Lakhmi Chand & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

ORDER

06.01.2012 I. S.nce.the groundson which enhancementofthe compensationis sougM by the appellants in these bunch of appeals are identical t eieforew.th the consentoflearned counsel for tl.e partiespresentat ^he hearing of these appeal, these bunch of appeals pertainingto Nocflcano.No.F,0(30)96-UB/LA/1S4,7dated J3.J2.2000.relating to geog,aph,ca]|y contiguous Villages Bharthal, Bijwasan and ochanpurare beingdisposedofby thiscommonorder

¶2processfor planneddeveloptttemof .n Delhi, commenced with the issuance of Notificationof /?"• 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 penammg to vast tract of agricultural land in one compact block i-t..,Bharthal,Bijwasanand Pochanpur. •I'lla '"T'T" h--" i" the aforesaidthree - lagesstood acquiredby the Respondentsvide threeseparateAwards I.e., Award No 26/2009 9nm a i ' No 30/2002200.' No.28/2002-2003;a"dAward . ' , , " '^o^P^^ation@?13.82 lacs per acre for '5lock B (withouttop soil). D..ssat,sfiedwith the assessmentofmarketvalueoftheiracquired 'AAp'p.'No.' ''''''' pur agricultural lands, appellants had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment had enhanced compensation@ ?15.00 lacs per acre for the appellants' acquired land in Block 'A' and @ ^13.36 lacs per acre for their Block 'B' land in Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan; whereas, referencesrelatingto VillagePochanpurhave been dismissed.

¶5In these appeals,furtherenhancementof compensationsoughtby the appellants of Villages Bharthal and Bijwasan is at the rate of Rupees Fifty lacs per acre, whereas appellants of Village Pochanpur have sought compensation at the rate of Rupees Thirty lacs per acre by relying upon the precedents in the shape of decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Ors., (2011) 2 see 246; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State ofGoa and Anr.,

(2010) 13 see 710; Subh Ram and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Anr.,

(2010) 1 see 444; Sangunthala

(Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors., (2010) 3 See 661; Ranvir Singh and Anr, vs. Union ofIndia AIR 2005 SC 3467; Chindha Fakira Patil

(D) through LRs vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2011(2) SCALE 321; Jai Lai vs. Union of India, 2002 (62) DRJ 227; Rama Nand (since deceased) through LRs vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2002 (65) DRJ 1 (DB); Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41; Chakas vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011 (9) SCALFi 362; Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2009) 11 see 171; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2008) 2 SCC 568; W.P.(e) No. 4143/2003 titled as Smt. Indu Khorana vs. Gram Sabha <&. Ors, decided on 26.03.2010; Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 see 714; Thakarsihhai Devjibhai and ors vs. Executive Engineer, lA.App. No. 119;i/2008 & connected Appeals of Village Bharthal IA.App. No.294/2010 & connected Appeals of VillageBijwasan IA.App. No. .tl]/2010 & connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page7of29 Guju.a, and An.:, MK 2001 SC 2424; Haryana State Industrial DevelopmentCorporation.(2010) 11 SCC 175;RisalSingh&Ors. Vs UnionofIndia&Anr.,2006 (89)DRJ 527(DB);La!Chandvs. Union ofIndia and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 769; GeneralManager, Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLtd vs. RameshbhaiJivanbhaiPatel and Am, (2008) 14 SCC 745; ValliyammalandAnr ra. SpecialTehsildar (LandAcquisition)and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2937; Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad DevelopmentAuthority, (2004) 10 SCC 745; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238-KapilMehra (Major General)&Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia&Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361; W.P.(C)No. 4284/2007titled as SuratSingh vs Delhi DevelopmentAuthority& Anr., decided on 24.04.2008; Om Prakash(dead)byLRsandOrs vs. UnionofIndia,(2004)10 SCC 627-Sutpal& Ors vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) 11 SCC 423; LA App' No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decided on

26.09.2011;LA. APP. No.59/2007 titled as Bed Ram vs. Union of India, decidedon 07.06.2011;and BhuleRam vs. UnionofIndia,2010

(170) DLT 37.1. 6-On the strengthof the aforesaiddecisions,at the very outset it was urged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedarguingcounselfor the appellants that the locationand situationofthe acquiredagriculturalland has to be l.rst understood in order to appreciate its potential which must be adiudgedkeeping in view the developmentin the area overaperiodof time and the samecannotbe limitedto thenearfuturealone.

¶7It was pointedout by Mr.R.S.Toma,counsel for appellantstlrat elh,-Rewa"-Jodhpurbroad gage railway line of Village Biiiwasan passes throughthe land ofVillageBharthal.dividingit into two parts on the easternsideofthe railwayline is the IGl Airport,New Delhi PP. NO, 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur and Oil Depots of Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum and a road 100 meters wide starting from NH-8 from Shiv Murti towards Dwarka Sub-Cit)^ Part-I and Part-II again divides the agricultural land into two portions; (i) North Eastern side, where IGI Airport is located; and (ii) South Eastern side, where developedFarm Houses are located on the land of VillagesBharthal,Bijwasanand Samalldia.It was also pointed out by Mr.S.K.Solankilearnedcounsel for the appellants that northern part of the land of VillageBharthalwas first acquiredfor the extension of IGI Airport in the year 1971 and again in the year 1980 for establishingIndianOil Depotsand thereafterin the year 1982 for Bharat Petroleumand the landsofVillageBharthaland VillagePochanpurwere also acquiredin the year 1984 for developmentof DwarkaPhase-I and the lands on the westernside ofVillagesBamnoliand Dhool Siras were also acquired for the development of Phase-II, Dwarka Sub-City. Attentionwas drawnto the aks sizraskn?i^to highlightthatthe boundary ot Village Bharthal, Village Pochanpur.and Village Dhool Siras are contiguous.

¶8It was strenuouslyurged by Mr.B.S.Maan,learnedcounselfor the appellants that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentialit)^of the acquired land in the light of its location and has illegally treated the acquired land to be agricultural in spite of Notificationof 16^'' October, 2000 vide which land use of the three villages in question was changed from agricultural to residential/ commercial/industrial,etc. and infactthe entireland of VillageBharthal had ceasedto be rural in view ofthe Notificationof24^'' October,1994.

¶9It was argued with much vehemence by Mr.S.K.Rout,learned counsel for the appellantsthat the aforesaidtwo Notificationshave been VN'rongl}'' discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon P. Rama lA.ApD. No. .1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal LA.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan L.^.App. Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page9of29 Reddi & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors, (1995) 2 see 305, which has been considered by the Apex Court in its later decision in Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 holding that the potential of the acquired land must be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area over a period of time and the same cannot be limited to a near future alone and if after the acquisition, if the authorities do not put the land to any use, it would not mean that there is no building potentiality.

¶10Reliance was placed by Mr.B.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants upon the seven Sale Deeds of Village Pochanpur to highlight that the sale price reflected therein varied from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs and merely because of the said variation, these sale exemplars cannot be thrown out as has been illegally done by the Reference Court, because there is no basis to conclude that these sale exemplars are overvalued because of any special advantages and as per settled legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, the average of sale exemplars ought to be taken as representing the market price of the land which comes to ^57 lacs per acre and since the sale exemplarsrelied upon by the appellants are the comparable sale instances, therefore, reliance placed by the ReferenceCourt upon the minimumrates/circlerates for determiningthe ' market value of the acquired land is patently erroneous.

¶11Assessment of market value of the acquired land was sought by Mr.R.Godara, learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the L& DO rates fixed by the Government and also on the basis of pre determined rates fixed by the Government for allotment of alternate plots in the year 2000-2001.Keepingin view the location,situationand potentiality of the acquired land, determination of its market value is i-A.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal l.A.App. No. ?.94/20i0 & connected Appealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page ioof29 sought on the strength of sale exemplars of Village Pochanpur and VillageSamalkhaoralternativelyon the basisofthe L& DO rates ofthe developed lands in Dwarka Phase-I or on the basis of the Pre-DeterminedRates (PDRs)as referredto above.

¶12In the written,synopsis,appellant-ImpulseIndiaPrivateLimited ofLA. App. No. 295/2009has assailedthe impugnedjudgmenton the following grounds:- a) "ignores the acknowledgement on the part of the respondent about the Award No.26/2002-2003dated

23.10.2002 being flawed in the course of the proceedings Civil Writ petition No.19012 of ,2006. (Referred to in cross-examinationof appellant dated

7.7.2007) h) Does not accountfor the fact that the Public Notice dated 18.9.1987adverselyaffectedthe rates ofland in the areafor more than 15 years before the Notification under Section 5 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued. c) Valuing the land on the basis of the letter dated

11.9.2001issuedby the GovernmentofNationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi is not in accordance with the law laid down by variousdecisionsincludingin one ofthe more recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthalaversus Tahsildar,2010(3)SCC 661. d) Ignores the evidence and otherfactors which as per establishedlaw has to be consideredbeforeascertaining the valueofthe landunderacquisition. e) Does not deal with disparityin value ofthe Sale Deeds producedbefore the trial Courtwhereas as per the law establishedby the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the recent case of Chinda Fakira Patil versus Special Land AcquisitionOfficer, Civil Apeal No.5475 of2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallyheld that Sale Deedshowinghigherrate shouldnot be disregardedin IAApp. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal ' LA.Aop. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof Villageliijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pafje H of 29 case the averagesaleprice is lower. Furtherin Anjana Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa, 2010(13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court has also held that the highest of the exemplars and not by averagingof different types of sales transactions should he considered while adjudicatingupon compensationupon a certanland. f Relied upon judgment dated 3.3.2008 in LAC No.97A/2006to decide the market value ofthe mhject land while ignoringthe materialwhich indicatethat the marketvalue ofthe land is much higherthan 15 lacper acre in BlockA and ^13,36,000in BlockB in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Subh Ram State ofHar};ana 2010(1) SCC 444. As a consequence, the impugnedjudgment refused to return an actual finding on the issue No.1 framed on 27.2.2007. ^ g) Evaluatedthe land as agriculturalland although vide Notificationofthe MunicipalCorporationofDelhi, the land use of Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal was changedand these areas ceasedto be agriculturaland came now under the urban boundariesof Delhi State. The masterplan and Notificationsof Governmentfor land use change show that in future land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissibleuses. It is also pertinentto mention that the appellantleadevidencein respectofthe 74"' amendment of the Constitutionof India, w.e.f 1.6.1993 IX A, by virtue of which the Municipal Corporation Act was amendedand the area where the land is situated,was deemeda municipalarea and the municipalCounsellor was electedfrom there. No Panchayatelections were held in the area. h) Refused to apply the law laid down in AIR Supreme Court 3467, Ranvir Singh and Anr vs. Union ofIndia and refusedto considerthefact that the developmentin the area has a direct effecton the price that a willing purchaserwouldpayfor thesubjectland.

i) Ignored the fact that Respondent No. 2 had also l-A.App.No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal i.A.App.No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBljwasan IA.App. No. n]/2C10&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur r-r- , 'C~ atllTr^ W commercialblocks at the ,ate ofabout X2.6 lakh and concludedthat the saidlandis whollyunderdevelopedland. j) The valuationofthe subjectlandis even lowerthan the /T RespondentNo 7 joi Similarly situated land. k) Does not take into accountthepossibilityofchangeof the use ofthe landalthoughthe landwas acquiJdfi development purposes of Dn,arlca Phase '// liharthalwas changed and these areas ceased to be dated16.10:2000and 24 101994 although they clearly establish the commercial for buildingpurposes in immediateor in near f2re needsto be comidered nea, jutwe m) The presence ofa number of buildings on the lands qZtZTs'LK'^Tt''"P ••^'^'dential hZTsitt7e r" consideredas house site the adjoininglands have the potentialof beingputin betteruseas housesitesin theZT^ure^ 13^ In the briefsynopsis by Ved Pal and others of LA. App No ppe lant.,ofth,s appeal be treatedat par with the co-appellantsof the otherappealsin thesebimchofappeals.

¶14Supplementingthe aforesaidargumentsadvancedon behalfofthe appellants,.t was urgedby Mr.AnandYadav,Advocatethattheeffectof lA./^ [A./ 'AA. connectedAppealsOfVillagePochanpur Page 1,3 of 29 1A-Aw':Jo.' 'A.App.wo. iu/2010&connectedAppealsolJi'l'lagepScrnp"ur uibanizationof the lands in the Villagesin question,i.e., the change in land use has been consideredin Mahesh DattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238; KapilMehra (MajorGeneral)& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr, 176(2011)DLT 361 and that Pre-DeterminedRates, Reserved Auction Rates of the area are relevantto determine the market value of the acquired lands and infact the sale instancesreliedupon the appellantsare comparableand oughtto have been relied upon by the Reference Court to assess the con-ect market value ot the acquired lands. Thus, enliancement of compensation reflectingjust, fair and adequatemarketvalue for the acquiredlands is sought in these appeals.

¶15Arguingthe cross-objectionsfiledby the Respondents,Mr. Sanjay Poddar,learnedSeniorCounselurgedthatthoughas per Section51-Aof Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, a certified copy of the Sale Deed is an admissibleevidencebut the same cannot be taken as relevantevidence lor determinationof the market value unless and until the same is properly connected with the land in question and element of special fancy of the purchaserand other factors namely,nature,situationofthe property,proximityto the villageetc. are also requiredto be considered and the sale instancesreliedupon by the Respondentsdisclosingcorrect market value of the acquired lands have been illegallyrejected by the ReferenceCourtand whileplacingrelianceupon the decisionsin JaiLai vs. Union ofIndia, 2002 (62) DRT 227, Satpal& Ors vs. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 423; Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia and Anr.,

(2009) 15 SCC 769; LA. AFP. No.656/2008titled as SushilKumar vs. Union ofIndia, decidedon 26.09.2011,it was urged that sharp increase in piice in a shortperiodcannotbe takento be realisticuntil reasonsfor such shaip increase are explained by producingin evidencethe seller LA.App. No. 119S/2008& connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal l-A.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan LA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpiir and the purchaser as no prudent person having knowledge of the usual prevalent trend in the market would pay such a higher pay as reflected in the sale instance of Radha Swami Satsang, Beas, relied upon by the appellants, but for special consideration. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the cross-objector that adoption of L& DO rates/Pre-Determined Rates cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra) which has been followed by a coordinateBench of this Court in Sushil Kumar (supra) and Raj Singh (supra).

¶16So far as potentiality of the land is concerned, it was urged by Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the Respondents/cross-objectors that the same has already been factored into, while fixing the minimum indicative price of the agricultural land by the Government as on 1^' April, 2000 and by granting appreciationthereon @ 12% per annum, market value of the acquired lands has been erroneously determined by the Reference Court, as in Sushil Kumar (supra) appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted. Thus, it is submitted that there is no scope for flirther enhancement from the price of acquired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified deleting the enhancement by the Reference Court while taking into consideration the appreciation @ 12% per annum and the same deserves to be brought in line while granting appreciation @ 10% per annum and thereby allowing the cross-objections to the aforesaid extent.

¶17y\.fter considering the rival submissions advanced by both the sides and upon close perusal of the impugnedjudgment, the evidenceon record and the*decisionscited, what emerges is that the true market value of the comparableland is the price paid by willing purchaserto a willing LA.App. No. 119S/2008 & connected Appealsof VillageBharthal , LA.Aop. No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillage Bijwasan 17\.App. No. 111/2010& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page15of29 seller and the best evidence is the comparable sale instances. While dealing with the questionof potentialvalue ofthe acquired land, what has to be considered in assessing the market value thereof, stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Udho Dass V5. State ofHaryana & Ors., 2010(9) SCALE 41 in these words:- "(ij the situationofthe acquiredlandvis-a-visthe city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial industrial, educational, religiousor any other kindofimportanceor because ofits explosivepopulation;

(ii) the suitabilityofthe acquiredlandforputtingup the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial,as the case may be;

(Hi) possibilit);ofobtainingwaterand electricsupplyfor occupantsofbuildingsto beput up on thatland;

(iv) absenceofstatutoryimpedimentsor the likefor using the acquiredlandfar buildingpurpose;

(v) existence, of highways, public roads, layouts of buildingplots or developedresidentialextensionsin the vicinityorcloseproximityofthe acquiredland;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become availableto the occupiersofbuildings,ifbuilton the acquired land; and

(vii) landsaroundthe acquiredlandor the acquiredland itself being in demandfor building purposes, to specify a few. "

¶18Ihe potentialityoflandfor the puiposeofdevelopmentas also for buildingpuiposesdependsupon alarge numberof factors.For the said purpose,the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for-I^.App.No, 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. rv)o, 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan i^A.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePoclianpur which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. It has been so observed by the Apex Court in Avinash(supra). While reiteratingthe relevantfactors for determination of compensationfor acquiredlands, it has been held by the Apex Court in AtmaSingh (supra)that the exemplarsofsmall piecesof land relied upon by the appellantscould not be a groundto discardthem especially when exemplarsof largepiecesof land were notavailable.

¶19Aforesaiddictum stands reiteratedby the Apex Court in Special LandAcquisitionOfficer& Anr vs. M.K. RafiqSaheb, (2011) 7 SCC

¶714The legalpropositionwhichemergesfrom the decisionsreliedupon on behalfof the appellants is that where there is no basic difference either in location, situation or potentialityof the villages, which are similarly situated having similar advantage available to them even as regards future prospects, there is no justification for reducing the compensationon the groundofdistancebetweensimilarlysituatedlands and the acquired land.

¶20It IS a. well establishedpropositionof law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquiredland is on the State who has acquired the agriculturalland for a particularpurpose. But, it is equally true that the burden of proving inadequacy of compensation awaided is on the claimant. For this proposition,the decision of the Apex Courtin Kiran Tandon(Supra)can be referredto with advantage.

¶21Apex Court in Valliyammal(Supra),while takingnote ofthe fact that the acquired land was situated in close vicinity of residential colonies,educationalinstitutions,hospitals,etc., had held that deduction of 40% towards development charges v/as improper. The pertinent .observationsmade by the Apex Court in AnjaniMolu Dessai(Supra) deserve attention, which are as under:- lA.App No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan LA.App No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur -7/ The legal position is thcit even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highestofthe exemplars, which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. Where howeverthere are severalsales ofsimilarlands M^hosepricesrange in a narrowbandwidth, the average thereofcan be taken, as representingthe marketprice. But where the values disclosedin respectof two sales are markedly different,Jt can only lead to an inferencethattheyare with referenceto dissimilarlands or that the lower value sale is on accountofunder-valuation or otherpricedepressingreasons. Consequentlyaveraging cannot be resorted to. "

¶22It would be worthwhileto take note ofthe clinchingobservations pertainingto determinationoffair market rate of acquiredlands made by the Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (Supra), which are as / follows:- "11 is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactionsin respectofthe land under acquisitionor in Its absencethe bonafide sale transactionsproximateto the point •of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhoodof the acquired lands possessing similar value or utilit)? takenplace between a willingvendee and the willing vendor which could be expectedto reflect the true value, as agreedbetweenreasonableprudentpersons actingin the normalmarketconditionsare the real basis to determine the market value. "

¶23Principlesto determinethe marketvalue of the acquiredlands as reiteratedby the Apex Court in Oil andNaturalGas CorporationLtd. : (Supra), are as under:- "Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four . factors - situation of the land, nature of developmentin surroundingarea, availabilityof landfor developmentin tie area, and the demandfor land in the area. In rural areas^ unless there is any prospectofdevelopmentin the vicinity increase in prices would be slow, steady and giadual, withoutanysuddenspurtsorjumps. AApp. ^0. U9S/2008&connectedAppealsof VillageBharthal A.App. Mo. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan A.App. Jo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpu.r Psge 18 of 29 / On the otherhand, in urbanor semi-urbanareas, wherethe developmentis faster, where the demandfor land is high ^ and where there is constructionactivity'all around, the escalation in marketprice is at a much higher rate, as comparedto ruralareas. In somepocketsin big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalationsin prices have touched even 3.0% to 50% or moreperyear., duringthe nineties.On the otherextreme, in remote rural areas where there, was no chance of any developmentand hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated joryearsorrose marginallyata nominalrate of!%> or2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases.m market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value oflands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urbanareas is about 10% to 15%per annum the correspondingincreasesin ruralareaswouldat best be onlyaroundhalfofit, that is about5% to 7.5%perannum Ihis rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adoptedin the absenceofclearandspecific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are specialreasonsfor applyinga higher rate ofincrease, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in TeTamT'' Normally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthe maiket value by providingappropriateescalationover the provedmarketvalue ofnearbylands inpreviousyears (as evidencedby sale transactionsor acquisition),where there IS no evidenceofany contemporaneoussaletransactionsor acquisitionsofcomparablelands in the neighbourhoodThe said method is reasonablysafe where the relied-on-sale the subject acquisition that tofiveyears. Beyond lid Wi t ^neighbouring land hat may be areliablestandardifthe gap is onlya feM> years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard ""maZ! determiningthe et.value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or i.A.App. No. 1.195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA aSp' No'mSSs AppealsofVillageBijwasan •APP No. 11,1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have manypitfalls. This is . because, over the course of years, the "rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihoodofoccurrenceofvaryingperiodsofstagnationin prices or sudden spurts inprices affectingthe verystandard ofincrease."

¶24This Courtis mindfulofthe dictumofthe Apex Courtin Haiyana StateIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(HSIDC) (Supra),regarding computation of compensation for the acquired lands by adopting comparativesales methods.What was said by the Apex Courtin HSIDC (Supra) is as under:- "When differentcategoriesoflands (or lands with different situationaladvantages)are acquiredfor the samepurpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have f sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided anda uniformrate ofcompensationshouldbe awardedfor all landsacquiredunderthe samenotification."

¶25Undispiitedly,in these appeals sale exemplars in and around acquired land of Village Bharthal, Village Bijvvasan of the period in questionare not availableand the solitaiysale exemplarstronglyrelied upon by the appellants is of Village Pochanpur, i.e., the seven Sale Deeds vide which religiousinstitution,i.e., RadhaSM^amiSatsang Beas liad purchased the agricultural land in Village Pochanpur at a price whichvariedfrom ?52 lacsto?62 lacs peracre.

¶26WhetheraforesaidSale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4to Ex.PW-1/10)which are basicallybetweenone set of co-ownersand Radha SwamiSatsang, Beas in respectofthe compactblockof land measuring18 Bighasand 6 Biswassituatedin VillagePochanpurreflectthe correctmarketvalue of the land in the villagesin questionis the mootquestionwhichis required to be answered. Evidently, aforesaid sale exemplars, i.e., Sale Deeds l-A.App. No 1195/2008& connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan lA.App. Mo. 111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur (I;x.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)indicatethat its price varies from ?52 lacs to ?62 lacs per acre. Meaning tliereby, the entire land of the sale exemplars Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)did not command the same marketprice.It was dependentupon the natureand situationof the aforesaid lands. Evidence to establish the advantages attached to each parcel of land of these sale exemplars with acquired land !n question,is lacking.Therefore,thesesale exemplarscannotbe treatedas disclosingrepresentativeprice for the acquired lands in question. The special need of the purchaser 6f these agriculturallands in Village Pochanpurvide Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-l/4to Ex.PW-1/10)has not been brought out as the purchaser/vendeeof these agriculturalland has not been got examined by the appellants.Had tlie purchaser/vendeeof the aforesaid sale exemplai-sbeen got examined, then it could have been elicitedfrom him as to why he had agreedto pay such ahigh price for these lands. The special fancy of the purchaser, i.e., Radha Swami Satsang, Beas who had purchasedmore than 33 Bighas of land at an exorbitant price in VillageMainuipurvide Sale Deed executedon 25"' March,2000 was also subjectmatterin LA. App. No. 266/2008titledas Jm Singh vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 23.8.2011 and in LA. App. No. 999/2010 titled as Raj Singh vs. Union of India, decided on

19.9.2011 and in the aforesaiddecisions,the sale exemplarof Village > Mamurpurwas discardedwhile holdingthat the same camiot be treated as representativeprice for tlie acquiredlands.

¶27In the instantmatters, though the land use of the acquiredlands was changedmuch priorto theiracquisition,but it has come in evidence that the acquiredlandswere being used for agriculturalpurposetill their acquisition.Thus, it becomes evidentdiat the acquired lands were not developed lands. No pmdem person having knowledge of prevailing l-A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsof Villagei3harthal .AApp. No 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan lA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Page 2.1 of 29 I market price of the land in question would pay such a high price unless and until such purchase is meant for special consideration and so, in the considered opinion of this Court the sale exemplars, i.e.. Sale Deeds (Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-l/lO) have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court.

¶28So far as the sale exemplar of Village Samalkha (Ex.PW-1/11) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, disclosing exorbitant price of ?1,76,55,172.41per acre relatingto Sale Deed of 27^^ January,2000, it needs to be noted that because this sale exemplar (Ex.PW-1/11) was situated on the National Highway - 8 and because vide Sale Deed (Ex.PW-1/11) vendor had sold not only the land but the structure thereon > including tube well, boring, fitting, fixture, lane, by-lane, etc., therefore, it had fetched such a high price. In view thereof, this sale exemplar cannot be treated as a representative price for the acquired lands in question.

¶29Eeft with no sale exemplarsdisclosingrealisticprice of similarly situated lands in the vicinity, now it is required to be considered as to whether adoption of L& DO circular rates for the developed lands and Pre-Determined Rates for the alternate plots by the DDA ought to be adopted to determine the true market value of the acquired lands in ' question.

¶30Parametersgoverningfixation of market value of acquiredlands highlightedby Apex Court in its decisionreportedas P. Ram Reddyand Ors. V. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 305 are as under:- "12. However, in either of the said cases whether it be the determinationofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredlandM'ith buildingpotentialityM>ith referenceto the pricefetchedby saleofplots in awelldevelopedlayoutin the h~eighborhood lA.App. No. 1195/2008Si connectedAppealsofVillage Bharthal LA.App. No. 294/2010& connp.ctedAppealsofVillageBijwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur P3g" 22 of 29 inevitablefor the Court m . oo,nood, it becomes 4(1) ofthe Af T notificationunder Section publicationunderSection4(1) o theU ZZT' T increaseto be given shall not exceed I m acquiredla^ '^ plots even ifformed in the

¶31dm ^ ^ ('.prhiTr*'*"•'" "»"'""«- !121 ";"""" "'•"•" «•*»- 'A./\pp. Mo. 119',/pr)no (; " '•A.APP. No, 29V?010&cr n^f Bharthal LA lA. the undevelopedacquiredlands. Thus. Ifind that the ReferenceCourt has rightlynot adoptedthe DDA rates for allotmentofdevelopedland or the DDA'g Pre-DetenninedRates for alternateallotmentsfor fixing the marketvalueofthe acquiredagriculturallandsin question.

¶32Now what is requiredto be seen is whetherprogressiveincrease n,ethodwould be relevantcriteriafor assessingthe marketvalueofthe land in questionwhiletakingintoconsiderationthe earlieracquisitionof the year 1984 in VillageBharthaland othervillagesfor developmentof Dwarka Phase-I. It was sought to be argued by Mr.Sanjav Poddar learnedseniorcounselfor the respondent/cross-objectorthat even ifthe escalationat the compoundedrate of I0»/.per annum is taken fi-om the yeai 1984 till the year 2000, i.e., for the period intervening the Notification for development of Dwarka Phase-I and the instant Notificationfor developmentofDwarkaPhase-II,stillthe pricefixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectoris morethan the aforesaidescalatedprice and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is unjustified.

¶33Aforesaidargumentdoes not hold good in view ofthe dictumof the Apex Court in Lai Chanel(Supra),cautioningthe Courts to adopt progressiveincreasemethod in assessmentof the market value of the acquiredland only when the gap is of4-5 years and beyondthat it may be unsafe, even if it relates to aneighbouringland. What may be a reliablestandard,ifthe gap is ofonlyofafew years,may becomeunsafe and unreliablestandardwhere the gap is larger. In the instantcase, the gap betweenthe two Notifications,i.e., ofDwarkaPhase-Iand Dwarka I'hase-IlIS ofsixteenyearsand therefore,it wouldbe unsafeto adoptthe mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate pp. NO. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillaseBllwasan escalationoverthe marketvalueofthe nearbylandofthe previousj'^ears.

¶34Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent/cross-objectorhad urged that the Reference Court has granted escalation @ 12% per annum, which is unwarranted as a coordinatebench of this Court in SushilKumar (Supra), has granted escalation @ 10% per annum. After having perused the decision in ciushilKumar (Supra), 1 find that 10% increase on account of higher potentiality of the acquired land over and above the market value determinedby the ReferenceCourt has been grantedand so, by relying upon SushilKumar (Supra) escalationgrantedby the ReferenceCourt @ 12% per annum cannotbe reducedto 10% per annum. In this view of the matter,the cross-objectionsofthe respondentare dismissed. j5. Now what is to be seen is whether adoption of Government's minimumprice of the agriculturalland in Delhi, by the ReferenceCourt is reasonablecriteriafor determiningthe market value of the acquired land and as to whetherthe escalationof 12% per annum grantedby the ReferenceCourt from the date of fixationofthe minimumprice for the agriculturalland by the Governmentw.e.f T' April, 2000 till the date of Notificationin the instant appeals deservesto be further increasedor not.

¶36Adoption of Government'sminimum rates of agriculturalland pertaining to the Notifl-cation in question has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellantsbecausethe acquiredland had ceased to be an agriculturalland by virtue of Notificationof 24"^ October, 1994 declaring agriculturallands in these three villages in question to be urban. It is tru'e thatvide aforesaidNotificationofthe year 1994the land use ofthe acquiredland had changedbut that by itselfis not sufficientto i.A.App. No. 1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal lA.App. No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsof VillageBijwasan I.A.App. Mo. 11.1/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur presume that the acquired lands had gained potentiality for being cons.deredas developedlands. The evidenceled is lackingon the vital aspectofthere beittgany developmernin and aroundthe acquiredlands question. Not only this, even the sale exemplarsof Radhu Swami Satsang,Beasheavilyreliedupon by the appellantsdisclosetltatthe sale ofthe said landswas for agriculturalpurpose.

¶37Rather, it emerges from the evidence on record that till the issuanceof Notificationunder Section4of .he Land AcquisitionAct, 4, the acquiredlands were put to agriculturaluse. Had there been pricedue to higherdemand,on accountofpotentialityofthe acquired lands upon change of their use post the year 1994 then appellantscouldhave laid theirhandson othersale instancesin the area >n question.But, mdeed appellantscannotrely upon the sale ofthe land .n VillagePochanpurto areligionsinstitutionand anothersale instance of Milage Samalkha (Ex.PW-l/U)without leading any evidence to establishthat.thequalityand potentialityofthe saleexemplarsof..... w™Sa>:sa"g, Beas in Village Pochanpurand the sale exemplarof V. age Samalkha(Ex.PW-l/l1) are comparablewith the aoquii-edlands an so the contiguityof the acquired land with the sale instance of Village Samalkha (Ex. PW-1/11) cannot be treated to be sufficient ground to grant higher compensationwhile relying upon the aforesaid sale instances.Therefore,in view of the afore-refcrreddictum of the allmZl Coloration \ compensationdeseivesto be awarded tor the lands acquiredunder the same Notificationin the light of the - mum price fixed by the Governmentfor the agriculturalland in 1' 'he rise of price due to higher potentiality.Taking note of the fact that there is agap between what 11Qi;y-5nno o __ LA.A^p no So J VillageBiiwasan pp. No, .111/2010&connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur would be expectedto be .he ,.a,tetgrowth and what the market had actuallygrown.Government'sminimumagriculturalpricehas beenheld to be reasonable basis for assessingthe market value of the acquired lands inJaiSingh(Supra)as well as inSushilKumar(Supra)andIfind no reasonto takeadifferentviewthan the one whichhad been takenby coordinateBench of this Court in the aforesaid cases of Jai SingH (Supia)andSushilKumar(Supra).

¶38rhis Court is ofthe consideredview that tlie ReferenceCourt in Matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan has "g^ty rehed upon the Government'sminimum price for agricultural » sin Delhi to fix the marketvalueofthe acquiredlandsin question jndingoftheReferenceCourtin matterofVillageBharthaland Village ywasan.ofthere beingno evidencethat the potentialand the situation 01 the acquiredlands is similarto sale exemplarsis borneou. from the evidenceon record.ButIfind thatthe aspectofhigherpotentialityofthe acquiredlands beingin Cose vicinityofthe IGI Airport,IndianOil and ^wat PetroleumDepots and ofRailway line passh.gthroughVillage .arthai and there being a100 meters vide road starting fi-om NH-8 from ShivMurtisideto DwarkaSub-City.Par.IandPart11. dividingthe acquired lands in two portions, and there being Farm Houses in the vicinityof Ae acquiredlands has somehowhissedthe attentionof the eeienceCourt. In the consideredopinionofthis Court,on accountof afoiesatdlocationaladvantages,the acquiredlands in question,certainly ^sumehigherbuildingpotentialitybeingin vicinityofDwarkaPhase-I vZ Tf7'" he acquired lands as assessed by the Reference Court on accountof the higher buildingpotentialityin the acquiredlands is the iAA»:»o SvSoT ""'•'••I settled legal position aptly highlighted by the Apext Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan vs. Collector, (1975)1 SCC 238, in these words:- "When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibilityof the acquiredland being usedfor putting up buildings in the immediateor near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a buildingpotentialityand proceed to determine its market value takinginto accountthe increaseinprice attributable to such building potentiality. "

¶39Consideringthe fact that it would be veiy difficult to provide a definite value qua potential, and in view of the fact that exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is broad probabilities of the instant cases, which persuades me to treat them with equivalence by uniformly applying the Government's minimum prices for the agriculturallands for computingthe fair marketvalue of the acquired lands as there are no special features to treat the acquired lands differentlyand so, appellantsof VillagePochanpurare treated at par with their counter-parts,i.e., appellants of Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan. However, while relying upon the decision in Sushil Kumar (Supra), I am inclined to grant 10% increase over and above the marketvalue of the acquiredlands determinedby the ReferenceCourtin these matters on account of the aforesaid locational advantages providinga higher buildingpotentialityin the acquired lands in question.

¶40Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed to the extent of awarding10% increaseover and abovethe marketvalue assessedby the Reference Court in matters pertainingto Village Bharthal and Village Bijwasan.While treatingthe appellantsofVillagePochanpurat par with the appellants"of VillageBharthaland VillageBijwasan,the appeals of lA.App. No. 1195/2008& connectedAppealsof Village Bharthal LA.App, No. 294/2010& connectedAppealsofVillageBijwasan l.A.App.No. .111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur Pagg 28 of 29 Q the appellants of Village Pochanpur are also allowed to the extent indicatedabove. Thus, the marketvalue of the acquiredlands of these threevillagesin questionis determined@?16,50,000/-per^j^forthe Category"A' land and@?14,69,600/-per b^forthe Catefc^'B' lands in question.

¶41On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutotybenefitsas per tlie Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported in Sunder vs. IJOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted,exceptfor the periodwherethereis adelayin filingthe appeal, for whichperiodofdelayno intereston the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. Theseappellantswould be entitledto proportionatecosts.

¶42The abovecaptionedappealsand cross-objectionsare disposedof mthe aforesaid temis with direction to the Registry to remit the COTiipensatio.namount,ifany, depositedby eithersidewitlithe Registrai-General ofthis Court, to the concernedReferenceCourt. Decreesheets be accordihglyprepared. January 06, 2012 pkb r\ ' c ^ (StJNILGAUR) JUDGE e f'-"' II- •A.App. No, .1195/2008&connectedAppealsofVillageBharthal IA.App, No. 294/2010&connectedAppealsofVillageBIjwasan IA.App. No. 111/2010&connectedAppealsof VillagePochanpur u IN the high court of DELHI AT NEW DELHI + la. APP. 1195/2008 RANBIR SHARMA Through: Mr.B.S.Maan,Mr.AmitMaan,Mi-JaiPrtoh Ms.SmitaMaan,Mr.R.S.Verma,MrJitin Tewathia, Advocates Ms.AnitaTomar,Advocate. Mr.Rohtas,Advocate. Mr.RaghuvinderGodana,Advocate Mr.N.S.Negiand A^r.H.S.Rautela,Advocate Advocates. Mr.N.SNeg, and Mr.H.S.Rautela,(Advocatesfor respondentin appealsfiled by UOI) Mr.SudhanshuTomar, Advocatefor • Mr.R.S.Tomar. Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Solankiand Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocates versus union of INDIA&ANR Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvoc'atewit^'' Mr.SanjayPathalc,Mr.MohitraoJadhavand Ms.NavhnSwain,Ms.K.KaumudiKiran Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.AjayVerma,Mr.S.K.Sethi,Ms. AmitaSingh MnBankeyBihariSharma,Mr.KunalSharmaand Mr.SomeiK.Seth,Advocatesfor DDA. CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR 0/ order

12.01.2012 £M.AebLNo^52/2012War Order " '-'1061016 January,2012. Counsel appearingfor the appellantshave acceptedthe notice Pagel it' of the apphcation.Advancecopy ofthis applicationhas alreadybeen givento remainingcounselfor the appellants. The typographicaleiTor pointed out by the respondentin the decision of 6*^ January, 2012 is that in paragraph no: 40 of the aforesaidjudgmentthe rate of compensationassessedis 'per bigha', whereas it should be 'per acre'. This is not disputed by learned counsel appearingfor the appellants.Accordingly,this applicationis allowedand it is orderedthatthe referenceto 'perbigha' in paragraph no. 40 of LA.App.No. 1195/2008 be read as 'per acre'. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. In viewofthe aforesaid,this applicationstandsdisposedof -^A.App.No.1195/2008 TSUNILGAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 12, 2012 pkb Page 2

% IN I HE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 18, 2011 Pronounced on: January 0^2012 (GRID-A) LA.Al^P.1195/2008 (VILLAGE- BHARTHAL) RAMBIR SHAmA Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Sniita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. iMr.Raghiivinder Godara, Advocate Mr.M.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Roiitray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Kho.sla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thalchur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals illcd by UOT) versus LINION OF IMDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kii'an, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Mr.S.K.Setlii, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate foi- DDA 1..A.APP.412/2.008 & CM.No.4096/2008 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.452/2008; I.A.APP.453/2008; LA.APP.688/2008 & CM.No.5990/2010 (Cross-Obiections); l,A.APP.697/2008& CM.No.433/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.70i/200S& CM.No.510/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.768/2008; I.A.APP.770/2008; 1A.App, No. l .iy.V2C08& connected Appealsof VillageBharthal I'\..App. No. ?.94/?0]0 & connected Appeals of VillagnBljwasan lA.Apij. No. ri.l/?030& connectedAppealsofVillagePochanpur Page 1of 2f) 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. LA.APP.771/2008 & CM.No.425/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.772/2008- LA.APP.77j/2008& CM.No.3835/2009(Cross-Objections):LA.APP.774/2008& CM.No.6lJ/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.775/2008; LA.APP.776/2008- LA.APP.777/2008; LA.APP.782/2008 & CM.No.940/2009 (Cross-Objections)' LA.APP.783/2008; LA.APP.784/2008; LA.APP.785/2008; LA.APP.798/2008 & CM.No.615/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.799/2008 & CM No 931/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.805/2008;LA.APP.806/2008;LA.APP.813/2008& CM.No.1795/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.814/2008 & CM No 806/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.818/2008; LA.APP.819/2008; LA.APP.820/2008- LA.APP.829/2008; LA.APP.830/2008; LA.APP.832/2008; LA.APP.833/2008- LA.APP.844/2008; LA.APP.845/2008; LA.APP.873/2008 & CMNo 779/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.892/2008& CM.No.799/2009 (Cross-Objections)- LA..APP.899/2008; LA.APP.901/2008: LA.APP.915/2008; LA.APP.951/20()8 & CM.No.709/2009 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.959/2008; LA.APP.973/2008' !^ CM.No.519/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.975/2008' LA.APP.976/2008; LA.APP.978/2008; LA.APP.986/2008 & CM No 572/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.993/2008;LA.APP.1029/2008&CM.No 17340/2008' LA.APP.1031/2008& CM.No.17335/2008(Cross-Objections) I^ CM.No.599/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1046/2008 LA.APP.1047/2008;LA.APP.1048/2008& CM.No.7851/2009 (Cross-Obiections") ' TAAPP ^ CM,No.420/2009(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1050/2008 r CM.No.17262/2008(Cross-Objections);LAAPP 1052/2008 (C™ss-ObJeiions);/k.APP CMNo75M0n LA.APP,1055/2008;LA.APP.1057/2008& CM.NoJ52/2011 (Cross-Objections); LA.APP.1058/2008& CM.No.1557/2011 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1059/2008& CM.No.17259/2008(cross-0biections^ LA.APP.1O6O/20O8;LA,APP.IO62/2OO8& CM,No.546/2009(QoslobeSoS /a '!'!! LA.APP.1074/2008 & CM.No,623/2009(Cross-Obiections) LA.APP.1081/2008 & CM.No.462/2009CCross-Obections) &CrNo24So8 ""2/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1086/2008 % <-^^^0.2448/2008(Cross-Objections);LA.APP.1087/2008& CM.No619/^009 a"™ LA.APP.1093/2008; A.APP.1094/2008; LA.APP.1095/2008- CMNo3839/2oS^c (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l108/2008& CMNol82SLr''''^^^^^ LA.APP.1109/2008;LA.APP.1110/2008& CMN0383S LA.APP.1111/2008;LA.APP.l112/2008& CM.No3831/2009 (Cross-Objections);LA.APP.l113/2008 & CM.No.3826/2009 U'loss-Objections);LA.APP.l115/2008; LA.APP.l116