Naresh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors

ORDER %

29.05.2012 Learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that in view of the decision of this Court in LA.App.No. 266/2008, Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia and ors.^ renderedon 23^^ August 2011, this appeal has to be dismissed. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. MAY 29, 2012 pkb IL GAUR, J Page I 1 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT -EW DELHI % + LA.APP. 266/2008 JAI SINGH Aopellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi,MrDeepakKhosia, Mr.S.K.Yadav,N^'.fN/l.C.Verma Mr.V.P.Rana,Mr.Raj Singh, Mr.Uday Ram, Mr O.R.Tomar Mr.l.S.Dahiya, S.Dalai, Mr.S.M.Bharciwaj,iv/lr.B.P.Gupta, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.S.S.Rana, MrSunil Dalai, Mr D.S.Khatri Mr.T.P.S.Kang, Ad\'ocates Vs. Through: UOI & ANR, T-, ^ ^ ••• f^espondents Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar.SeniorAdvocate with Mr.Sanja/ Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran Advocates for R-l, ^IjAnusuya Sal/van, Advocate for Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun Birbal' Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi Ms.Beenashaw Soni Advocates for DDA. AND (GRID-A) + IJ\.APP. 259/2008, [_A.APP. 264/2008 LA APP 2f^S/9nn« ^ ^^^^2008, U.APP, 270/2008,UAPp' 27^2008, LA.APP. 272/2008, LA.APP. 273/2008 LA APP 278/2008 &CM APPL, 5338/2009 (Cross Objections), W.'Z,' LA App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page I of 74 •V 279/2008, LA.APP. 280/2008 & CM APPL. 5261/2009 (Cross Objections), UX.APP. 281/2008, LA.APP. 284/2008, LA.APP, 286/2008, UX.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP. 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP. 293/2008, LA.APP. 294/2008 & CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP. 299/2008, LA.APP. 301/2008, LA.APP. 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 1014/2008, 1026/2008, 289/2008, LA.APP. 292/2008, LA.APP. 12918/2011 (Cross 296/2008, 303/2008, LA.APP. 311/2008, LA.APP. 337/2008, UX.APP. 357/2008, LA.APP. 394/2008, UX.APP. 413/2008, LA.APP. 443/2008, LJ\.APP. 483/2008, LA.APP. 484/2008, LA.APP. 492/2008, LA.APP. 493/2008, LA.APP. 496/2008, LA.APP, 526/2008, LA.APP. 535/2008, LA.APP. 537/2008, LA.APP. 545/2008, LA.APP. 546/2008, UX.APP. 554/2008, LA.APP. 563/2008, LA.APP. 621/2008, LA.APP. 623/2008, LA.APP. 628/2008, LA.APP. 635/2008, LA.APP. 649/2008, LA.APP. 662/2008, & CM APPL. 5353/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 846/2008, LA,APP. 847/2008, LA,APP. LA,APP, LA,APP, LA,APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LTX.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. UX.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lAAPP. LA.APP. UX.APP. [J\.APP. LA.APP. (Cross LA.APP. 875/2008, LA.APP, LA.APP, 888/2008, LA.APP, LA.APP, 905/2008, LA.APP LA,APP. 910/2008, LA,APP, LA,APP. 926/2008, LA,APP. LA.APP. 932/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP, 936/2008, LA,APP, U\,APP, 942/2008, LA,APP, LA.APP, 955/2008, LA,APP, & CM APPL, 5360/2010 (Cross LA,APP, 1019/2008, LA,APP, LA,APP, 1064/2008, LA,APP, 879/2008, 894/2008, 906/2008, 911/2008, 927/2008, 933/2008, 939/2008, 944/2008, 958/2008, Objections), 1023/2008, 1071/2008, 1256/2008, 2377/2009, 1244/2008, LA,APP, 1245/2008, LA,APP. 1268/2008, LA.APP, 1273/2008, CM APPL, 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, IJ\.APP. 111/2009 LA.APP. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, U\.APP. 251/2009' LAAPP. 252/2009, LA.APP. 265/2009, U\APP. 266/2009'&CM APPL. No.5366/2010(Cross Objections),LA.APP. 267/2009, 270/2009, 273/2009, 454/2009, 532/2009, LA.APP. 268/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 271/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 300/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 535/2009 Sc CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009 Si CM APPL Objections), LA.APP. 543/2009, LA.APP. L.\ App No.266/2008&connectedmaUers 269/2009, LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APP. 306/2009, UX.APP. 521/2009, LA.APP, 12886/2011 (Cross 12917/2011 (Cross 544/2009, LA.APP. 566/2009, LA.APP. 570/2009 & CM APPL.13873/2011, 589/2009, LJ\.APP. 593/2009, LA.APP. 594/2009, 634/2009, LA.APP. 635/2009, LA.APP. 636/2009, 637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 APPL.13878/2011, LAAPP. 1/2010, LA.APP. 29/2010, LA.APP, IA,APP. LA.APP. & CM LA.APP, LA,APP, LA^,APP, LA.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP. 108/2010, LA.APP, 109/2010, LAAPP. 169/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LA.APP. 220/2010, ^.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 (Cross 520/2010 CM APPL.13968/2011, LA.APP. 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 523/2010, LA.APP. 524/2010 & CM APPL. 12914/2011 Objections), '^.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 107/2010, 168/2010, 171/2010, 426/2010. Objections), 521/2010, CM APPL. 522/2010, ^APP. (Cross (Cross LA.App.No.266/2008& connecledmatters Objections), LA.APP, 526/2010, LA,APP. 527/2010, LA.APP. 528/2010, LA.APP. 529/2010, U\,APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL, 229/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 531/2010, LA,APP. 532/2010 CM APPL, 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 533/2010 & CM APPL. 12898/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 534/2010, LA.APP, 535/2010 & CM APPL, 12867/2011 (Cross Objections) LA.APP, 536/2010 & CM APPL, 12887/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 537/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010 S< CM APPL, 12972/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPL. 12900/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 540/2010, LA,APP, 541/2010, LA.APP. 542/2010 & CM APPL. Objections), U\.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010, LA.APP. 581/2010, LA,APP. 592/2010 5; 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. S97/2010 & CM APPL. 228/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 598/2010 Si CM APPL. 487/2011 (Cross Objections), [J\,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 Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. 40/2011, LA.APP. 195/2011 & CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 215/2011, LA.APP. 229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011, LA.APP. 232/2011, LA.APP, 233/2011, LA,APP. 19857/2010 (Cross 12903/2011 (Cross 12888/2011 (Cross 566/2010, LA.APP. 12899/2011 (Cross 795/2010, LA.APP. 12892/2011 (Cross 228/2011, LA.APP. 231/2011, LA.APP, 389/2011, LA,APP, 47S/9m^ 420/2011, U.APP, 424/2011, [J\.APP. 425/2011 N^o^l^q/20n7°n^^v-n'^^^'n^

07.08.2000 &Award NO.19/2002-03,Village-PoothKhurd) AND (GRID-B) 972/2008 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Obiections) ^ 2099/2009 (Cross Objections),LA.APP! 1150/2008 & CM 12216/2011 (Cross Objections) LA APP 1 s9/^nn« TM Objections),' W.APP 1152/2008 & CM 2102/2009 Cross Objections) LA APP 1153/2008 & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Ob ections) ^APP 1154/2008, LA.APP. 1187/2008, LA.APP. n88/2008 ^APP 1189/2008, LA.APP. 1218/2008, U^.APP. 15/2009,' U\,APP.' 82/2009, LA.APP. 100/2009, LA.APP. 102/2009,' La'aPP. 113/2009, LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009' LA APP 214/2011. . , . . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07,08.2000 & Award No. 11/2001-02, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRID-C) 4-LA,APP, 359/2007, LA,APP. 202/2007, LA,APP, 382/2007, LA,APP, 383/2007, LA,APP, 269/2008, LA,APP, 811/2008, LA,APP! 928/2008, LA.APP, 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/2009 LA APP 969/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 08/2001-02, Village-Bawana) AND (GRID-D) + LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2011 & CM 12911/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.App No.266/2008& connectedm-atters (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

11.09.2000 & Award No. 20/2002-03, Viliage-Khera Khurd) AND (GRID-E) + U!\.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP, 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, LA.APP. 646/2009, LA.APP. 91/2010, 'l^.APP. 93/2010, LA.APP, 94/2010, LA,APP. 190/2010, LA.APP. 191/2010 & CM No. 22402/2010 (Cross Objections), U\.APP. 192/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP, 195/2010, LA.APP. 197/2010, LA.APP, 297/2010, LJX.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 & (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 373/2010, LA.APP. 494/2010, LA.APP. 497/2010 & LA.APP. 498/2010, U\.APP. 501/2010& 193/2010, 196/2010, 299/2010, 309/2010, 3555/2011 493/2010, 496/2010, Objections), 500/2010, Objections), Objections), 505/2010, 508/2010, 511/2010, 514/2010, 517/2010 518/2010, 611/2010, 618/2010, 621/2010, 628/2010, Objections), 3560/2011 841/2010, LA.APP. Objections), LA.APP. 10378/2011 (Cross LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. & CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross 502/2010 & 503/2010, 506/2010, 509/2010, 512/2010, 515/2010, 7702/2011 519/2010, 612/2010, 619/2010, 622/2010, 647/2010 & LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmailers CM No. 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM No. Objections), LA.APP. 652/2010, U\,APP. 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 6"^ CM No. Objections), LA.APP. 855/2010, LA.APP. 856/2010 & CM No. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), UX.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, LA.APP. 83/2011, LA.APP. 84/2011, LA.APP. 85/2011, LA.APP. 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP. 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/2011, UX.APP, 324/2011 & CM APPL.15110/2011, LA.APP. 385/2011. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, ^.APP. CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. 495/2010, LA.APP. 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, UV.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 610/2010, LJX.APP. LA.APP. 613/2010, LA^.APP. LA.APP. 620/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 623/2010, 1-A,APP, 3847/2011 (Cross C (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

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

22.08.2001 & Award No. 18/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kaian) AND (GRID-G) -F LA.APP. 777/2010 & CM APPL.3808/2011, LA.APP, 778/2010 & CM 2686/2011 (Cross Objections), UX.APP. 779/2010 & CM 12966/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 213/2011, LA.APP. 261/2011, ^.APP, 326/2011, LA.APP. 327/2011, [J\.APP. 328/2011, LA.APP. 330/2011, LA.APP. 331/2011, LA.APP. 332/2011, LTX.APP. 333/2011, LA.APP. 334/2011, LA.APP. 335/2011, LA.APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, LTX.APP. 341/2011, LTX.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, ^.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-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRID-H) + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, LA.APP. 409/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 15/2003-04, Village-Ali Pur) AND (GRID-!) + LA.APP. 481/2010 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page 6of74 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No, 9/2003-04, Village-Holambi Khurd) AND (GRID-J) + LA.APP. 78&/2010 & CM No.2661/2011 (Cross Objections), 1_A.APP. 899/2010 & CM No,3833/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 900/2010 & CM No.3541/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP, 970/2010, UX.APP. 971/2010 & CM No.3805/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM No.2567/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Cross 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 & CM No.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP. 982/2010 & CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 984/2010 & CM No.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 986/2010, LA.APP. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/2011 (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 5^ CM No.9970/2011 (Cross Objections), UV.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, U\,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. 102/201.^, 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 4 dated 22.08.2001 ^ Award No,20/2003-04, Village-Rajapur Kalan) AND (GRID-K) LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page 7of 74 •f UV.APP. 488/2008, LA.APP, 490/2008, LA.APP. 491/2008, LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/2008, LA.APP. 868/2008 & CM No.10393/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 896/2008 & CM No,5364/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 897/2008, LA.APP. 1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP. 34/2010 & CM No,7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 488/2010, L7\,APP, 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, UX.APP. 236/2011, L7\.APP. 421/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth)

07.12.2001 & Award AND (GRID-L) + LA.APP, 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, ^.APP. 344/2008, lAAPP. 352/2008, LA.APP. 364/2008, lAAPP. 385/2008, LA.APP. 387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP, 464/20085< 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. 561/2008, UXAPP. 676/2008, LA.APP. 681/2008, LA.APP. 722/2008, LA,APP, 786/2008, LA,APP. 842/2008, LA.APP. 883/2008, LA.APP. 924/2008, LA.APP, 938/2008, LA,APP, 945/2008, LA.APP. 998/2008, LA.APP. 1007/2008, LA.APP. 1079/2008, LA.APP, 309/2009, LAAPP, 465/2009, LA,APP, 546/2009, LA,APP, 624/2009, LA,APP, 23/2010, LA,APP. 24/2010, LA.APP, LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010. 471/2008, 611/2008, 678/2008, 682/2008, 731/2008, 825/2008, 850/2008, 903/2008, 935/2008, 940/2008, 956/2008, 1001/2008, 1065/2008, 106/2009, 374/2009, 468/2009, 547/2009, 628/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. 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. 560/2008, 663/2008, 679/2008, 683/2008, 754/2008, 826/2008, 853/2008, 904/2008, 937/2008, 943/2008, 957/2008, 1004/2008, 1077/2008, 172/2009, 464/2009, 539/2009, 565/2008, 630/2009, 26/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 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 Notification u/s 4 dated 16.05.2002 & Award No. 29/2003-04, Viilage-Shalnpur GarLni) LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters AND (GRID-M) + U\.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, L7\,APP. 434/2008, LA.APP. 435/2008, U\.APP. 436/2008, U\.APP, 444/2008, LA.APP. 456/2008&i CM No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, L7\.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008 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. U\.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, (Cross LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP, LA,APP, LA,APP. LA.APP. UX.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 (GR!D-N) + LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 Si CM 13228/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 304/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

23.05.2002 & Award No. 16/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRID-0) + U\.APP,379/2008, LA.APP. 381/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, LA,APP, 499/2008, LA,APP. 530/208, LA.APP. 836/2008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 310/2009 & CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 782/2010, LA.APP, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters o 14852/2011(CrossObjections),LA.APP. 381/2011 'i7/20m'05°V^nage'lnPuo' ' 23-05.2002&Award No, AND (GR!D-P) + U\.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009(Cross Obiertinnc-i ^.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP. 674/2008&CM No.7818/2009(Cross 577/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, LA APP 706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 & (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008 LA.APP. 885/2008, 7837/2009 882/2008, 898/2008 902/2008, 929/2008 930/2008 & CM No.2355/2009 LA.APP. 922/2008, & CM No.2351/2009 & CM No.7821/2009 LA.APP. 980/2008 960/2008, Objections), UX.APP. 981/2008 & CM Objections), LTX.APP. 982/2008, U.APP. 983/2008 No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 No.839/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 985/2008 997/2008, LJ\.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008,' 1027/2008, LA.APP. 1078/2008 & CM No.2247/2009 Objections), U\.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. 1127/2008 No.2111/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1196/2008 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections)' 1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 & CM No 7791/200'9 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 & CM No.14321/2009 122/2009 123/2009, 174/2009, 261/2009, 293/2009, 302/2009, 433/2009, 471/2009, 518/2009, 531/2009, LA.APP, LA,APP, LA,APP, LA,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 124/2009, 250/2009, 262/2009, 299/2009, 303/2009, 449/2009, 487/2009, 527/2009, 533/2009, l.A App.No 266/2008 & coniicclecl mailers LA.APP. (Cross LA.APP. (Cross (Cross & CM (Cross LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 891/2008, Objections), 923/2008, Objections), Objections), No,855/2010 No.1261/2009 Objections), 128/2009, 260/2009, 264/2009, 301/2009, 365/2009, 461/2009, 501/2009, 530/2009, 537/2009, CM No, [J\.APP. 1J\,APP. U\.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LJ\.APP. (Cross (Cross & CM & CM LA^.APP. LA.APP, (Cross & CM LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross (Cross LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. L^.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. 538/2009, LA.APP 545/2009, LA.APP. 554/2009, LA.APP. 555/2009, LA.APP. 558/2009, U^.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, U\.APP. 203/2010, LA.APP. 204/2010, LA.APP. 225/2010, U.APP. 227/2010, 372/2010, 479/2010, 483/2010, 486/2010, 606/2010 607/2010, 614/2010, 695/2010, 785/2010 786/2010 787/2010, 790/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010, LA.APP. 410/2010, UX.APP. 480/2010, LA.APP. 484/2010, LA.APP. 487/2010, St CM No.19878/2010 UX.APP. 608/2010, LA.APP. 615/2010, UX.APP. 705/2010, &L CM No.12968/2011 & CM No.12967/2011 LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. 820/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. 821/2010, 916/2010 & CM No.6773/2011 14/2011 & CM 26/2011 Si CM 55/2011 & CM 59/2011, LA.APP. No.6754/2011 No.6763/2011 No.12894/2011 LA.APP. 303/2010, LAAPP. LA.APP. 418/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 485/2010, LAAPP. LA.APP. 604/2010, U\.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 609/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 671/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. A.APP. 789/2010, LAAPP. CM No.12880/2011 (Cross LA.APP. 915/2010, LA.APP. (Cross Objections) LA.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. (Cross Objections), 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 St CM No.12971/2 (Cross 0bjections)011, LA.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (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.13289/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 338/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s No.11/2004-05, Viilage-Sanoth) dated

27.01.2003 & Award AND (GRID-Q) + ^.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 Page ] 1 of 74 No.3587/2011 (Cross Objections), L/s.APP. 646/2010, LA.APP. 664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. 667/2010, U\.APP. 668/2010, U\.APP. 669/2010 & C.M. No.6769/2011 (Cross Objections), U^.APP. 670/2010 & C.M. No.3818/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 672/2010, L-A.APP. 673/2010 & C.M. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LJ\.APP, 687/2010, LA.APP. 701/2010 Si C.M, No,3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP, 702/2010, L7^..APP. 703/2010 & C.M. No.9941/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 Si C.M, No,12878/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP, 735/2010, LA.APP. 736/2010, [JX.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP. 739/2010 & C.M. No.3569/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 740/2010 Si CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 800/2010 Si C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP, 801/2010, LA.APP. 802/2010, L7\,APP, 803/2010, LA,APP, 808/2010, U\,APP. 809/2010, LA,APP, 810/2010, LA,APP, 811/2010, lA.APP. 812/2010, LJX.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010, LA.APP. 815/2010, UX.APP. 816/2010 & C.M. No,3862/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP, 817/2010, LA.APP. 838/2010, LA.APP. 839/2010 & C.M. No.10335/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 870/2010 Si 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, tA,APP, 945/2010 & C.M. No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), l_A.APP. 975/2010 & C.M. No.2664/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M. No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP. 56/2011 & C.M. No.9939/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, U^.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP. 98/2011, LA.APP. 99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011, LA.APP. 104/2011, UX.APP. 105/2011, LA.APP. 106/2011, LA.APP. 107/2011, UX.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'BLEMR. JUSTICE PRADEEPNANDRAJOG

1.. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2, To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? LA.App.No,266/2008&connectedmaUens of 74 PRADEEP NANDRAIQG. I. villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Hoiambi 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 dates

7.8.2000,

11.9,2000, 2,5,2001, 22,8,2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5,2002, 23,5,2002 27,1,2003, Needless to state, pursuanfto notifications issued, from time to time, on aforesaid dates under Section of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, vast tracts of land in said 10 villages were acquired 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 Page 13of74 h road or freight complex. The reason why such large tracts of lands were needed was to set up an industrial estate pursuant to a decision taken to shift all industries operating in non-conforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas. 3-I must highlight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in all appeals filed by them as also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and except pertaining to village Narela, where an additional argument was advanced; being that, the township of Narela had existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Nareia 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 time would reveal that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from time to 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&connectedmailers Page 14oi 74 4' to 6', the land value has been appropriately depressed this is to be found in a few awards where lands have been put in 2 or 3 categories i.e. Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C. 6, A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the learned Reference Court has determined fair market value on different principles for purposes of clarity 1 may note basis on which learned Land Acquisition Collector learned Reference Court have determined the compensation payable. The same would be as under;- A. Pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.2000 issued under Section of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against ?13.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and ^"12.25 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land AcquisitionCollector(by adoptingthe price as per the policy for minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adoptedthe same rate i.e. "^13.82 lacs per acre and has granted increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000 till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fair market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and has ignored that there was Category'B' land for which he had to make necessary adjustment. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000_ pursuant whereto 211.14 bigha land was acquired in village Holambi Kalan, the Land Acquisition Collectortreated the land as of same character and determined fair market value with referenceto the policy for minimum rates in sum of ?13.82 lacs LA.AppNo 266/2008&conncctedinatterK per acre which has been enhanced by the learned Reference Court to tl4,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006

(VI) AD Delhi Gairai l/s. <70/wherein for the dare 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 and fixed the same at ?13.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and -?12.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. The learned Reference Court maintained the same. D, Pertaining to notification dated

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

1.4.2000 was ^3.82 lacs per acre and for 128 days i.e. the number of days between 1.4.2000 till 11.9,2000, appreciating same by 12% has determined fair market value at -;>14,40,157/-and has uniformlyawarded the same for all lands, E, Pertaining to the notification dated 2,5,2001 pursuant whereto 1140.5,8 bigha land was acquired in Narela for development of sectors 1 to 4, Phase I, Narela, with respect to the policy of minimum price with effect from 1.4.2001 the LA.App,No.266/2008&connecledmatters ^'^8® learned Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of

1.4.2001 for Category 'B' lands determined same at ?14 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 Acquisition Act 1894 is dated

2.5.2001 and enhanced compensation to ?15,85,700/- per acre which has uniformly awarded. F. Pertaining to notification dated 22,8.2001 whereunder

512.16 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. ?15.7 lacs per acre which has been held to be the fair market value for Category 'A' lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determined at '^14 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e, ?15.7 lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum for 143 days and the price so fixed is ^16,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded. G. Pertaining to same notification dated

22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 512.16 bigha land was acquired in village Alipur, on the same reasoning which has been adopted for village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same compensationas determinedfor village Holambi Kalan has been worked out by the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoras also by learned Reference Court who has done away with categorization. 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&connecledmailers . Holambi Khurd, reasoning of the LAC and learned Reference Court and the price deterniined is the same as has been aetermined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that in this village even the LA.C has treated all lands in the same uniforni 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 villagethe acquired land was of uniform category. j Pertaining to notification dated 7,12.2001 pursuant whereto 222.05 bigha land was acquired 'n village Sanoth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township, learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed compensationuniformly in sum of tl5.7 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 •U6,99,042/- per acre. K. Pertaining to the notificationdated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired,the learned Land AcquisitionCollectorhas determined compensation in sum of ^15,7 lacs per acre which is the minimum price notified by the Governmentas of 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has simply held that the land owners would be entitledto enhance compensationat 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 1find that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be LA App No 266/2008&conneclcflmatters ^17,75,369.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as

1.4.2001 and the base price at ?'15.7 lacs, for 1 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 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 reasoning pertaining to same village for notification dated

16.5.2002 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. M. Pertaining to the same notification dated

23.5.2002 pursuant whereto 445.81 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan was acquired, the learned LAC has determined fair market value in sum of ^'15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopted the same reasoning as was adopted while determining the fair market value of lands in village Holambi Kalan which were acquired pursuant to the notificationdated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the decision in Gajraj'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 agriculturalland in villageAlipur were acquired the learned Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at the rate of tl5.7 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

1.4.2001 till 23.5.2002, the price determined is ?17,85,240/- per acre.

¶0Pertaining to notification dated

27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha land in village Sanoth 2188.03 bigha land in village Rajapur Kalan were acquired, 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

1.e. ^15.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of ^14 lacs per acre and for Category 'C lands in sum of ?12.3 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different reasoning in some impugned decision and different in a few. In some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted minimum price in sum of '<^15.7 lacs per acre as of 1.4.2001 and 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 agriculturalland comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for ^5,39,690/-.

¶7Since the learned Land AcquisitionCollector as also the learned Reference Court have relied upon the notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agriculturallands in Delhi, let me therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertainingto agriculturallands in Delhi since the same would be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- L.^V App No 266/200!^&connectcdmatters P-iS® 20 of 74 SI,No, "'-bate'of^ Notification i'"l-13",5.1990 'IT' X '6. "77

¶824,9,1998

¶42ni:2000 5^ I9,8^oT 9,8.2001 30,8.2005 ^X26W I of the price - Price (in 'akhs/acre) % increase per annum ;4.65

10.0 TTs "

11.2

11.2 ll32 12Ti'6'

13.82

15.7

11.5

17.584

2.98 , 89.51

27.4,1996' 25,7,1997 i 1,4TI997

1.4.1998

1.4.19*99

1.4.2000 ."20^ "3078:^5~' ~iQ^n?2o6T L

¶8From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after ..ini.u. price was last «xed w.e.f, .-7.4.1990 ,n sum of ^.es lakhs/acre it was increased after nea y7years to UO lakhs/acreand the annual increasecon.es -0 11.5/0per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 141998 the pnce was enhanced by 11,2% to reach the figure of ni 2 lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to n2.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded,inasmuch as when the notificationdated 9.8.2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.1999 LO n2,16 lakhs/acrei.e. the price increased by 11% per annum with reference to the price determined as of

1.4.1998 and vide same notification the price was retrospectivelyenhanced w.e.f, 1.4.2000 to n3.82 lakhs/acre i.e^ ncreased by ii% per annum vis-a-vis the previous i,e.

2.16 lakhs/acreand w,e,f, 1,4.2001 the pnce rose by 115% per annum vis-a-vis the previous price of U3.82 lakhs/acreto LA.App.No,266/2008&connectedmalters reach figure of ^15.7 iakhs/acre. 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 ?17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30.8.2005.

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

7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; notification dated

22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated

7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notificationdated 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 was urged that correctiveaction is required by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, 11.5% increase per annum and 12% per annum increase was excessive with reference to the dates of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; requiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annum in the least. Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA,AppNo.266/2008&connecledmatters 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' 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.APR.No.780/2010 as also the sale deed dated

25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ ^'26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of T32.4 lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporationtax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 would be ^28.89 lakhs/acre and pertainingto the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be -^63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determinethe fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 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 extendedlimb of this argument, pertaining to village Narela, it was urged that the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters 23 ol 74 -yf for which argument was that when in past, pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur-Narela by giving a price benefit of t2/- per sq.yd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated

6.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UO/ vs. Dharambir & Ors. The said decision would reveal that price per bigha in sum of ^6,650/- determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to ?16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to ?22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored.

¶11Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela Residential Scheme Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developedinto residentialand industrialestates, had resulted in the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, requiredfair market value to be determinedwith respectto the price at which DSIDC and DDA i.e. the implementingagencies, which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development, of Rohini ResidentialScheme and Bawana IndustrialArea, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate and for which learned counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which 1 would be noting hereunder while dealing with the submission urged.

¶12Alternative to the second submission, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters 24 of 74 1/5. Union of India, it vA/as 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 (g) 6% per annum with reference to the base price 'tl5,750/- 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 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 1 am concerned in the present appeals. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to -?56,88,759/- per acre and 1 may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle market value should be assessed for preceding notifications dated

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000, 2,5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002

23.5.2002.

¶13The fourth argument advanced was, for which reference was made by learned counsel for the parties in the evidence led in LAC No,99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. UX.APP.No.268/2008filed by the land owners and LA.APP.No.292/2008 filed by Union of India, 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&connectedmalters Page 25 of74 testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agricgitural produce from his lands he used to earn tl lakh per bigha per annum 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 others were acquired. It was thus urged that 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 others i.e. the appellants in LA.APR.No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APR,No.292/2008, 14, The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared in a few matters urged that for each of the notification in question the fair market value ought to have been determined with reference to notification which was closest in point of time where under minim.um land value was fixed by the Government and the notification dated

24.1.2008 where under ?53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18,12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument,

¶15The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27,1,2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20,5,2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of 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 para 17 ofthejjQasion dated 7.1.2010 in LAC No.117A/2009) : "If we add stamp duty in the sale price 3,69,906/- per bigha (t5,39,690/- + 70,160 ~ 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which conies to X17,74,109/- per acre or 3,68,906/- per bigha. Further if we give 12% I.A.App.No.266/2008&conneoledmatters Vage 26 oi 74 vl increase on said amount for intervening period between date when sale deed was executed date of notification u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27 01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes to tl9,16,037/- (round off't19,16,040/-). " The argument was that-if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e. Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveai that award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land was put in Category 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra No.200 and that page No,56-57 of the award would evidence that land comprised in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 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 tl5.7 lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated

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

¶16I have 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 above and hence I need not repeat the same. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page 27 of /4

¶17In various sub-paras of para hereinabove, ! 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 L.and Acquisition Act 1894 and relaiable to the 10 villages and thus 1 commence my journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various sub-paras of para 5 above.

¶18ftiut before dealing with arguments i need to highlight various anomalies which strike reader at the outset. The same wouid 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-a-vis the price for Category 'A' lands is <1.56 lacs per acre and pertaining to the notification dated 13.9.2000 w'nere price has been determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd, said price differential has been worked out at tl.2 lacs per acre and while determining fair miarket value for agricultural lands in village Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated

2.5.2001 deduction effected is U.7 lacs per acre, which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of agriculturalland in village Holambi Kalan was determinedas of date

22.8.2001. Pertaining to the notfication dated

27.1.2003 and relatable to village Sanoth the p'dce diiferential on said count iias 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 11.2 lacs per acre, 1,56 lacs per acre and tlJ lacs per acre. LA,App.No.2r)(',/?(;i)8&cotinccLetlmaUcrs 2$ ol 74 B. The learned Land Acquisition Collector has adopted minimum price notified closest in point of time to the date when Section 4 notification was issued without appreciating the land price with reference to the date of the Section 4 notification i,e, no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has been given. C. The learned Reference Court has adopted the minimum price notified 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

7.8,2000 and 23,5.2002 the learned Reference Court has adopted the price determined by this Court in Gairaj's case (supra) as of

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

27.1.2003 the learned Reference Court, in some references has determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price notified as of 1,4.2001 and has given appreciation, in some cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, F. Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Collector has classifiedlands in Category'A', 'B' and 'C reasons thereof have been given in the award but the learned ReferenceCourt, while awarding uniform compensation,has given no reasonsas to why it was treatingall landsto be of same characterand quality.

¶19Since Iam dealing with acquisitionsin 10 villagesand Q notificationsissued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, I think it advisableto put in a tabular form the televant LA.App.No,266/2008&connectedmatters facts, which would be my data for further analysis. Put in a tabular form the data would be as under:- V/illage Pooth Khurd ; Holainbi • Kalan i Holambi i Kalan Holambi Kalan Bawana Khera Khurd i Narela Date of Section Notific_a_tion 7".8.2006"~' LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Cat:'A'a3^82 Cat, 'B' -U2.26 Minimum price as of 1,4,2000 I

7.8,2000 22,8.2001

23.5,2002

7.8,2000 <13.82 IMinimum price Of 1.4,2000 Cat. 'A' U5.7 Cat. 'B' ^14 Minimum price of 1.4,2001 <15,7 Minimum price of 1.4,2001 as as as ADJ compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Cat, Uniform, •a4.3728. Minimum price as of

1.4,2000 with 12% increase p.a, ^4", 12^95, Price as in Gajrai's case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. Cat. Uniform. ?16.43811. |\'1inimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. -^22.14239, Price as in Gairai's case as of 15,11,1996 with 12% increase p.a, (compounded) No enhancement given. , Cat. 'A' ?13.82 i Cat. 'B' U2.62 Minimum price of 1.4,2000 as 11,9.2000

2.5.2001 Cat, 'A' ^13,82 Cat. 'B' T12.62 Minimum price as of 1.4,2000 Cat, 'A' Na5,7 Cat, 'B' -U4 Minirnum price as of 1.4,2001 Cat. Uniform. ^14,40157. Minimum price as of

1.4,2000 with 12% increase p,a. Cat, Uniform. •^15.857. Minimum price as of ..^•A'2PCU_ _with Pn"e 3i) of 74 LA.App.Nc:!,266/2008& connected niadcr.s lAiiPur

122.8.2001 A!i Pur Holambi Khurd P>ajapur Kalan Rajapui Kalan

23.5.2002

22.8.2001 -r 22.8.2001

27.1.2003 Sanoth —I-

7.12.2001 Sanoth ; 27.1.2003 I 12% increase p.a' I Cat. 'A' n.5,7 Cat. 'B' U4 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 j?15.43811. j Minimum price as ' of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p,a, ^"15.7 Mlinimum price of 1.4.2001 •U5.7 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 tl5.7 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 Cat. 'A' ?15.7 Cat. 'B' tl4 Cat. 'C •Nn2.3 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as as as as x>15.7 Minimum price as of 1.^.2001 Cat. 'A' U5.7 Cat. 'B' ^^14 Cat. 'C "a2.3 Mlinimum price as of 1.^1.2001 <17.8524 Minimum price as of

1.4,2001 witli 12% increase p.a. ^16^3811"" Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. ae.43811 Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a.

¶1^=19,13765 for Uniform category, Minimum price as of 1,4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. in some cases.

¶2n,9.1604 for Uriiformi category based on sale deed dated 25,5.2002 with 12% increase p.a. ae.99042. Minimum price as of 1,4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. ^19,13765 for Uniform category. Minimum price as of

1.4,2001 with 12%i increase p.a. LA.App No 266/2008& connecledmailers Shahpur Garhi Shahpur Garhi

16.5^2061 •

23.5,2002 Cat. 'A' ^^15.7 I'^inimum price as Of 1.4.2001 Cat. 'A' U5.'7 l^'linimum price as of 1,4,2001 •v^l7,75369. [viinimum price as of 1,4,2001 with compound interest @ 11,5% p,a. a7.79781. iviinimum price as of 1,4.2001 with compound interest

(g) 11,5% p,a,

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

¶21The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated

25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated

25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ •^53.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.P\A/-l/2 has likewise been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization"ChristianOrganization"and as per the testimony LA.App No.266/2008& conneclcdniatlers of P\A/-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to pay the price for 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 7.17 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) 2009

(14) SCC 369 Moiici. Raufuddin \/s. i.and Acquisition Officer (IHefer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area: has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the land?, in the area. I would be failing if Ido not highlightthat the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated

20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated

27.1,2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. "^17,74,109/-per acre as against the price which comes to <63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and -^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App.No.266/2008 connectedmailers t/1 trhemselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other, 23, Thus, apart from reasoning of learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds vuould advisably not be good evidence wherefrorn fair marl<et value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.LS.Dahiya being the decision dated 19,12,2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA,App.No. 193/2006 Pratap Singh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UP! & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha 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 C9uld 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 basis to determine fair marker value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein 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& connecledraalters Page 34of 74 would be pnco atnvcd aL with leferenceto the average rate of tfie sale deeds producedby the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Governmentwere giving a price of tl,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchasedthe land gave the price^3,26.600/-per bigha and the averagewould come to '^•2,31,800/- which was near about the price o ^•2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3"' would be deducted fromi the sum of 2b,600/-. it may further be highlightedthat in the said judgtnent the yeai of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section of the Land AcquisitionAct was dated 24,7.1995 and 16.11.1995and the Cou.rt determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ^"2,15,160/-, In Oi,her wotds, 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 liighlight once again, tfiat 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 argumient as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of argument that after accepting said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaininq to village Narela, in view of the decision in Dhorambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced would be dealt v/^yith by nne at the end when I determine the fair market value of lands for the villages in question.

¶25The second argument, contours whereof are to be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA App No ;.66/2008&coiineclcdriiatleis -'age 35 of74 f latest pronouncemenr of the Supreme Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand i/s, UOL

¶26But before thgt I must highlight that the decision in La! Chdnd's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme 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.Kgrnal Road and Rohtak Road.

¶27Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing same transferring perpetual lease-holdrights, which observations would equallybe relevant to industrial layouts, in paras 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- " Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence?

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

¶51No. Plotsize Category Rate (persquare metre) 26 sq m Economicallyweakersections Rs 100

(EWS) 2, 32 sq m Low incomegroup (LIG) Rs 125

¶348 sq m Low incomegroup (LIG) Rs 150 V. 60 sq m Middle incomegroup (MIG) Rs 200

¶590 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200 LA,App.No.26f)/2()0R&conneclcdinaller.s Page 36of?a file appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the said provisionalrates, should be taken as indicativeofthe ruling market price.

¶12On careful consideration,we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot fo.nm the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determined with referenceto large tracts of undeveloped agricultuial lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area, Seconoly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficultto ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform does not depend upon economic status of the land loser, Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold land, whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor

¶13The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon nature of development of the layout in which exemplar plots are situated.

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

¶15The development authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes cost of levelling land, cost of providing roads, LA.Api).No.266/?.()()8& conucctcd matler.s Page 3? of 74 underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying water lines, electricity lines and developing parks civil an-ienities, which would be about 35% of the value of the 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 comniunity 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 developmsnt work would also be comparatively less and nninimal. 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 4,0% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. X/. the "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 rn), and as there will be very limited civic amenities no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost lo 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 infra.structure 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 cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than deduction LA.App.N'o266/2008 & connected mntlers !-';igc3r: of 74 0-with reference to price of o small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It js also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure.

¶21Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residential-cum-commercial or industrial; and even among residentiai layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community facilities, parks and playgrounds provided.

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

¶23DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon economic status of thq allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, 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/premium charged may be Rs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle income group Rs 250 per square metre for persons belonging to high income groups.

¶24The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EVVS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the applicants for allotment, Third factor LA.App.No.266/2008 & connectcc!nuilters

¶25-Some development; authorities allot-plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale, Some developmc^nl: authorities like DDA aiiot plots on leasehold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent.

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

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

¶28The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the saine by extracting from L-AC F^eference No.ll7A/2009. The argurrent advanced before learned Reference Court, being the same as was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court witl"! reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads;- "Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that D[3A (v DSIDC allotted plots in Narela Presidential Area 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. PWG/l, Allotment letter dated

26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring 70 5q. rnetres in which rate was fixed as -^3,989 per sq, metres, which is Ex.PV/V6/2 both this and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. LA App No 26(1,'7.008&coniniciedluaUers 40 of 74 u plot no.2 70, measuring sq. yards at Marela Industrial Complex at the rate of n650 sq. metres vv/hich is Ex. PVVji/l and 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 Si document Ex. PW1]/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 = 1'248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme (g) "<3208 would be <2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of flic total area utilized for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes fgr sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 - 759422 = 1/719866 per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. n1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only "^3,27,083/- per bigha. Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testitnony of PW7 F^.D. Sharma, Asstt. Manager, 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 t2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: ITotal area under plots j Puce per sq. rrietre in i the year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot i Total earning ' = total expenditure total profit

112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. ?3000/- per sq. yards >4083750000 ^72052690^ 0363223099 i.e. Profit comes to ^2470 per sq. yard or '^"2470000 per bigha (i.e. 3353223099 divided by 1361250 sq, yards) and the l-AC has paid compensation @ "?327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of ?2142917 per bigha. [_d. Counsel for the petitioners has fu-ther argued that LAC has awarded compensation

(S) '•>^327083 per L.'\ .App \i- "'if' '-OOS c'v ominecUuiinaKers Pai-c 41 or74 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 bigha i.e. ??4700000, the figure comes to n8i5834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same."

¶29Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in La! Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

¶30It is no doubt true, as held even by tha learned Reference Court, that with development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.

¶31I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Chanel''^ case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, 1 promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands,

¶32iho third submission in the alternative was based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram's case (supra), and the submission is as noted in para 12 herein above. The land owners require price determined in Dhardmbii'i^ case (supra) relating to notification dated L.A App \'o '.-'.OOH coiinccludmallei's i^igc 42 of 74

30.10.1963 in sum of \^16,750/- per biglna for viilag© IMamurpur to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% per annum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods thereby determine fair market value for the 8 notifications in question,

¶33It be highlighted that in Bedi Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date as of the year 1959, for the year 1975 i.e, a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum, by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years.

¶34However, in La! Chancfs case (supra), Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the award relating to acquisition on .^4-10-1961 is relevant? 47, The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired under Sectjon 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1951 for the planned development of Delhi and con-ipensation was awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v, Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patella this Court held: (5CC p, 751, para 15) " lu Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved 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 or acquisitions of comparable lands in neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA App.No 26()/?,U(J8 conneclcilniaLlcr;; MM reliGd^on sale LrarisdcMons/acquisitionsprecede the subiert dCriu,bit;onby only a few year?;, that is, up to four //•/ •' oe unsafe, even /£,/r7/c.\9to a neighhouringland What: may be a lehdbie standate! if the gap is of only a few ^nd unreliable .canJaio where the gap is larger For exarnole lor oecermining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase acquisition in ij/0 01 .980 may have many pitfalls. This is "^ecausc, over tlie course of years, the 'rate' of e^nnual increase may itself undergo drastic change apartfrom the likelihoodof occurrenceof varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increa-se." (ernphasis supplied) '' relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition,the court should, before adopting a standardescalation,satisfyitselfthat there were no adverse circumstances.For example if the acquisition is of this year 2009. it mav not 'be market value, based on the .-OJ/ or 20Gd prices, by providingan increase of 12% or 15/o per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that tlie price of immovableproperties in niost areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the 2007 rates. Caution is theiefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to old Transactions,Re that as it may. It is clear that the; award made in regard to a 1961 acquisitionwill not be of any use for delt^rmining the market value for a 1901 acquisition." apparent that tine ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in iJedj Rarjf'-] case (supra) runs in the teeth of the law declarecJ by the Supreme Court in i^al Cbancfs case (supra), which rlrcision follows an earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 Rameshbhai iivarib!iaJ__Patel. LA App No,,'(!6//'()()!i(V conncclodniallci'.'i I'iipe4-i of74 M)

¶36In tho inst'yni: case there is another good reason not to follow the lavi' Inid down in Uedi r^airi\, case (supra) for the reason I find that a Co-ordinnte Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported os 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambifs case (supra) as of the year 19C33, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ ^2010/- per annum per bigha gave the increase @ ^1000/- per biglia. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would have come to approximately ^50,000/- per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at '^33,000/- per l)igha. 37, That apart, as would bo 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, Mdhender Singh vs. UP! & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural land'.- in village Bawana, I highlight that one village witfi vvhicli I am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated

15.11.199?i issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha biswa of agricultural land ir; village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bav^ann Industrial Rstate, the fair market value as of

15.11.1996 was determined © H,,99,904.68 bigha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre aru"! relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which price for agricultural land being ttv minimum price determined by the Government ^'vas UO lakhs per acrc as of 1.4.1997, the price l,A,App.No,i(>6,'2()nB councoledniaUcis determined by the Division Bench would equal the Fninimum price notified by the Government.

¶38If I were to take price as of

15.11,1996 (© ?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, 39, The 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 labove 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 th@ testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no proof in support of his oral testimony, 41, The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on

4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that 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& connected mailers Pago 46 of 74 sown around the first week or the second week of November each year. 42, But the other reasoning of there being no evidence ied in the form of documentsis 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 a 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 same, to determine fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yield and-the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly rejected.

¶43If there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found in 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.xN'o.266/2008& connected matters capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, the 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, 15,5.2002,

25.5,2002 and 27.1,200,3 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

30.8,2005. Thus, there would be no 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 years away from the last year with which I am concerned i.e. 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 closest to the point for which 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 -the notification dated

27.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References with respect to a sale deed dated

20.5.2002 where under bigha and 13 biswa of iand was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and LA,Ajjp.No.266/2008&connecledinailsrs f'cige 'Wi of 7-1 has determined that based thereon the price as of said dat§ works out to ?17,74,109/- per acre and increasing the same for 8 months by 12% per annum, for the date 27,1.2003 the price would be ^'19,16,037/-per acre rounded off to '<19,16,040/-per acre. 47, With reference to the Av</ard No.l0/DC(NW)/:2Q04-05 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C land. The sale deed in question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflect fair market value of Category 'C land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collector ?1,7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum of ?1.7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions in Category 'C land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were less vis-a-vis Category 'C land, In other words, with reference to Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C land would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-a-vis Category 'C land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land would be required to be increased suitably. 48, I now enter the final stage of my discussion, in view of evidence herein above noted reflecting upon reasoning adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court, I pose the question: What should be the fair market value of the subject lands as of 7.8,2000,

11.9.2000, 2,5.2001,

22.8,2001, 7,12.2001,

15.5,2002, 25,5.2002 27,1,2003 i,e, dates on which notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, 49, 1 have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP,No,866/2005 decided on LA,App.No.266/200B&connectcdraatlers Page 49 of74 5^ 11,5.2006, Mahender Singh vs. UP! & Ors. wherein pertaining to viiiage Bawana, fair marl<et vaiue determined as of 15.11,1996 is ?1,99,904,68 per bigha which equais to ?9,59,542.46 per acre, The said decision wouid be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes that subject lands i.e. lands with which Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural Delhi were identified for providing major health facilities, schools, markets rural industry, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted that G.T.Karnai 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 observed that notwithstanding this, for the reason no ?onal plan 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 l^laster Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being knqwn 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 proposition that there is a difference between undeveloped land having building LA.App-.No.266/2008&coraicctedmatters potentiality in presenti vis-a-vis a land having a building potentiality, in future. As already noted by me in para 35 above, as of the date

15.11.1996, fair market value determined was ?9,59,542.46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. notification dated

25.7.1997 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 Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) Gairai Singh 1/5. UP! & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holam.bi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated

15.11,1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was ?9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was '^^9,51,121/- per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to be highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11,1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development work carried out in the surrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola determined fair market value as of

19.3.1993 @ ^1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. ?6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is reported as 2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. UP! and the same Division Bench, as per the decision reported as 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sinah i/5. UPL pertaining to a notification dated

14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value

(g) ?1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. ^6,73,104/- per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page 51 of74

¶50The aforesaid judgments noted 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 me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from year 1990. As of

27.4.1990 minimum price was ?4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ^10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is ^5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 1997 prices grows fairly sharply good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gairaj's case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

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

15.11.1996, in paras to Court discussed valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the •gross return per acre per annum was \^95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ?9,5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed matter with reference to land prices in adjoiningvillage Bhorgarhwhere FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances found that based on the said sale LA.AppNo.266/2008&conncclcdmailers Pnge 52 of74 instances and giving benefit of industrializationtlie land price would come to ?10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices notified by the Government as per policy dated 1,4,1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights 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 at ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was ^10,03,364/- per acre. ^

¶52The decision in MaheaderSingh's case, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, commercial industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of tlie notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana 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 Gajrafs case Mahender Sinc/h's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the LA.App Mo 2^)6/2008& connected matters requisite momentum and tlie acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated. 53, The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from 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 miarket value of agricultural lands would be ^19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for ?5,39,690/- and ?70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ^6,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + ?70,160/-) were spent would yield 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 by me hereinabove in sub-para

(a) of para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page 54 of74 sometimes ^1.2 lakhs per acre, sometimes ?1.56 lakhs per acre and sometimes ?1.7 lakhs per acre from the price of Category 'A' lands to determine price for Category 'B' lands wherever lands were in Category 'C as well the price has been deducted further by T1.7 lakhs per acre. 55, Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the lands and I note that categorization is based only on the basis of certain lands having pits depressions of various depths requiring the same to be leveled and this would require money to be spent, But on what basis has Land Acquisition Collector 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. 56, In Gairai Sinah'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 ^9,75,121/- 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, 57, I thus hold that Gairai Singh's case should be my guiding star for price differentialin the instant cases as well and thus I hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' Category 'C have to be differentiatedon price, the differential should be 2,5%, 58, Thus, if ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75 lakhs per acre would be the price for a Category 'C land in village Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5,2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex,R-2 LA,App.No.266/2008&coanecledmatters P»Se 55 of 74 admittedly pertains to a Category 'C land, price for Category 'B' land would be ?18,20 Idkhs per acre for Category 'A' land would be ?18.655 lakhs per acre.

¶59Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was T13,82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was ^15.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If 1 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 T16.40 lakhs per acre this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at ^15.7 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is ?70,000/- per acre i.e.

4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. What 1wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held good evidence to work out a land price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 LA.App.No,266/2Q08&connectedmatters Page 56 of74 m notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001,the differentialperiod is small inasmuclias the sale deed in questionis dated 25.5.2002and thus in the peculiar facts of the instantcase, the sale deed in question,which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of marl<etvalue of land as on said date, would be arelevantpiece of evidence to be taken into account while determining the market value of land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000,

2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12,2001. 60, The argument that village Narela had always been treatedlocationallyadvantageousfor the reason the townshipof Narela was in existence since long and this was recognized when, pursuantto a notificationissued in the year 1963, vis-a vis the adjoining villages ^2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in DharamhiY^case, looser 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 urbanizationtook place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted developmentwhich included areas in North-Westof Delhi i.e. the area with which I am concernedtoday, the price differentialfaded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent. t^3t pertaining to the notifications dated

7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12,2001 the land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with referenceto the sale deed dated 25.5.2002for the reason Ifind no other cogent evidencewherefromland price as on said dates could be determined. Pertaining to the notifications dated

16.5.2002,23.5.2002and 27.1.2003,the land price needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated .25.5.2002 LA.App.No266/2008&connectedmatters p^jgg 57 of 74 because with reference to the said sale price it is apparent that land price as of said date comes to more than if determined with respect to the notification dated 9,8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was fl5,7 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 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 hokj that vis-a-vis said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing 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 1 work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, 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 1 need to highlight that pertaining to the same notification dated

23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur learned Reference Court has determined fair market value at fl7,85,240/- per acre 1 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 T19,16,040/- in some eases ?19,13,760/- in a few, LA App No.266/2008&connectcdmatters Page 58of 74 % meaning tlnereby that much' lesser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-a-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Kaian pertaining to notification dated

23.5.2002 reason for abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Gairai's case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. Village 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 v\/herein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre further increasing by

2.5% prices comes to ?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 fl4.75 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 Page 59 of74 o L appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶66All 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 Pooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1,4.2000 in sum of ^14,75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands compensation awarded at ^14,37,280/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶67Pertaining to such appeal where compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Viiiaae Hoiambi Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000

¶68For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8,2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove cross objections stand disposed . of enhancing compensation to n4,75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that as per the award and even as per the reference all subject lands were of uniform category, Needless to state appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are allowed by enhancing the compensation to ^14.75 lakhs per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as LA.App No.266/2008&connectedmailers Page 60 of74 f explained in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. UOI2m\ (93) DLT 569, 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 connpensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Viilaae Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2Q00

¶69Pertaining to village Bawana relating to same notification dated

7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court has not enhanced the comipensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A' lands is fixed at ^14,75 iakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands at ^14,38,125/- per acre and noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C hereinabove are allowed by fixing compensation as hereinbefore mentioned needless to state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. UP! 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. VHiaae Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000

¶70With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1,4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13.82 lakhs per acre requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

11.9,2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008&conncctcdmatters Page 61 of74 6v f to T18,2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2,5% the prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date

11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to ^14,83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to fl4,46,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands, 71, All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by the land owners 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 ?14,83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and fl4,46,413/- 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. ^C/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 interest on enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001 72, With 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 requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e. 2,5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated

25.5,2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA App.No.266/20088iconnectedmatters to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and furtherincreasingby 2.5% the prices comes to ^8,65,500/- 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 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 ^5,76,087-per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned ReferenceCourt has, withoutany reasons,done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is n5,85,570/-per acre and since for Category'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by f9,000/-per acre which is ameager amount, I hold that for Category'B' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the price stands enhancedto n6,16,500/- per acre, 73, All Land AcquisitionAppeals as per 'GRID-E'filed by the land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensationpayable for Category 'A' lands in village Narela pertaining to the notification dated 2,5,2001 in sum of ^16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order for Category 'B' lands, Thus, appealsfiled by the Union of India as also cross objectionsfiled by Union of India as also such appeals 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 and needless to state on the enhanced compensationstatutory benefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted,exceptfor the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no L/V.App.No.266/2008&conncctedmiilters # interest on the enhanced connpensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost, Viilaae Holambi Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001

¶74With 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 requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated

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

22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan comes to ^16,74,500/- per acre 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 ^9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain 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&conneclcdmailers of 7'^ ^ a Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sunn of f16,74,500/- 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. 77, Pertaining 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. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 559 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Ali 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 requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of notification i.e.

22.8,2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated

25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?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 Ali Pur comes to ^16,74,500/- per acre decreasing same by 2,5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmailers Page 65 of74 f that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands uniform price awarded is n6,43,811/- 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,

¶79All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India 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. Viilsae Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2Q01 V

¶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 requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of 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 T17,74,109/-, 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 said prices by 11% to reflect price with p reference to the sale deed for the date 22,8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Khurd 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 ^9,000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page 66 of74 f Category 'B' lands I maintain amount awarded by the learned Reference Court,

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

¶83There shall be no order as to costs. Viliaae Raiaour Kaian 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 requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of notification i,e.

22.8,2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25,5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2,5% the price comes to T18,2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to fl8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; decreasing 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 fl6,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ?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 amount awarded by the learned Reference Court,

¶85All 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&connectedmailers Page 67 of74 bi & appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶86All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of ^16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands compensation awarded at ?16,43,811/- per acre is niaintained 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. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 559 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Viliaae 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 ^15.70 lakhs per acre requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e. 7,12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2 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 LA.App.No.266/2008&. connectedmailers P'^ge of 74 t lo reference to the saie deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to n?,29,500/-per acre. Noting that all lands in villageSanoth as per the award and as per the ReferenceCourt are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notiricationdated 7.12.2001 the land-owners-wouldbe entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of n7,29,500/-.

¶89Ali 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.

¶90Ail Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners ana cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of •<17,29,500/- needless to state on enhanced compensation statutory/' benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 559 shaii 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 appeiiants or cross objectors would be entitled CO pfopcrtionate cost. Viiiaae Shahour Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2002

¶91Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by me hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price ^or Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at 65,500/- per acre and since there-is-jtist-a-diffefen-ee et 4 jays between the d-ats of sale and ths notification1 maintain i-.sl foi' the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land - •'-i-rc, ;srg entitieo tc-compensationat the rate of \lb,65,500/- ^or.Xo.'Zoo/lOOS & conr;ected "V • " ed obieccions • ° ^ per the 'GRID-L' are allowed and •ee ,ess co state on the enhanced compensation th= land -wners would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per the .and Acau,s,tion Act 1894 as interpreted in the judg.en! reported as SundsLV^JJOl2001 (93) DLT 569 except that In "''iectionsfiled by land owners where ^here^sdelay, no Interestwould be paid for the periodof delay -opo.uonate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross Objectionsfiled by Union of India are dismissed, ^UlaaS^hahayr_GMU^ datari " Pefta.ning to notification dated 23.5,2002 /penrai.ningto village ShahpurGarhi, noting that the date of the ^°^'f'Cationhas a dlfferentiafof on!y 3days i '.nai pertaining to this notification,since iand is of same category,th,e land owners wouid be entitledto compensationat ^^'3-65,500/-with statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpretedin the decision reported as 2001 (93) DLT 569 except In such appeals or objGctionsfiled by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate •^ObCs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objectionsby , .3.,o ov'/ners as per GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaidand all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India ai''e dismissed. - katloa-ciated

23.5.2002- • As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated .^-.,^•,^00^ jeiatsng to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been i"ie same categcn/ Dy the learned Land Acquisition AAw.N'o.266,'2008&connectedmatters Page 70 of74 II % Collector learned Reference Court, The learned Reference Court has awarded compensation in sum of ^22,14,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have held that fair market value would be fl8,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to ^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 All 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 1determine fair market value payable at ^18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals 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 compensation payable to ?18,55,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder I/5. UO! 2001

(93) DLT 569 shall be paid save except in such appeals or cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. ViHaae Sanoth Notification dated 27.1.2003

¶95Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of.India as per 'GRID-P' pertaining to the notification dated

27.1,2003 relating to village Sanoth, I note LA.App.No,266/2008& conneGledmatters 1/^ that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation. 96, On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing price as of 1,4,2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing same with reference to the sale deed dated 20,5.2002 taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to ^19,43,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' land price comes to ^18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to T18,47,539.68 per acre, I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at ?19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed. 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 to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001

(93) DLT 569 shall be paid save except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by modifying relatable decree in the Reference Order by reducing compensation for Category 'B' land to LA.App No.266/2008&connectedmailers Page 72of 74 f tie,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C land ^'18,47,539,68 per acre. as per para 96 above pertaining corrective action is to be required acquired pursuant to notification dated

27.1,2003relatingto village RajapurKalan and where Ifind that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of T19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases dt <-19,16,040/-per acre by treating all lands of uniform average basis wliich I have been loliowing by increasingthe price as of 1,4.2001 with reference to the notification issued,by the Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated 20,5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands •the pnce comes to fl9,43,500/-per acre and for Category 'B' 'and the pnce comes to ?18,94,912,50per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to cl8,47,539,&8per acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be disimissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objectionsfiled by land owners pertainingto Category'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of \19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgnnent reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93) DL-T 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA Ap)) No 2i'i')/20')8& cnnnoci.edmailers p^qc 73 of 74 Ih to p vvouirl Mot be paid for the petiod of delay Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cioss objectionsfiled by Union of India pertainingto Category'3' and Category'C lands are allowed by modifying the reidlable de-^-e in -he Reference Order by reduciiig compensation for Category 'B' land to <18,94,912.50 per acre i'or Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.58 per acre. august 23, 2011 mm/dk {PRADEEP MAfMDBAJOG) JUDGE Papc "74 of 74 !"\.App.,\o200 2(108 ^ ir.ntlci^

L $-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 176/2012 NARESH KUMAR Through: versus Appellant Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Sahay, Standing Counsel for LAC Mr.Kunal Kohli, Advocate for DSIIDC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR