Ram Kishan v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

23.08.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.266/2008. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. AUGUST 23. 2011 mm Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. * • IMTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT MEW DELHI % ^ iudomentReservedOn: ll^^Auoust 2011 iudament Delivered On: 23'" Auoust 2011 A-LA.APP. 266/2008 jA! SINGH Through: UOI & ANR. Through: .... Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Mr.Deepak Khosia," Mr.S.K.Yadav. Nr.^-I.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana, Mr.Raj Singh. Mr.Uday Ram, Mr.D.R.Tomar, MrJ.S.Dahiya, Nr.l^.S.Dalai, l^r.S.MBhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta. l^r.S.K.Rout, Mr.S.S.Rana, jVfr.Sunil Dalai, Mr.D.S.Khatri and Nr.T.P.S.Kang, Advocates Vs. ... Respondents l^r.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with i^ir.Sanjay Kumar Pathal<, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and iVis.K.Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1. Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Advocate, for DSIDC. Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Fawan Mathur, i^s.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihar! Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi and . Ms.Beenashaw Soni Advocates for OpA, AND CGRIP-A) -f LA.APP. 259/2008,. LA.APP.''254/2008,LA.APP. 265/2008, LA.APP. 267/2008, LA.APP. 258/2008, LA.APP. 270/2008, LA.APP. 271/2008, LA.APP. 272/2008, LA.APf». 273/2008, U.APP. 278/2008 S~CM~APPL. 533872T}OriCroSS Ot5jBcttoTTS)7"tATAFP. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected mailers "Objecaons); 286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP. 293/2008, LA7APFt^M/2^ & CM APPL. Objectfons), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP. 299/2008, LA.APP. 301/2008,. LAtAPFt-tA.APP7~an720a8, LA.APP. 337/2008, 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, 999/2008 & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), 1014/2008, LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP. 1023/2008, 1026/2008;- LA.APP. 1064/2008, U.APP. 1071/2008, 1244/2008, LA..APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, 1268/2008, U.APP, 1273./2008, CM A.PPL 267/2009, licipum LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APR. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. la:app. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. -U.APR 875/2008, 888/2008, 905/2008, 910/2008, 926/2008, 932/2008, 936/2008, 942/2008, 955/2008, 268/2009. _2Jl-/20a9T^ LA:APP-. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & CM APPL. 5353/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ^.APP. /<!) 5261/2009 (Cross TA.APP. 289/70S8, tA.APP. 292/2008, LA.APP. 12#W2m±-tero5S-296/2008, LA.APP. 3^3/2008i—LAttWt . LA.APP. 35-7/2008, "LA.APP. 394/2008, LA.APP. 413/2008, LA.APP. 443/2008, LA.APP. 4-83/2008, 492/2008, 496/2008, 535/2008, 545/2008, 554/2008, 621/2008, 628/2008, 649/2008, 484/20081—LAtAPP." 493/2008, 526/2008, 537/2008, 546/2008, 563/2008, 623/2008, 635/2008. 662/2008, 879/2008, 894/2008, 906/2(308, 911/2008, 927/2008, 933/2008, 939/2008, 944/2008, 958/2008, 269/2009, LA.APP. 272/2009. U.APPr 306/2009, U.APP. 521/2009, U.APP. 12886/2011 (Cross 12917/2011 (Cross' LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. 2377/2009, (Cross Objections) U.APP. 86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, U.APP. 97/2009, U.APP. 98/2009, U.APP. 101/2009, U.APP. 110/2009, U.APP. lll/200a-U.APP. 114/2009, U.APP. 120/2009, U.APP. 251/2009, U.APP. 252/2.0.09, U.APP. 265/2009, U.APP. .2-e§/2aO-9-4^^M-APPL. No.5356/2010 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 273/2009, U.APP. 300/2009, U.APP. 454/2009, U.APP. 455/2009, U.APP. 532/2009, U.APP. 535/2009 & CM APPL. Objections), U.APP. 536/2009- & CM-APPL. xfBj^ofis), u.APF. --§4~3/2ee^r--U;APP; LAlApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters 566/2009, LA.APP. 5^0/2009 & CM APPL13873/2011 LA APP 589/2009. LA.APP: 393mr09-n:fi.SPP; ^4/2009 WW &35/2009, LA.APP. 636/2009, LA.APP: 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 & CM APPL.13878/2Q11, l^.APP. 1/2010, LA.APP. 29/2010 LAAPP ^-APP. 105/2010, LA.APP. lo'S ' U.AP^ 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. cnnoSJS' ^994/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP: 520/2010 CM APPL13968/2011,LA.APP. 521/2010, CM APPL. 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 522/2010, LAAPP 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. 534/20107iAAPP. 535/2010 & CM APPL 12867/2011 (Cross Objections), Uk.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. 663/20X0 & 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 Se 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.N6.266/2008&• connectedmatters Page3 of74 ^ ==—— 392/2011, LA.APP. 420/2011; "42472014---^^ 425/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award fs!o.l9/2002-03, Village-PootliKhurd) AND CORID-B) + LA.APP. 972/2008 & W 2349/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1122/2008 & CM 2099/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1150/2008 & Ci^ 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, Vinage-noiambi Kaian) AND CGRID-C) + 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. 182/2009, LA.APP. 969/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 08/2001-02, Viiiage-Bawana) AND _ • , CGHID-DI " • • + LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2011 & CM-• 12911/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 146/2011. & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters .:;=7:ffteiatmg--to Motifrcatfon u/s 4-cfe^E:ed 1r.t)§.Av^afd-Mor 20/2002-03, Village-Khera Khurd) AMD CGRID-E) + LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, 1:jWPp7-646/200§7-tA7APFr-§t/20l07-S;A^^ 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP. 191/2010 & 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 r^lo. Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, LA.APP. 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& CM IMo. Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 & CM No. 503/2010, LA.APP. 506/2010, LA.APP. 509/2010, LA.APP. 512/2010, LA.APP. 515/2010, LA.APP. Objections)^ 505/2010, 508/2010, 511/20X0, 514/2010, 517/2010 £ 518/2010, 611/2010, 618/2010, 621/2010, 628/2010, Objections), -lata-fp-. CM No. 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, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ! CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 7702/2011 (Cross Objections), 519/2010, 612/2010, 619/2010, 622/2010, 647/2010 & LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. CM No. 610/2010, 613/2010, 620/2010, 623/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 3847/2011 (Cross 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM No. 3560/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 552/2()10, LA.,APP. 841/2010, LA.APP. 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP, 854/2010 & CM No. ^;O3W2011~1Cra5S"~Objectiuns)v tA7AFF7-855/2010, LA.APP. 856/2010 & CM No. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 857/2010,"~LA:APPr920/2010 & CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross Crbjectronsy, 1 (Cross 10:21f2010, LA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP. -^/2011, LA.APPt-80/2Q^ -tArAPPT 8372^1:; LA.APF7-847^-l7-tATAPP.85/2011, LA.APP. 86/2011,LA.APP. 87/2011,LA.APP; 300/2011,LA.APP. 322/2011, LAtAP^^. 324/2011,&CM APPL.15110/2011,LA.APP. 385/2D11. , LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters CRetatSng to fSTdtlfication u/s 4 dated

02.05.2001& Award No. 24/2003-04, VIHage-Marela) AMD . CGRID-F)- + LA.APP. 497/2008, LA.APP. 141/2009 & CM 5302/2010 (Cross Objections). (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 18/2003-04, Village-Hoiambi Kalan) Ai^D CGmO-G) -h LA.APP. 777/2.010 & CM APPL.3808/2011. LA.APP. 778-/2010 & CM 2685/2011 (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 fMotification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 33/2003-04, Viilage-Holannbi Kalan) AND + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, LA.APP. 409/2011. tREtanng to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No. 15/2003-04, Viliage-Ali Pur) -f LA.APP. 481/2010 AND CGRID-I.A .ApD.No.266/2008&conrectr^^'x-fc-s Pag®6of74. TRsmtmg-ts-i^mTfmatiuiT-i^^ 9/2003-04, Viilage-Holambi Khurd) AND . - . • (GRiD-J) + LA.APP. 780/2010&CM i\lo.2661/2011(Cross Objections) LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM iS!o.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 iMo.;2667/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM NO.3703/2011 (Crbss Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 & CM fSio.l4333/2011(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011 (Cross A Objections), LA.APP. 977/2010, LA.APP. 978/2010, LA.APP. ^ 979/2010 & CM No.9990/2011, LA.APP. 980/2010 & CM No.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP, 982/2010 & CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 9^472trW" & CM Wo.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 986/2010, LA.APP. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010. LA.APP, 990/2010, LA.APP. 991/2010 Si 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 0bjections)011, LA.APP. 1024/2010 & CM No.6771/2011 (Cross 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.5766/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 73/2011 & CM No.12922/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM .No.5775/2011 (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 (Reiating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No.20/2003-04, Village-Rajapur Kalan) AND (GRID • LA.App.No.266/2008 & coiuiecied matters + LA.APP. 488/200§7-tArAPP7"49W20087"tA.APP. 491/2008 LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/2008, LA.APP. S§B72tnJ8 & GM NO.10393/2P09 {Cross Objections), LA.APP. 896/2t}0S & CM f LA APP 1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, "LA.APP. 591/20097 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. 4Z1/2011 (Relating to Notification "u/s 4 No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth) dated

07.12.2001 & Award AND (GBiP-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, LAiAPP. 387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP. 464/2008& Ci^ No.11333/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP. 468/2008& CM NO.11334/200B (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,' 722/2008, 786/2008, 842/2008, 883/2008,

92.4/2008, 938/2008, 945/2008, 998/2008, 1007/2008, 1079/2008, 309/2009, 465/2009, 546/2009, 624/2009, 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.APF. LA.APP. LA.APP. 23/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010. 682/2008, 731/2008, 825/2008, 850/2008, 903/2008, 935/2008, 940/2008, 956/2008, 1001/2008, 1065/2008, 106/2009, 374/2009, 468/2009, 547/2009, 628/2009, 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. 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, 26/2010, LA.APP. 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 t-Q Rotlfi^tion u/s 4 datad 16.05.2002 & Award No. 29/2003-04, Viliage-Shahpur Garht) LA.App.Nb.266/2008^ connectedmatters m ^AMD (GRID-IVI) + 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. 456/2Q08& CM No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM Ho. 16150/2008 (Cross Objections), 680/2008, 720/2008, 760/2008, 823/2008, 908/2008, 1022/2008, 1063/2008, 308/2009, 385/2009, 540/2009, LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 723/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 767/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 824/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 909/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1024/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 173/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 311/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 463/2009, U.APP. LA.APP. 542/2009, 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. U.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP., LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 527/2009, 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) AND CGRID-N)

23.05.2002 & Award 4-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 13915/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 • • , (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

23.05.2002 & Award No. 16/2003-04, Viiiage-Holannbi Kalan) AND CGHID-O) -f. 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 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 310/2009 & CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections), LA..APP. 782/2010, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page9 of 74 m )S. yv.AFP. 9/2^11 & cm 9950/20ii Sr^' ^850/2011 (Cm5S=iBJ^5c£imm),r4kAPP^^0O/2ai^ 14852/2011 (CrossObjections),LA.APP. 381/2011. (Relating to Notificationu/s 4 dated 23.05.2002 & Award No. 17/2004-05, Village-Ali Pur) . - --AMD- —- (GmD-P| + LA.APP. 554/2008 & CiVj 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 & 7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008, 882/2008,- LA.APP. 885/2008, LA.APP. 891/2008, 898/2008. & CM No.2355/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 922/2008, LA.APP. 923/2008, ^ ^o-2351/2009 (Cross Objections), & CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 (Cross LA.APP. 981/2008 & CM No.1261/2009 (Cross LA,.APP, 982/20i0B, LA.APP, 983/200.8" & CM No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 & CM No.839/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2008, LA.APP. 997/2008, LA.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1005/2008, 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. 1245/2008 & 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 Objections), LA.APP. 122/2009 & CM No.i432i/2009 (Cross objections), 123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, 1-74/2^09, LA.APP. 250/2009, LA.APP. 260/2009, 2_6Ji2D0Q. iAAPP. "262gOM; "IJS^PP. "264/2009, 293/2009, LA.APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. 301/2009, 302/2009. LA.APP. 303/2009. LA.APP. 355/2009, 461/2009, 902/2008, 929/2008 930/2008 960/2008, Objections), Ofc^ectjyns), 433/2009, LA.APP. 471/2009, LA.APP. 518/2009, LA.APP. 531/2009, LA.APP. 449/2009, 487/2009, 527/2009, 533/2009, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters LA.APP. LA.APP. la:app. LA.APP. 501/2009, 530/2009, 537/2009, CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. l^.APP. LA:Af¥. LA.APP. LA.APP= LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. m 538/2009. 555/2009, 588/2009, 626/2009, U.APP. LA.AEE "545/2009, LA.APP. 554/2"0097 625/2009, 549/2009, IH LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP: 479/2010, 483/2010, 486/2010, 606/2010 607/2010, 61472010, 695/2010, 785/2010 786/2010 787/2010, 790/2010, Objections). 916/2010 & LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP. ^29/2009, LA.APP. 38/2010,LA.APP. 43/2010,.LA.APP.131/2010,LA.APP 202/2010 2WmG, LA.APP.225/20ia^U^^ 227/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010, LA.APP. 303/2010 LAAPP 372/2010, LA.APP. 410/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010' LA APP 480/2010, . . . 484/2010, 487/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. (Relating to Notification u/s No.11/2004-05, Viilage-Sanoth) LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & CM No.19878/2010 (Cross Objections'), LA.APP. 608/2010. LA.APP. 609/2010, LA.APP. 615/2010, LA.APP. 671/2010, LA.APP. 705/2010, LA.APP. 734/2010, & C!^ No.12968/2011 (Cross Objections), & CM No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. 789/2010, LA.APP. 820/2010 & CM No.12880/2011 (Cross LA-APP._ 821/2010, LA.APP. 915/2010, LA.APP. CM No.6773/2011 (Cross Objections), 482/2010, 485/2010, 604/2010. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. 14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 26/2011 & CM No.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 55/2011 & CM No.12894/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 59/2011, U.APP. 63/2011, LA.APP. 69/2011, U.APP. 70/2011. U.APP. 72/2011 & CM NO.B777/2011(Cross Objections), U.APP. 76/2011 & CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 & CM No.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 135/2011, U.APP. 136/2011 & CM No.12971/2 (Cross 0bjections)011, U.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 143/2011, LA.APP. 153/2011, U.APP. 203/2011 & CM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 273/2011 & CM No.13289/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 338/2011 dated

27.01.2003 ^ Award , AND - CCiKiD-Q} . . . - 4-U.APP. 336/2010 • & CM APPL14845/2011, U.APP. 624/2010, LA.APP. 625/2010, . U.APP. 626/2010, LA.APP. & C.M. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP.' U.APP. 630/2010, U.APP. 642/2010, U.APP. U.APP. 644/2010. U.APP. 645/2010 & C.M. 627/201Q 629/2010, 643/2010, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Pdge 11 of 74 No.3587/2011 (Cross Oojections), LA.APP. 54672010. LA.APP 564/2010, LA.APP. 655/2010. LA.APP. 667/2^ LAAPP 668/2010, LA.APP. 559/2010 & CM: Mo.6769/2oil (Crn^q " ^^9eGE©fts)==K;m===WB7zeie=s~x:nv?7Tm3BiW2^(Cross Objections)> LA.APP. 672/2010, LA.APP. 573/2010 & CM. i\!o.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 587/2010, LA.APP. 701/2010 & C.M. No.3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 702/2010, LA.APP. 703/2010 & C.ivi. No.9941/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 & C.iVi. i^O-12878/2011 (Cros^Obxecti,onsl...^L^^^^^^ 735/2010; LA.APP. .735/2010, U.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP. 739/2010 & C.|Vj. No.3559/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 740/2010 & CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP! 300/2010 & C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP 802/2010, LA.APP. 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010, LA.APP. 809/2010, LA.APP. 810/2010/ LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP 812/2010, LA.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010, LA.APP. 815/2()10, LA.APP. 815/2010 & CM. No.3862/2011 (Crbs Objections), LA.APP. 817/2010, LA.APP. 838/2010, LA.APP. 839/2010 & C.l^. 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.iVI. No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 975/2010 & C.M. No.2664/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& CM. No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP. 56/2011 & C.M. No.9939/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 74/2011, LA.APP. 95/2011, LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP, 98/2011, 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.155/2011,LA.APP.329/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

27.01.2003 & Award No.10/2004-05, Village-Rajapur Kalan) CORAM;- HOM'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAflDRAJOG

¶1Wiiether t!^e Reporters of loca! papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page12 of 74 P^MeP NANDRAiOG. i:

¶110 villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, Ali Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are connprised in the Revenue District(North-West)and if we see the nnap of the city of Delhi • —we^wmjld^fif^d-that^hesevillageslle4fs-the-Merth^ part of Delhi. They lie within an area between the 'V' formed by Rohtak Road i.e. MH-10 and G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1. The Delhi-Ambala railway line runs somewhatparallelto MH-1. Whereas villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway fine and IMH-i, 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 fine. 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 industria! 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 Nareia, 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. fsleediess to state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time, on -^"Btoresard^date^s under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act r8~9~47 vast in said 10'Wfa^es were acquired and 5gve and g^xr^nt lands In the Revenue Estate of viliaqe Marela where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential and partly industrial, in the other villages, acquisitionwas'for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down.a LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters , Page13 of74 . . .. - : load ui &&tgM camplexvTTi€ r§^gggiT~^wnvsucn fa^ 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 highiight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in aJLappe^. 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 Marela, 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 of village Narela and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Namurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of ?2/-per sq.yd. v!s-^-v!s price determined for lands' in village Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight that 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 Namurpur-

¶4The position of the awards made from time to time and the relatable notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have been detailed by me while noting the various Land Acquisition Appeals and the Cross Objections as per the o index hereinabove and thus I need not repeat the same.

¶5. A perusal of all the awards announced from time to =liffie=:weiiidrr^e¥eai4i4afc-ibe-ieamed--Land Acquisition Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from -ttme^ time notifying the minimum rates for agricalturai lands in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters - . Page14of74• . , _ ; • . 11^ ^ to b', the lana value has been appropriately depressed and this is to be found in a few awards whsre sands have been put in 2 or 3 categories i;er C^^^ '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 purposes of clarity I may note basis on which learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court have determined the compensation payable. The same would be as under:- A. Pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.2000 issued SeetioR 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant whereto 1372.00.10 big,ha 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 ?12.26 lacs per I acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the policy for ^ minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. ?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 AcquisitionAct 1894 and thus determined fair market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and tias ignoredthat there was Category'B' land for which he had to make necessary adjustment. B. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 pyrsuaRt whereto-211.14bigha land was acquired in villBge-HolambI Kalan, the Land AcquisitionCollectortreated the land as of same character and determined fair market value with referenceto the policyfor minimum rates in sum of tl3.82 lacs LA.App.No;266/2008&connectedmatters Page15 of74 ^^ ^. It per acre which has been enharrcecM^y-the-iearrred Reference Court to fl4,12,995/- per acre by reiying upon a declsioli of a" Gairai Vs. (/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 annui?rB]TpTeTi"ation To"r^^^ 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 agricultura! lands in village Bawana were acquired, the Laod Acquisition Collector determined fair market vaiue 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 villageKhera khurd were acquired for shifting industrial units, 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 fl2.52 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted policy wherein minimum price fixed as of

1.4.2000 was ?13.82 lacs per acre and for 128 days i.e. the number of days between 1.4.2000 til! 11.9.2000, appreciatijig same by 12% has determined fair market value at ?14,40,157/- and has uniformly awarded the same for ail lands. E. ^ Pertaining to the notification dated '2.5.2001 pursuant whereto 1140-.5.8 bigha land was acquired in Marela for development of sectors 1 to 4, Phase I, fslarela, with respect to the policy of minimum price with effect from 1.4.2001 the LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page16 of74 <» learned Land AcquisitionCollector determined fair market value in sum of T15.7 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 per-Hcre: 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 iandrAcquisitforr Act l®t4-is dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced the compensation to ?15,85.700/- per. acre which has uniformly "awaraed. 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 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 fl4 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 an^^ the price so fixed is tl5,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded. G. Pertaining to same notification dated 22,8.2001 pursuant whereto

512.15 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 compensation as determined for village Holambi Kalan has been worked out by the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also by learned Reference Court who has .done away with •ca-tegoftzatimr- • — — H. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 192.15 bigha of land was acquired in village LA.App.No.26&/2008&connectedmatters Page17 of74 • • T Hoiambi Khurd, reasoning of the LAC and learned Reference Court and the price determined is the same as has been determined for village Hoiambi 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 reasoning and fair market value determined by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the same as adopted for village Hoiambi Kalan, Hoiambi Khurd and Alipur save and except in this village the acquired land was of uniform category. . 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 fl5.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per the policy for minimum price w.€.f. 1.4.2001 and the learned Reference Court has adopted the same price and given appreciation for 250 days at the rate of 12% per annum to reach the figure of f16,99,042/-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 ot TlSTT~tac5~peracre which Is the minimumprice notified by the Governmentas of 1.4/2001. The learned Reference Court has simply held that the land owners would be entitled to enhance compensation at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded. I may highlight that the learned Reference Court has not worked out the compensation and has left it to the Executing Court to do so, however I find that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page^8 of74 # fl7;75,3^9.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as TTOOUl and the base price at fl5.7'lacs7^r~T"y^'and days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned Additional Sessions Judge. L. Pertaining to notification dated

23.5.: 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 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^l7,79,781.78 per acre. — Peftaififfl^"to-it>e same notFfteatten-dated-^3.5.20Q2 pursuant whereto 445.81 bigha land in village "Holambi Kalah was acquired, the learned LAC has determined fair market value in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopted the same reasoning as was adopted while deterniining the fair market value of lands in village Holambi Kalan which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the decision in Gairai's , case (supra) and appreciating the same by 12% compounded per annum the price determined is ?22,14,239/- per acre. N. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.5.2002 pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in villageAlipur _ _ were acquired the learned Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at the rate of ?15.7 lacs per acre based on the minim.ym price as of i.4.2001, which price has been adopted as the. base by the learned ReferenceCourt and after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters . Page19 of7s- • were. Pertaining W notification elated

27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha land in village Sanoth and -^^BT03H5tgtm4&nd-1rr^Httaige-Rajap^KaIan-were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the minimum price notified as of L4.200l"flxed the same value as the compensation payable for Categofy 'A' lands in both villages i.e. ?15.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of fl4 lacs per acre and for Category 'C lands in sum of n2.3 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 the minimum price in sum of ?15J lacs per acre-as of^l.4;^O03r^aM I • appreciating the same by 12% per annum for a period of 655 days has fixed fair market value at ?19,13,755/- 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 fslo.200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for f5,39,690/-.

¶7Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned Reference Court have relied upon notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agriCQlturattands in Delhi, let me therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same would be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page20 of74 -SUlo^ Dste-©f~ - Effectjve-^ate-Pflee-— • % fSlotification of the price (In increase fakhs/acre) per ; annum

1.

3.5.1990

27.4.1990

4.55

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

12.16

1.4.2000

13.82 11 . •

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 v^as 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 fll.2 lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to fl2.32 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% P?I annym with reference to price determined as of and vide same notification price was V • retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.2000 to fl3.82 lakhs/ac^-e i.e.. increased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis previous i.e. fl2.16 !akhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-^-vis the previous price of fl3.82 lakhs/acre to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters o fistife"fft ?l5.i_Jafete;^anjE—The-pfiee was npyt-enhancedw.e.f. 30.8.2005to>17.584lakhs/acre and then the price rose to ?53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annum with referenceto the base figure of n7.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8,2005. ^^ Before-noting-^the-^evidence-reliedupon by the iand tjy, LUC lauu ownersand Union of India beforethe learnedReferenceCourt, it would be beneficialfor the readerof the presentdecision,as ! fee!, that argumentsadvancedon eitherside may be noted. I would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the alternativeand it was urged that they would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, failiifg which as per the third argumentand 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; the notification dated

22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated

7.8.2000for villageBawana;the notificationdated 11.9.2000for village Khera Khurd; the notificationdated 2.5;2001 for village Narelai'andthe notificationdated 22.8.2001for village All Pur; and the notificationdated 27.1.2003for village Rajapur Kaian and Sanothtreats as if all lands were of uniformcharacterand it _MS Jirg^ thM_£mTective_a<:tjon by doing 2 things, Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Governmentfrom time to time, 11.5% increaseper annum and annum iricrease-was exces^wwith reference to the of the notificationsunderSection4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; requinhgthe same to be reducedto 10% per annum In tl^ least:" Secondly, the learned ReferenceCourt was not justifiedin treating ail lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page22 of74 1^/ requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C, on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was Incorrect.

¶10Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference Court was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated

25.3.2000, Ex.P\/\/-l/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also the~^Hfe"deeTJ 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 corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 «nder Ex.PW-1/3 would be T28.89 lakhs/acre and pertainingto the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2the land price would be ?63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agriculturallands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001.

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications were issued under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct1894 by suitablyincreasingordecreasingthe price. As an extendedlimb of this argument,pertainingto village Narela, it was urged that the price needs to be suitablyenhancedand for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% morci LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page23 of74 7^. and for which the argument was that whpn" 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 f2/- per sq.yd. this was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 In C.A.Mo.44b5/i997UP! vs. Dharambir&Ors. The said decision would reveal that price per bigha in sum of ?6,650/-i determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to ?16,750/- per,bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to ?22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored.

¶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 and Rohini Residential Scheme having resultedin areas aroundthe acquiredlands being urbanizedand ; developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in i subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSipC and DDA I.e. the implementing agencies^ which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawapa Industrial Estate and 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. "

¶12Aitenjative to the second sjjbmission, 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 -Unionof India, it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitableincreasein the marketvalue of the land by percentages ranging between 5% 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 reference to the decision in Bed! Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ ^ per annum with referenceto the base price?16,750/-per bigha as of 30.IG.1953 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 @ 12% per annum till the various dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with whk±

¶1am concerned inlhe present appsals. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to ?55,88,759/- per acre and \ 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,

165.2002 and

23.5.2002. • f .

¶13The fourth argument advanced was, and for which learfled-cawsei for the parties in the evidence led in LAC Mo.99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.Mo:258/2008filed by the land owners and LA.APP.No.292/2008fiiecLby UniODJXfJndia,that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basts by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was-the LA.Adp.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page25 of74 testlfflORy of Ram K-tshafvte the effect that by selling aqncultyral _fai5Uands-h€-4iseclto earn fl iakh per biqha per annum i.e. the fair nnarket value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1394 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 shouM be-f20 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.Mo.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 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 village Rajapur Kalan was sold for f53§,6§0/-, determined the fair market value as per the said; sale deed T^he following'words: (Refer para 17 of the decision we add stamp dU-y-in-the safe price 13.69.906/- per biaha R5,3_9,690li_+ ,7'0,160 == 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes to %17J4-109/- per acre or 13,68,906/- per 'bigha. ^Further if we give 12% LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters' of74 : increase on said amount for interveningperiod between the date when the sate deed Mas^ exeajted--^nd the date of -mtrffcation u/S 4 fm05.2002 to 27.01,2003) i.e. 8 months it comestoX19,16,037/-(roundofftl9,16,040/-}."The argument was that if we look at the award relatableto the said acquisition i.e. Award IS!o.l0/DC{NW)/2004-05,it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land was put in Cat^goi^'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 Rro.200 and that page No.56-57 of"~the award would evidence thatnand-c^ 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 tl.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was fl4 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another tl.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value determined whereof was fl2.3 lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the sannie had to be for Category 'C' lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price had to be. increased by ^1.7 lakhs per acre for each category.

¶15• I have already noted hereinabove the arg'uments which were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above and hence I need not repeat the same. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page27 of74 ^ l-I — L_ 3 \

¶17In various sub-paras of para b h^inabove. I have capsuiedthe reasoningofthe learnedLand Acquisition — —^ and-to^-leamed-Refe-rence-Gewtpertainingto"the8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 and relatabieto the 10 villagesand thus 1commencefriy journeyto deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts — noted as also the reasoning of the Learned Land Acquisition Collectorand the learned ReferenceCourt as per various sub-paras,of para 6 above.

¶18But before dealing with the 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 the price for Category 'A' lands is n.56 lacs per acre and pertaining to the notificationdated 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 Nareia which were acquired pursuant to the notification ® dated 2.5.2001 the deduction effected is fl.7 facs 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 fl.7 lacs per acre to inter se differentiate the price between Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category-'C lands. Jn.other words, the price differential has-varied between ?1.2 lacs'per acre, 1.55 lacs per acre and fl.7 lacs per acre. LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters — ^ The teamed Land AcquisitionColiectorhas adonf^Hthe minimumprice notifiedclosestin pointof time to the date when Section4 notificationwas issued without appreciatingthe land price with referenceto the date of the Section4notificationi.e. no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has been given. -TfTe^€arnedReferenceCourt has adopted the minimum price notified arid has given appreciation ranging between

11.5% per annum and 12% per annum and in some cases has compoundedthe same and in some given said benefit at the simpie rate. D. Pertainingto 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 Ga/rai's case (supra) as of

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

27.1.2003 learned Reference Court, in some references has determined the fair martet 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 value based on the sale deed dated ,20.5.2002. F. . Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Coliector has classified lands in Category 'A', 'B' and 'C reasons thereof have "been given m"the award but the learned Reference Court, while "awarcfing unffdrrri c6rhpensation> has given ho reasons as to why it was treating ali lands to be of sam_e_character and.^uality. •

¶19Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page29 of74 '3>. tacts, vimich:Wouia.be my data for furtlq^r analysis. Put In a tabular form the data would.be as unden-Viliage 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' fl3.82 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 i^inimum price as of 1.4,2000 n4.12995. Price as In Gairaf s case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi Kaian

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Cat. 'B' ?14 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. tl6.43811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi Kafan

23.5.2002 ?15.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ?22.14239. Price as in Gairat's case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. (com.pounded) Bawana

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' fl3.82 Cat. 'B'?12.52 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 No enhancement given. Khera Khurd •I'

11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B'n2.62 Minimum price as Qf_1.4.20QD 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' ?14 . Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. n5.857. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with. LA.App.No.266/2008 connectedmatters Page30 of 74 Ali Pur Ali Pur Holambi Khurd Rajapur Kaian Rajapur Kaian Sanoth Sanoth

22.8.2001

23.5.2002

22.8.2001

22.8.2001

27.1.2003

7.12.2001

27.1.20Q3 Cat. 'A' ?15.7 Cat'B'n4 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as fl5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ?15.7 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 nsj as price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. 'A' fl$.7 Cat. 'B' ?14 Cat. 'C ?12.3 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 fl5.7 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 Cat. ••A'" ?15.7 Cat. -^B t A as 3M 12% increase p.a. fl6.43811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. n7.8524 Minimum price as of IT472T301 with 12% increase p.s. fl5.43811 Mlrjinrium price as of

1.4.2001 Vvfitti 12% increase p.a. fl6.43811 Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a.

¶1a9.13755 for Uniform category. Minimum price as of

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

¶2a9.1604 for Uniform category based on' sale deed dated

25.5.2002 with 12%. increase p.a. n6.99042. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 witii 12% increase p.a. fl9.13765 .for Unifcrm categery. Cat. 'C n23 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page31 of 74 ShahpuF

16.5.2^1 rCatr W ?15;7 ?17.7535a. Mintmtjrrr~pTTce~ss" or 1 -'001 Minimum price as compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. Siiah^pur Garhi

23.5.2002 Cat. 'A'f 15.7 Mmimum price as of 1.4.2001 fl7.79781; Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a.

¶20I now propose to deaf with the 6 subnaissions urged by learned couhse! for the land owners and 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 agricultuFa! lands, for all 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 Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC ^Jo.58/2005 had stated that to his knowledge land was purchased for re'llg-ious 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 agnculturaf lands .on. the reasoning it was purchased by a ^Jon Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 2)^ of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organizationstated —ha€f-4e-pav--fehe--0f}ee-fQr thp piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisitesize suitablefor the requirementof the organizationand 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 OfficerEluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini &Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009

(14) SCC 369 Moiid. Raufuddin i/s. 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 land in an . area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied 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! do not highlightthat the Union of India had relied ujpon 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 land in village Rajapur Kalan 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-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App,No.266/2008&connectedmatters . Pag®^3 oil^: ———^ ^3^ themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price ^23. Thus/ apartr-jtam—the reasoning of learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in nara 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair 4^^^tAmJ4ja-of-sub|^ectJands-cafL_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.Dahlya being the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UUr& OrJ. It was highlighted th^the sale dee¥^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.pV\/-l/2and 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 logicas indicative of the market value, but"foQM that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3'"^ the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page34.of74 (» would be price arrived at with reference"to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India I.e. the safe deeds produced by the Governmentwere giving a price of ?1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed underwhich L&T had purchasedthe land gave the pricef3,26,600/-per bigha and the average woyld -£eme-^=to—^273^76^=^which was" near sbout~the price of ?2,15,160/- per bigha. If 113^^ would be deducted from the sum of f3,26,600/-. 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 arriv/ed at as aforesaid I.e. f2,15,160/-. in other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench Is not to be read pedantically but meaningfuliy. 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 and 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 sale deeds as Indicative of the fair market value of the land,, pertaining to village-4Slarela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case IsupiWri^d'Wrc'e ihould be suitably enhanced would be dealt with hy mp at f-hp pnri whpn i deternnJngthe fgir market walue 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&connectedrn^itisrs Page35 of,74 a Caurt on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UOI.

¶26But before that I must highlight that the decision in Lai Chand's^^cBse (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basjs, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme-.and th-e-^acgument 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'. Ihighlightthatagriculturallands in villageRithalaare . situated within the 'V formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road.

¶27Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be 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 w 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 surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for aflotnrsent of plots on leasehold basis; SL No: Plot size Category Rate (per square metre)

¶126 sq m Economicaily weaker sections Rs 100 mm)

¶232 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125 &9. m Low income-qroiip

(LIG) Rs 15.[L_ ~4~ 60 sq m Middle income group (NIG) Rs 200

¶590 sq m Middle incomegroup {M\G) Rs 200 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters • Page36 of74 t© rates of developnpentauthorities are with reference to sTcoLSf ^DDA''tnri'°''th beconaiy, DDA and other statutory authorities adoot differentratesfor plots in thesame area with referenceto as«^ain°t+,P it difficultto Lk f market value, whereas market value u'" ^'^'^"'sitionsis uniform and does not Thfrrf? economic status of the land loser. f market value of freehniri ta^wft^as the allotment"rates" in the DDA brochut-e referto the initial premium payableon allotmentof plots faxtcfrs^^ oasis. We niay elaborate on these three First factor

¶13The percentageof "deductionfor 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 ^ developedplots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price w of such developedplots, the percentagedependingupon 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 the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc. " •

¶15The developfTient 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, LA.App.No.266/200S&connectedmatters Page37of 74 o underground drainage and sewage facilities/TaVinq lines, electricity lines and developing parks and riuii • wi

1.1 ic vaiuc «J1 LIIC developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% ofthe cost of the developed plot.

¶16On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorisedprivateresidentiallayout,the percentage of --!id©duGt4#n-4Q^^-4avel0|^meRt"may -be-far -less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no, land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart. It is likely to .be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthdrised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots.

¶17The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout.

¶18^ The positionwith referenceto industriallayoutswill be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be Incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 55% to 75% for residential plots.

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

¶20Therefore deduction for the "development factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • - — with reference to the price of a snnall plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is als©^-welf-teiowftthat the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers/having regafd-t& higher overheads and expenditure.

¶21Even among 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- -GtmFV-€©mfRerc4al-e{Hfidtistfiaf;an4-evefvamong residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community — parks and playgrounds provided.

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

¶23DDA and other statutory development authorities . adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same , layout, depending upon economic status of the allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically IP weakerjections. As a consequence,in the same layout, plots r#ay be earmarked for persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may 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 befbhglng 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 authonty, but'up-on the paying capacityof "the a^li^TitsTor allotment. Third factor LA.App.N6^66/2008&connectedmatters o oi; <;nme development authorities allot plots on freehold property. ^ .j /ovvnership)-rightswith determiningthe value of freehod (ownere p; « referenceto at value of a But it is very difficultto ar^e ^ premium for a freehold property with reference leaseholdplot alotted ODA As th^ peri^ ^ long, the 'l.^^.J^rtrequa^rthrieasepremium 'rite(a":iotment'prlcl,'chargedb? DDA. as being equalto the marketvalueofthe property, referred to

¶27However, in view of ^pon the above, it is not safe to the plotsformed allotmentrates/auction ^ determiningthe market by DDA in a developed lands. The value of the DDA brochureprice has thererore not relevant." Theevidenceon the subjecthas been discussedby the —r==:;p that DDA &DSIDC aotted pots m"areia^.^^^^ Area and Narela A fetter dated 04.01.2000 He has relied up°^ " =7 pi<t. 03, Sector A-5. issued by DDA of P'°\ j,., '^em Chanderat the Narela which which he has proved as pre-determinedrate . jj 25.06.2003 of plot k. PW6/1 Allotmentletter dat^ -el^rwV,?^^5 hSrnd'a^lire^le^^r S"69t7.9i%f allottedby DSIDC i.e^ ^ Page40 of74 LA.App.No.266./2008&connectedmatters \^u measuring sq. yards at Narela fnuustjiaiCoiTiplexat the rate of ^650 sq. metres which is Ex. PW3/1 and another allotment~!Gtter~^ated

25.04.2000of industrialplot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at f3000 persq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW9 Kanwa! Singh & document Ex. PWIl/1, which1s detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of per bigha wotild—be—1r7^4400000= ?248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by sellingalternate plot in IMarela ResidentialScheme@ ?3208 would be ?2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 - 759422 = 17719866 per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. ?1771985 - 248911 - 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only ?3,27,083/- per "btglraT— —— ^ Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC, He has relied upon testimony of PW7 R.D, Sharma, Asstt. Manaqer. DSIDC who has produced documentsEx. PV^7/A (CoHy). 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 under plots ='

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 f4083750000 Total expenditure ?720525901 Totar profit = 0363223099 t2470' per'-sgryafd or ?2470000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) —afld the LAC-has-^id compensatiQn-@^3-27083-per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of ?2M291I per bigha.__ Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ ?327083 per LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page41 of 74 o bigha for the land jn au.^ion if 200% appreciationof the_ Gomes to ?6541§€^—If the amount is deducted from g;^!p _ _ Pr!ce__per bigha i.e.~?24700000, the figure comes to ?1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." ^—Mmflv-y^?e-do-n©t-^sve evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate deve!ope4 by DSIDC and Marela 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 Lal_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 even by—the-4eamed-Keference Court, that with developiment of Bawana industnai Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Nareia 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 Laf Chancfs case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, 1 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. 32: The third submission in the alternative was_ based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Sedi Ram's -Case (supsa), aVid Uie submission is as noted In para 12 herein above. The land owners require price determined in Dharambit's case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters # . 4^. 3Q.10.1961in_siim-o£i£16,J50A-peiL^4m4ai^/t^^ Mamurpur 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 anci thereby-determine the fair market value for the 8 notificationsin question.

¶33It be highlightedthat in BediRam's casp (supra), with i-eferenceto the base date as: of the year 1959, for the year 1975 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 1955 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years.

¶34However, In La! Chancfs 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 iand 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. Rameshthai jivanbhai Patef^ this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) ^^ Norrnally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining market value by providing -— — -appropi-iate escalation oveT~i:hei3toved~rnarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as evtdence^-by-s-ale transa^etions-©f-a€qtnsitf©ns), 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 Page43 of74 " - • Wf^eFe^-^ #}e-f^rtn 5?t? tFaRsaetions/acqulsitionsprecede the stHsjeet — acquisitionby only a few years,tinat is, up to four to five years. Beyondthat it may be unsafe, even ifit reiatesto a neigtibouringiand. Whatmay be a reliablestandard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the marlcet value of a land -a^qwredH^rritStlT-Bxfoptmg-th^e"ah^^^ increase • •*' ui i\., uiiiiuiGI lllwJCODC method with reference to a sale or acquisitionin 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'i-ate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of A van/ing periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affectina the ver>' standard of increase." I , . . ' (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 itselfthat there were no adverse circumstances.For example. If the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports 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 Bed! ^g?^s-€a-se-tofira) runs in the teeth of the law deciared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case (siipfa)T which decision follows-an—earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Rameshbhai livanbhai Patei. LA.App.No.266/2008&.connectedmatters Page44 of74 follow the law laid down in Bedi Rsm'^ case (supra) for the reason Ifind that a Co-ordinateDivision Bench of this Court, in the decisionreportedas 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati &Ann Vs. UP! &Ors,, pertainingto agriculturallands in village Mamurpur-Narela, did not apply the progressivepercentage 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-Narela as of 14.3.1980 (3) ?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,OQO/-per l:>lgha.

¶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. UQl & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to IP agriculturallands in village Bawana, and I highlightthat one village with which I am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land jf Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana industrial Estate, the fair market value as of

15.11.1§§6 was determined (§) n,99,904.68 bigha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the Government was ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page4S.o£74 determined by the Division Bench would equial the minimum price notified by the Government. -- -- —to—take-^H=^e-pt1ce—as— ?9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would 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 while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notifications in question.

¶39The -fourtb 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.Mo.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 jakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce. ^

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

¶41The 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 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 LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page46of 74 sown around tfie first week or the second week of Noveraber ... -each; year...

¶42But the other reasoningof there being no evidenceled in the form of documentsis relevant. Now, as perthe testimony of Ram Kishan he was working as an AdministrativeOfficer in the Municipal Corporationof Delhi till 313.1996 i.e. was not a ^ tilier himselftill said period and thereafterearneda pension. If the family, as claimed by him. was earningfi lakh per bigha,for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annual4R€efBe-W0tf{dbe fl9 lakhs and one ^ strange that not^ penny was levested 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. Mo proof of number of workers employed, diese! purchased to, run the tube-well/ if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity biils paid if the '• pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by.canal water, no proof of any payment made to (P the irrigationdepariimenthas 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 i^am Kishan has been rightly rejected. ^ 4^. - If tlwe is reliabie evidence of an independent expert or there is other-wise—reliabie evideec^r—as—was—found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (1) SC 444 state of Guiarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to the yield from agricultural land, only then it would be safe to determine fair market value by applying principle of LA.App.No.266/2008 &, connected matters :£apitaisil3g==0?l-i.i yie{^z::^oasi&-^f^d--#iBr~"t007-belng 1€ timesthe aTmaatyreki and not 20 timesas was sought to be projected. argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang,Advocatewas that the mean average principle b^_^opted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008.

¶45in para 7 above, i have put In a tabular form, the minimum prices notifiedfor agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am concernedare dated 7.8.2000,11.9.2000,2.5.2001,22.8.2001,

7.12.2001, 15.5.2002,25.5.2002 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 the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 yeaTs away from the last year with which ! am concerned i.v:. the year 2003. I highlightthat reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the " first year with which !am concerned,the notificationwould be 7 years avv/ay. The 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 fee cio^sest-t^^e-^int fof^ whicn the mean average has to be determined. —4.5 1 am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in P^m-i5-tterein above,-and for which t highlight that the iearned Reference Court has, pertaining to 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 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page48 of74 - 4i ^determinedthat based thereon the price as of said s out to a€fe-aftdtncreasf^^ g months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price would be ?19,16.037/-per acre roundedoff to n9,15.040/-per acre.

¶47With referenceto the Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05it IS apparentthat land comprisedin Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1bigha and 13 biswa wasa Category'C land. 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 Collectorn.7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressionsfor land in Category 'B' and further sum of ?1.7 iakhs-per-acre-jiMQjiJHhe required to fill up the dcDrc--inn-in Category'C land, meaningtherebydepressionsin Category'B' land were less vis-a-visCategoryXMand, in other words, with referenceto 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 requiredto be increasedsuitably.

¶48I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the reasoningadopted by the learned Land AcquisitionCollectorand theJearned ReferenceCourt, I pose the question;What should be the fair market value of the subjectglands as of 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002, i-e. dates on which notificationswere issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. 37 above, noted a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on LA.x\pp.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page49 of74, ^ .53

11.5.2006, MahenderSinah vsr4JOf^Sr^FSr-^^h€^^^ to -^^+Wa^€--B^wam7"fatf-imrket-^7akie determined as of 15.11.1996 is fl.99.9Q4.68per biqha whirh to ?9,59,542.46peTacre. Tlie said decisionwould be reJevanton 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 the Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural De4hi were identified for providing major health fadlitres; schools, markets and rural Industry, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted that I G.T.KarnalRoad and Rohtak Road were providinggood 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 the future to industrial and commercial, but had also -—-^--observed that notimtnstSTidmgTITis;for the reason no zonal plaTT was notifej as contemplated by Section llA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, 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 d the use contemplatedby the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being 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 potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capable of being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so expressly stating, would be a propo^lcTn'TlT^ there is ^ difference between the undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.2,66/2008& connectedmatters Page50 of 74 • - potentiality in presentl vls-^-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 ?9,59,542.46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. notification dated 25 J.,1997_where-under for agricultural lands in DeJhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was no lakhs per acre. Interestingly, the same Division B6nch had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) Gairai Singh vs. UP! & Ann where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kaian where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated

15.11.1995, 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 and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola determined fair market valu^ as of 19.3.1993 n,30,523/- per bigha i.e. t6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is ^ .r-eported-as-2004

(4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. 6^0/and the - sameiDivisiorv-Bench,as perthe decisiofs-reported^111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vs. UOI. pertaining to a notification dated

14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ ?1,40,230/-per bigha i.e. f5,73,104/-per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters ^ Page51 of74 .5^-' ZW, "TT'e _afarEsaIgr>iclgments-^4iQtedlin preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of i\ICT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very importantfacts relevantt^ 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 t4.65 lalchs 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 1.4.20D1. it shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gsirafs case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

¶511 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 17 the 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. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the -^tmmH=i€Hflg-afeasiflcludiftgpot^iTtiai^^ para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCl Godowns had come, up and t5ased~l5rl instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page52of74 instances ancs would come to flO,03,364/-per acre (Referpara 31). The Court ihen considered prices-notifiedby the Governmentas per poiicy daued 1.4.1997and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and f9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' iands. The decision hlghllglitsthat the poieotiality had beafM.8/sJ4-feGt©redin when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f,

1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to saie transactions the Court found that as against the minimumprice 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 viliageBawana, 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 vv^as projecting ressdentiai, commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Naster Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, ® the same had not translatedinto a realityevidencedby the fact that til! 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 Holambt Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 a^ove there Is a gap between what would be expected to be 1±re market growth and what the market actually grows. —Th-e-ilexisiorTs in Gwirafs case and imhm&er Sinaiis case •hiqhllGht tfiat potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when-prices rose by about 15.5%-per annum.and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page53 of74 requisite momentum and the accelerationfei! to between 10% to nyg-rrper^TOTgm;:: ___p^jrsuRf^^tQJdaste^:_telrfeE:QEtlli::d:^^ iarg^ r?mc to be developed,both residential,commercialand industrialand probably there was enough availabilityof developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empiricalevidence in the instantcase, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reierence Court has given good reasons ool to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabovefor not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determinefair marketvalue, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land AcquisitionCollector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan tlia learned ReferenceCourt 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 vvould be ?19,16,040/-per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoningthat 1 bigha and 13 blswa of land which was sold for f5,39,690/-and f70,160/-was paid as stamp duty would mean that f6,09,850/- (?5,39,590/- 4-f70,150/-) were spent would yield the price fl7,74,109/-per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶54• Thus, the best which could be said as the most favourable situation for the land owners would be that with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C" lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would b^^,7^4,109/- per acre. For Category'B' and Category'A' land tha-p4G€-4A^uld-4>s¥€-4e-b€-sy|t8bly eFn^CTFtced and here we find another area of dispute for the reason, as noted bf me hereinabove In sub-para

(a) of para 18 the learned Land-ActfUfsitfon Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App,Mo.266/2008&connectedmatters Page54 of74 5: sometimes n.2 lakhs per acre, sometimes n.56 lakhs per acre and sometimes ?1.7 lakhs-peraa:e from-tbe-pnce-^f-Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C as weU the price has been deducted further by fl.7 lakhs per acre.

¶55Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the —laf>ds-aRd-{-Rete^at categofizatloii is feased-oniy on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths —reqtmwg-th^ same to be leveled and this would require money to be s^pent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that ?1.2 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that fl.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that XIJ lakhs per, acre would be spent? There is just no clue.

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

15.11.1996. In Gairai Singh's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was ?9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was f9,51,121/- 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 Singh's case should be my guiding star for pricfe differentia! in the instant cases as well and thus 1 hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' and. Category 'C have to be differentiated on price, the differential should be 2.5%.

¶58Thus, if fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7.75 lakhs per acre woum"^~tfTe priest a" Category 'CTaTiirirrvtllage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No.266/2008.& connected matters admittedly pertains to a Category T' lanriV the prkie for Category 'B' land would be ?18.20 lakhs per acre and-for -OrtegDTy-^A^Tid^OTFrd-ts^l^ 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 ?13.82 lakhs -af^-as-0f-l-74T-2OOlr^€-sanFve-was~?15r7^-lakhs-per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum, if I treat Category 'A' land price at fl8.655 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 and 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 f70.000/- 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 1 wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the 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"wQfk ouTa 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 particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already Impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page56 of74 . 4^iotmcatiofis-dated-^?,SaaOO, l^TQhr^^aQ, 2.5.2001-7-22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001, the differentia! period is snnall 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. 50, The 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 f2 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 ^ includedareas in North-Westof Delhi i.e. the area with which I am concernecftoday, the price differentialfaded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.

¶611 thus hold that pertaining to the notifications dated

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001 and

7.12=2001 land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by Government as also with reference to the sale 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 notifications^liated

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 LA.App.No.266/2008& connected matters "- r€f^€^e s@te pnce land price as of said date comes to more than ifdetermined with respect to the notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was fl5.7 lakhs per acre with effect from

1.4.2001.

¶62With respect to the price differential for Category 'A' and Category 'B' lands, noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining-to notification dated

22.8.2001) I hold that vis-a-vis said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine the price for Category'B'land.

¶63Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantially in the other, a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated

23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined fair market value at ?22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, — -trat t-need to-lriglTtight that"pertamm^~t^ same notification dated

23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur learned Reference Court has det^mniTred-the fair market value at ?17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village - RaJaptJi^Kalan and Sanoth, perta!iTmg"to~the notification dated

27.^2^3 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is fl9,16,040/- in some cases and ?19,13,760/- in a few, LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page58of 74 o "; .. '(T meBTTiTi^tti^Tel3ythat much lesser compensatiofTl^^eir' worked out in the year 2003 vis-^-visthe compensationworked out for Holambi Kafan pertaining to the, notification dated

23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said notificationthe land pricedeterminedin Ga/rafzcase (supra)as of 15,11.1996has been taken and increasedat the rate of 12% per annum compounded. Villaqe'Pooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2Q0n

¶64With reference to the notification dated

9.8.20Q1 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably = updated to reach the date of the notificationi.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to.fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to ^7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category'B' lands increasingthe sam.e by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ?18,55,500/-per acre for Category'A' lands; and decreasingthe said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date

7.8.2000; the mean average price for Categdry 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to ?14.75 iakhs per acre and decreasing same by 2.5%, it comes.to. ?1438,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done a'way with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is fl4,3I,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me x0mes-to-^a-4xte-a§eiixl-,ooo/- per arxe-and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference •• Court. - ,

¶65All Land Acquisition Appeals fiied by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA..A.pp.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page59of74 appeals fiteci by land OwnersIIH;:]ffi^ectLwJtei:sot^dd-hju:u^ —ppeparedand iafeeted-as-^RtBa^tbeiBiDabwe-are-^ismissedT-— All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land ownersin appealsfiled by Unton oftndisare allowed by decreeingcompensationpayable for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertainingto the notificationdated 1.4.2000in sum of iUJ5 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at ?14,37,280/-per acre is maintainedand thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶67Pettaimrig-tosuch appeal where the compensation stands enhancedstatutorybenefitsas per the Land Acquisition explained in the judgmentreported as Sunder K?. iM2001 {93) DLT 569 shall be granted,exceptfor the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection,for which periodof delay no intereston the enhancedcompensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. VillageHoiambiKalan Notificationdated 7.8.20QQ

¶68For the reasoninggiven in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertainingto the notification(same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensationto fl4.75 lakhs per acre and I highlightthat as per the award and even as per the referenceall subject lands 0^ uniformjLaJ:e^of^._Meedless.to-S:tateappealsfiled by the Union of India and cross objectionswhereverfiled are dismissed. Appealsand crossobjectionsfiled by land ownersare allowed by —enhanctrigthe cofTRpensatlonto fl4.75 Fakhs per acre together with statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters , Page60 of74 f'i explainedin the judgmentreportedas SundprV-; iini-ynm (93) DLT 569, exceptfor the-period-where there-i-sa dolay tn filing ^ appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no intereston the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These appellantsor cross objectorswould be entitledto proportionate cost. Viiiaqe Bawaria Notification dated 7 R,7nnn -M:: Pertaining to vlilaae Bawana^._relatingto the same notificationdated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court enharjcedthe connpensation,for parityof reasoning,fair marketvalue for Category'A' l^nds is fixed at ?14.75 lakhs per acre aW Category 'B' lands at ?i4;38,125/-per acre and noting that Union of India has neitherfiled any appeal or cross objection,appeals as per 'GRID-C hereinaboveare allowed by fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and needless to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be erstitledto statutory benefitsas per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2QQ1 (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. VlHaae 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 fl3.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be 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 fl7J4,IQ9/-,-.rounded off to-X17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/20b8&connectedmatters Page61 of74 ~; ^^^— to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and further intFeaslFig-i3y 2.5544:-t^e-p-ric€s connes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' iandsr and decreasing the said prices By XI% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9,2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to ?14,83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by -275%rtr:e©mes-te-¥l-474€74-l-3/- peFaer^ 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 fl4,83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?14,46,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands, i note that pertaining to this notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. £70/2001 (93) DLT 559 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay ifi filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. VUlaae Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001

¶72With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is fl5.7 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated

25.5:2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters a to fl8.2 iakhs peracre and furtherincreasingby 2.5% the prices decreasing the said prices by im to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for Category'A' lands in village IMareia comes to fl6,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it per acre fof-Gategef^ '-B' lands. Noting thatthe learnedReferenceCourthas, withoutany reasons,done away with CategoQ^ 'B' lands and 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 hold that for Category'B' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the -Pn£a^taiKi5_e_Ql3Bfli::e.dJ^_?16.16,son/- npr

¶73All Land AcquisitionAppealsas per 'GRID-E'filed by the land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Nareta 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, appealsfiled by the Union of India as also cross objectionsfiled by Union of India as also such appeals Vi/hich relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compensationstatutonrbenef its'as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1394 as explaifiea in the Judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 sMll be grani^ed, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page63 o'f74 • interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These wouia Be enotieo te pro|;^rtt0rTatexgst7' l^otlficatfQn dated 22.R.7m'i""

¶74With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 -wherem-with-effeclfiuin 1.472001'minimum price notified per acre is fl5.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date_Df 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 fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7.75,000/- per acre, and for Category'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs peracre and furtherincreasingby 2.5% the prices comes to f18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to refleet-^e priee with reference to the sale deed for the date 22;8.2001; the mean ^rage price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan comes to ?15,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to fl6,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.. Moting that the 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 ?9,000/- 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 -ap^^eals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶76All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners In appeals filed by LA.A.pp.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page64of 74 II - a Union of India are allowed by decreeingconnpensatlonpayable for Category'A' lands in viffageHofamfotKd1an perta"fTTiTTgto the notificationdated 22.8.2001in sum of fl6,74,500/-per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at fl6,43,811/-per acre is maintainedand thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶77Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhancedstatutory benefitsas 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 pbjection,for which periodofdelay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. VHIaae All Pur Notification dated 22.8.2QQ1

¶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 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 fl7,74,109/-. rounded off to n7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2 lakhs pec acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to fl8,65.500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and 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 'Ai-!ands in viMage Ali Pur comes to ?16,74.500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it f • comes to f16,32,537.50 per acre for. Category 'B' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page-65of 74 : ^ ^^ thatthefearned i^ag wl^utany rcj^on^^ away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is iTttie 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. -Jfl, Appealsfiled by the Union in respectwhereofgrid has been preparedand labeledas 'GRID-H; hereinaboveare dismissed. Inote that land ownershave not filed any appealchallengingthe decisionof the ReferenceCourt.

¶80There shall be no order as to costs. ViSlaqeHoiambiKhurd Notificationdated 22.8.7nm

¶81With reference to the 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 MPdated to reach the date of the notification i.e. i and with referenceto the sale deed .dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comes to ?1B.2 lakhs per acre and furtherincreasingby 2.5% the prices . comes to fl8,65.500/- 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 ^avemse_4HiceJafi-Cat-eg©P/ 'A comes to fl6,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ?16.32,637..50.per.acre,lorCategory'B'lands. iWrn^TTTM"the Turned Reference Court has, without any - reasoas^d_Qae_aMay uniform price awarded is ?16,43,811/-per acre, the price differentialworked out by me comes to a meagerf9,000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.2.66/20b8 connectedmatters Page66 of74 —Category 'B' lands I rnaintain-the—amowit—awafctedby the learned Reference Court.

¶82The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-!' 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. VHiaoe Rafapur 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, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the sanrie by 2.5% the price comes to ?1S.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to fl8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and I 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' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to fl6,74,500/- 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 f16.43.811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager ?9,0QQ/-4D£r.acra_aridthus qua Category 'B' lands 1 maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶85All Land AcquisitionAppealsfiled by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters . Page of aptpeaist-fi4edbyiarrd ownersin'Tespect wtiere©f-gffd-ha5-%eefv-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 ?16,74,500/- 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 the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 559 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001

¶88With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is fl5.70 lakhs per acre and requiring sa\4 price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

7.12.2001 and with reference to the, sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17.74.109/-.- rounded Off to ?17,75JIQ0/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2,5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes-to fl8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with LAApp.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page68 of74 reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category'A' lands In villageSsnoth comes to X fl7,29,500/-per acre. IMoting that all lands in villageSanoth as per the award and as per the ReferenceCourtare ofsame value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notjfjcation.dated 7.12.?001 the laiid-ownars-JA^ouid--bentitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of fl7,29,500/-. j

¶89All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union of India ! and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-K' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶90AN 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 f17,29,500/- and needless to state on enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 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 Shahour Garhi Notificatjon dated 16.5.2002

¶91Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by me hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with . reference to the sale deed dated 20,5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at fl8,65,5Q0/- per-acre^d since-there is just a diffefeficeof , days between the date of sale and the notification i maintain that for the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of ?18,65,500/- LA.Add-No.266/2008& connectedmatters 1^ II -;:PeF^gFe^^rT€iI htghirgntthat as perthe^w^rdarf^ffl^^ aii iands are In the same category7~Appeaisand crossobjections filed by t|ie land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowed and 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. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is-delay,no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Vigiaae Shahoyr Gariii i^Qtificat§@§i'dated 23.5.20Q2 •

¶92Pertaining to notification dated

23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notificationhas a differentialof 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 AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 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. Ail such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-N' stand allowed as aforesaid and ail appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed.

¶93As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated

23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all iands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page70 of 74 -, , Collector and learned Reference Court. The learned ~ Reference Court has awarded^, cocnpeiisatiGD in sum Qf_ ?22,14,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have heltf that fatr market value would be ?18,65,5G0/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to fl8,55.500/- per acre on which, needless to state, -9 with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. I • • ^ . . Village Ali Pur ^Notification dated 23.5.2002

¶94Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at ?18,55,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India as per 'GR!D-0' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed H by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancingthe compensation payable to ^8,65,500/- per acre on which statutorybenefitsas per Land AcquisitionAct as interpretedin the Judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be iDaid save and except in such appeals or crosS ! objectionswherethere is a delay, interestwould not be paid for ! the periodof delay. Proportionatecostsas well. VHlaae Sanoth jSlotificatSondated 27^1.2003

¶95Pertainingto the appeals and cross objectionsby the land ownersand Union of India as per 'GRlD-P'pertainingto the notificationdated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sandth. I note LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page71 of7# """; ; that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has p|aG«d-th€4ands-irr^-xategorles-^ritHHm^^ the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands' as of uniform category while awarding compefisation. —

¶95On the mean average basis which I have been following -^y-4PrCPeasmg-4:J5e-pdGe--as-Xit-L to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing -satTrre-wrth-^feference-ix) sale deed dated

20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to fl9,43,500/- per acre and for Category 'i' land the price ^ com^s to f18,94,912.50per acre and for Category'C lands the , - price comes to ^18,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at fl9,13,755/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P'are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' ^ lands are allowed by decreeingcompensationpayablein sum of n9,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensationstatutory benefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894.as Interpretedin the judgmentreported as Sunder Vs. UOf 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid sWe and except in such appeals and cross objectionswhere there is a delay, interest would hot be paid for the periodofdelay. Proportionatecosts as well. The appealsand cross objectionsfiled by Union of India pertainingto Category'B' and Category'C lands are allowed by m©dffytfrg-^€—r-elata^le-deefee-4^ the Reference Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters K fl8,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C {and to f18,47,539.68 per acre. VillageRaiapurICalan Motiflcationdated 27.i.?nn^

¶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

27.1.2003relatingto villageRajapurKalan and where Ifind that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of n9,13.765/- per acre and in some cases at fi9,16,040/-per acre by treating all lands of uniform category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasingthe 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

20.5.2002and taking the mean average, for Category'A' lands' the pn€e-€omes^-to-fi9743,500/-per aere-^andfor Category 'B' land the pricecomesto ?18,94,912.50per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ns,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 ! . • • objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of fl9,43,500/- per acre and needless" to state^orrthB enhanced compensation statutory beneifitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! —DtT~569—sh&ll-be—p^td—save—except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No,266/2008 & connectedmatters w f jyould 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 modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by -Fediiemg—-the—eempef^satten—for—Cate^ry 'B' land to fl8,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.68 peracre. AUGUST 23, 2011 mm/dk T (a (PHADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.App.No.266/2008(S£ connectedmatters Page74 of74

V Hi; $-37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 443/2008 RAM KISHAN Appellant Through: MrS.Chaturvedi, Advocate UOI & ANR. Through: versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr.Siddharth Panda, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG