Union of India v. Rishal Singh & Anr

ORDER

23.08.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.266/2008. T-r'^

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. AUGUST 23. 2011 AK • * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ^ % ludament Reserved On: August, 2011 ludament Delivered On: 23''^ August. 2011 + LA.APP. 265/2008 JAI SINGH Through: UOI & ANR. Through: Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Mr.Deepak Khosla,". Mr.S.K.Yadav. jVjr.M.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana, Mr.Raj Singh. Mr.Uday Rann, Mr.D.R.Tomar, Mni.S.Dahiya, iVir.N.S.Dalai, l\/ir.S.i^.Bhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta, ivir.S.K.Rout. Ivir.S.S.Rana, Ivjr.Suhi! Dalai, Mr.D.S.Khatri [vir.T.P.S.Kang, Advocates Vs. ... Respondents [Vlr.SanjayPoddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1. Ms.Anusuya Salwan, DSIDC. Advocate for Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sunner Sethi . l^/ls.Beenashaw Son! Advocates for DDA AND (GmD-A) + LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP. 264/2008, LA.APP. 265/2008, LA.APP. 267/2008, LA.APP. 268/2008, LA.APP. 270/2008, LA.APP. 271/2008, LA.APP. 272/2008, LA.APP. 273/2008, LA.APP. 278/2008 SrXNrAPTT-. 533872mr9nOCro5SCmjections), LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page I of 74 IV 279/2008, LA.APP. 280/2008 & CM APPL. 5261/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 281/2008, LA.APP. 284/2008, LA.APP. 286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP. 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP. 293/2008, LATAPP^^^4/2e66 & CM ARPL. Objections),. LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP. 299/2008, 304/2008, 339/2008, 401/2008, 472/2008, 487/2008, 495/2008, 527/2008, 541/2008, 548/2008, 566/2008, 627/2008, 648/2008, 724/2008 756/2008, 861/2008, 880/2008, 895/2008, 907/2008, 925/2008, 931/2008, 934/2008, 941/2008, 946/2008, 999/2008 & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), 1014/2008, LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP. 1023/2008, 1026/2008r LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA.APP. 1071/2008, 1244/2008, LA.APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, 1268/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008, CM APPL. 2377/2009, 267/2009, 270/2009, 273/2009, 454/2009, 532/2009, LA.APP. tATAPPr LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APR. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. CM & LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 301/2008, 3^n72X)0:8, 357/2008, 413/2008, 48-3/2008, 492/2008, 496/2008, 535/2008, 545/2008, 554/2008, 621/2008, 628/2008, 649/2008, 846/2008, 875/2008, 888/2008, 905/2008, 910/2008, 926/2008, 932/2008, 936/2008, 942/2008, 955/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA-tAPR 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. LA.APP. LA.APP. 289/20a8, lA.APP. 292/2008, LA.APP. 12M,8/2011 (Cmss-296/i008, LA.APP. 337/2008, 394/2008, 443/2008, Ammmr 493/2008, 526/2008, 537/2008, 546/2008, 563/2008, 623/2008, 635/2008, 662/2008, APPL. 5353/2009 (Cross Objections), 847/2008, 879/2008, 894/2008, 906/2008, 911/2008, 927/2008, 933/2008, 939/2008, 944/2008, 958/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. -1:A;;APPt 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. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross Objections) LA.APP. 86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 97/2009, LA.APP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP. lll/200.9_,: LA.APP. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, LA.APP. 251/2009, LA.APP. 252/2009, LA.APP. 265/2009, LA.APP. 266/2009 & CM APPL. No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 268/2009, LA.APP. 271/2009, LA.APP. 300/2009, LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 535/200.9 & Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009 & CM APPL. 12917/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.--543f2O0^r-LArAPP. -&4"4/2B0^, LA.APP. 269/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 306/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 521/2009, LA.APP. CM APPL. 12886/2011 (Cross LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters 566/2009, LA.APP. 570/2009 & CM APPL.13873/2011. LA.APP. 589/2009, LA.APP. 593/2009, LA.APP. 594/2009, LA.APP. 634/2009, LA.APP. ^35/2009, LA.APP. 636/2009, LA.APP. 637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 & CM APPL.13878/2011, LA.APP. 1/2010, LA.APP. 29/2010, LA.APP. 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, U.APP. 107/2010, LA.APP. 108/2010, LA.APP. 109/2010, LA.APP. 168/2010, LA.APP. 169/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LA.APP. 171/2010, 'LA.APP 220/2010, LA.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, LA.APP. 430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP: 520/2010 CM APPL.13968/2011, LA.APP. 521/2010, CM APPL 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 522/2010, LA.APP. 523/2010, LA.APP. 524/2010 & CM APPL. 12914/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, LA.APP. 527/2010, LA.APP. 528/2010, LA.APP. 529/2010, LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL 229/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 531/2010, LA.APP. 532/2010 & CM APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), i_A.APP. 533/2010 & CM APPL 12898/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 534/2010, iA.AtPP. 535/2010 & CM APPL 12867/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 & CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 537/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010 & CM APPL. 12972if2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPL. 12900/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP. 541/2010, LA.APP. 542/2010 & CM APPL 19857/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. 12903/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL 12888/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010, LA.APP. 566/2010, LA.APP. 581/2010, LA.APP. 592/2010 & CM APPL 227/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 593/2010 & CM APPL 12969/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 594/2010, LA.APP. 595/2010 & CM APPL. 226/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 596/2010, LA.APP. 597/2010 & CM APPL 228/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP; 598/2010 & CM APPL 487/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 600/2010 & CM APPL 12897/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 601/2010, LA.APP. 602/2010, LA.APP. 603/2010 & CM APPL 12881/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP. 663/2010 & CM APPL 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 666/2010 & CM APPL. 6748/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 675/2010"& CM APPL. 9988/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 761/2010, LA.APP. 792/2010 & CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 793/2010 & CM APPL 12899/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. 795/2010, LA.APP. 40/2011, LA.APP. 195/2011 & CM APPL 12892/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 215/2011, LA.APP. .228/2011, LA.APP. 229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011, LA.APP. 231/2011, LA.APP. 232/2011, LA.APP. 233/2011, LA.APP. 389/2011, . LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008«&'connectedmatters Page3 of74 392/2011, LA.APP. 420/2011, LA.APP. 424/20 llr-4JwAPP. 425/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

07.08.2000 & Award No.19/2002-03, Viliage-Pooth Khurd) AND (GRm-B) + LA.APP. 972/2008 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1122/2008 & Civi 2099/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1150/2008 & CM 12216/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1151/2008 & CM 2345/2009 (Cross -Objections), LA.APP. 1152/2008 & CM 2102/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1153/2008 & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1154/2008, LA.APP. 1187/2008, LA.APP. 1188/2008, LA.APP. 1189/2008, LA.APP. 1218/2008, LA.APP. 15/2009, LA.APP. 82/2009, LA.APP. 100/2009, LA.APP. 102/2009, LA.APP. 113/2009, LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009, LA.APP. 214/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 11/2001-02, Village-Holannbi Kalan) AND (GRID-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.

96.9/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 08/2001-02, Village-Bawana) AND -1-LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2011 & CM 12911/2011 (Cross gyections), LA.APP. 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page4of74 \ % NDtiftcatiDn u/s 4-ciated 11 ."09.2O0€-^ Awafd-Mar 20/2002-03, Village-Khera Khurd) AND -E) + LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, LA.APP. 646/2009, LA.APP. 91/2010, LA.AI^ 93/2010, LA.APP. 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP. 191/2010 & CM No. 22402/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 192/2010, LA.APP. 193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, LA.APP. 196/2010, LA.APP. 197/2010, LA.APP. 297/2010, LA.APP. 299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, LA.APP. 309/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 & CM No. 3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 373/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 493/2010, LA.APP. 494/2010, 496/2010, LA.APP. 497/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. 503/2010, LA.APP. 506/2010, LA.APP. 509/2010/ LA.APP. 512/2010, LA.APP. 515/2010, CM No. 7702/2011 LA.APP. 495/2010, CM No. 22728/2010 (Cross LA.APP. 499/2010, LA.APP. CM No. 23186/2010 (Cross CM No. 10382/2011 (Cross LA.APP. 504/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 507/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP; 510/2010, LA.APP: LA.APP. 513/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 516/2010, LA.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 610/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 613/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 620/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 623/2010, LA.APP. Cl\^ No. 3847/2011 (Cross 505/2010, 508/2010, 511/2010, 514/2010, 517/2010 518/2010, 611/2010, 618/2010, 621/2010, 628/2010, Objections), & LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 519/2010,, 612/2010, 619/2010, 622/2010, 647/2010 & 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM No. 3560/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 652/2010, LA.APP. 841/2010, LA.APP. 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM No. i^5T8/2M1r-t€rD55—Otjjectrunsy, LA.APPr-855/2010, LA.APP. 856/2010 & CM No. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010 & CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1008/2010 & CM No. 9966/2011 (Cross -Objections), LA.APP:—1021/2010, LA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP. 79/2011, LA.APP. 80/2011, LA.APP. 81/2011, LA.APP. 82/2011, ±ATAPfr LA.APP. 84/2011, LA.APP. 85/2011, LA.APP. 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP. 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/2011, LA^PP. 324/2011 & CM APPL.15110/2011, LA.APP. 385/2011. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters vf. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

02.05.2001& Award No. 24/2003-04, Village-Narela) AND -F) + LA.APP. 497/2008, LA.APP. 141/2009 & CM 5302/2010 (Cross Objections). (Relating to Noti'ficationu/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No,. 18/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kaian) AND -G) + LA.APP. 777/2,010 & CM APPL.3808/2011. LA.APP. 778/2010 & CM 2686/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 779/2010 & CM 12966/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 213/2011, LA.APP. 261/2011, LA.APP. 326/2011, LA.APP. 327/2011, LA.APP. 328/2011, LA.APP. 330/2011, LA.APP. 331/2011, LA.APP. 332/2011, LA.APP. 333/2011, LA..APP. 334/2011, LA.APP. 335/2011, LA.APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, LA.APP. 341/2011, LA.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP. 350/2011, LA.APP. 351/2011, LA.APP. 365/2011, LA.APP.377/2011, LA.APP.388/2011. • (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 33/2003-04, Village-Holannbi Kaian) AND + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, LA.APP. 409/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 15/2003-04, Viilage-Aii Pur) AND LA.APP. 481/2010 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page6of74. ration u/s 4 dated 9/2003-04, Village-Holambi Khurd) AND (GR8D-J) + LA.APP. 780/2010 & CM No.2661/2011 (Cross Objections) LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM No.3833/2011 (Cross Objections)! LA.APP. 900/2010 & CM No.3541/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 970/2010. LA.APP. 971/2010 & CM No.3805/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM No:2667/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM Nd.3703/2011 (Crbss Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 & CM No.l4333/2011(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 977/2010, LA.APP. 978/2010, LA.APP. 979/2010 & CM No.9990/2011, LA.APP. 980/2010 6r CM No.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP. 982/2010 & CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections), l_A.APP. 984720nr & CM TsTo.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), l_A.APP. 985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), i_A.APP. 986/2010, LA.AI^P. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP. 990/2010, LA.APP. 991/2010 & 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.6766/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 73/2011 & CM No.12922/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM .No.6775/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 101/2011,- LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.APP. 110/2011, LA.APP. 111/2011, LA.APP. 112/2011 & CM No.10050/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP. 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

22.08.2001 & Award No.20/2003-04, Village-Rajapur Kalan) AND (GRID-K) LA.App.No.266/2008&connculedmatters Page7 of74. + LA.APP. 488/2008. LA.APP. 490/2008, LA.ARP. 491/2008 LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/2008, LA.APP. 868/2UU8 & CM No.10393/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 896/2008 & CM -^te^53€4^10 (CroGG 0bjGCtions)7-lna^APPr-897/2^ 1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP. 34/2010 & CM No.7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 488/2010, LA.APP. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011 LA.APP. 421/2011 • ' (Relating to Notification u/s No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth) dated

07.12.2001 & Award AND (C5RJD-L) + LA.APP: 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, U.APP. 352/2008,LA.APP. 364/2008,LA.APP. 38S/2008,LA.APP. 387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP. 464/2008& CM No.11333/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP. 468/2008& CM No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP 470/2008, LA.APP. 471/2008, LA.APP. 560/2008, 561/2008, LA.APP. 611/2008, LA.APP. 663/2008, 676/2008, LA.APP. 678/2008, LA.APP. 679/2008, 681/2008,' LA.APP. 682/2008, LA.APP. 683/2008, LA.APP. 731/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 825/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 850/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 903/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 935/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 940/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 956/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1001/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP: 1065/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 106/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 374/2009, LA.APP. LA.APR. 468/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 547/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 628/2009, LA.APP. 23/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010, LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010. 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, 754/2008, 826/2008, 853/2008, 904/2008, 937/2008, 943/2008, 957/2008, 1004/2008, 1077/2008, 172/2009, 464/2009, 539/2009, 565/2008, 630/2009, LA.APP. 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. LA.APP. LA.APP. 35/2010, (Relating to Rotification u/s 4 dated 16.05.2002 Sc Award No. 29/2003-04, Village-Sliahpur Garhi) • LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters AND (GRID-M) + LA.APP. 338/2008, LA.APP. 343/2008, LA.APP. 356/2008, LA.APP. 366/2008, LA.APP. 367/2008, LA.APP. 368/2008, LA.APP. 369/2008, LA.APP. 370/2008, LA.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP; 384/2008, LA.APP, 386/2008, LA.APP. 388/2008, LA.APP. 389/2008, LA.APP. 434/2008, LA.APP. 435/2008, LA.APP. 436/2008, LA.APP. 444/2008, LA.APP. 456/2008& CM No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP-680/2008, LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. 720/2008, 760/2008, 823/2008, 908/2008, 1022/2008, 1063/2008, 308/2009, 385/2009, 540/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 723/2008, 767/2008, 824/2008, 909/2008, 1024/2008, 173/2009, 311/2009, 463/2009, 542/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 562/2008, 716/2008, 757/2008, 793/2008, 837/2008, 952/2008, 1025/2008, 307/2009, 384/2009, 467/2009, 548/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/2010. (Relating to Notification u/s dated No.22/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi)

23.05.2002 & Award AND (GR8D-N) + LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 304/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

23.05=2002 & Award 16/2003-04, Village-Holannbi Kalan) AND (GRID-O) No. + 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.266/2.008 & connected matters tovW. g25/2-&10, LA.APPr-9/2^11 & CM 9960/2011 iCross-mjections), LA.APP. 58/201#'m.APP. 289/2011 & CN 14850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 290/2011 & CM 14852/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 381/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

23.05.2002 & Award No. 17/2004-05, Village-All Pur) AND + LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP. 674/2008 & CM NO.7818/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, LA.APP. 706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 & 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, & CM No.2351/2009 (Cross Objections), & CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 Objections), LA.APP. 981/2008 & CM No.1261/2009 Objections), LA.APP. 982/2008, LA.APP. 983/2008 No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 No.839/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/200.8, 997/2008, LA.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008, 1027/2008, LA.APP. 1078/2008 & CM No.2247/2009 902/2008, 929/2008 930/2008 960/2008, CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross (Cross CM & CM LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross r Objections),. LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. 1127/2008 & CM No.2111/2009 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP. 1246/2008 & CM Ng.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.14321/2009 (Cross Objections), 123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, 174/2009, LA.APP. 250/2009, LA.APP. 260/2009, 261/2009, LA.APP. 262/2D09,~ LA.APP: ~264/2009, 293/2009, LA.APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. 301/2009, 302/2009, LA.APP. 303/2009, LA.APP. 365/2009, 433/2009, 471/2009, 5I872U09, 531/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 449/2009, 487/2009, 527/2009, 533/2009, LA,App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 461/2009, 501/2009, 530/2009, 537/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 538/2009, LA.APP. 545/2009, LA.APP. 554/2009, LKAPP. 555/2009, LA.APP. 558/2009, LA.APP. 585/2009, LA.APP. 588/2009, LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP. 625/2009, LA.APP. 626/2009, LA.APP. 629/2009, LA.APP. 649/2009, LA.APP; 38/2010, LA.APP. 43/2010, LA.APP. 131/2010, LA.APP. 202/2010, LA.APP. 203/2010, LA.APP. 204/2010, LA.APP. 225/2010, LA.APP. 227/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010, LA.APP. 303/2010, LA.APP. 372/2010, LA.APP. 410/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010, LA.APP. 479/2010, LA.APP. 480/2010, LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP. 483/2010, LA.APP. 484/2010, LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP. 486/2010, LA.APP. 487/2Q10, LA.APP. 604/2010, LA.APP. 606/2010 & CM No.19878/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 607/2010, LA.APP. 608/2010, LA.APP. 609/2010, LA.APP. 614/2010, LA.APP. 615/2010, LA.APP. 671/2010, LA.APP. 695/2010, LA.APP. 705/2010, LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.APP. 785/2010 & CM No.12968/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 786/2010 & CM No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 787/2010, LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. 789/2010, LA.APP. 790/2010, LA.APP. 820/2010 & CM No.12880/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 821/2010. LA.APP. 915/2010, LA.APP^ 916/2010 & CM No.6773/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 14/2011 (St CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 26/2011 & CM No.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APR. 55/2011 & CM No.12894/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 59/2011, LA.APP. 63/2011, LA.APP. 69/2011, LA.APP. 70/2011, LA.APP. 72/2011 & CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 76/2011 & CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 & CM No.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 135/2011, LA.APP. 136/2011 & CM No.12971/2 (Cross 0bjections)011, LA.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.l2902/2Q11 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 143/2011, LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APP. 203/2011 & CM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 273/2011 & CM No.l3289/20il (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 338/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

27.01.2003 & Award No.11/2004-05, Viliage-Sanoth) AND + LA.APP. 336/2010 & CM APPL.14845/2011, LA.APP. 624/2010. LA.APP. 625/2010, LA.APP. 626/2010, LA.APP. 627/2010 & C.M. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 629/2010, LA.APP. 630/2010, LA.APP. 642/2010, LA.APP. 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA.APP. 645/2010 & C.M. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Pdgellof74 No.3587/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 646/2010, LA.APP. 664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. ,667/2010, LA.APP. 668/2010, LA^APP. 669/2010 & C.M. No.676_9/2Qll (Cross / Objections), LA.APP. 6/0/2U10 U CM. No.3BT872tn:T (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 672/2010, LA.APP. 673/2010 & CIVi. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, LA.APP. 701/2010 Si C.jvi. No.3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APR. 702/2010, LA.APP. ^703/2010 & CM. No.9941/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 & C.iVl. No.12878/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 735/2010, LA.APP. .736/2010, LA.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP. 739/2010 & C.M. No.3569/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. ^ ^ 740/2010 & CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 800/2010 & C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP? 801/2010, LA.APP.^ 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.AfP. • V 8i5/2()id, O^VAP^^^^ & C.M. No.3862/2011 {Crbss ' Objections), LA.APP. 817/2010, LA.APP. 838/2010, LA.APP. 839/2010 & CM. No.10335/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 870/2010 & C.M. No.9946/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 917/2010, LA.APP. 922/2010, LA.APP. 923/2010, LA.APP. 924/2010, LA.APP. 925/2010, LA.APP. 945/2010 & C.M. No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 975/2,010 & CM. No.2664/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M. No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP. 56/2011 & C.M. No.9939/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, 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. 165/2011, LA.APP.329/2011 ) (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003 & Award No.10/2004-05, Village-Rajapur Kalan) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whetlier tine Reporters of local 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 of74 PRADEEP NANDRAiQG. L

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

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

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001, 7 12.2001,

16.5.2002,

23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003. Needless to state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time, on aforesaTd^d'ates under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894> vast tracts of land in said 10 villages were acquired arid save and except lands in the Revenue Estate of village Narela where purpose of acquisition was partly residential partly industrial, in the other villages, acquisition was'for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page13 of74 road or freight complex. The reason why such large tracts of lands were needed was to set up an industrial estate pursujant to a decision taken to shift all industries operating in non-conforming areas within Delhi to confornning areas.

¶3I must highlight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in alj appeajsjiled by them as also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and except pertaining to village Narela, where an additional . argument was advanced; being that, the township.of Narela had existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Narela had a better value and for which it was urged that way back in the year 1963 when lands in the revenue estate of village Narela and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of ^2/-per sq.yd. vis-a-vis 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 Mamurpur.-

¶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 index hereinabove and thus I need not repeat the same.

¶5A perusal of all the awards announced from time to fimp wniilrl rpvpal that thp IparnpH land Arqiiiqitinn Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NGT Delhi from tlme^ time notifying the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi 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 4' to b', the land value has been appropriately depressed this is to be found in a few awards where lands have been put in 2 or 3 categories rer^^C^^^^ 'A', Category 'B' and Category •'C'. • • .

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

7.8.2000 issued wdef^-Sectioft 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against ?13.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?12.26 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the policy for mininium 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 Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fair market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and tias ignored that there was Category 'B' land for which he had to make necessary adjustment. B. Pertaining to the same notification dated

7.8.2000 pursuant whereto 211.14 bigha land was acquired in village Holambi Kalan, the Land Acquisition Collector treated the land as of same character and determined fair market value with reference to the policyfor minimum rates in sum of tl3.82 lacs .LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page15of74 per acre which has been enhanced by the learned Reference Court to n4,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decision of a Division-Bench oH^trs-eotntn-eportec^ 200G (VT);AD DeHii-iS Ga/ra/ 1/5. 6/(9/Wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market value determined was ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and treating the said date and the said price as the base, giving 12% per annum appreciation for a period of 3 years, 8 months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been determined. C. Pertaining to the same notification dated

7.8.2000 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Bawana were acquired, the Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value for Category 'A' lands, with reference to the policy an(j fixed the same at ^3.82 lacs per acre for Categoiy 'A' \an6s and ?12.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. The learned Reference Court maintained the same. D. Pertaining to notification dated

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

1.4.2000 was ?13.82 lacs per acre and for 128 days i.e/the number of days between

1.4.2000 till 11.9.2000, appreciating same by 12% has determined fair market value at ^14,40,157/- and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands. E. Pertaininig to the notification dated 2.5.2001 pursuant whereto 1140.5.8 bigha land was acquired in Narela for developmentof sectors 1 to 4, Phase I, Narela, with respect to policy of minimum price with effect from 1.4.2001 LA,App.N6.266/2008&connectedmatters Page16of74 learned Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value in sum of n5.7 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of

1.4.2001 for Category 'B' lands determined same at n4 lacs per—acre: The learned Reference Court adopted minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001 and gave appreciation for a period of 1 month for the reason the notification under Section 4 of the -Land AcqafsitrxjrrAct 18§4^ is dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced compensation to ^15,85,700/- per acre which has uniformly "^ard^ed. 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 514 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. ?15.7 lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum for 143 days and the price so fixed is ?16,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded. G. Pertaining to same notification dated

22.8.2001 pursuant whereto

512.16 bigha land was acquired in village Alipur, on the same reasoning which has been adopted for village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same 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 cat^gtifkatten^ - - - H. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 192.15 bigha of land was -acquired in village LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page17 of74 Holambi Khurd, reasoning of the LAC and learned Reference Court and the price determined is the same as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in the same uniform category. I. Pertaining to the same notification dated

22.8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Rajapur Kalan were acquired reasoning fair market value determined by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd and Alipur save and except in this village the acquired land was of uniform category. J. Pertaining to notification dated

7.12.2001 pursuant whereto

222.05 bigha land was acquired in village Sanoth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township, learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed compensation uniformly in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per the policy for minimum price w.e.f.

1.4.2001 and the learned Reference Court has adopted the same price and given appreciation for 250 days at the rate of 12% per annum to reach the figure of ?16,99,042/- per acre. K. Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has determined compensation in sum ot Tr5:T-tac^^per;acre which is the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has simply held that the land owners would be entitled to enhance compensation at the rate of 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 1 find that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page of74 ?17,75,369.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as "X^OUl and the""Base price at

15.7 lacs, for~"l year and 45 days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned Additional Sessions Judge. L. Pertaining to notification dated

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

16.5.2002 and I find that since;there is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision of the Reference Court comes to ?17,79,781.78 per acre. — Pertaining to^he same notificatiort-dated-^.5.2002 pursuant whereto

445.81 bigha land in village Holambi Kalah _was acquired, the learned LAC has determined fair nnarket v?lue in sum of^l5.7 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 determining 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 village Alipur were acquired learned Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at the rate of ?15.7 lacs per acre based on the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which price has been adopted as the base by the learned Reference Court and after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page19 of74

1.4.2001 till 23.5.2Q02, the price determined is ^17,85,240/- p^ acre. Or Pertaining tcr notification dated

27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha land in village Sanoth --2W8T63H:ttg]Tr-temHrr^vtHage-^ a pur KaIa n were a cq uired, th e learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the same value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages i.e. ^15.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of ?14 lacs per acre and for Category 'C lands in sum of ?12.3 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different reasoning In some impugned decision and different in a few. In some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted minimum price in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre-asof^.4^^001and appreciating the same by 12% per annum for a period of 666 days has fixed fair market value at ?19,13,765/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for ^5,39,690/-.

¶7Since the learned Land 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 agricultural lands 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 Date of Fffprtivn (in iakhs/acre) % increase per annum Notification f wtrlTi of the price

1.

3.5.1990

27.4.1990

4.65

2.

25.7.1997

1.4.1997

10.0

11.5

3.

24.9.1998

1.4.1998

11.2

11.2

4.

21.11.2000 -

12.32

5.

9.8.2001

1.4.1999

1.4.2000

12.16

13.82 .

6.

9.8.2001

1.4.2001

15.7

11.5

7.

30.8.2005

30.8.2005

17.584

2.98

8.

24.1.2008

18.12.2007

89.51

¶8From tabulation hereinabove noted it would' be apparent that after nninimum price was last fixed vy.e.f.

27.4.1990 in sum of ?4.65 lakhs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to ?10 lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of fll.2 lakhs/acre thereafter w.e.f.

21.11.2000 price was enhanced to fl2.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued -the price was retrospectively enha'nced w.e,f.

1.4.1999 to ^12.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% per annum with reference to price determined as of

1.4.1998 vide same notification price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.2000 to ?13.82 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis previous i.e. ^12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by. 11.5% per annum vis-a-vis the previous price of T13.82 lakhs/acre to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters — ^ •— —^ -a-\ _figure ^ ?15:^iJaktis/aixe:—The-price was next enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ?17.584 lakhs/acre which gives us an increase of only 2.98% per annum and then the price rose to ?53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annum with reference to the base figure of n?.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005. '

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

7.8.2000 , for village Pooth Khurd; notification dated

22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; notification dated

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

2.5^2001 for village Narela;'and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Ali. Pur; and the notification dated

27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands were of uniform character and it _y^ urged that corrective action is required by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, 11.5% increase per annum and -i:2%n:jer-HTTrraTin-increase"^^ excessive"with reference to the dates of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; reqUimg the same to be reduced to 10% per annum in tTie Feast. Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters .Page22 of74 ,requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by Land Acquisition Collector in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C, on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.

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

25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also the~"SBle Treed 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 under Ex.PW-1/3 would be ^28.89 lakhs/acre pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be ?63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000, il.9.200p,

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 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by suitablyincreasingor decreasingthe price.. As an extended limb of this argument, pertainingto village Narela, it was urged that the price needs to be suitablyenhanced and for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters 23 of74 and for which the argument was that when: ki the past, pertainingto a notificationissued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur-Narela by giving a.price benefit of ?2/- per sq.yd. this was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 In C.A.No.4405/1997UP! vs. Dharambir& Or<;. The said dedsioh would reveal that the price per bigha in .sum of ?6,650/- determined by the Land AcquisitionCollector 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• Learnedcounselfor the land ownerssecondlyurged, 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 resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in the 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 implementingagencies, which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana IndustrialArea, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme Bawana Industrial Estate and for which learned counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged. "

12.. Alternative to the second submission, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters . Page24of74 1/5. Union of 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 suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bedi Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6% per annum with reference to the base price ?16,750/- per bigha as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till

31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various dates when notifications under Section of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with which L-am.mncerned inJttie preserit-appeals.. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to ^^56,88,759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel • - urged that on same principle market value should be assessed for preceding notifications dated

7.8.2000, il.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002

23.5.2002. ,

¶13The fourth argument advanced was, for which 4:efer_ence was made by learned counsel for the parties in the evidence led in LAC Mo.99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.No.268/2008 filed by the land owners _and LA.APP.NO.292/2008 filedJDy UniQn_Qtindia, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page25of 74 U testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agriculturat: produce from his lands he used to earn f 1 lakh per bigha per amwh i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be ?20 lakhs per bigha. I may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedi. learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others i.e. the appellants in LA,APP.No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008.

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

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

¶15The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated

27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated

20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.2b0 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for ^5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said sale deed in the following'words: (Refer oara 17 of the decision dated 7.1.2010 in LAC No.ll7A/2009}: "if we add stamp duty in the sale price 13.69.906/- per bigha R5.39.690/- + 70.160 - 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which com&s to%17,74,109/- per acre or t3,68,906/- per bigha. Further if we give 12% LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters . Page26 of74 .... Vr increase on said amount for intervening period between date wiien tiie sale deed was executed date of ratification u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes to X19,16,037/- (round off X19,16,040/-)." The argument was that if we lool< at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e. Award I\|o.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land was put in Category 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra Wo.2t30 and that page No.56-57 " oT the award would evidence~tK^nand "comprised in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha biswa was placed in Category 'C. Whereas Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of ?15.7 lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated

9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ?1.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was ?14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another ?i.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value determined whereof was ?12.3 lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the same had to be for Category 'C lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price had to be increased by ^1.7 lakhs per acre for each category.

¶161have already noted hereinabove the arguments 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 aboye and hence I need not repeat the same. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page27 of74

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

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

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

2.5.2001 the deduction effected is n.7 lacs per acre, which is the, same figure adopted when fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kaian was determined as of date

22.8.2001. Pertaining to notification dated

27.1.2003 and relatabie to village Sanoth the price differential on said count has again been taken at ?1.7 lacs per acre to inter se differentiate the price between Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C lands. In other words, the price differential has varied between ^1.2 lacs per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and ?1.7 lacs per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page28 of74 The learned Land Acquisition Collector has adopted the minimum price notified closest in point of time to the date when Section 4 notificationwas issued without appreciating the land price with reference to the date of the Section 4 notification i.e. no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has been given. e.- The-tearned Reference Court has adopted ttie minimum price notified arid has given appreciation ranging between

11.5% per annum and 12% per annum and in some cases has compounded the same and in some given said benefit at the simple rate. D. Pertaining to village Holambi Kalan .where acquisitions were made pursuant to the notifications dated

7.8.2G00

23.5.2002 the learned Reference Court has adopted the price determined by this Court in Gairafs case (supra) as of

15.11.1996 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 fair market value with reference to the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001.and has given appreciation, in some cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale deed dated,20.5.2002. F. _ Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Collector has classified lands in Category 'A', 'B' and 'C reasons thereof have "been given in the award but the learned Reference Court, while ~awarding"uWoiTfico^ on, has given ho reasons as to why it was treating all lands to be of same 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 29 of74 Tfacjs^ W-OUld b€ my data for-further analysis. Put in a tabular form the data would be as under;- Village Pooth Khurd Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan Holambi Kalan Bawana Khera Khurd Narela Date of Section Notification

7.8.2000

7.8.2000

22.8.2001

23.5.2002

7.8.2000

11.9.2000

2.5.2001 LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Cat. 'A' ?13.82 Cat. 'B' n2.26 Minimum price of 1.4.2000 n3.82 Minimum price of 1.4.2000 Cat. 'A' ?15.7 Cat. 'B' n4 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 ^15.7 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as as as as Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B'n2.62 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B' ?12.62s Minimum price as of L4.2QQD Cat. 'A' ^5.7 Cat. 'B' ?14 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ADJ compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Cat. Uniform. n4.3728. Minimum price as of

1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. n4.12995. Price as in GairaTs case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. Cat. Uniform. n6.43811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. ?22.14239. Price-as in Gairaj's case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. (compounded) No enhancement given. Cat. Uniform. n4.40157. Minimum price as of

1.4.2000 \mth 12% increase p.a. Cat. Uniform. n5.857. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with , 12% increase p.a. Ali Pur

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' ^15.7 Cat.'B'?14 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ?16.43811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a=. Ali Pur

23.5.2002 as.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ^7.8524 Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi Khurd

22.8.2001 ^5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 a6.43811 Mininium price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 ?15.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ^6.43811 Minimuni price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur Kalan

27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' ^lS.7 Cat. 'B' n4 Cat. 'C n2.3 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001

¶1a9.13765 for Uniform category. Minimum, price as of

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

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

25.5.2002 with 12% increase p.a. Sanoth

7.12.2001 as.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n6.99042. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Sanoth

27.1.2003 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Cat.'B'm Cat. 'C n2.3 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ?19.13755 for Uniform category. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Shahpur Garhi

16.5.2001 Cat. 'A' ^15.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Minimum price as of

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

23.5.2002 Cat.'A'n5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n7.79781. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a.

¶20I now propose to deal with the 6 subnnissionsurged by learned counsel for the land owners and the 2 submissions urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertainingto the land owners) and para 8 above (pertainingto 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 ReferenceCourt has rejectedthe 2 sale deeds as reliableevidenceto determine fair market value of agricultural 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 tenderedthe sale deed in evidence, while deposinig in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not to be reliable evidence to determinefair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non (3overnment Organization"ChristianOrganization"and as per the testimony i ' • LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page32 of74 of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated -4bat-the-Qi:gamzati€m ha4-fee-pay-the-pfiee-^r the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini & Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. RaUfuddin 1/5. Land AcouisitionOfficer(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 exemplarsale deed to determinethe marketvalue of land in an area for the reason there may hp special circumstances which h^ave led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an ' e^ally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstancesor the fancy to buy a particularpiece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the marketand has apprisedhimselfof all availableland in the area, has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particularpiece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair marketvalue of the lands in the area. 1would be failing if 1do not highlightthatthe Union of India had relied ufpon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which'was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated 271^.2003where-underagriculturalland in villageRajapurKalan was sold by an agriculturistto an agriculturistfor a much lesser price i.e. n7,74,109/-per acreas againstthe price which comes to ?63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and t28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App,No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page33 of74 themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price 2^ Thus, apart fronn reasoning of learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above wouldJ3£L_adjli-tLOJiaireasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefronn fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly betvyeen 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 sate deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs 1/5. 'UU! & Ofs. It was highlighted that 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 instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but" found^ 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 Page34pf74 V . .uT would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of ?1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price ^3,26,600/- per bigha and the average woyld come to ?2,;31,800/- which was near about price of - ?2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'^'^ would be deducted from the sum of ^3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 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 1immediatelyhighlightthat the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to ^ village-Narela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land price should be suitablyenhancedwould be dealt with by me at the end when Ideterminethe fair marketvalue of lands for the villages in question.

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

¶27Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing same 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 unden- "Whether the PDA brochure is relevant evidence?

¶11The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis; SI. No. Plot size Category Rate (per square metre)

¶126 sq m Economically weaker sections Rs 100 (EWSr ~ : '

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

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

¶460 sq m Middle income group (MIG) ^ Rs 200

¶590 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200 LA.App^No.266/2608,& connectedmatters . , appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which IS the averageof the said provisionalrates, should be taken as indicativeof the ruling marketprice.

¶12On careful consideration,we are of the view that such aNotment rates of plots adopted by development authoritieslike DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several-reasons. Firstly, market value has to be deterniinedwith referenceto large tracts of undeveloped agriculturallands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developedlayoutfalling within urban area Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economiccapacityof the buyer, making it difficultto ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determinationfor acquisitionsis uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold teTTdr wtrereasthe allotment"rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotmentof plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. 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 of such developedplots, the percentagedepending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated.

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

¶15The development' authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page37 of74 •I" N underground drainage and sewage facilities/Tayirig'lwater^ lines, electricity lines developing parks civil amonitlGS, developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.

¶16On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised.private residential layout, the percentage of "deduction for development" 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 unauthorised 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.

¶18The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, par^<s, 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 65% to 75% for residential plots.

¶19If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, 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 "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&connectedmatters , Page38of74 with reference to price of a snnail plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is aiso^ weff "known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private deyelopers, having regafd-4:ohigher 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- -cunv-comflftefG4al-OF4n^yst and^ven among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community facHities, parks and playgrounds provided. _

¶22Some of. the Wouts formed by The statutory development authorfttes may have targe areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, 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 the economic status of the allottees, classifyingthem as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots may be earmarked for persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premiumcharged may be.Rs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belongingto middle income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons belonging to high income groups.

¶24The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LlG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotmentrates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacityof *the applicahtsTor allotment. Third factor LA.App.Nd.266/2008& connectedmatters ..

¶25Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DDA allotptots on [ga^gtrotd— basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent.

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

¶27However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." 28-. The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference No.ll7A/2009. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court with reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads:- "Ld. Counsel fox_.tb-e_4D_elltLo_Qers_Jiasfurthfir submitted that DDA & DSIDC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate. He has relied upon allotment letter dated

04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the pre-determined rate of ?3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter dated

26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring Sq. metres in which rate was fixed as ^3,989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters plot no.270, measuring sq. yards at Narela • industrial Complex at the rate of ^650 sq. metres which is Ex. PW3/1 another allotment letter dated

25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at ?3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from statement of PW9 Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PWll/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = ^248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ ^3208 would be ?2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 - 759422 = 17719866 per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. n771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only 0,27,083/- per Ijigtrar— ^ — 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 documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is ^2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area under plots =

112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot OOOO/- per sq. yards Total earning = ^4083750000 Total expenditure = ?720526^01 Totalprofit = 0363223099 i.e. Profit comes to ?2470 per sq. yard~^~Y2470000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and the LAC has paid compensation @ ?327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of ^2142917 per bigha— Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ ?327083 per LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters P.age41 of 74 • -i bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the said price is considered on account of land, the figure comes to ^654166. If the amount is deducted from sale price__per bighji i.e. ?24700000, figure comes to ?1^15834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." f4owr-wo do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we.do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in La! Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

¶30It is no doubt true, as held even by the iGarncd Reference Court, that with development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme Narela ^sidential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality,but the questionwould 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 LM Chand's case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promisethe readerof the decision,to deal with the same while I shall be discussingas to what should be the fair marketvalue of the lands.

¶32The third submissionin the alternative wa_s_,basedupon the observationsof a Division Bench ofthis Court in BediRam s case (supra),and the submissionis as noted In.para 12 herqn above. The land owners require thejjice _d^ermined in Dharamb/Ys case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2.008&connectedmatters

30.10.196'^ in sum of i^amurpur to be treated as tlie basis and progressivelyincreased,firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% per .annum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question.

¶33It be highlighted that in Bedi Ram's case (supra), with referenceto the base date aS; of the^ear 19^7 for the year X976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years.

¶34However, in Lai Chancfs case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-10-1961 is reievant?

¶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 conripensation was-awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the . acquired land should be determined with reference to i V the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. V. Rameshbhai jivanbhai Pateil^ this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) "15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining market value by providing appj-opriate escalation over~the^roved~market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), 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 : . _I_. . -sa¥e whef=e---r—the i=effe^ tFansaetions/aequisitions precede subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to f\yeyedirs. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it reiates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may becotne unsafe unreliable standard where the gap is larger For exannple, for determining market value of a land acquired in 1992, addptihg the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'i-ate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of : ' increase." (emphasis supplied)

¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there were no adverse Circumstances. For example, if 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 Bedi /?^/7?^s-cas€^s4^a) runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case {sti^fa)r which decision follows—an—earlier decision of the Su^eme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai iivanbhai Patei. LA.App.No.266/2008&.connectedmatters Page44 of74

¶36hrirhe itibLdnlcase tfiere is another good reason not to follow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's, case (supra) for the reason 1find that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi &Ann Vs. UP! & Ors.. pertainingto agriculturallands in village Mamurpur-Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambi?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 @ ^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 ^33,00-07-per Jaigha.

¶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. (JO!& Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that 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 Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of

15.11.19^6 was determmed @ ?1,99,904.68 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 & connected matters determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. -3Bt-— If I vsiere to--take—the—price—as—1.1§9€ @ ^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 -fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para above i.e. testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning ?1 lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce.

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

¶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 3'^ week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page46 of 74 ^ sown around the first weel< or the second week of November eachyear.. . _

¶42But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he was working as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi till 31.3.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a.pension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning ?1 lakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annual income would be ?19 lakhs and one finds it strange that not^ penny was invested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined. No proof of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tube-well> if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were Irrigated by canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly rejected.

¶43|f there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found in decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (1) SC 444 State of Gujarat & 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& connectedmatters Page47 of 74 capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, capitalizing being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 times as was sought to be projected.

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

¶45In para 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that notifications with which I am concerned are. dated 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,;

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 2003. From the table in para 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 ho need to factor in minimum price notified under notification dated

24.1.2008 which is w.e.f.

8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 yWrs away froni the last year with which I am concerned

1.^. the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. -The law of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would-be cio^ses^^to-the-pGint far wWch the mean average has to be determined.

¶46I am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that the learned 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 Kaian and LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters " i > has determinedthat based thereon the price as of said date months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2(303the price would be ?19,16,037/-per acre rounded off to ?19,16,040/-per acre.. •

¶47With referenceto the Award No.l0/DC(i\fW)/2004-05it is apparentthat land comprisedin Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a 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 Collector?l.7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum of n.7 lakhs per acre-would^e required to fill up the dGprcssiensin Category'C land, meaningtherebydepressionsin Category'B' J^d were less vis-a-visCategory;'C' land. 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. Ih view of the evidence herein above noted and refflecting upon the reasoning adopted by the learned Land AcquisitionCollectorand theJearned ReferenceCourt, Lpose 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,

27.1.20^3 i.e. dates on which the notificationswere issued underSection4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act 1894.

¶49I have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA:apP.No.866/2005 decided on LAApp.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page49 of74

11.5.2006, MahenderSinah vs. UOI & Ors. wherein pertaining to -vlHage-B^wana, fair mari<et-yaitre determined as of 15.11.1996 IS n,99,904.68 per bigha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre. The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i.e. the lands with which Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision; rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural De4hi were identified for providing major health facrHtresr schools, markets rural industry, one of which was village Bawana. Itjwas noted that G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and. that the Master Plan for Delhi notified in the year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed in future to industrial commercial, but had also "TJbserved that notwithstanding this, for the reason no zonal plarf" was notified 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 the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily,^e 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^tioli that there is 3 difference between the undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page50of 74 potentiality in presenti vis-a-vis a land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by nne in para 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was ?9,59.542.46 per acre and which 1 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.Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was ?10 lakhs per • acre. Interestingly, the same Division B6nch had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gairai Sinah vs. UP! & Ann where pertaining to agricultural lands in , village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was ?9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ^9,51,121/- per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to be highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development work carried out in the, surrounding r -, lands was considered. I would highlightthat another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V i.e. between G.T.Kama I Road Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhpla determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ n,30,523/- per bigha i.e. ^6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is ^.reported-as-2004(4) AD (Delhi)20 Ram Chanderi/5. W/and the i>4¥lsian-B€nch,as per the decision-reported-as-111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vs. UOl pertaining to a notification dated

14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ n,40,230/- per bigha i.e. ^6,73,104/- per acre. ' LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page51 of74 :5t): "TFie atQ:resaia~~|udgmepts-^-nated-in preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by m? in para above bring out two very important facts relevant t^ 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 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gairafs case (supra), which 1 have discussed in para 49 above.

¶511 need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gaira/s case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in vijlage 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. Discussingthe second method of land prices of comparable lands in the -s-uffWfrdtng-m^as mcludtngpeteritraitty^ para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoiningvillageBhorgarhwhere FCl Godownshad come up and sale instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page52 of74 instances and gtvit^g-benefitof indirstriBlizatttm-the-i^nth^ would come to n0,03,364/-per acre (Referpara 31). The Court"^ then consideredthe prkes-notifiedby the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f.

1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 atflO lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthat the price was ?10,03,364/- per acre.

¶52The decision in MahenderSinah's case, pertaining to village.Bawaj:ia,referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, commercial industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Gairafs case Mahender Singh's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality betwe'en 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page53 of 74 requisitemomentum and tine accelerationfell to between 10% ^ per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that v -pursuant to Master Plan for DeUal 1990 a faidyUacge.area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value pf agricultural lands would be ?19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 blswa of land which was sold for ?5,39,690/- and ?70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (?5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) were spent would yield the price ?17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶54' Thus, best which could be said as most favourable situation for the land owners would be that with reference to the sale deed dated

20.5.2002 for Category 'C lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would be ^17,74,109/- per acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land the price would have to be suitably enhanced and here we find another area of dispute for reason, as noted b^ me hereinabove in sub-para

(a) of para learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page54 of 74 sometimes?1.2 lalclisperacre/sometimesX1.56 lakhsperacre^^ and sometimes ?1.7 lakhs per acre from the price of Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in-Category 'C as well the price has been deducted further by n.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 -lands and-l note that categerizatton is bas-ed-^y on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths -^=e^tttffng--thesameto__be leveled and this would require money Land Acquisition Collectol' held, in some awards that ?1.2 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ?1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ?1.7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There is just no clue.

¶56In Gairai 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 ?9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about

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

¶57I thus hold that Gairai Singh's case should be my guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as well and thus I hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C have to be differentiated on price, the differential should be 2.5%.

¶58Thus, if ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to til.15 lakhs per acre~WQuidbe tfie pTice^ a Category 'C'~teniriTrvillage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No.266/2008,&connectedmatters Page55of74 admittedly pertains to a Category 'C land, the price for Category 'B' land would be fl8.20 lakhs per acre and for Category 'A' land would be n8.655 lakhs per acre.

¶59Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was n3.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was fl5.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at ?18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately ^6.40 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 I 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 gbbiJ evidence to-wofk oOTFT^d 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 the 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 h%- -QQtmcations-d^ed

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5T2a&3n-22.8.2QQ1 and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be.a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account while determining market value of• land as on the dates

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001.

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

¶61i thus hold that pertaining to the notifications dated

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001

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

16.5.2002,

23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated

25.5.2002 .LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page.57 of 74 tecaus^-vyith sa+e price —-/ land price as of said date comes to more than if determined vyith respect to the notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was ?15.7 lakhs per acre with effect from

1.4.2001.

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

22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela Alipur (pertaining to the > 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 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, -but hneed toirigtrtight that pertaining to the same notification dated

23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur learned Reference Court has determined-the -fair market value at ^17,85,240/- per acre I find that pertaining to village Rajapur-Kalan and Sanoth, pertaining to the notification dated

27.1.2003 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is n9,16,040/- in some cases ?19,13,760/- in a few, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters meaning thereby that much lesser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-a-vis the compensation workedI out for Holambi Kalan pertaining to notification dated

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

¶64With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13.82 lakhs requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 with reference to the sale deed dated

25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to 517,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B'. lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2 lakhs per acre further increasing by 2;5% prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for date

7.8.2000; mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to ^4.75 lakhs per acre decreasing same by

2.5%, it comes to ^14,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands uniform price awarded is ^14,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager ?1,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. "

¶65All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page59 of 74 appeals filed by land owners In respect whereofgrid has preparedand labeledas 'GRID-A'herelnaboveare dismissed.

¶66All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by theTand owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appealsfiled by Union of India are allowed by decreeingcompensationpayable for Category 'A' lands In village Pooth Khurd pertainingto the notificationdated 1.4.2000in sum of n4.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at m,37,280/-per acre is maintainedand thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶67PeiTaimng-to such appeal where the compensation stands enhancedstatutorybenefitsas per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgmentreported as Sunder Vs. UO/2001 (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. Village Holambi Kalan Ndtificationdated 7.8.7nnn

¶68For the reasoninggiven In paras 64 to 67 herelnabove pertainingto the notification(same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' herelnabove and cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensationto n4.75 lakhs per acre and I highlightthat as per the award and even as per the referenceall subjectlands were of uniformcategory. Needlessto stateappealsfiled by the Union of India and crossobjectionswhereverfiled are dismissed. Appealsand crossobjectionsfiled by land ownersare allowedby enhancingthe compensationto ?14.75 Fakhs per acre together with statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as LA.App.No.266/2008&conneetedmatters . Page60of74 - • - • •• . - • . explainedin the judgmentreportedas Sunder Vs. UOl2m^ (93) : ^ DLT 569, -exceptfor the period where there is a delay in filing ^the-appeal Of cross objection, for which period;of delay no interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These appellantsor crossobjectorswould be entitledto proportionate cost. Village Bawana Notification dated 7.8.20QQ 69-Pertaining to village Ba.wanaljrelating -to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court LQt enhajnced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair marl<etvalue for Category~W"lFndsis fixed at ?14.75 lakhs per acTe and" for Category 'B' lands at ?r43 per acre and noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objection,appeals as per 'GRID-C hereinabove are allowed by fixing compensation as hereinbefore mentioned needless to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as SUnder Vs. j^ 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000

¶70With reference to notification dated 9,8.2001 wherein with effect fi-om 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13.82 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/L0S/-, _jj3unded-Off to-XL7J5,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands'increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters to T18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices, comes to ^8,65,500/- per acre-for Category 'A' lands; and " decreasing the said prices by 11% to Teflect 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 ?14,83,500A per acre and decreasing the same by

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

¶71All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by the / land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are^ allowed by decreeing ; compensation payable for Category. 'A' lands: in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum of f14,83,500/- 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 1/5. Z/(9/2001.(93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay ir> filing the appeal,, for which period of delay no interest on enhanced corhpensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. ; Village 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 ?15.7 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification, i.e. -2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25;5:2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes, to : n7,74,109/-, rounded off to n7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the.same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2b08&connectedmatters - - Page62 of74 . •> to ^18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to n8,65,500/- per acre-fof-Category^A^-fands; decreasing the said prices by 11% 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 Narela comes to ?16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl5,76,087-per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands uniform price awarded is n5,85,570/- 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 4m£e-StaDd5_enhanced to ?16,16,500/- pejiacre.

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

2.5.2001 in sum of f16,16,500/- per acre as per the reference order for Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are 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 needless to state on the 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, for which period of delay no LA;App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page63 o'f74 interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants wouia De entitled to proportionate cost. V[|jag€440tefnbi Kalan flotification dated 22.8.2001

¶74With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 -wherein with effect fruin

1.4.2Q0TTninimum price notified per acre is ?15J0 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 datbd 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category ,'A' lands; decreasing the .said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22;8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

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

¶75All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-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.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters . Page64 of74 X Union of India are allowed by decreeingconnpensationpayable^ for Category 'A' lands in village Holannbi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of n6,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B'. lands connpensation awarded at ^16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶77Pertaining to such appeal where compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. DO! 2001 (93^ DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where; there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village All Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001

¶78With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 . wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach 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 ^7,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices - comes to^l8,65,500/- 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^ '-AMands in village Aii Pur comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page65 of74 c-gjga rn0en Jms.-wit4mtt afw iea^ns .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. ,79. Ail Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union af-lndfa-in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court.

¶80There shall be no order as to costs. Villaae HoJambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2Q01

¶81With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15,70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the.sale deed .dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to n8.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices X comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean _:_aMei3gfi-4H-ice-foiLXategofy 'A' comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637,50.pecacrelor Category 'B' lands. :~1wrng~Th^ learned Reference Court has, without any reasaas,,, dDjQ£-3waywjth-Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ^6,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager f9,000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.2.66/20b8ife connectedmatters Page66 of74 f-' ' . • ' r Category 'B' lands-J—maintairv-the—m4mMjflt--aAAfaf4ed by •the learned Reference Court.

¶82The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has been prepared labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. 1 note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court.

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

¶84With reference to notification dated

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

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated

25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to n7,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to n6,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ^6,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ^6,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked .out by me ,com_es to a meager ?9,0QQ/-.per._a.cre._an.dthus qua Category 'B' lands I 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 . ^7 of74 aptpeais7fried by land ownersin Tespect n prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J'herelnabove 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 compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 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. Villaae 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 n5.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saic;! 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 fl7.74.1Q9/-- rounded off to ^17.75J1Q0/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ^18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices coFftes-to ?18,65,500/- 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 Cate^ 'A' lands in villageSanoth comes to ?17,29,500/-per acre. Noting that all lands in villageSanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value 1 hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notification dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of ?17,29,500/-.

¶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.

¶90All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the land owners ^ross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of ^7,29,500/- needless to state on enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Shahour Garhi Motification 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 fl8,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a difference of 4 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.App.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters -K per acre and ! highlight that as per the award and^Th'e reTerence all lands are in the same category. Appealsand cross objections filed by the land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowed and needless to state on. the enhanced compensation land owners would be entitled to. all statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is delay, ho interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Viilaae Shahpur Garha Notification dated 23.5.2002

¶92Pertaining to notification dated

23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the 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 ?18,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and all appeals cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Villacse Holambi Kalan Notification dated 23.5.2002

¶93As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated

23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page70 of74 go Collector and learned Reference Court. The learned/^ Reference Court has awarded^. caniiierLsatiQD in sum—of ; . f22,14,239/- per acre which l_have found to be excessive, inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have held that fair market value would be ns,65,500/- per acre and thus ail appeals and cross objections fiJed 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 ^18,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. Village 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 n8,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India as per 'GRID-0' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to ?18,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land AcquisitionAct as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or crosl objectionswherethere is a delay, interestwould not be paid fdl^ the periodof delay. Proportionatecostsas well. Village Sanoth Notification dated 27.1.2003

¶95Pertainingto the appeals and cross objectionsby the land ownersand Union of India as per 'GRID-P' pertainingto the notificationdated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sanoth, I note LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters t that the learned Land AcquisitionCollector has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of unifornn category while awarding compensation. — ———

¶96On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the -s^e with 'refer^rrce-ix> the sale deed dated

20.5.2002 taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes — to n9.43.500/;^per acre and for Category 'I' land the price comes to f18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ^8,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at ^9,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed - in so far they pertainto Category'B' and Category'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertainingto Category'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objectionsas per 'GRID-P'are dismissed. Appealsand cross objectionsfiled by land owners pertainingto Category'A' lands are allowed by decreeingcompensationpayablein sum of ^19,43,500/-per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensationstatutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpretedin the judgmentreportedas SunderVs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 sh^l be p^rd^sWe and except in such appeals and cross objectionswhere there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the periodof delay. Proportionatecostsas well. The appealsand cross objectionsfiled by Union of India pertainingto Category'B' and Category'C landsare allowed by - fftGdifymg-^€--Fetatable-deeree—m Reference Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page72 of74 t ?18,94,912.50 per acre for Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.68 per acre. Village Raiapur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2003

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

27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of ^9,13,765/- per acre in some cas6s at ?19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform; category. On the mean average basis which ! have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated

20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' landsi -the price comes^ to n9,43-,500/- per acre-arrd for Category 'B' land the price comes to ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ?18,47,539.68 per acre. 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 Jhdia pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of ?19,43,500/- per acre and needless~tD^state-ofri:he-enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 26pi-t93i-BtT—569-shall -be-paid-saw-afKi except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page73 of74 Ci jyquld not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs^as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by -Fedtfemg—the—compensatten—for—Category 'B' land to ^18,94,912.50 per acre for Category 'C land to ^18,47,539.68 per acre. AUGUST 23, 2011 mnfi/dk -j— • ( i- (PRADEEPNANDRAJdG) JUDGE LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters. Page74of74 • i

$-280 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 613/2010 % UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through; Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI. versus RISHAL SINGH &ANR Through: Respondents None for R-1 Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG