 589/2009, LA.APP. 593/2009, LA.APP. 594/2009, LA.APP. 634/2009, LA.APP. 635/2009, LA.APP. 636/2009, LA.APP. 637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 & CM APPL.13878/2G11, LA.APP. 1/2010, LA.APP. 29/2010, LA.APP. 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP. 107/2010, LA.APP. 108/2010, LA.APP. 109/2010, LA.APP. 168/2010, LA.APP. 169/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LA.APP. 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, LA.APP. 521/2010, CM APPL. 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 522/2010, LA.APP. 523/2010, LA.APP. 524/2010 & CM APPL. 12914/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, LA.APP. 527/2010, LA.APP. 528/2010, LA.APP. 529/2010, LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL. 229/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 531/2010, LA.APP. 532/2010 & CM APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 533/2010 & CM APPL. 12898/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 534/26^07 iA.-APP. 535/2010 & CM APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 & CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 537/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010 & CM APPL. 12972/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPL. 12900/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP. 541/2010, LA.APP. 542/2010 & CM APPL. 19857/2010 (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, LA.APP. 595/2010 & CM APPL. 226/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 596/2010, 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. 602/2010, LA.APP. 603/2010 & CM APPL. 12881/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP. 663/2010 & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 666/2010 & CM APPL. 6748/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 675/2010 "& CM APPL. 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, LA.APP. 233/2011, LA.APP. 389/2011, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008&• connectedmatters Page3 of 74 392/2011, LA.APP. 420/2011, LA.APP. 424/-2044r -UUVPP. 425/2011 (Relating to Notjfication u/s 4 dated 07.08.20()b & Award No.19/2002-03, Viiiage-Pooth Khurd) AND (GmD-B) + LA.APP. 972/2008 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 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, LA,APP. 1187/2008, LA.APP. 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 Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 11/2001-02, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRID-C) -I-LA.APP. 359/2007, LA.APP. 202/2007, LA.APP. 382/2007, LA.APP. 383/2007, LA.APP. 269/2008, LA.APP. 811/2008, LA.APP. 928/2008, LA.APP-. 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/20C9, LA.APP. 969/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 08/2001-02, Village-Bawana) AND (GR9D-D) -H LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2011 & CM 12911/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), Page4of74 ^ttftcalTOn"o/5~2^n:^^

11.D9.2000--&-Awaf4-We; 20/2002-03, Village-Khera Khurd) AND (GRID-E) + LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, LA.APP. 646/2009, LA.APP. 91/2010, LA.APP. 93/2010, LA.APP. 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP. 19172010 & CM No. 22402/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 192/2010, 193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, 196/2010, LA.APP. 197/2010, LA.APP. 297/2010, 299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, 309/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 & 3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 373/2010, 493/2010, LA.APP. 494/2010, LA.APP. 496/2010, LA.APP. 497/2010 & CM No. Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, LA.APP. 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& CM No. LA.APP. 502/2010 & CM No. LA.APP. 503/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 506/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP.

509./2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 512/2010, -LA.APP. LA.APP. 515/2010, LA.APP. CM No. 7702/2011 (Cross Objections), Objections), Objections), 505/2010, 508/2010, 511/2010, 514/2010, 517/2010 518/2010, 611/2010, 618/2010, 621/2010, 628/2010, & Objections), 3560/2011 (Cross Objections), 841/2010, LA.APP. 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM No. ^^378/2011—(Cross Objectiuns")", lA.APP;—855/2010, LA.APP. 856/2010 & CM No. 9610/2011 857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. Objections), LAtAPP;^ 1021/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 519/2010, 612/2010, 619/2010, 622/2010, 647/2010 & LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. CM No. 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & LA.APP. 652/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. CM No. LA.APP. 495/2010, LA.APP. 22728/2010 (Cross 499/2010, LA.APP. 23186/2010 (Cross 10382/2011 (Cross 504/2010, LA.APP. 507/2010, 510/2010, 513/2010, 516/2010, 610/2010, 613/2010, 620/2010, 623/2010, 3847/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross CM No. LA.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross 9966/2011 (Cross LA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP. 79/2011, LA.APP. 80/2011, LA.APP. 81/2011, LA.APP. 82/2011, LAtAPPt 83/20±lr, LA.APP7-84/20i 1, LA.APP. 85/2011, LA.APP. 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP. 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/2011, LAnAPP. 324/2011 & CM APPL.15110/2Q11, LA.APP. 385/2011. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters I-O (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

02.05.2001& Award No. 24/2003-04, Village-Narela) AND (Gmo-F) + LA.APP. 497/2008, LA.APP. 141/2009 & CM 5302/2010 (Cross Objections). (Reiating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 18/2003-04, Viilage-Holambi Kaian) AND (GRID-G) -I-LA.APP. 777/2,010 & CM APPL3808/2011, LA.APP. 778/2010 & CM 2.686/2011 (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. 330/2011, 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, Viilage-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRID-H) + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, LA.APP. 409/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No. 15/2003-04, Viilage-Ali Pur) AND (GRID-I) + LA.APP. 481/2010 ^ 9/2003-04, Village-Holambi Khurd) AND (GRID-J) + LA.APP. 780/2010 & CM No.2661/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM No.3833/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 900/2010 & CM No.3541/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 970/2010, LA.APP. 971/2010 & CM No.3805/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM No-2667/2011 (Cross LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Crbss LA.APP.974/2010 & CM No.l4333/2011(Cross LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011 (Cross LA.APP. 977/2010, LA.APP. 978/2010, LA.APP. CM No.9990/2011, LA.APP. 980/2010 & CM (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP. CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. CM No.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/2011 (Cross LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP. 990/2010, LA.APP. CM No.9984/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 & CM No.9970/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1018/2010, LA.APP. 1020/2010 & CM No.12939/2 (Cross Objections)011, LA.APP. 1024/2010 & CM No.6771/2011 (Crbss Objections), LA.APP. 1/2011 & CM No.12964/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 2/2011 & CM No.6752/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 25/2011, LA.APP. 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 & CM No.10050/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP. 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011 Objections), Objections), Objections), Objections), 979/2010 & No.3551/2011 982/2010 & 983/2010 9W20'nr 985/2010 986/2010, Objections), 991/2010 & & & & (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No.20/2003-04, Village-Rajapur Kaian) AND (GRID-K) LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedrnatteis + LA.APP. 488/2008, LA.APP. 490/2008, LA.APP. 491/2008, LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/2008, LA.APP. 868/2a08 & CM No.10393/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 896/2008 & CM -fStev59€4/2010 (CroG^ Objections), LA.APP-. ^^7/2008, LA.APP. 1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP. 34/2010 & CM No.7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 488/2010, LA.APP. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011, LA.APP. 421/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth) dated

07.12.2001 & Award AND (GRID-L) + LA.APP. 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, LA.APP. 352/2008, LA.APP. 364/2008, LA.APP. 385/2008, LA.APP. 387/2008, 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.APP. 470/2008, LA.APP. 471/2008, LA.APP. 560/2008, 561/2008, LA.APP. 611/2008, LA.APP. 663/2008, 676/2008, LA.APP. 678/2008, LA.APP. 679/2008, 681/2008,' LA.APP. 682/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 731/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 825/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 850/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 903/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 935/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 940/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 956/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1001/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1065/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 106/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 374/2009. LA.APP. LA.APP-. 468/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 547/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 628/2009, LA.APP. 23/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010. 722/2008, 786/2008, 842/2008, 883/2008, 924/2008, 938/2008, 945/2008, 998/2008, 1007/2008, 1079/2008, 309/2009, 465/2009, 546/2009, 624/2009, 683/2008, 754/2008, 826/2008, 853/2008, 904/2008, 937/2008, 943/2008, 957/2008, 1004/2008, 1077/2008, 172/2009, 464/2009, 539/2009, 565/2008, 630/2009, LA.APP. U.APP. La.app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 35/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 16.05.2002 & Award No. 29/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) LA.App.Nb.266/2008& connectedmatters \3 AND (GRID-M) + LA.APP. 338/2008, LA.APP. 343/2008, LA.APP. 356/2008, LA.APP. 366/2008, LA.APP. 367/2008, LA.APP. 368/2008, LA.APP. 369/2008, LA.APP. 370/2008, LA.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP: 384/2008, LA.APP. 386/2008, LA.APP. 388/2008, LA.APP. 389/2008, LA.APP. 434/2008, LA.APP. 435/2008, LA.APP. 436/2008, LA.APP. 444/2008, LA.APP. 456/2008& CM No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. 680/2008, LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. 720/2008, 760/2008, 823/2008, 908/2008, 1022/2008, 1063/2008, 308/2009, 385/2009, 540/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 723/2008, 767/2008, 824/2008, 909/2008, 1024/2008, 173/2009, 311/2009, 463/2009, 542/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 562/2008, 716/2008, 757/2008, 793/2008, 837/2008, 952/2008, 1025/2008, 307/2009, 384/2009, 467/2009, 548/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/2010. (Relating to Notification u/s dated No.22/2003-04, Viiiage-Shahpur Garhi)

23.05.2002 & Award AND (GRID-N) + LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 304/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.05.2002 & Award No. 16/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRID-O) LA.APP.379/2008, LA.APP. 381/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, LA.APP. 499/2008, LA.APP. 530/208, LA.APP. 836/2008&CM 5300/2010(CrossObjections),LA.APP. 310/2009 &CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections),LA.APP. 782/2010, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters g2§/2^1^. LA.APP.- 9/2Q11 & CM 9960/2011 "1Crbs^Objectr6nsj/lj£\.APP.58/2Gll7-^ 289/2011 & CM 14850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 290/2011 & CM 14852/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 381/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 17/2004-05, Village-All Pur) dated

23.05.2002 & Award No. AND (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. LA.APP. 922/2008, LA.APP. 923/2008, LA.APP. & CM No.2351/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. & CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2008 & CM No.1261/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 982/2008, LA.APP. 983/2008 & CM No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 & CM No.839/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/200.8, LA.APP. 997/2008, LA.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008, LA.APP. 1027/2008, LA.APP. 1078/2008 & CM No.2247/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. 1127/2008 & CM No.2111/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP. 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 & CM No.7791/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 13/2009 & CM No.2151/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 22/2009, LA.APP. 83/2009, LA.APP. 99/2009, LA.APP. 103/2009, LA.APP. 104/2009, LA.APP. 107/2009, LA.APP. 115/2009 & CM No.6482/2010 (Cross Obj^ions), LA.APP. 122/2009 & CM No;i432i/2009 (Cross Objections), 123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, 174/2009, LA.APP. 250/2009, LA.APP. 260/2009, 261/2009, LA.APP. 262/7009,"IJOTP. ~264/2009, 293/2009, LA.APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. 301/2009, 302/2009, LA.APP. 303/2009, LA.APP. 365/2009, 461/2009, 902/2008, 929/2008 930/2008 960/2008, 433/2009, 471/2009, 5r872U09, 531/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 449/2009, 487/2009, 527/2009, 533/2009, LA.App.Nd.266/2008& connectedmatters LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 501/2009, 530/2009, 537/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 538/2009, U.APP. 545/2009, LA.APP. 554/2009, LA.APP. 555/2009, LA.APP. 558/2009, LA.APP., 585/2009, LA.APP. 588/2009, LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP. 625/2009, LA.APP. 626/2009, LA.APP. 629/2009, LA.APP. 649/2009, LA.APP. 38/2010, LA.APP. 43/2010, LA.APP. 131/2010, LA.APP. 202/2010, LA.APP. 203/2010, LA.APP. 204/2010, LA.APP. 225/2010, LA.APP. 227/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010, LA.APP. 303/2010, LA.APP. 372/2010, LA.APP. 410/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010, LA.APP. 479/2010, LA.APP. 480/2010, LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP. 483/2010, LA.APP. 484/2010, LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP 486/2010, U.APP. 487/2010, LA.APP. 604/2010, U.APP 606/2010 & CM No.19878/2010 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 607/2010, U.APP. 608/2010, U.APP. 609/2010, LA.APP. 614/2010, U.APP. 615/2010, LA.APP. 671/2010, U.APP. 695/2010, LA.APP. 705/2010, U.APP. 734/2010, U.APP. 785/2010 & CM No.12968/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 786/2010 & CM No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 787/2010, U.APP. 788/2010, U.APP. 789/2010, U.APP 790/2010, U.APP. 820/2010 & CM Na.12880/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 821/2010, LA.APP. 915/2010, U.APP. 916/2010 & CM No.6773/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 26/2011 & CM No.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 55/2011 & CM No.12894/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 59/2011, U.APP. 63/2011, LA.APP. 69/2011, U.APP. 70/2011, U.APP. 72/2011 & CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 76/2011 St CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 St CM No.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 135/2011, U.APP. 136/2011 & CM No.12971/2 (Cross Objections)011, U.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 143/2011, LA.APP. 153/2011, U.APP. 203/2011 St CM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 273/2011 St CM No.13289/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 338/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

27.01.2003 & Award No.11/2004-05, Village-Sanoth) AND (GRiD-Q) -h U.APP. 336/2010 St CM APPL.14845/2011, U.APP. 624/2010, LA.APP. 625/2010, U.APP. 626/2010, LA.APP. 627/2010 St C.M. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections), U-APP. 629/2010, U.APP. 630/2010, LA.APP. 642/2010, U.APP. 643/2010, U.APP. 644/2010, U.APP. 645/2010 & C.M. Page11 of74 b No.3587/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 646/2010, i-A.APp. 664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. .667/2010, LA.APP. 668/2010, LA.APP. 669/2010 & C.M. No.676_9/2011 (Crp.ss . , Objections), LA.APP. 6/0/2010 U L.M. l\ro3BT8/20rr (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 672/2010, LA.APP. 673/2010 & C.M. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, LA.APP. 701/2010 & C.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. 735/2010, LA.APP. .736/2010, LA.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP. 739/2010 & C.M. No.3569/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 740/2010 & CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 800/2010 & C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP. I 802/2010, LA.APP. 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010, LA.APP. i 809/2010, LA.APP. 810/2010, LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP. j 812/2010, LA.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010, LA.APP,. I 815/2C)iO, LA.APP. 816/2010 & C.M. No.3862/2011 (Crbss Objections), LA.APP. 817/2010, LA.APP. 838/2010, LA.APP. 839/2010 & C.M. No.10335/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 870/2010 & C.M. No.9946/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 917/2010, LA.APP. 922/2010, LA.APP. 923/2010, LA.APP. 924/2010, LA.APP. 925/2010, LA.APP. 945/2010 & C.M. No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 975/2,010 & C.M. No.2664/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M. No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP. | 56/2011 & C.M. No.9939/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. i 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP. 98/2011, i LA.APP. 99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011, LA.APP. 104/2011, LA.APP. 105/2011, LA.APP. 106/2011, LA.APP. 107/2011, LA.APP. 108/2011, LA.APP. 109/2011, LA.APP. 113/2011, LA.APP. 165/2011, LA.APP.329/2011 i I (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

27.01.2003 & Award No.10/2004-05, Village-Rajapur Kalan) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whether the Reporters of iocal papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? •| Page12 of74 v.^ PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

¶1villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd. Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela. All Pur. Rajapur Kalan. Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue District (North-West) and if we see the map of the city of Delhi we would find that these villages lie in the North-Western part of Delhi. They lie within an area between the 'V formed by Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1. The Delhi-Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-1. Whereas villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway line and NH-1. the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line. Narela and Shahpur Garhi are towards the east of the railway line. The urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has been developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is situated in the land within the aforesaid 'V. Bawana industrial Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid.'V. Historically, except for village Narela. all villages have been treated as equivalent with respect to their location.

¶2The instant decision decides the issue as to what should be the fair market value of agricultural lands in the said villages as of the dates

7.8.2000. 11.9.2000. 2.5.2001. 22.8.2001>

7.12.2001, 16.5.2002. 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003. Needless to state, pursuant to notificationsissued, from time to time, on afores'aid^dates under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894> vast tracts of land in said 10 villageswere acquired and save and except lands in the Revenue Estate of village Narela where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential and partly industrial, in the other villages, acquisitionwas'for the purpose of establishingan industrial estate or laying down a LA.App.No.266/2008&, connectedmatters road or freight complex. The reason why such large tracts of lands were needed was to set up an Industrial estate pursuant to a decision taken to shift all industries operating in non-conforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas.

¶3I must highlight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same In all appe^. filed 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 Narela, where an additional argument was advanced; being that, the township.of Narela had existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Narela had a better value and for which it was urged that way back in the year 1963 when lands in the revenue estate ofvillageNarela. and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of ?2/-per sq.yd. vis-a-vis the price determined for lands in village Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlightthat learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi being in Mamurpur.-

¶4The position of the awards made from time to time and the reiatabie notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have been detailed by me while noting the various Land AcquisitionAppeals and the Cross Objectionsas per the index hereinabove and thus i need not repeat the same.

¶5A perusal of ail the awards announced from time to Hmp \Afr>iilH rpvp.aJ-J±taTJ±ie-l£34:ried--Land Acquisition Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from timeTo time notifyingthe minimum rates for agriculturallands in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavatedearth resultingin pits having depths between-LA.App.No.266/20088c connectedmatters \e. 4' to b', the land value has been appropriately depressed this is to be found in a few awards where lands have been put in 2 or 3 categories i.e. Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C.

¶6A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the learned Reference Court has determined fair market value on different principles and for purpose of clarity I may note basis on which learned Land Acquisition Collector learned Reference Court have determined the compensation payable. The same would be as under:- A. Pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.2000 issued tme^er -Section of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against ?13.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^2.26 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by 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 w adopted the same rate i.e. ?13.82 lacs per acre and has 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. B. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 pursuant whereto 211.14 bigha land was acquired in village Holambi Kalan, the Land AcquisitionCollector treated the land as of same character and determined fair market value with referenceto the policy for minimum rates in sum of tl3.82 lacs 15of74 per acre which has been enhanced by the learned Reference Court to n4,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decision Qf a Gairai i/5. //O/wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market value determined was ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and treating the said date and the said price as the base, giving 12% per annum appreciation for a period of 3 years, 8 months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been determined. C. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Bawana were acquired, the Land AcquisitionCollectordetermined 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 Reference Court maintained the same. D. Pertaining to notification dated

11.9.2000 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd were acquired for shifting industrial units, the Land Acquisition Collector has, for Category 'A' lands determined fair market value, with reference to the policy effective from 1.4.2000 in sum of ^13.82 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands has fixed the same at ?12.62 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted the policy wherein minimum price fixed as of

1.4.2000 was n3.82 lacs per acre and for 128 days i.e. the number of days between 1.4.2000 till 11.9.2000, appreciating same by 12% has determined fair market value at ?14,40,157/-and has uniformlyawarded the same for all lands. E. Pertainingto the notificationdated 2.5.2001 pursuant whereto 1140.5.8 bigha land was acquired in Narela for developmentof sectors1to 4, Phase I, Narela, with respectto the policy of minimum price with effect from 1.4.2001 the LA,App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters learned Land AcquisitionCollectordeterminedfair market value in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category 'B' lands determined the same at ^14 lacs peT"a"cre; 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 the Land AcquisiLiun Act 1894 is dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced the compensation to ^15,85,700/- per acre which has uniformly ^afffed. F. Pertaining to notification dated

22.8.2001 whereunder

512.16 bigha land in village HolambI Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 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 T14 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. ^15.7 lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum for 143 days and the price so fixed is ^16,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded. G. Pertaining to same notification dated

22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 512.16 bigha land was acquired in village Alipur, on the same reasoning which has been adopted for village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same compensationas determinedfor villageHolambi Kalan has been worked out by the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoras also by the learned Reference Court who has done away with cat-egcrtzattenT- ~ H Pertainingto the same notificationdated 22.8.2001 pursuantwhereto 192.15 bigha of iand was acquired In village ^"8®f ->1 Holambi Khurd, the reasoning of the LAC and the learned Reference Court and the price determined is the same as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that, in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in the same uniform category. I. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Rajapur Kalan were acquired the reasoning and the fair market value determined by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the same as adopted for villageHolambi Kalan, HolambiKhurd and Alipursave and except in this villagethe acquired land was of uniform category. j. Pertaining to 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, 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. 1.4.20Q1 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 AcquisitionCollectorhas determined compensation in sum of TlSTT-^tac^—per acre which is the minimum price notified by the Governmentas of 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has simply held that the land owners would be entitledto enhancecompensationat the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded. I may highlight that the learned ReferenceCourt has not worked out the compensationand has left it to the Executing Court to do so, however1find that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be •23 ?17,75,369.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as T~4T2ffUl and the D^e price "at ^15.7 lacs, for "ryear "and 45 days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the iearried Additional Sessions Judge. L. Pertaining to notification dated

23.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court have determined same compensation as per the reasoning pertaining to same village for the notification dated

16.5.2002 and I find that since there is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision of the Reference Court comes to ?17,79,781.78 per acre. pursuant whereto 445.81 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan was acquired, the learned LAC has determined fair market value in sum of n5.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The learned ReferenceCourt has adppted the same reasoning as was adopted while determining the fair market value of lands in village Holambi Kalan which were acquiredpursuantto the notificationdated 7.8.2000i.e. adopted the price determinedas of 15.11.1996in the decisionin Gajrai's case (supra) and appreciatingthe same by 12% compounded per annum the pricedeterminedis ^22,14,239/-per acre. N. Pertainingto the same notificationdated 23.5.2002 pursuantwhereto814.19 bigha agriculturalland in villageAlipur were acquired the learned Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensationat the rate of n5.7 lacs per acre based on the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which price has been adopted as the base by th^ 'earned ReferenceCourt arid after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. Pope 10 of 74

1.4.2001 till 23.5.2002, the price determined is n7,85,240/- per acre.

¶0Pertaining to notification dated

27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha land in village Sanoth and -23r8-STe3--btgbeHandHiT^age-f(ajapurKalan were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector, 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. ^15.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of ?14 lacs per acre and for Category 'C lands in sum of ?12.3 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different reasoning in some impugned decision and different in a few. In some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted minimum price in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre-as-ef^4^2^01r-aB# appreciating the same by 12% per annum for a period of 666 days has fixed fair market value at ?19,13,765/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for ^5,39,690/-.

¶7Since the learned Land AcquisitionCollector as also the learned Reference Court have relied upon the notifications issued from time to time by the Governmentof NCI Delhi, fixing minimum price for agriculturallands in Delhi, let me therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notifiedfrom time to time pertainingto agriculturallands in Delhi sincethe same would be relevantfor the presentdecision. The same would be as under.- -SlJ4o^ Date-of— Notification - Effective Date of the price Pfiee— (in lakhs/acre) % increase per annum

1.

3.5.1990

27.4.1990

4.65

2.

25.7.1997

1.4.1997

10.0

11.5

3.

24.9.1998

1.4.1998

11.2

11.2

4.

21.11.2000 -

12.32

5.

9.8.2001

1.4.1999

1.4.2000

12.16

13.82

6.

9.8.2001

1.4.2001

15.7

11.5

7.

30.8.2005

30.8.2005

17.584

2.98

8.

24.1.2008

18.12.2007

89.51 •

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

27.4.1990 in sum of ?4.65 lakhs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to ?10 lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of ni.2 lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to ?12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.1999 to ?12.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% per annurn with reference to price determined as of J..4.1998 vide same notification price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.2000 to ?13.82 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis previous i.e. fl2.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-a-vis the previous price of ?13.82 lakhs/acre to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters fi^tire of ^15:J:-iaktas/axTe:----^ wee was next enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ?17.584 lakhs/acre which gives us an increase of only 2.98% per annum and then the price rose to ^53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased

89.51% per annum with reference to the base figure of ?17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005.

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

7.8.2000, for village Pooth Khurd; notification dated

22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; notification dated

7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated

2.5^2001 for village Narela;'and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village 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 urged that corrective action is required 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 -12%~per annum tncreas'e~i/v'as excessive "with reference to the dates of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; requiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annum m the Least. Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus Page22 of74 requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by Land Acquisition Collector 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 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 Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also the"~s"aTe deed dated

25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ ^26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of ^32.4 lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporationtax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 would be U8.89 lakhs/acre and pertainingto 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 evidenceto determinethe fair market value of agriculturallands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000,

11.9.2OO0,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

25.5.2002and 27.1.2003i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications were issued underSection4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 by suitablyincreasingor decreasingthe price. As an extendedlimb of this argument,pertainingto village Narela, it was urged that the price needs to be suitablyenhancedand for which learned counsel submittedthat the same should be at least 10% more and for which the argument was that when in the--past,- pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur-Narela by giving a. price benefit of ?2/- per sq.yd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UO! vs. Dharambir & Ors. The said decision would reveal that price per bigha in .sum of ?6,650/- determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to tl6,750/- 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.

¶11• Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela Residential Scheme Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in 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 Industrial Aroa, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme Bawana Industrial Estate for which learned counsel took me through evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged. "

¶12Alternative 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& connectedmatters Page24 of74 -^7 1/5. Union of India, it was permissible to determine fajr 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 ofthe land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with referenceto the decision in BediRam'scase (supra)as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ per annum with reference to the base price ^6,750/- per bigha as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till

31.3.1973 and thereafter

(g) 12% per annum till the various dates when 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with which l.-am.concerned inihe present.appeals. 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 reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle market value should be assessed for preceding notifications dated

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002

23.5.2002. ,

¶13The fourth argument advanced was, for which reference was made by learned counseJ 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 land owners and LA.APP.No.292/2008 filecLby Union_Qtindia, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page25 of 74 testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agricultural; produce from his lands he used to earn lakh per bigha per annum i.e. theTair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be ^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.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008.

¶14The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for each of the notification in question the fair market value ought to have been determined with reference to the notification which was closest in point of time whera under minimum land value was fixed by the Government-and the notification dated

24.1.2008 where under ?53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument.

¶15The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated

20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of villageRajapur Kalan was sold for ^5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said sale deed in the following'words: (Refer para 17 of the decision dated 7.1.2010 in LAC No.ll7A/2009): "If add stamp duty in the safe price ^3.69.906/- per biaha (t5,39j690/z^ 70,160 - 6,09,850for1 bighaand 13 biswa) which comesto%17,74,109/- per acre or ^3,68,906/-per bigha. Further if we give 12% 26 of74 • 3o increase on said amount for intervening period between date when the saie deed was executed and the date of natification u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes to ^19,16,037/- (round offtlQ,16,040/-)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e. Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05. it would reveal that 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 Khasra No.ZOO and that page No.56-57 oTthe award would evidence~thatTand comprised in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in Category 'C. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of ?15.7 lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated

9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ^1.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was ?14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another ^1.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value determined whereof was ?12.3 lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the same had to be for Category'C lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price had to oe increased by ?1.7 lakhs per acre for each category.

¶16I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced by Sh.SanjayPoddar,learnedseniorcounselwho appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above and hence Ineed not repeat the same. 27 of74

¶17In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court pertaining to the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence hny journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various sub-paras of para 6 above.

¶18But before dealing with arguments I need to highlight various anomalies which strike reader at the outset. The same would be:- A. Pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.2000 wherein lands were acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for Category 'B' lands, having depressions and pits,.deduction effected vis-^-vis price for Category 'A' lands is ^1.56 lacs per acre pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 where price has been determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd, said price differential has been worked out at ?1.2 lacs per acre and while determining fair market value 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 in village Holambi Kalan was determined as of date

22.8.2001. Pertaining-to notification dated 27,1.2003 and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential on said count has again been taken at ^1.7 lacs per acre to inter se differentiate the-price between Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C lands. In other words, the price differential has varied between ?1.2 lacs per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and ?1.7 lacs per acre. LA.App.No,266/2008&connectedmatters Page28 of74 ______ 32-B. The learned Land Acquisition Collector has adopted the minimum price notifiedclosest in pointof time to the date when Section 4 notification was issued without appreciating the land price with referenceto the date of the Section4 notificationi.e. no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has been given. The^earned Reference Court has adopted the minimum price notified and has given appreciation ranging between

11.5% per annum and 12% per annum and in some cases has compounded the same and in some given said benefit at the simpie rate. D. Pertaining to village Holambi Kalan.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 Gairafs case (supra) as of

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

27.1.2003 learned Reference Court, in some references has determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 and has given appreciation, in some cases has determined the fair market vaiue based on the sale deed dated ,20.5.2002. F. Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Collector has classifiedlands in Category'A', 'B' and 'C reasonsthereof have "been given in the award but the learned ReferenceCourt, while "awaTbmg uTTTTdm c^^^ has given no reasbhsas to why ii-all lands to be of sarn£J±iam£teiLand_quality.

¶19Since Iam dealingwith acquisitionsin 10 villagesand 8 notificationsissued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, Ithink it advisableto put in a tabularform the relevant TDopg 29 of 74 LA.App.No.266/20088c connectedmatters "facts, wTiich wj^d be "my data for further ^alysis. Put in a tabular form the data would be as under:- Village Date of Section Notification LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons ADJ compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B'n2.26 Minimum price as-of 1.4.2000 Cat. Uniform. n4.3728. -Minimum price as of

1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi Kalan

7.8.2000 n3.82 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 n4.12995. Price as in Gairafs case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' ^5.7 Cat. 'B' ^14 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. ?16.43811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. . Holambi Kalan

23.5.2002 U5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ?22.14239. Price as in Gaira/'s case as of

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

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B'n2.62 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 No enhancement given. Khera Khurd

11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B'n2.62^ Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 Cat. Uniform. n4.40157. Minimum price as of

1.4,2000 with 12% increase p.a. Narela

2.5.2001 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Cat. 'B' n4 . Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. ^15.857. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters -33 12% increase p.a. Ali Pur

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' ?15.7 Cat; 'B' n4 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n6.43811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. AN Pur

23.5.2002 n5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n7.8524 Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ns.i Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n6.43811 Minim'um price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 ^5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ?16.43811 Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur Kaian

27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Cat. 'B'XIA Cat. 'C n23 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001

¶1?19.13765 for Uniform category. Minimum price as of

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

¶2n9.1604 for Uniform category based on sale deed dated

25.5.20,02 with 12% increase p.a. Sanoth

7.12.2001 n5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ne.99042. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Sanoth

27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' tl5J Cat. 'B' n4 Cat. 'C n2.3 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ^19.13765 for Uniform category. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase P-a-Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2001 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ?17.753j65_ Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with • compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. Shahpur Garhi

23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' ?15.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n7.79781. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with compound interest

(3) 11.5% p.a.

¶20I now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by learned counsel for the land owners and the 2 submissions urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India).

¶21The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ?^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ?63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for ail the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Sura] Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization"ChristianOrganization"and as per the testimony 3S'' of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the orgarnzafion haci-te-pay the price for the said piece of iand as it was the oniy plot of the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini & Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009

(14) SCC 369 Mohd. RaUfuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) 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 sale deed to determine the market value of iand 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 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 lands 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 dated

27.1.2003 where-under agricultural iand in village Rajapur Kaian was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ?17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes to ?63.478 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-1/2and Ex,PW-l/3, LA.App,No.266/2008&connectedmatters ^3 oil''- themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price -diid ex-fdcie desLiuy edch utfrer: 21, Thus, apart from reasoning of learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 71 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale 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.Dahiyabeing the decisiondated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs \/s. UUr~& Ofs. It was highlighted that the sale deed therein 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 instantcases 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 argumentignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not acceptthe value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but Tound" that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3'"^ the price arrived at would be the same as , would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of ?1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to ?2,31,800/- which was near about price of ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3*^^ 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 aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per sale deeds this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair, market value.

¶24Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of argument that after accepting said saie deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to village—Narela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced would be dealt with by me at the end when Idetermine the fair market value of lands for the villages in question.

¶25The second argument, contours whereof are= to be found in para 11 of my decisionherein above, I need to note the LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters . latest pronouncementof the Supreme Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 Lai Chand vs. UOI. 26, But before that I must highlight that the decision in Lai Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basjs, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and the argument was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road.

¶27Pertainingto the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing the same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equallybe relevant to industrial layouts, in paras 11 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 Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surroundingvillages.The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis; SI. No. Plot size Category Rate (per square metre)

¶126 sq m Economically weaker sections Rs 100

(EWS) '

¶232 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125

¶348 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 150

4.

60.sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200

¶590 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the said provisional rates, should be taken as indicative of the ruling market price.

¶12On careful consideration, we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several, reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon economic status of the land loser. thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold tentt wbereas the attotment "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 .13. The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped "agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated.

¶14The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is cost of development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds civic amenities (community facilities), etc.

¶15The 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, Page37 of74 undergrounddrainageand sewage facllitles/Tayihg wat^ lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil amenitios, which would be about — — ' w w ^ wf I u W t J J yn tJ I III w w 11 ilu—i ri — i TiTg developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deductionfor development"and can accountfor as much as 75% of the cost of the developedplot.

¶16On the other hand, if the residentialplot is in an unauthorisedprivateresidentiallayout,the percentageof "deduction for development" may be far less. This is becausein an unauthorisedlayout, usuallyno land will be set apartfor parks, playgroundsand communityfacilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likelyto be minimal.The roads and drains will also be narrower,just adequatefor movementofvehicles.The amountspent on development work would also be comparativelyless and minimal.Thus the deductionon accountof the two factors in respectof plots in unauthorisedlayouts, would be only about 20% p us 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots.

¶17The "deductionfor development"with referenceto - prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and qualityofthe layout. positionwith referenceto industriallayoutswill be different.As the industrial plots will be large (say of tne size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residentialplots measuring100 sq mto 200 sq nr. there will be very limited civic amenitiesand ^fnr development ( or roads, parks, playgroundsand civic amenities)will be ar less; and the cost to be incurredfor developmentwill also be marginallyless, with the result the deductionto nni industrial plot may range only between45% to 55% as contrastedfrom 65% to 75% for residential plots.

¶19If the acquired land is in a semi-developedurban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deductionfor developmentmay be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructurewill already be available. {A/ote-. The percentagesmentioned above are tentativestandardsand subjectto proofto the contrary.)

¶20Therefore the deduction for the "development factor" to be made with referenceto the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction Page38 of74 Ml with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorisedprivate layout or an industrial layout It is afso^ weff"known that the developmentcost incurred by ptutory agenciesis much higherthan the cost incurred by privatedevelopers,having regard-tohigheroverheads and expenditure.

¶21Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residential-cum commoFciaior incfostrlaf;an4oveo among residential .. . w. . w,. I MIIWI UIIIWII^ IwOIUdlLIOl layouts, the percentagewill differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extentof community "faci+ftios,parks and playgroundsprovided.

¶22Some of. the layouts formed by the statutory development authorrttes may have targe areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgroundsand 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

¶23DpA and other statutory developmentauthorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon economic status of the allottees, classifyingthem as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots niay be earmarked for persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be.Rs 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 square metre for persons belonging to high income groups.

¶24The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. Ail 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 applicantsTof~allotment. Third factor LA.App.N6.266/2008 & connectedmatters , 25. Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DOA allot ptuLb on leasehold— basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent.

¶26There are standard methods for determining annual rental value with reference to value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership); rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the market value of the property.

¶27However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant."

¶28The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting from 1_AC Reference NO.117A/2009. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court with reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads:- "Ld. Counsel fj3X-.tbe_-P-eiLtj-0Jiers_liasfurther 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 DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the pre-determinedrate of t3028/-which 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 ^,989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotmentletter dated 09.07.90 of industrialplot allotted by DSIDC i.e. % plot no.270, measuring sq. yards at Narela Industrial Complex at the rate of ^650 sq. metres which is Ex. PW3/1 another allotment letter dated

25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at ^3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from statement of PW9 Kanwal Singh & document Ex. , PWll/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = ^248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme (§) ?3208 would be ?2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 - 759422 = 17719866 per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. ?1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only ^3,27,083/- per "brgtraT Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW7 R.D, Sharma, Asstt. Man aqer, DSIDC who has produced documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is ^2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area underplots =

112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot ^3000/- per sq. yards Total earning = ?4083750000 Total expenditure • = ^720526901 Total profit =r ^3363223099 i.e. Profit comes to ?2470 per sq. yard~ofT2470000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and the LAC has paid compensation @ ^327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of ?214291_7 per bigha. . Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ ?327083 per LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the said price is considered on account of land, the figure comes to ^654166. If the amount is deducted from sale 1 _ £rice._per b[gha. i.e. ?24700000, figure comes to ^1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." —2-9-NOW, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in La! Chand's 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 evefi—by—the leamod Reference Court, that with development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme 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.

¶31I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Chancfs case (supra) has rightly 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 market value of the lands.

¶32The third submission in the alternative wa_s based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bed! Ram's case (supra), and the submission is as noted In para 12 herein above. The land owners require price determined in Dharambifs case (supra) relating to notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters —3Q.10.1963in suxQ-of-J^3,fiy.75QA"-fi6rbighs for vills^g^ Msmurpur to be treatedas the basis and progressivelyincreased,firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% per.annum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notificationsin question.

¶33It be highlightedthat in Beaf/ Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date aS; of the year 1^59, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied, the progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years.

¶34However, In La! Chandz case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-10-1961 is relevant?

¶47The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was-awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. V. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai PateilQ. this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) "15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining market value by providing appropriate escalation over~tiTe~proved~market value of nearby lands in previous years (as -ewdeoeed-by-s-a Ie where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr acquisitions of comparable lands in neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008&. connectedmatters -safe Yvhcre fhe I'e+iecl^jo sale-transactions/acquisitions precede subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it reiates to a neighbouring iand. What may be a reiiabie standard if the gap is of oniy a few years, may become unsafe unreiiabie standard where the gap is iarger For example, for determining market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'fate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." (emphasis supplied)

¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if 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 discJose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing price with reference to 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 market value for a 1981 acquisition."

¶35It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi /?^/??ls-Ga-se-(swfa) runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lai Chands case (supra), which decision follows-air—earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai iivanbhai Patei. Page44 of74 U-]

¶36ill Lhy msLant case there is another good reason "not to foiiow the iaw iaid down in Bedi Ram's case (supra) for the reason i find that a Co-ofdlnate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi & Ann Vs. UOl & Ors.. pertaining to agricuiturai iands in viiiage Mamurpur - Nareia, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambir's case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Nareia as of 14.3.1980 @ ?2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ ?1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would have come to approximately ?50,000/- per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at ^33,000/-per bigha.

¶37That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market, value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006. Mahender Sinah vs. UP! & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one village with wt^h 1am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of agricuiturailand in villageBawanawas acquiredfor an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of

15.11.19§6was determined@n,99,904.68 bigha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlightthat if the notificationdated 25.7.1997by which price for agriculturalland beingthe minimum pricedeterminedby the Governmentwas flO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997,the price determined by the Division Bench wouid equial the minimum price notified by the Government.

¶38If I were to take price—as—of-i:5^.11.1§96 @ ?9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price wouid be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein above, I would be holistically discussing the subject whiie opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notifications in question.

¶39The-fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning ?1 lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce. /

¶40The learned Reference Court has not accepted testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no'proof in support of his oral testimony.

¶41. The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on

4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3'"'^ week of September, rice Is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is Page46 of74 Jtr: sown around the first week or the second week of November each year. _ _

¶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 Delhi till 31.3.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a.pension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning ^1 lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annual income would be ?19 lakhs and one finds ft strange that not^ penny was invested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to 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 the fields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and ifthe 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 rightly rejected.

¶43If there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (1) SC 444 State of Gujarat & Ors. 1/5. Rama Rana & Ors.. pertaining to the yield from agricultural land, only then it would be safe to determine fair market value by applying the principle of LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, capitalizing being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 times as was sought to be projected.

¶44The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle be ^adopted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008.

¶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 I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

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

1.4.2000,

1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years awayfrom the last year with which Iam concernedi.e. the year 2003. I highlightthat reckonedw.e.f.the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which Iam concerned, the notificationwould be 7 years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would -be cl^sest-feo-the-point fcH"-wh^ich the mean average has to be determined.

¶46I am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which Ihighlightthat the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification dated

27.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References with respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in viiiageRajapurKaian and has determinedthat based thereon the price as of said date ^ months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003the price would be ?19,16,037/-per acre rounded off to n9,16,040/-per acre.

¶47'•^ference to the Award No.l0/DC(l\fW)/2004-05it is apparentthat iand comprisedin Khasra No.200 admeasuring ' 1bigha and 13 biswa was a Category'C iand. The sale deed in questionpertainsto the same land and indeedthere is logicthat if said sale deed had to be accepted,it would reflectfair market value of Category'C land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collector?1.7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressionsfor land in Category 'B' and further sum of ?1.7 reni.ired to fill un i-hn dnnrr^^iens in Category'C land, meaningtherebydepressionsin Category'B' land were less vis-a-visCategory'C 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-a-visCategory'C land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land would be required to be increased suitably.

¶48I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the reasoning adopted by the learned Land AcquisitionCollectorand 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,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

25.5.2002

27.1.2003 i.e. dates on which notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

¶49I 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 & connectedmatters

11.5.2006, MahenderSinah vs. UO! &Ors. wherein pertainingto viiiage-fi^wafta, fair markelrvalue determined as of 15.11.1996 is ?1,99,904.68 per bigha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre. The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i.e. the lands with which 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 facrlitres; suhools, markets rural industry, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted that G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and. that the Master Plan for Delhi notified in the year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed » in future to industrial commercial, but had also "otjserved that notwithstanding this, for the reason no zonal plan was notified as contemplated by Section llA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with referenceto the area being known to all as being required in the future for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference to the potentialityi.e. the lands being, in the nearfuturecapable of being built upon. To put it differently,the decision,though not so expresslystating, would be a propbsitTbhnihathere is a difference between the undeveloped land having building potentiality in presenti vis-a-vis a land having a building potentiality,in futuro. As alreadynoted by me in para 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was ?9,59,542.46per acre and which I highlightonce again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. the notification dated

25.7.1997 where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the Governmentas of 1.4.1997 was no lakhs per « acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gairai Singh vs. (JO! & Anr. where pertaining to agriculturai lands in village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated

15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was ?9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ^9,51,121/- per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to be highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development work carried out in the surrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ n,30,523/- per bigha i.e. ?6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is r-eported-as 2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chander i/5. //(9/and the same Divisian-Bench, as per the decision^reported as^111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah i/5. UOi, pertaining to a notification dated

14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value (a) ^1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. ^6,73,104/- per acre. Page51 of74 5t): ; ^Tfie atqriBsaifl~7uctgments--^RQtecUin tSe preceding jQ^ paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para above bring out two very important facts relevant tp determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ?4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16,436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is 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 good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gairafs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

¶51I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gairafs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of

15.11.1996, in paras 9 to Court discussed valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ^95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussingthe • second method of land prices of comparable lands in the j -surrounding areas tficludifig^potentraiity, irrpara 19 onwards the i Court discussed m.atter with reference to land prices in adjoiningvillageBhorgarhwhere FCI Godownshad come up and Pasecf^n sale instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.N.o.266/2008&connectedmatters Page52 of74 instancesand grnng-befiefitof indusLiidlfzatforritreland pn'ce ^ would come to no,03,364/-per acre (Referpara 31). The Court then consideredthe prkes notified by the Governmentas 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 highlightsthat the potentialityhad been well-factoredin when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f.

1.4.1997,evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at flO lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthat the price was fl0,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in Mahender Sinah's case, pertaining to village Bawana, 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 industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana and Hoiambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs case Mahender Sinah's case highlightthat potentiality translated itself into a reality betwden 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the of24-requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for D.elhi 1990 a fairly large-area.came to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial 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 relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference 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 ^9,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for ^5,39,690/- and ^70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ?6,09,850/- (?5,39,690/- + ?70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ?17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶54' Thus, best which could be said as 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 marketvalue of lands in the area would be ?17,74,109/- per acre. For Category'B' and Category'A' land the price would have to be suitablyenhancedand 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 Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters sometimes^1.2 lakhs per acre/sometimes?1.56 lakhs per acre and sometimes?1.7 lakhs per acre from the price of Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and whereverlands were in Category'C as well the price has been deducted further by ^1.7 lakhs per acre.

¶55Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money requiredto be spent to level the lands and Inote that categortzationIs based-wjiyon the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths —regutfifigthesame to be levied and this would require money spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collectorheld, in some awardsthat n.2 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ?1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ?1.7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There is just no clue.

¶56In Gairai Sinah's case (supra), the price differential worked out was ?25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in GairaiSingh's case pertained to the date

15.11.1996. In GairaiSinah's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was ?9,76,121/-per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was ?9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about

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

¶57I thus hold that Gairai Sinoh'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' Category 'C have to be differentiated on price, the differential should be 2.5%.

¶58Thus, if ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17.75 lakhs per aCTe wouid be the pTiceTor a Category 'Clan^mi/illage Raja pur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 Page55of74 admittedly pertains to a Category 'C land, the price for Category 'B' land would be n8.20 lakhs per acre and for Category 'A' land would be ?18.655 lakhs per acre.

¶59Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was n3.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was ?15.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at ?18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately ?16.40 lakhs per acre this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at ?15.7 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 while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yieids 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 oLTTa land price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particulardate is the result of various marketforces/conditions having already impactedthe 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 Page56 of74 fe<5^ notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2QQ0, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account while determining market value of-land as on the dates

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001.

¶60The argument that village Narela had always been treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of Narela was in existence since long and this was recognized when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, vis-a vis the adjoining villages ^2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambir's case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational advantage was keeping in view the realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which included areas in North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with which I am concerned today, the price differential faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.

¶61I thus hold that pertaining to the notifications dated

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001

7.12.2001 land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with reference to the sa]e deed dated 25.5.2002 for the reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates could be determined! Pertaining to the notifications dated

16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 57 of74 —because-withrefereficete-#>e-s-aibsatepricett-js^eppaientthat land priceas ofsaid date comesto more than if determinedwith respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was fl5.7 iakhs per acre with effect from

1.4.2001.

¶62With respect to the price differentialfor Category 'A' and Category 'B' lands, noting that pertaining to the said notificationscategorizationhas been done only pertainingto the land acquired in village Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kaian (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001) I hold that vis-a-vis the said notifications,after increasingthe price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effectedby decreasingthe same by 2.5% to determinethe price for Category 'B' land.

¶63Before I work out the compensationand since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases substantially in the other, a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determinedpertainingto the notificationdated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value at ?22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, Hjtjt f-need to highHghtthat pertaimng to the same notification dated

23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court has det^rnwred" the i^ir market value at ?17,85,240/- per acre I find that pertaining to village Rajapuf-Kalan and Sanoth, pertaining to the notification dated

27.^2^3 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is ?19,16,040/- in some cases ?19,13,760/- in a few, LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page58 of 74 meaning thereby that much lesser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-a-visthe compensation worked " out for Hoiambi Kaian pertaining to the notification dated

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

¶64With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13.82 lakhs requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7,8.2000 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 further increasing by

2.5% prices comes to ^8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflectthe price with referenceto the sale deed for the date

7.8.2000; mean average price for Category'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to ?14.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ^14,38,125/-per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ^14,37,280/-per acre, the price differentialworked out by me comes to a meagern,000/-per acre and thus qua Category'B' lands Imaintainthe amountawarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶65All Land AcquisitionAppealsfiled by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India mthe j «. ® appeals filed by land owners In respect whereof grid has beea prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶66All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appealsfiled by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensationpayable for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertainingto the notificationdated 1.4.2000 in sum of fl4.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands 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.

¶67Peftaihlrig-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. UOl 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. VHIaae HolambI Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000

¶68For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove cross objections stand disposed of enhancing compensation to fl4.75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that as per the award and even as per the reference all subject lands were of uniform category. Needless to state appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are allowed by enhancing the compensation to T14.75 fakhs per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as Page60 of74 u explainedin the judgmentreportedas Sunder\/s. //n/.7om (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in fiiing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These appeliantsor cross objectorswould be entitledto proportionate cost. VillaQe Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2nnn _._69^ Pertaining to village Bawana...relating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court —has aot.enha.ncedthe compensation,for parityof reasoning,fair market value for Category"^'lands is fixed at ^4.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands at n4,38,125/- per acre and noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C hereinabove are allowed by fixing compensation as hereinbefore mentioned needless to state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 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

¶70With reference to 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 he suitably updated to reach 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 fl7,74,10L9./r,.munded off tO-X17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes Page61 of74 to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect 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

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

¶71All Land Acquisition Appeals 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 n4,83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and n4.46,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertainingto this notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensationstatutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explainedin the judgment reportedas SunderVs. L^O/2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, exceptfor the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These appellantswould be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001

¶72With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from lA^l rninimum price notified per acre is ?15.7 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 referenceto the sale deed dated 25;5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to n7,74,109/-, rounded off to n7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices ' comes to ?18,65,500/ per aefe-^Foi^Categ^ofy 'A--tends; decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date

2.5.2001; mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Narela comes to ?16,16,500/- per acre decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ?15,76,087-per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the iearned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands uniform price awarded is ?15,85,570/- per acre and since for Category 'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by ?9,000/- per acre which is a meager amount, I hoid that for Category 'B' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the , pricp standq pnhanrpd to ?16 16 500/- peracm.

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

2.5.2001 in sum of ?16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order for Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections fiied by Union of India as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertainingto Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compensationstatutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained in the judgmentreported as Sunder Vs. UOI. 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted,exceptfor the periodwhere there is a delay in filing the appeai,for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. \^^44olafflbi-Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2QQ1

¶74With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with cffccL fioin 1.4.2aoi minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated tp reach 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 ^7,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, 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 prices comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; decreasing the .said prices by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22^8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.. Noting that learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ?16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager t9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶75All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereofgrid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinaboveare dismissed.

¶76All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the^land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appealsfiled by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of ?16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands compensation awarded at n6,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶77Pertaining to such appeal where compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQl 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 Ail Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001

¶78With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i,e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to n7,74,109/-, rounded off to f17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and furtherincreasingby 2.5% the prices comes to n8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category'A^iandsin village Ali Pur comes to ?16,74.500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50per acre for Category'B' lands. Noting • matitigfearned has,^-hout ai^ f^asonsTdonP away with Category B' lands and uniform price awarded is ?16,43,811/-per acre, the price differentialworked out by me comes to a meager?9,000/-per acre and thus qua Category'B' lands Imaintainthe amountawarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶79All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union oHndia-in respect whereofgrid has been preparedand labeledas 'GRID-H' hereinaboveare dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challengingthe decisionofthe ReferenceCourt.

¶80There shall be no order as to costs. VHIaae Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.20Q1

¶81With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach 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 n7,75,000/- per acre, and for ^ Category'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date

22.8.2001; the mean __avenagje_price-farXategory 'A' lands in vUlag^-Tidafnbi-Khurcl— comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50_peracre for Category 'B' lands, ^lotrng"Thai lei^hed Reference Court has, without any reasogs^ d-Que away witb-JCategory 'B' lands-aod uniform price awarded is ^16,43,811/- per acre, the price differentia! worked out by me comes to a meager ^9,000/- per acre and thus qua Page66 of74 Category 'R' lands I iT>aintaifi--tb€---amayntawarded by-the learned Reference Court.

¶82The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has been prepared labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court.

¶83There shall be no order as to costs. Village Rafaour Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001

¶84With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach 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, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price wjth reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to n6,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ^6,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is n6,43,811/- per acre, the price differentialworked .out by me comes to a meager?9,000i-.per-.acra_and.thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶85All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the Page67 of74 appeals -ffied by land owTrers^irrTespect whereof grid has boen prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J'hereinabove are dismissed..

¶86All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by.decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands In village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of ^6,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands 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.

¶87Pertaining to such appeal where compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the penod where there is a delay in filing the c which period of delay no interest on shall be paid. These appellants qi entitled to proportionate cost. VillaQeSanoth Notificatio[|>dated 7.12.2001

¶88With reference to wherein with effect from

1.4.2001 acre is ^15.70 lakhs per acre and suitably updated to reach d ppeal or cross objection, for the enhanced compensation r cross objectors would be otification dated

9.8.2001 minimum price notified per requiring saic;! price to be 3te of the notification i.e.

7.12.2001 and with reference to th(i sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, la ?17.74.109/-.- rounded off to ?17 id price per acre comes to 75,000/- per acre, for me by 2.5% the price comes Category 'B' lands increasing the sa to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and further iricreasing by 2.5% the prices corses-to ^18,65,500/- per acre Tor Category 'A' lands; decreasing the said prices by 11 % to reflect price with LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters -5^ reference to the sale deed for the date

7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to ; ^7,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for notification dated

7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of ^17,29,500/-.

¶89All 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.

¶90All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners, and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of n7,29,500/- needless to state on enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 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 ShahourGarhi Notification dated 16.5.2002

¶91Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by me hereinabove the land price would have to be deterfnined 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 fl8,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a differenceof 4 days between the date of sale and the notification1maintain that for the notificationin question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensationat the rate of fl8,65,500/- per acre and I highlight that as per the award and"th"e reference I all lands are in the same category. Appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowed needless to state on. the enhanced compensation land owners would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 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 cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Vinaqe Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 23.5.2002

¶92Pertaining to notification dated

23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days I hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of fl8,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and all appeals cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 23.5.2002

¶93As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated

23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Collector learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awardedL comnpn.qaMnn In gum nf ?22,14,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have held that fair market value would be ^18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court reducing the compensation payable to fl8,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. Village All Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002

¶94Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village AM 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-0' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancingthe compensation payable to ^18,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land AcquisitionAct as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or cross objectionswhere there is a delay, interest would not be paid foi" the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Viiiaoe Sanoth Notification dated 27.1.2003

¶95Pertaining 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 — ' that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation.

¶96On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing -same with reference—to sale deed dated

20.5.2002 taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to ?19.43,500/-per acre and for Category 'j' land the price comes to ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to tl8,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at I n9,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P'are dismissed. Appealsand Cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of ^9,43,500/- 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. UOl 2001

(93) DLT 569 shall be paid" save 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 pertainingto Category'B' and Category'C lands are allowed by modffyifrg—the—relatafele-decree—m the Reference Order by reducing compensation for Category 'B' land to ns,94,912.50 per acre for Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.68 per acre. Village Raiapur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2QQ3

¶97For parityof reasoningas per para 96 above pertaining to village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to notification dated

27.1.2003 relatingto villageRajapurKalan and where Ifind that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of ?19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at ?19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated

20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' landsi -the price comes-to ^9,43,500/- per acre-arrd for Category 'B' land the pricecomesto ?18,94,912.50per 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 '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-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objectionsfiled by land owners pertainingto Category'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of ?19,43,500/- per acre and needless~tcrstate--OTrthe-enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001-(93i-BLT—569-shall -be paid save—arid except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters j/youldnot bo paid for tho poriodofdolay. Proportionatocosteas well. The appeals and cross objectionsfiled by Union of India pertainingto Category'B' and Category'C lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by reducing—ttre—compens-atfon—for—Category 'B' land to ns,94,912.50 per acre for Category 'C larid to ^8,47,539.68 per acre. (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE AUGUST 23, 2011 mm/dk LA.App.No.266/2008 connectedmatters Page74of74

r $-124 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 270/2009 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate (LAC) with Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr.Siddharth Panda, Advocates. versus ATTAR SINGH & ANR. Respondent Through: Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG