Sunil Kumar Chauhan & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

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 v^. Union ofIndia and ors,^ renderedon 23'^'* August2011, this appeal has to be dismissed. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. fIL GAUR, J MAY 29,2012 pkb Page I1 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 DBLHI at ^'EW DELHI 4^-3menLResm^On: 12'"Ann,/c^ z>n77 + LA.APP. 266/2008 JAI SINGH Through,: UOI & ANR, Through: Aopellant Mr.s.Chairurvedi,Mr.DeepakKhosia, Mr.M.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana,Mr.Raj Singh, Ivir.UdayRam, lv!r.D,R.Tomar Mr.l.S.Dahiya,IMr.fxI.S.Dalal Mr.S.M.Bhardwaj,i'^r,B.P.Gupta »"'-'•S'Rana, MrSunil Dalai MrD.S.Khatri Mr.T.P.S.Kang,Advocates Vs. ^ .. •=• P-espondents'.- •• Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate"' ' wit_h Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak Mr.Sachm Nawani, IMr.Siddharth Panda Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran Advocates for R-1. ^Ij^^usuya Sal^wan, Advocate for Mr.Pawan Mathur, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun Birbal MrBankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi l^'Is.Beenashaw Soni Advocates for DDA. AND . (GRIp-A) ..8.008'. S,. LA.App.No.256/2008&_ connectedmatters 279/2008, LA.APP. 280/2008 & Objections), LA.APP. 281/2008, 286/2008, U\,APP.. • 287/2008, 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, 293/2008, LA.APP, 294/2008 & Objections), LA.APP-, 295/2008, '299/2008, 304/2008,, 339/200&, 401/2008, 472/2008, 487/2008, 495/2008, 527/2008, 541/2008, 548/2008, 565/2008, 627/2008, 648/2008, 724/2008 756/2008, 861/2008, &8 0/200 8, 895/2008, 907/2008, 925/2008, 931/2008, 934/2008, 941/2008, 946/2008, LA.APP. LJ\.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA-.APP. LA.APP. lA.APP. LA.APP. 301/2008, •311/2008., 357/2O08, 413/2008, 483/2008, 492/2008, 496/2008, 535/2008, 545/2008, 554/2008, 621/2008, 628/2008, 649/2008, CM APPL, 5261/2009 (Cross LA.APP. 284/2008, LA.APP, LA.APP, 289/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 292/2008, LA.APP. CM APPL. 12918/2011 (Cross LA.APP, 296/2008, LA.APP. 303/2008, LA.APP. 337/2008, LA.APP. 394/2008, LA.APP. 443/2008, LA.APP. 484/2008, LA.APP. 493/2008, LA.APP, 526/2008, LA.APP, 537/2008, LA.APP. 546/2008, LA.APP. 563/2008, LA.APP. 623/2008, • LA.APP. 635/2008, LA.APP. .662/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 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. LA.APP. 'U\.APP. lAAPP. U\.APP. LA.APP.- LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, (Cross & CM APPL. 5353/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP. 87572008, -LA.APP, 879/2008, LA.APP. 888/2008, LA,APP, 894/2008, LA.APP. 905/2008, LA.APP. 906/2008, LA.APP. 910/2008, LA.APP. 911/2008, LA.APP. 926/2008, LA.APP. 927/2008, LA.APP. 932/2008, LA.APP. 933/2008, LA.APP. 936/2008, . LA.APP, 939/2008, LA.APP, 942/2008, LA.APP. 944/2008, LA.APP. 955/200.8, LA.APP, 958/2008, 999/2008 Su CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), 1014/2008, LA.APP, 1019/2008, LA,APP. 1023/2008, 1026/2008, LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA-.APP. 1071/2008, 1244/2008, LA.APP, 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, 1268/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008,' CM APPL. 2377/2009, Objections)LA.APP. 86/2009, LA.APP, 96/2009, LA.APP. 97/2009, LAAPP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP. •111/2009, LA.APP. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, LA.APP. 251/2009 LA.APP. 252/2009, LA.APP. 265/2009, lAv.APP. 266/2009'&CM APPL. No.5366/2010(Cross Objections),LA.APP. s 269/2009, LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APP. 306/2009, LA.APP, 521/2009, LA.APP. 12886/2011 (Cross 267/2009, LA.APP.' 268/2009, LA.APP. 270/2009, LA.APP. 271/2009, LA.APP. 273/2009, LA.APP. 300/2009, LA.APP. 454/2009, LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 532/2009, LA.APP. 535/2009 & CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009 & CM APPL. 12917/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 543/2009, LA.APP. 544/2009, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008•& connectedmatters 566/2009, LA.APP.. 570/2009 & CM APPL..13873/2011, 589/2009, yX.APP. 593/2009, LA.APP. 594/2009, 634/2009, UX.APP. 635/2009, LA.APP. 636/2009, 637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 APPL.138787201I, LA.APP. 1/2010., LA.APP. 29/2010, U\.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & CM LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. IJ\.APP. LA.APP. 104/2010, 108/2010, 169/2010, 220/2010, •430/2010, 520/2010 . U^.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP. 109/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LA.APP. 276/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 CM APPL.1.3958/2011, Objections), LA..APP. 107/2010, LA.APP, 168/2010, LA.APP. 171/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 521/2010, CM APPL. 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 522/2010, LA.APP. 523/2010, LA.APP. 524/2010- & CM APPL. 12914/2011 (Cross-Objections), LA.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, LA.APP. '527/2010, LA.APP. 528/2010, LA.APP. 529/2010, UX.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 Si CM APPL. 12898/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 534/2010, LA.APP. 535/2010 Sl CM APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 537/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010 & CM APPL. 12972/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPL. 12900/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP. 541/2010, LA.APP. 542/2010 Si CM APPL. Objections), LA.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 & Objections), LA.APP, 593/2010 Si 19857/2010 (Cross 12903/2011 (Cross 12888/2011, (Cross 566/2010, LA,APP. CM APPL, 227/2011 (Cross CM APPL, 12969/2011 (Cross Objections), U\,APP, 594/2010, LA,APP, 595/2010 & CM APPL 226/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP. 596/2010, LA,APP. 597/2010 CM APPL, 228/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP, 598/2010 Si CM APPL, 487/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP, 600/2010 & CM APPL 12897/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 601/2010, LA,APP, 602/2010, U\,APP, 603/2010 Si CM APPL, 12881/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP, 617/2010, LA.APP, 663/2010 Si CM APPL 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 666/2010 Si CM APPL, 6748/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP, 675/2010 & CM APPL, 9988/2011. (Cross Objections), LA,APP, 751/2010, LA,APP, 792/2010 Si 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. 12899/2011 (Cross 795/2010, LA.APP. 12892/2011 (Cross 228/2011, LA.APP, 231/2011, • U.APP, 389/2011, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedniatlers > 425/20n' Uk.APP. 424/2011, W.APP. (RelBting to Notification u/s 4 dated 07 dr 9nnn x' a _j No,19/200^03,Village-PoothKhurd) ^ AND (GRID-B) ! s ™S5"S "S 1152/2008 & CIM 2102/2009 rrmcc: nh 1152/2008 & CM 2102/2009 (Cross Objections) LA.aS 1153/2008 & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections) .LA APR jj^^/2008, ^^'APP^ 1187/2008, LA.APP. 1188/2008, LA.APP 1189/2008, LA.APP. 1218/2008, 1J\.APP. 15/2009 LA APP 82/2009, U\.APP. 100/2009, LA.APP. 102/2009,' LAAPP 113/2009, LA.APP. -571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009 ^APP 214/20;11. ^ U/S 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award-No. 11/2001-02, Village-HolannbiKalan) AND (GRID-C) + LA.APP. 359/2007, LA.APP: 202/2007, LA.APP. 382/2007 LA.APP: 383/2007, LA.APP. 269/2008, LA.APP. 811/2008 UOk APp' 928/2008, LA.APP. 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/2009, ' UX.APP' 969/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No, 08/2001-02, Village-Bawana) AND (GR!D-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&connectedmatters Page4of74 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

11.09.2000 Award No. 20/2002-03, Village-Khera Khurd) AND (GRIP-E) + • •U?^.APP. 586/2009, LA-.APP.' 6-20/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, U\.APP. 646/2009, LA.APP. 91/2010, LA.APP. 93/2010, LA.APP. 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP. 191/2010 Sl CM No. 22402/2010 (Cross Objections), U\.APP. 192/2010, 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2Q10, 197/2010, U.APP. 297/2010, 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, 338/2010, U\.APP. 370/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. 373/2010, 494/2010, LA.APP. 495/2010, 497/2010 ^ 193/2010, 196/2010', 299/2010, 309/2010, 3555/2011 493/2010, 496/2010, Objections), LA.APP, 498/2010, 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& U\.APP. y\.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross LA.APP, LA.APP. .Objections), Objections), 505/2010, 508/2010, 511/2010, 514/2010, 517/2010 518/2010, 611/2010, 618/2010, 621/2010, 628/2010; Objections), LA.APP. 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM No. 3560/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. '652/2010, LA.APP. 841/2010, LA.APP. 845/2010 Sc CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross Objections), ^J\APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM No. 10378/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 855/2010, LA.APP. 856/2010 & CM No. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010 & CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1008/2010 & CM No. 9966/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1021/2010, LA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP. 79/2011, LA.APP. 80/2011, LA.APP. 81/2011, LA.APP. 82/2011, LA.APP. 83/2011, LA.APP. 84/2011, LA.APP. 85/2011, U.APP. 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP, 300/2011, LAAPP, 322/2011, LA.APP. 324/2011 & CM APPL,15110/2011, LA.APP. 385/2011, LA.APP. LA.AiPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. UX.APP. LA.APP, & CM '.No. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP, LA,APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. 502/2010 & 503/2010, 506/2010, 509/2010, 512/2010, 515/2010, 7702/2011 519/2010, 612/2010, 619/2010, 622/2010, 647/2010 Si 650/2010, LA.App.No..266/2008& connectedmatters LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. CM No. U\.APP, 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, 515/2010, .LA.APP. (Cross Objections),' LA.APP. LA.APP. 610/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 613/2010, LA.APP,' LA.APP. 620/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 623/2010, LA,APP. CM No. 3847/2011.. (Cross (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

02.05.2001&t Award No. 24/2003-04, Village-Narela) AND , (GRIp-F) + • LA,APP.. 497/2008, U.APP.

141../2009 & CM 15302/2010 (Cro5s Objections). (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 18/2003-04, Viiiage-Holambi Kalan) AN-D IP-G) + U\.APP, 777/2010 & CM APPL.3808/2011, LA.APP. 778/2010 & CM 2686/2011 (Cross Objections), U\.APP, 779/2010 & CM 12966/2009 (Cross Objections), U\.APP. 213/2011, LA.APP. 261/2011, LA.APP, 326/2011, LA.APP. 327/2011, U\.APP. 328/2011, LA.APP, 330/2011, LA.APP. 331/2011, U\,APP. 332/2011, U\,APP. 333/2011, LA.APP. 334/2011, LA.APP. 335/2011, U\APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, U.APP, 341/2011, U\.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP. 350/2011, LA.APP. 351/2011, LA.APP. 365/2011, LA.APP.377/2011, LA,APP.388/2011. • • ; (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.-2001 &{ Award No. 33/2003^04, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRID-H) + ITX.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, U\.APP. 409/2011. • (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 15/2003-04, Village-Ali Pur) AND (GRID-I) + LA.APP. 481/2010 LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedjTiatters

¶7> (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 2'2.08.2001 S< Award No, 9/2003-04, Viilage-Holambi Khurd) AND (GRID-J) + LA.APP. 780/2010 & CM No.2661/2011 (Cross Objections), lAAPP. • 899/2010 •& CM No.3833/2011 (Cross Objections), U\,APP. 900/2010 & CM No.3541/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 970/2010, LA.APP. 971/2010 & CM No.3805/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM No.2667/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP; 973/2010 & CM 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.999,0/2011, LA.APP. 980/2010 CM No.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP. 982/2010 Sl CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objectiqns), LA.APP. 984/2010 & CM No.6746/2011 (Cross Objections),' LA.APP. 985/2010 S^ CM No,9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 986/2010,- LA.APP, 988/2010 Si CM No.3836/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. .989/2010,. LA.APP. 990/2010, LA.APP. 991/2010 & CM No.9984/2011 (Cross Objections), U\.APP. 1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 5< CM No.9970/2011 • (Cross Objections), UX.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), IJX.APP. 2/2011 • & CM No.6752/2011 (Cross Objections), UX.APP. 25/2011, LA.APP. 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, LA.APP. 53/2011 CM No.6766/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 73/2011 & CM No.12922/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 St CM No.6775/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.APP. 110/2011, LA.APP. 111/2011, LA.APP. 112/2011 & CM No.10050/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP. 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

22.08.2001 ' & Award No.20/2003-04, Village-Rajapur Kalan) AND (GRID-K) LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters +• LA.APP. 488/2008, LA.APP. 490/2008, LA.APP. 491/2008, LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/2008, LA.APP. 86.8/2008 &'CM No,10393/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 895/2008 & CM No.5364/2010 (Cross Objections), U\.APP, 897/2008, LA.APP. 1003/2008, LA.APP, 587/2009, 1-A.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP. 34/2010 CM No,7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 488/2010, lAAPP. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, U\.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/20.11, UV.APP. 236/2011, LA.APP. 421/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanotli) dated 07,12.2001 '& Award AND (GRID-L) + LA,APP, 341/2008,- LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, U\.APP. 352/2008, U\,APP. 364/2008, LA.APP, 385/2008, LA.APP. 387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP. 464/2008& CM No,11333/2008 (Cross Objections), 'LA.APP. 465,/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP. 468/2008& • CM No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP. 470/2008, LA.APP. 561/2008, LA.APP. 676/2008, LA.APP. 681/2008, LA.APP. 722/2008, UX.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, LA.APP, 465/2009, L7\.APP. 546/2009, lAAPP. 624/2009, L7\.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. LA.APP., LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, U\.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 29/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters

16.05.2002 Si Award No. # AND • (GRID-M) + LA.APP. 338/2008, LA.APP. 343/2008, LA.APP. 356/2008, LA.APP. 366/2008, LA.APP, 367/2008, LA.APP. 368/2008, LA.APP, 369/2008, LA,APP, 370/2008, LA.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP. 384/2008', LA.APP. 386/2008, LA.APP. 388/2008, ' LA.APP. 389/2008, U\.APP. 434/2008, LA.APP. 435/2008, LA.APP. 436/2008, LA.APP. 444/2008, LA.APP. 456/2008& CM No.113'3'2/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. 562/2008, LA.APP. 680/2008, LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. 716/2008, U.APP. 720/2008, LA.APP. 723/2008, LA.APP. 757/2008, lAAPP. 760/2008, LA.APP, 767/2008, LA.APP. 793/2008, LAAPP. 823/2008, LA.APP. 824/2008, LA.APP. 837/2008, LA.APP, 908/2008, LA.APP, 909/2008, LA.APP. 952/2008, LA.APP, 1022/2008, LA,APP, 1024/2008, LA,APP. 1025/2008, LA,APP, 1063/2008, LA.APP. 173/2009, LA.APP. 307/2009, LA.APP, 308/2009, LA,APP, 311/2009, LA.APP, 384/2009, LA.APP, 385/2009, LA,APP, 463/2009, LA,APP. 467/2009, LA.APP, 540/2009, LA.APP, 542/2009, LA.APP, 548/2009, LA,APP. (Relating to Notification u/s dated No.22/2003-04, Village-Shalnpur Garhi)

23.05,2002 & Award AND (GRID-N) , + lA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 CM 13228/2008 (Cross Objections), LA,APP, 1149/2008, LAAPP, 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) + LA.APP.379/2008, LA.APP, 381/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, LA.APP, 499/2008, LA,APP, 530/208, LA./^PP. 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 783/2010, LA.APP. :8'25/2010, LA.APP, 9/2011 K, rM i M8°50/2^?r^'('r^^^' 58/2011, LA.APP. 289/2011 &CM l48?7/7n^^" LA.APP, 290/2011 & CM 14852/2011(CrossObjections),|J\,APP.381/2011. 17/2004^05%'^^^^^^^^^ " 23,05.2002&Award No, AND (GRID^P) + U\,APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009(Cross Obiectionc;^ U.APP. 655/2008, L^.APP. 674/2008&CM No.7818/2009(Cross 7ninnn« I ^^^^2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, LA.APP. 706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 & (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008 M.APP. 885/2008, & CM No.2355/2009 LA.APP. . 922/2008, Si CM No,2351/2009 & CM No.7821/2009 •U.APP. 980/2008 7837/2009 882/2008, 898/2008 902/2008, 929/2008 930/2008 960/2008, Objections), LA.APP. •"981/2008 & CM Objections), LA.APP. 982/2008, LA.APP. No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. WUJC«^LIUI No.839/2010 (Cross Objections),- LA.APP 985/2008 997/2008, LA.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008' 1027/2008, LA.APP. 1078/2008 & CM No 2247/2009 Objections), LA.APP. 1123/2008, LAAPP. 1127/2008 U CM No.2111/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1196/2008 LAAPP 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections),' LAAPp'. 1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 & CM No.7791/2009 (Cross Objections),^• LAAPP. 13/2009 & CM No.2151/2009 (Cross Objections),LAAPP. 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 LA.APP, (Cross LA.APP. (Cross (Cross &i CM 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. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. 124/2009, 250/2009, 262/2009, 299/2009, 303/2009, 449/2009, 487/2009, 527/2009, 533/2009, (Cross U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP, U.APP. U.APP. U.APP, U.APP. U.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters .891/2008, Objections), 923/2008, Objections), Objections), No.855/2010 No.1261/2009 983/2008 984/2008 Objections), 128/2009, 260/2009, 264/2009, 301/2009, 365/2009, 461/2009, 501/2009, 530/2009, 537/2009, CM No. U.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP. (Cross (Cross CM Si CM LA.APP. LA.APP, (Cross' & CM U.APP. U.APP, U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. UAPP. Page ,1 (} of 74 . fl 538/200'9, La.APP, 545/2009, LA.APP. 554/2009, LA.APP. 555/2009, LA.APP. 558/2009, LA.APP. 585/2009, U\.APP. 588/2009, lA.APP. 519/2009, LA.APP'. 625/2009, LA.APP. 625/2009, LA.APP, 529/2009, LA.APP. 649/2009, LA.APP. 38/2010, .LA.APP. 43/2010, LA.APP. 131/2010, l^.APP. 202/2010, LA.APP. 203/2010, LA.APP. 204/2010, LA.APP, 225/2010, LA.APP, 227/2010, 372/2010, 479/2010, 483/2010, 485/2010, 505/2010 507/2010, 614/2010, 595/2010, 785/2010 786/2010 787/20.10, 790/2010, Objections), 916/2010 & 14/2011-. & CM. 25/2011 Sc CM

5.5/2011 &L CM 59/2011., LA.APp-LA.APP, U\.APP, LA.APP, LA.APP. LA,APP, 269/2010, 410/2010, 480/2010, 484/2010, 487/2010, & CM No.19878/2010 LA.APP. 608/2010, LA.APP. 615/2010, U\.APP. 705/2010, & CM No.12968/2011 & CM No,12967/2011 LA.APP, 788/2010, LA.APP. 820/2010 & LA.APP. 821/2010, CM No.6773/2011 No.6754/2011 No. 5 76 3/2011 No.12894/2011 LA.APP. 303/2010, LA.APP, LA.APP, 418/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 485/2010, U\.APP. LA.APP. 504/2010, LA.APP. (Cross Objections), - LA.APP. LAAPP. 509/2010,' LAAPP. LA.APP. 671/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.APP.. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 789/2010, LA.APP.- 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, U!\,APP. 70/2011, LA.APP. 72/2011 St CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 & CM No,12859/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP. 135/2011, LA.APP. 136/2011 & • CM No.12971/2 (Cross 0bjections)011, LA.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 143/2011, 203/2011 & CM No.12913/2011 273/2011 & CM No.13289/2011 338/2011 LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/s No.11/2004-05, Village-Sanotli) dated

27.01,2003 & Award AND (GRID-Q) + LA,APP, 336/2010 Si CM ' APPL,14845/2011, LA,APP. 624/2010, LA.APP. 525/2010, LA.APP. 526/2010, U\.APP, 627/2010 S( 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 Sc C.M. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters m No.3587/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 646/2010, l_A.APP, 664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. 667/2010, U\.APP, 666/2010, •LA.APP. 66.9/2010 & C.M. No,6769/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 6,70/2010. & C.M. No.3818/2011' (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 672/2010, LA.APP. '673/2010 & C.M, No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, LA.APP, 701/2010 & C,M., No,3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP. •702/2010, LA-.APP. 703/2010 & C,M, No.9941/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP. • 12112010, LA,APP, 733/2010 & C,M. No,12878/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 735/2010, LA,APP, 736/20,10, LA.APP, 737/2010, LA.APP, 738/2010, LA.APP. 739/2010 C.M. No.3569/2011 (Cross •Objections), LA.APP. 740/2010 & CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 800/2010 & C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP. 802/2010, [J\.APP, 803/20rb, LA.APP. 808/2010, LA.APP. 809/2010, LA,APP, 810/20-1'0, LA,APP. 811/2010, "•LA,APP, 812/2010, L^,APP, 813/2010, LA,APP, 814/2010, LA.APP, 815/2010, lAAPP. 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 & C,M, No,9946/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP, 917/2010, U\,APP, 922/2010, LA.APP. 923/2010, LA.APP. 924/2010, U\.APP. 925/2010, LA.APP. 945/2010 St C.M. No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 975/2010 & C.M. No.2664/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M. No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), U\.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP. 56/2011 & C.M. No.9939/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP. 98/2011, U^.APP. 99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011, LA.APP. 104/2011, LA.APP. 105/2011, LA.APP. 106/2011, LA.A.PP. 107/2011, LA.APP, 108/2011, LA.APP, 109/2011, iA.APP. 113/2011, LA,APP. 165/2011, LA,APP,329/2011 ' ' , (Relating to Notification u/s dated

27.01.2003 St Award No.10/2004-05, Viilage-Rajapur Kaian) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Wiiether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? LA..App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters PRADEE? NANDRAIQG. !. 1; Villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kaign, 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 Roht^k Road i.e, NH-10' and G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1. The Pelhi-Ambala railway, line runs somewhat parallel to NH-l. 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 *;&hich 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 and 27.1.2003. Needless to ' state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time,- on aforesaid dates under Section 4 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 13 of74 road or freight cornplex. 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• .1 must highlightthat 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-argum^ent was advanced; being that, the township of Narela h^d existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Narela had a better value and for which it was urged that way back jn the year 1953 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 i^amurpur. 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 IMamurpur.

¶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 & connected njatters 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.

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

7.8.2000 issued 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 ?12.26 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the policy for minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. ?13.82 lacs per acre and has granted increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period'1.4.2000 till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. and thus determined fair market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and has ignored that there was Category 'B' land for which he had to make necessary adjustment.' - B. Pertaining to the same notification dated

7.8.2000_ pursuant whereto 211.14 bigha land was acquired in village , Holambi Kalan, the Land Acquisition Collector treated the land as of same character and determined fair market value with reference to the policy for minimum rates in sum of ?13.82 lacs LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters ; Page 15of74 > per acre which has been enhanced by the learned Reference Court to'"?14; 12,995/-- per acre by relying upon a decision of a Division 'Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (VI). AD Delhi 13 Gairai l/s. ^70/wherein for the date 15.11.1995 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 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 .the notification dated

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

1.4,2000 was ^'13.82 lacs per acre and for 128 days i.e. the number of days'-between

1.4.2000 till 11.9.2000, appreciating the -same by 12% has determined fair market value at ?14,40,157/- and has uniformly awarded 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 policy of minimum price with effect from

1.4.2001 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters. Page 16of 74 iGarned Land Acquisition Coii.eetor 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 'P' lands determined the-' same at ?14 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court-.a'dopted mininium price notified by the Government as of'L4.2001 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 ( minimunn•price notified as of 1.4'.200l i.e. ?15,7 lacs p-,er. acre which has been held to be the fair market value for Catsgory'A' • lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determined at "714 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 716,43,811/- 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&connectedmatters . i Holambi Khurd, reasoning, of , the LAC and learned Reterence' Court and the price determined is-the same as has been determined for village Holamipi Kalan save and except that in this village even-the LAC has treated all lands in the.same uniform-category.. I. • Pertaining to the same notification dated

22.8.2001 pursuant whei-eto agricultural lands in village Rajapur Kalan were acquired reasoning fair market value determi'ned by the learned lAC and the learned Reference Court ' is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kaian, 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 in village Sanoth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township, learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed compensation uniformly in sum of "?15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per the policy for minimum price w.e.f. 1,4,2001 and tine learned Reference Court has adopted the same price and given appreciationfor 250 days at the rate of 12% per annum to'reach the. figure of ^16,99,042/- per acre. K. Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant, whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired,the learned Land AcquisitionCollectorhas determined -compensation in sum of ?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 vvould be entitledto enhancecompensationat the rate of 11.5% per annurn compounded. 1 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& connectedmatters ?17,75,369.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as

1.4.2001 and the .base price at TlS.?' 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge. L. Pertaining to notificati-on dated 23,5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi Were acquired the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court have determined same compensation as per the reasoning pertaining to same village for notification dated

16.5.2002 and I find that since there is a gap gf 1 days in th'e 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 notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the decision in Gairai's case (supra) and appreciating the same by 12% compounded per annum the price determined is T22,14,239/- per acre. N. Pertaining to the same notification dated

23.5,2002 pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Alipur were-acquired learned Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at the rate of ^15.7 lacs per acre based on the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which price has been adopted as the base by the learned Reference Court and after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page 19of 74 . 1;4.2001 till 23,5.2002, the price determined is ?17,85,240/- per acre;. 0, . ; Pertaining to notification dated

27.1.2003 pursuant' whereto-3092,04 bigha land in village Sanoth 2188.,03 bigha land in village Rgjapur Kalan were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the same value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages

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 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 uniforrnly awarded and in some references .pertainin.g to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5,2002 and whereunder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of .village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for ?5,39,690/-. -

¶7Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned Reference Court have relied upon notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi, let me therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notified frorh time to time pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same would be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- LA.App.Ko.266/2008&connectedmatters Page of74

¶8"sTn^ Date of Notification Effective Date of the price Price (in lakhs/acre)

¶14,

¶56, 7,, 8, 3-5.1990 ^577ri9?7 .24.9,1998

21.11.2 000

9.8,2001 9,8.2001

30.8.2005

24.1..2008

27.4.1990 "r4Tl997^

1.4.1998

1.4.1999'

1.4.2000 iTOMl 30X2^

18.TZ20^

4.65 10,0

11.2

12.32

12.16 13,82 15,7 % increase per annum

11.5

11.2 1L5

2.98

89.51 From the tabulation hereinabove noted it wouid "r P-e was .iast.J 27^4,1990 ,n sum of .4,65 iakhs/acre it was increased.after e y7years to no ia.hs/acre.nd the annual increas,comes U.5/, per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1,4 iggg he pnce "as enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of ni 2 lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was' nance to 712.32 lakhs/acre, which notification' was superseded,inasmuch as when the notificationdated c,.8 2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.'

1.4.1999 to 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 ^3.82 lakhs/acre ..e increased by 11% p-er annum vis-a-yis the previous i.e

12.16 iakhs/acreand w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by 11 5% per annum vis-a-visthe previous price of n3.82 iakhs/.cretp LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters # reach figure of ^15.7 lal<hs/acre. The price was next enhanced w.e.f. 30,8,2005 to ?17.584 lal<hs/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 ?X7.584 iakhs/acre and-the date 30.8.2005. 9, •Before noting the evidence relied upon by the land owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court, it would be beneficial for the reader of the present decision, as I feel, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. I would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the alternative-it was urged that they would be entitled to. price determination as per first argument, failing which as per the second argument, •failing which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; notification dated

22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; notification dated

7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera'Khurd;the notificationdated 2.5.2001 for village Narela; and the notification dated 22,8.2001 for village All Pur; and the notification dated 27,1.2003 for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands were of uniform character and it •was urged that corrective action is required by doing 2 things.. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, 11,5% increase per annum and 12% per annum 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.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters ' lA 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 teading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' Category 'C, on account of pits depressions of various depths, ;as .per the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.

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

25.3.7000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/20X0 as also sale deed dated

25.4.2001, Ex.P\A/-l/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 @ ?25.75 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 Kh.urd for a sum of ?32.4 lakhs and adding on the-stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 would be ?28.89 iakhs/acre and' pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be ?63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8,2000, 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 suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb 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 Page 23 of74 7^> for which' argument was that when in the past, pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1953 .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 X2I-per sq.yd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6,8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UP! 1/5. Dharaifibir & Ors. The said decision would reveal that price per bigha in sum of T6,650/- 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 restpred.

¶11Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that th.e learned Reference' Court, having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, iMarela Residential Scheme Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in subject iands having-acquired a building potentiality, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSIDC and DDA i.e. the implementing-agencies, which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate and for which learned counsel took me through 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 vs.. Union of India, it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired iands witii reference to tlie fair mar!<et 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 ?16,750/- per bigha as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in D'haranibir's case (supra) and thereafter

(g) 10% per annum till

31.3.1973 and 'thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various dates when 8 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, 13, The fourth argument advanced was,' and 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, LA,APP.No,268/2008filed by the land owners and IJ\.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&connectedmatters • Page 25 of74 testimony of PXam Xishari to thf @ff®ct that by §.elling agrigullui'il prodgce from 'his lands ustgl to earn ?l-lakh" per bigh^ per •annum -i.e, the ftif" market value as of 7,.8,2000 l.ra-the dat^ Qf the notififE^tion'is^yed, under Section 4 gf the L^nd Acquisition Act l.S94 wa,s issufd pursuant wher^tg the land of Ram Kishan and othgrs were aqquiVeil,• it-was thus urgei^ thst the f^ir rrnarkft vaiye-©s ^f gaid-dsts phouid be ?20 lakhs per bighs, I may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by Sh,.S,Ch'at'urvedi, I'earned counsel who appeared for Ram iCishan and others i.e, the appeilgnts i.n LA.APP,No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA,APP.No,|9;2/200i, .

¶14The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T,P:S,K^ng, Advocate who-appeared in a few matters and urged that for each of the notification in question the fair market value ought to have, been determined with 'reference to the notification •which was. closest in point of tirine where undir minimum land value was fixed by the Government and the notification .#t©d

24.1.2008 wherf under ^^53 lakhs per acre was the niinimum 'price•fixMas^^of.|8,12v2Q07rths:'..mean'^average 'adopt^ wasth^|f^tci.srt^ ^ "15V- .The iBst BrgunnentVwhtGh%as in'-thfe'ilter-natiVeterth© fir%t"s;:"t^ertained'to-nhemotiffcation dated'^7d,-20Q,3^'dssiing with .'whIcK/•'Referenetes'-the-' learned^'Referlne#'dpijpt had,' with reference"to "a. sale deed dated ~20.^.200^, w^^ .Sunderg:£ii^,a'an& bls\^a^,pfjahd;comprisedinxMsfa-^NQ.|Op (l-13)1nthe revenueestateof village Rajapurl<alan..wg§sgid for ?"5,,39.,69Q/-ydetermjjicfd^ fair market yal,u§,;,as,,[3grthe fai_^ sale-deed,in the; to.liowi.ng;wpridsuZ/Referpara If Qfthe^dMSiMSIl HBtPfl 7.1.2ni0 m LAC No.117A/2009): "If we..add.stamp, .duty,in the sale price•!^3,69,906/-per bigha (^5,39>690/-:.^-70,160 ~ •6,09,8.50for'l bigHa and 13. bi$wa)'which corhesto\17i^74,l09/- '• per-acre 'dr t^;09O6A-per'bigha': Furtherif^we-'giW12^ L,A:App.No.266,/2O08Ifconnectediw • rr:- i increase en said smount for intervening period between tine date when saie deed was executed date of notification u/S 4 ,(2.0.05.2002 to 2701.2003) i.e. 8 monti'is it coinBs tQ^19,WMy/- (round offXW,16,040M.." The argument was that if we look at the award reiatable to the said acquisition i.e, Award Nq;10/DG(NW)/20Q4-Q5:, it would reveal that award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land was put in Category 'A', 45 bigha andi 2 biswfi in Category 'g' and tine remainder 220 bigha and 3 lliswi in Category 'C. The'subject-sale deed clearly referred to the land being comp'ri'sed in Khasra No.200 and that page No,S6'57 of the award would evidenee that land comprised in i<hpsra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha biswa was placed in Category 'C. Whereas Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair marl<et valge as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of Whn lakhs per .acre based upon the notification dated 9,8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ^1.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands,'.fairmarket value'determined whereof v(/as Ti4 iakiis'per .acre '.a-nd furtKer^-depress..the.. same"by another ;<fl.7,i.^J<hs.per B.Gre...;for:--Categoryr^^e';lan.ds,,^fgir•.?iTianket vvaiue ..dettOTined wh'ereSf W9&i^^3i2,3^fekh^,^per••acre.;^Ht••vyou!qi-b^vappaI;e^t,iWtot the a't^g.ument'^w¥s;:^^'^tlit^a:rgunien tKe market value-had' to be^datermined with respfeet .to the:.sale deed in qu.esti.oh.vth6s.anne-hadto be.for £ategory.''C'sla.f;)d.s-.sad fQr^Categdry.-l3vand Category 'A-la.nds^th©:•price ^hsd increased byVl,7 iakh's per acre for each category.'--• 16, ' i have already "noted hereinab.ove the"arguments vvhich were advanced'by .S.h,Sanj:ayPoddar, learnedseniorcounsel'who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflecte'd in .para 9 above.and,;hence I.need not, repeat the .same. . .. lA.App^¥ov2.66/200.a^^QQnnected:m ^ Pjjge 27 of74 •3L7. |n y&rioyp of pgp® | hergiriisibov®, I hav@ capsuled the re0s.§rang of th^ learned Land Aceiuisition Collectgr and the learned Refertnet Court pertaining to the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of;the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and re,iatal3le' to the 10. villages and thus I commence my journey to deal \A/ith the arguments'-a,dvaneed keeping in-view the facts noted as aisq the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various sub-paras of para 6 abpv^. 1§. But before dealing with arguments 1 negg to highlight various anomalies which stril<e the reader at the outset. The saone would be;- A, Pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.2000 wherein lands were acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for Category 'B' lands, having depressions and pits, deduction effected vis-l^'vis the price for Category 'A' lands is tl,56 lacs per acrf pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 where price has been determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd, said price differential has been worked out at ?1.2 lacs per acre a.nd.whi:le dete[i'l^J'ning fa:ir,market, vaiue for'a^ricu11ura,l.,1an^s in villa^ Nareia .whlch;,were;acq.uired,pursuant.t^ tipf nQtifjcati.on •.datec;! 2,5.200/l<;the. ded,ueti.Qn effected is. ^I J Jacs.jep .which^ is .feKe ..sanrie;'flg.ur^ when fair market vajye gf ,agrieultura.l-lar:id;:Jr;i'viIlage;Hp l^lan was determin.f.d thec.;=date..22.8,2001.- -Pertaining:.:tO'^the nQ^if[c^i^.;;Gl:atfid ,27.;l?.2.p03and-,j;elatabLe.to>vi.l.lag-e.-Sanoththe.|ariee; djffar^ntlal 'Gn',sa}dcbun#lia&%gainbeen taken at fl.7 lacs per acre to inter se differentiate.lihe price between Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C'. lands, In other words, the price differential has varied b;etw.een.?1.2 lacs .per acre, 1.55 lacs per acre and.. ?,1,,7 .lacs per acre. V. v •LA.Ap.P•^Np.26,6/20,Q,f.^&QgijneelitL .. ... ,Pag.^,2|Q.i;'54 . -j \ I • y*•• 'I ^ • •' • "p B. The learnpd Lahd AciGiuisitipn eollector has a^gpted th@ minimum price notified closest in point of time to the date when ^ . . Secti-on4nptlficati^pn,was issued withogt appreciatingthe l^nd 'price with' reference to the date of the Section 4 notificatiph i,s,' np benefit of price rise fpr thg intarven'mg igeripcj has biin givtn. C. • I • The learned Reference Court has adopted the n^iFilrnum price notified angi has given appreciation •ranging betvyean ' 11.5% per annum and 12%.per annum and in sonie casfs has compounded the same and in some given spid benefit at; the simple rate. D, - Pertaining to villgg.i Hplambi-Kalan where gqquisitipng were made pursuant to the notifications dated

7.8.2QQ0 and 23,5,2002-the learned Reference Court has adopted the price determine^ by tt^is Court in Gairai's case (supra) m of

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

27.1-,2003 .learned Reference .Court, in some, references has c^ftermipe^ -the fai.r. ma.rket ..value with reference to the rninirnumljrl.c^ aotified:as..of ,1..!4.2001..and has given appre.ci.ation,..in,^sprri.e .casesste. deterwed thg'fair, market val.ue.bas.ed .pp. th.e.,gaje ^eeid dated 20i5^2C)02;-- ^ ;'F. Wherever tl-^e learned U?rid Aqquisition Collect©!' has ' classifiedlancis"in''Category reasonstheres^fhave 'been given in thd award but the learned'Reference Court, w'Kile aw.ardinguhifp,rni.,cprripen5ation.,.has given no.r^aspris..a.sto why ':\t was treating all lands to be of same character and qusHty. 19, Since Tam-dealing with acquisitions in 'lO viil.ag..@s'9tjid.8 notifications.issued under Section 4-of the Land Ac'quidi,Sion:Act 1894, I" think-it'^advisabieto'put In" a- |abular'fprm'-the'f.etevaht LA.'Api^HQ.'2,66/2(]0-84 V faets, wNefe woul.^ be my data for fgrther analysis. Put in a tabular fprm tbi sittp. wQyld-be %s und8F> Village , ' Pate" ' of Section Notification lAC compensa.tion" (in laklns/acre) with reasons Ap] compinii'tioK' (in lakhs/aqre) wjth reasons PooFh ' Kliurd ; • 1

7.f3.loo6 ; Cat 'A'ti3.:82 ' Cat, 'B' ?1|,26 Minimum price as of 1,4,2Q0Q Cat, Uniform, ?14,3728, Minimum price as of .1.4,2000 with 12% increase p,a, Hofambi Kalgn

7.8:tD0d~ T13,a2 Minimum price as of 1,4,2000 Price as in Gairai's case as - of 15,11,1396 with 12% increase p,a.. Holambi • Kalah

22.8.200X Cat, 'A' ?15,7 Cpt, 'B' ?14 Minimum price as of 1,4,2001 Cat, Uniform', ' ^15,43811, • Minimum price as of

1.4.2QQ1 vvlth 12% increaie p,a. • Holambi l<alan , , ,; • > ; \, '• •- ' <}'.

23.5,2002 ?15:7 Minimum price as 'of i'.4;2ooa; ?22.i4239. Price as in Gairsi's ai'-'Of 15,11,1996 with 12% incre§$,t p.a, (cpmpQuqciedlJv•. Bawana

7.a,2^,' .Cat/'A'ti3,82 -G:at,".';B'-fl2.^2 'Mi.ni.mum price as :of MJQO€' , 1^0 ^Ksn^ementi .aiVen./'. . • fchera ' • Kliurd - 11,9,2000 Cat, 'A' ?13,82 Cat,'B'?12,62 ..Minimum pri.ce as of 1,'4,2000 Cgit Uniform.. '• • fl4,40157r" •; .Mininium. price as! 'of . L4,20QP.:; with' 12% increase-p,a.,'- Narela

2.5,2001 Cat, 'A' ?15,7 Cat, 'B' ^14 Minimum -price as •;of l,4,20.01., Cat, Uhiforni', • ^ a5,857, ^'Minimum price as of •1.4,2001 with LA.App\No,266/2Q08^ connectednujtters •/' Page ap'gf 74i \. 12% lncpsgiell;ar All Pur .

22.8.1001 Ca.t, 'A' fl5,7 Cat, 'B' ?14. Minimum price as of 1,4,2001 f16.43811; Minimum price as of 1,4.2001 with 12% increise All Pur 23:S-,2P02 :?15.7 Minimum price as Of 1.4.2001 tl7,8524 Minimium price as of 1,4,2001 with 12% incr^v^sg! p,3, "RQlam^bV Khurd

22.8,20QX 115,7 ^ • Minimum price as Qf 1.4.2001 • Minimum prig^ as. Qf

1.4,2001 vuith 12% in(2r§a§g ©.a, Rajapgr" Kalan

22.8.20Q1 fisj"':"' ' M'inimum price as of 1,4,2001 n€M8ir^ •' Minimum girice as of 1,4,2001 with 12% increasi p.9. .Raja.pTJr Kalan 27,1,2003 Cat, 'A' ?15,7 Cat. 'B' ?14 Cat. 'C ?12.3 Minimum price as of 1,4,2001.; 1, ri9,13701 • for Uniform category,.. Minimum price as of 1,4,2001 • with 12% increase p.a. in some cases, 2:;- ^1.9vl:Sm-: .^for. Uniform category -based'" .o.n sile "deed' . ;v - •-••G!•3te;^• 2S,5,20A2^':;, lt% is, • "ganeith •7,'12,^20O'l ?15',7 , , Minimum price as of 1,4.2 001 Ti5,mo42, • Mini.mum iprice -as '6f i;4:20,Q;l;'v\^ith: 12% ina@9S.@ pia. ; SanQ.th 27,1.2003 -Cat, 'A^?1.5.7 ,, • Cat, -'B.'-^-14 Cat. 'C ?12.3 .Minimum price as Qf-1.4.2001. ?i9:13765; r W. •UnifornT category-Minimum"^ prie^' as .of.

1.4.,2001 with .i2%;increase.p,9. LA.App,No.266/200B& connectedi-jiatters Page 31 of ?4 •gKpip yr"' (3arhi iB.S.lOO'l Minimum price as of 1.4,2001 W7:n$m: Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.§% p.a, Ihih'pur G.arbj 23,§-,-2002' .Cit. 'WniJ '"'" Minim'um price as Of 1.4.2001 ^n7.7978l-, ' Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with compoun.d interest @li,|% p,f.

¶20I now fDropQse to deal with the ^ submissions uf^gad by learned counsel for the land owner$ 2 submiisions urged by the Union, as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owhers) and para 8'above (pertaining to Union of India).

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

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

25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ?2^,75 lal<hs per acre latter @ '^63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court •lias, rj^gcted ihe;;2;sale d^^-dss-as reliable evideqcg •to;determin@ • fair' market value of agnGujlura) lands, for alr the ,,\^i(i§'g^§jiri: question on the reasoning that the sale ,p,urc:h3,5ed by a .Religious,tryst'by .the name of 'Bq^ha .Svvsrai Satsang' and Suraj BhanvP.W-6.who;had t.e.nd.e'r.ed,.th.4 s.g.ie ^ in evidence, while deposing in Court in LA.Q, .Nq.,68/20.(D5;M stated that to his knowledge the land was -purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not^ to b.e reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agrieu'itural lands oh the reasoning if was. purchased by a Ndn GoVernmient .Organization-"Christian Organization" and as per the t^-stimony LA.App.No.266/2008& oonneetedinatt^rs Bagp-3|Qn4 of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organi^atign stated that th.e,•organization had tQ pay the price for the said pi@ce pf land as if was the only plot of th^ requisite size suitable for th§ requirement Qf the' organisation and is being used for destitute wpmeh iv@. th^.re, was a spesial circumsfean^:^, personal to the vehvlee,

¶22As held in the deeisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC LandAcQuisition^ Officer EIupu & Ors. 1/5. Isti Rohini &Am. (Sefer para 6) and 200.9 (14) SCC 369 Mphd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Aeauisit'ion Officer (,i?^eferpgra 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered jn evidence by virtue of'Sectipn SlA of the L.A.Act 1894 hav^ not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed-to determine the rriarl,<et value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have Jed 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 inforrned buyer would be one who has studiad market and-lnasapprised/himself.ofall available.I.and jn th.e,ars9j lias understood i.tKei topp.iogy of-the,- area .,And. the ...prevailing p.rices^ nf-;a buy.er>/.h;a:s^a.fancy-'foir a parti,cuJat^ pig5ce--of;Jan!d^hs i^-ay, pay'-a muoh •hi.g.hsr'.^pr.ice a.nd. this wo.uld -•f.iQ.t .b.ei a ""gQod iiidex'W fair market value of the lands in the area, I would bg falling if Tclo hot highlighf-that'the'Union of lndja had relied upon tKe,' sal'e ;deed 'dated- '^O.-S.^OOZ/'which' was-accepted-^'by- -th'e .learned,..Reference. Court/pertaining;to 'the' hpti'fi'datjon';da^ 27,1,20.03 where-und.er.agriQultural land in village Rajapur Ka.ian was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist,for a much issser ppce .i.e. tl7,74,10:9/- per'.^c.i'eas,.against the price whicKxp.me? tQ"f53!.478 Jakh§';P:er' acre for. Ex,P-\/y-l/2 and ;?28.89,-.lakh:S,p.er acre for Ex.PW-1/3, The-2 sale deeds Ex,PW-l/.2 a.n.d |.A.A]pp:Na.2.66/2008.;&''epnneet.Qd matters - * - Pagef 3 of-.74 thgmseives .ar<? having intrinsic evidine® gf t'lnclfui pricg and ex-.facie elegtroy each othgr,

¶23, Thyg, gp^rt from thg reasoning of th^ Reference Sourt, witia whicli i cpncgr, afore'DOt^d reasons In para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would ^^dvisably-not be good evidence wherefrom. fair market value of subject lands can be determined-and more, so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between, 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more ^ reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the -transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated

19.X2.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being U\.,App.NO.193/2005 Pratap Sinoh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UP! & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deed therein by whi.ch L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 blswa of agricultural land fdr''expansiQrfOfits factory which had ^beeh'-ignored'-b^'tHie learned Reference,^ the ground that.L^T,ha.d a fancy figr th,e,said; l^and,'.and he-nce ,the^price.reflected,therfin-coy[d,.^n,ot b® treated as a good evidence of value of land in the.area.^.;vvas rejected by,, the Court,.and the.,price,in question,.with?^uitp,b[e ^deductioh,-on .accouri^t of.;,the, parcel, of. l^nd, ,b.ein9,.large,,,w^,s aecepted-by the^Gourt ,and thus even in.the instan.t case|..th.e.,,2 sale deeds in. question-i.e: ;Ex.PW-l/2. and.. Ex.PWr.1/3 sh0jjl.d.^;b.e treated -.as -the-basis to, determine -fair market-value.:;-/"Iho argurtrent ignores the'reasoning in the decision of the Divi'sion Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division-Bench/ did not accept the. value'in the saje'deed oh its'own logic asMhdieatiye .of the' market, value, but found that if the price thfreipi i/vas reduced by l/B'^. .the price...arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No;266/2008;<S:; connectedma.l;ters ' Pa|e3iiof-74 woul:ei arrwed at with refei^enc:^to the average rate pf the sale deeds produ^eedby the Union of india i.e, the.s:aledeeds producfd by the Governmentwere giving a price of '•?1,37,00Q/- per bigha-^nd the-sale deed under which L-Sd had purchasedthe .•.land gave the priceO',26,600/^per bigha and the averagewoul^ come tg ?2,33,.,8QOA which vvas negr about the price of f2,i5,160Aper bigha, if 1/3'^ would be deductedfrom the sum of f3,2f,§00A, l,t mgy further be highlightedthit in the $pi^| judgi-Tient,the year of the sal:e was X9@3 and the notiflcstisn underSection4 of the Land AcquisitionAct was dated 24.7,3,995 and 16,11,1995and the Court determinedfair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i,e, ^2,15,160A. In other words, the reasoningof the Division Bench is not to be read pedanticallybut meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciationfor 2 years had required to be given, I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbeforealready •noted the i:nherentcontradictionin the value ofthe land price as per the 2 sale deed§ and this itself is intrinsic mutually des.t^uetiv:e^'eviden(:e'•;Qfthe''2--sale;,.defidsreflecting-ffair-.mani^et, valQeV" .. v.. ;• 2#,^- • .. Thus, tb^' flfsti; argument: as noted Jn.par^ao' above is • rej^cte|i,:^n,d-.1immp,distely,hithli.glitthat the extended.:ljjmb;,©f; ti^s -argument .th,at ^aftjer.'^accepting,t^^ ;said -.saje, .dee^s,,®?-^ indicative;of ;tl^e :fdi//;.marl<et-vaJue oiv.ihe land, pertaijiitlg^W viilag.b Narei.a;- in'>-vlew' of -the deeision 'In DharBmbir's-case .(supra),nand'pri(cesh^iJ|d;be;suit^ fehhaneed would b:e^eait' with by me at the end when I'.determinethe fair.marl<etvalue of lands fpr the v.illages..in questipn, . 25,. The second argument, contours whereof are to be found in.pgra 11 of ]T.iy decision,herein above, I'need to note the LA.App.No.26.6/2,008&connectedmatters Page 35 of74 latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issuig pfp the decision reporteel as 20,09 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs.JJOL •26. But before.that 1must highlight that the decision in La! Chand'3 case- (supra) preditated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and the argument wa$ bein^ considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands . , in village Rithala, where further lands were acquire^ for the game-residenti.al scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Nousii-ig Scheme', i highlight that agricultural lands in vUlEige Rilhgia qp# situated within the 'V formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karna! Road and Rohtak Road.

¶27Pertaining to the=priee charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing same transferring f '' • ' pei-petuallease-holdrights, which observationswould equallybe relevant to'industrial layouts, in parag 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- " Whether the DpA brachum is relmmt evldemca? II. The DDA brochure (Ext, X-1) dated 9-2'1981 Is an invitation,.see,ki,ng .applications from, m.embers of •th^ "•' public'for "all.otnieht of plots on .lease basis urid^r'tW . ••r'VRdhini Risldehtiai'-HausTngScheme,'TheVbrochurei^^ that;".the::p.tots were in .a'.layou.t,.;formed/to''^be'fQ,rm,ed-in.iV,;' Rithala -.and. the, surrounding villages. The bro.chure;gives. /, - the following provisional rates for allotment-of plots-oh . -' tease hoi d''b.asi'sV ' ' . ' ''' SI. No. Plotsize Cdtegory Rate (per5qudre'm4&e):\ .26-.sg.m'. .••Econ:omi£-ally.:.weaker-sectlons' . • -• . . • . .(Evys) , • " a •• • js sl m ' Low incomegroup.(LIG) • •• ~ Rs 12S 'sy 48sq --m Low-incomegroup (LIG) - •' Rs'l^O- •

4.. . 60s.q .m - Middle inco.megroup (MIG).. •:RS'2DQ .,.

5..

9.0;Sq m-,-.' ;Middleincomegroup (MIG) l^s 200 .i,A./^p.No.266/20p8'&-coiui§pi;s£l matters '•••• •A . V-.,, ... ^ 'u, ;3 "Fh.e apiaeilgfits contend thit-Rs 150 per square metPg whieh is the iverage of.the said provisionalrates, should Ige taken as. Indicativeof the ruling marl<etprice,

12.,; On careful consi'deration,we are of the vlerW that •such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for . • several rfasons, .Firstly, market value has to be determinedwith referenceto large tracts of undeveloped agricultural-lands in a ryral area, whereas the sllotmfnt rates of development authorities are with reference to , srhall plots in a developed layoutfalling within urban arga, Secondly, DpA and other statutory authorities sdopt different rates for plots in the same area with refgrenee to the econon-iiccapacity of the buyer, making it difficultto ascertain the real market value, whereas 'market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and ^does not depend upon the econorriic status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold land, whereas the allotment "rates" in the PDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotmentof plots on leasehold basis. We-may elaborate on these three factors. Fmt factor . 11, The percentage of "deduction for development" to be^made,tp,,a,rrive, aX the .market value, of large,,tracts of uhd'eveippej^j.;;.^grh:,uitu'rslv' land ' (wi,th; ,,,|^6te'kti'alw!%t d'ev,Giopmeht)i--with.TOfereace,tq^the sale -'price of''small' developed ^filo^srvai^ies'-feetween2p%.tQ 75% of i-fe^prjce of such d.eve,l,Qpe,dpjots,''th.e.,percentagedepgn,din§.v.,up,,Qn, •the. n.atU;re ^Qf';devei,o,praentbf^ the^ layoutn: whj'cA^-fehgj ~ .ex:e:n1pla.rip!otsare siWated.r • ; ' : ^-i: ' i4:v The-y^eduetionfor development'^-cansigfes cdi5nponen,ts.;-;The-^firsti-is: with'.Teferen,c@':'toTithe'-'' rfe^qLfired to b;e utiUsed for-;developm'ent'al-'iwarks•andt.h second" is --;th,e-:'-cost' of developmerit ^woi'ksv"?;For example," if..'a'-reside.n,ti,al layout ^is forme.d ' byDDA' ^o'r sirfi-ilarstatutory authority,"it-may utilise around••4Q% of theMand affea in the layout, -for-roads^ drains;,-'paf^s;' playgrounds and civic amenities (commun.ity facilities),• etc, " ,• ; ; ^ IS.. , The; ..'development authority will also,""iricy? cohsiderable expenditure for • development •' o'f undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing .froads; •LA.App;Pjo'.266/20Q8&connectedmatters 37 gf74 - ' -A underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying wa^ir lints, electricity lines and developing pgrks and civil • amenities, which would ipe about 35% of the value of the • developed,plot. The. two factors taken togetherwould bg the-."deduct-iQn for development" and can account for as much as 75% pf the cost of the developed plot. • "

¶16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in m ynauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of "deduction for development" may be far-less. This V because in-an unauthorised layout, usually no lan.d will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. .I;v.en if any l.and is set apart, it i§ likely to be minimal, The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would ^Iso be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 4.0% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots,

¶17The "deduction for development" with reference to ^ prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts mk ' nnay range between 50% to 65% depending upon the w standards and quality of tine layout,

¶18The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the -size,of ,0ne\:0r two ...acres.Qr,,more as .contr.ast.ed.vvyjtli the size'of-:fe5id;ent;ial,pfotsmeasuring106,sq-m'to^g&O^Sq m),,-;and^Vas'.th^ :will ;be' ve'ry^limit'ed civic amenitie'S'.a.nd no piaygroO.ii-ds,,,the area to' .b'e 'set apart;for deveipp,r^i|'!l| (.fpr roads,:ps:r:i^,pla^groMnds:.and'tivic,amenitiesvvijl'll fgr ies'sLahd'the cost to be .incurred.for deyelo.pment,will al;sp be ni,a^rgi,nallyle^; with .'the...result the c!eciucti.g,nto tpe^' m'ade/frorn thfe colt;of. an indukria'l P;lo't':may.^}^n§^. only betweenV45%to 55?|^.'-aS;CQr)trastedfrom:6^%:tQJ5% for resi.dential;^plots.\ -\y ', ^ •. V ,A

19.! lfthe;:ac,quir.ed la-h.d-isi.n-a semi-.developed Durban area,- .and .'npt ...an undeveloped rural • .area, ".then-;,the ded.uction fbrdeveiopmeht may be as. much-less,-•th'at--iS/ as; little a.s-3§% to 40%', as some basic infra,structure-wil.) already be'layailablev-C/Vo The percentages nTfe'ni'dhed abo.ve are tehtgtive'.standard.s ,,a subject"tp_p\rbp.f,.;tp\,tl:1.fe contrary.) ' , ' ''

¶20Therefore deduction for the "developm.ent factor" to be made wjth reference-to the. price of aj.smgli plot in, a.:, developed-layout, to arrive, at -the -cost -.Q.f undeveloped-land, vyill be,far more than the deduction LA,App.No.266/2()08.&QOuuectecjmatters Page 38 of74 with reference to price of a small plot in in. ynauthprisfid private layout or an industrial layout. It js also well known' that the development cost incupr^d by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher ov^rhesds tnd expenditure, ' , .21. Even among th-e layouts formed by DOA, the • pereentag§; of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vpry wit;h reference to the ngture of layQut---whether it is residential, resid'entigU eum-commereial or industrial; and even among residsntial layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the sige of the plgts, width of the rogds, extent of eomm.ynlty facilities, parks and playgrounds provided. t2. some of the layouts formed by statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarkgd for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, eleetrieal substations, etc, in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/qivic 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%. fmtpr 23, PDA and other statutory development authorities " adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon economic status of ajl0tteesv-ei;a:ssjfying th.em.-as high income group, middle income-^ group; low; income , group, and/. eGO.nomically vyeaker sections. As-a consequence,'in the.-"same'rayout; plots :•niay .f 'b^e '^earmarked-. fpr-persons ;;belpn|ip:g'^p ^cononrijcajly; Weaker sections at -a' pi'i'ce/premium' of''Rs 100 sq ,'nn,.'wKereasthe price/p.r^miumch,ajg,e.cim^ay.beRs 150;:per^square t^etre'far^members qf lovv j.niom-e^'grf^yp; Rp 200;per :sq.ua.re,m.^fei:for persons^ b:elp/igjn,g.itp'cT3,id^)j@ i.nco.me-.group/'and Rs-SSO per'square metre fQr-:p,:^.rs:pins belpnging to'high income grpups; ' ; ' • -• 24,•• The r^tio'.ofsi.tts in a.jaybut reserved .for HIQ; Ml'fe; .litG and EWSVm.ay .aJ.sp..yah/,;All these vaiying fgietprs fefl^ctj.n & rate5:fbr''ailotm,ent.It will be illogical,tp, take the,average;of the allotment rates, as the "n:^arket/ya!'M^^^^^ of those-.p;lqts',.does4ot depend upon the cpsrincur/.ed/Ciy P.DA statutQry. authqfity, but upon the. payipg. capsci'ty.pf the appl.ica:nts-.for .ajlot'ment, ,• Third-factor •. v •• - LA..App;No':266'/20.b8-^-oonn^ted'-mattbrs'• "• P0,g839Qf?4 r=^ •( "l • 11, . Spm"@ devalopment autharities a!!©t ^i0j;§ en fpsfhold basis, thit ig, by way of absoiute S9ie,. S^me ^eyelopm.ent ayttnariti-es like PDA aliot plots on ieas^helql bf-sis;,-Some have premium winich is almost equal to sals price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have I'fsser premium, and mpre substantial pnnu^l rent". 26; There are standard methods for determining annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property, There are alsp standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership) rights with reference to the annual rental incgms in regular Isises,. But it is very difficult to arrive at the mgrket value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted Ipy PDA, As the period of.lease is long, rent, is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among t'he public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equgl to the m.arket value of the property,

¶27• Hov/vever, in view of the difficulties referred to •above, it'iS' not safe or advisable to rely >.upbn th^ allotrrient rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in 9 developed layout, in determining the market . value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands, The PDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as not relevant," , 28, ; Th;e;evjdense,-oath® subja,ctMMskeen,;diseuss^§l by-Jhe learnib,,Refer^.iiceG0.uft,a:nd"M>r^ the;saFnf;b/exti|a^ from.vlaAG ;Keferen:ee; No.;l'17A/2Q'09-. * The argument advinfeed before,•the'..rearnM' ^.Referepce'"Cou'rt,;being/ th:e';^a'me a's^ ^is advanced'b.efore.me,,.ha5..been noted by the learned. RefersPice Court W:ith refefence-to the evidence-relied'.upon:, Itrea'ds.:- '• ."'Ld, Counsel.fpr the:; petiti,p,ners has. further submittgcl.:.. that PDA Si-DSIQC aljptted. plots.Jn Narela;.;HesidentJ.al-. .Area, and-^Nar-ela Industrial Area, at .much--:higher.-.rati,.-" He has relied-upon .allotnrient'letter dated'-O^,01.2bG0.' i.ss'ued by DDA of the plot no-,52, Pkt, G3,;Sector •A-S,;- Narela,which vyas allotted to Sh, Hqm Chander'at the' pre-determlned/ate Qf'^30-2,8/-which he has'p/oved'.as.,; ;lx.vP.W6/l,!i:Al!Q^ letter d.ated 26,06,'2003'of'plpt no,55 Ppc-ke.t.03,- Sector-05 a.rea meas.uring.'TO-.'-iq,-, m:etres in" whi.ch rate was fixad as - ?3i.989 per sq.'.-:- •metres, whi,ch;4S,Ex,PW6/2.-.both. this and allotment letter.' d.ated 09.07,90.-ofindustrial plot allotted by PSlPC\i,e, • LA.Ai?R;.No.26.6/200.8.& ^^.I?ag§.,.40.qf ; •' -.O •, I' • " " " ' • ' ' ; mgisyi-iF^9 §q. y®rd§ at Nqi'@1§ Indu-gtrialCemplex a.t the rate ?S50 sq. mgtr^s whieh is P.X. PW3/1 and. another allotment letter dat®0 ,.04,-2000# industrial talot which is Ex, PW3/2, which WiS sgld at ?3000 per sq: metres. Further" .Ld, Counsel has suhn'jitted that from thg gtatement O-f PW9 Kafiwal Singh Si docgment ix! PWXl/l, which is detail of land acquired, it is apparent that total land scguired 153 7^09 Igigha, Thus total eost of develop.ment par higha would" be 1794400000'^ f'|48911 whereas Ld. Counsel ha§ submitted that ppA by seiling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ •?3'20'8 would be t2531408A per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized for roads, park, drain etc.'total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha woui'd come to (2531408 ~ 759422 ~ 17719866 per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i,e'. ^1771985 - 248911,= 1S23075 per bigha, where petitioner has been given rate gnly '73,27,083./- per bigha, • Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PVV7 R,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 tot^l area plots. with/psiD€ was 11547. hectare .i,ie.^ d351:25Q sd;;;ya •TheHefo'i'ei tot^hearningpfrDSipC^is ^2A42^17;pep.bigha,. c^lciJlationiig^as un<^er:' :v'' total.':are®" uhBer''[3rc^s'' ;i3:2;47 hee i,^. "iigysorpiT yards.•'•' •'f?ri$e pers^-'mfetrelix •tWe ^; year y'2000 ='';at which DSI|3C's01d p16t'• ^3000/^per ]§q"yip,Fds'" ;;;• totarearnihg,-'^' " ' ; ^ ' '?408375d600 -• r.; •-•• •TOtai .expendi.fure ., • '^720525901 "••;••• •Total profit. ?3353223099' •^- '• •' — i.e. Profit conies to ?24-70 per sq, yard or f24-70G00.per bigha (i..e.; 3363223099-divided by 136125:0-^sq:•yards) and the LAC has'.paid'Corripensatioh (3) t3270f3-per bigha only, mea.ning"thereby that DSIDC has'earned a .profit"of ?2l42917'per"bigha. " . ' ' • • '• • • .> ,, Ld. •Cpuhsel;for the, petitioners has further argued tKat-LAC has awarded compensation @' ?327083'^per LA.A:p.ix,Mp?.66/2Q0,8..& connectccl ma.tters • /Page,4J of 74 •- Isjigha for tHg land in gu@ition if 200% aoprecistipn gf thi sai^ price is .considered on account of land, the figure comes to t654l66, If the amount is deduqted fr^m sile price, per bigha i.e, t24700000, figure comes to •'?1815'834 p§r t^igha 5( petitioner is entitled for the

¶29Now, w@ do not have evidence as to what vyag th® extent of plotted land sold tjy D.SIPC or DDA with refereng© to the gawana Industrial Estgte cievelgped by DSIDC and Nsc-el.a Residential Scheme developed by PDA. Whether it wss 20% ©r 75%, w^ do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were notecj by the Supreme' Court iri La! Chand's case (supra), which ren'(^§,r this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value pf lane) in the.subject cases. >

¶30It is no doubt true, as held even by 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 whi0h the b,uii.dii3g.p0te,ntiality,would transl,ate..itself....

¶31.'•V.' I-hol.d\tiaatt'l^e fe\a.:rned R,eferenceCqyrt,'j<e^pin.g.i|.:vtpw the 0bserya|:ion; ahd .tha .fi.hdirigs K^the Suprem.e CourtMn -la/ Chand's case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as relia.ble. Gn the'lssue Qf.pot,entiality;relatin.g;its,eif t'6ithe yaJuG,''-! promke-the rea^erdf the clegsidh', to deal with-the ^airielWKile-l shair'B'edisajssrn^ to'whatshouldt'e the'faifmarfet'vplye^ the lands., , , ' • .

¶32The third submissionin the alternativewas base^'upon the observations of a. Division Bench of this Court, in Bed/' Ram's case,;-(supra),' an:d the-.:.su.brr!,iss.i.on.i3-:,as.nqtedoin.-par.a ..l'2;.herein ab;ovev' "'The Uand owners require price determined in Dharambir's cas.?'. (supra)- 'relating to the-notificatjoh/''date.d LA:Ap.p-No.266/20p5&Qopneetedmatters• . Page ffS^of-7,4 3O40>.X9S3 in sum of ?16-,7B0/- per bighs fsr village IVi8r¥iuppup tp b§ treated as thg basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum, tlien by 10% per annum and lastly by 12% per anngm for different periods thereby det:ermine the fgir - market yalge for the 8 notifieations in question. 33- • it be Ki9;hiig:ht@cithat in Bed/ Ram'B csase {siipra), with pefenenee to thf base ei^te as of the year 1959, for the yi§r 1976 i,e. a period spanning 17 years the Divi§ipn Bench of this Court applied progressive increase method by firstly • enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year .1,965 and then-by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 1|% far the remaining-3 years.

¶34. However, in La!^ Chancfs case (supra), Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the a ward relating tp §cquisltlor) on M-16" 1961 is relevant?

¶47The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired, under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1951 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs 70Q0 per bigha, 'Their contention is that as present acquisition"is i-n the year 1981, the-marl<et valg'e df the' " acquired •i.and-•••should .be determi.ned with, •referenee-tQ/ the _market ;val,ue. determiried .for the.,1961, acquisiti,Qn . , by providing an appropriate increase' at 'the "" cumulative/ciornpounded-rate of 12% per annum; This - •••• Court had:-occasion-; td-.exaniin.e this issue recently, In ONGC Ltd: v'; /^s/?7.e5/?,;6/75/y/Vs/:7v6/'?3//^afe/iiU-this^GG.Grt;', -/.hBld':-(SCC^R.^§.1-, para-15) ^ Tr —v ''Ji. NQijh'ially, recourse is tal<e.n to-the niode ••, deter/ninitng .tine, market, value by ^providing ' appropriate escalation over the proved market ' " • value of "nearby;' lands in previous ye^#s (aS' ^ v evidenced-by sale-trans.9.ctions-or .acquisitions;),;, • ...where- ,,,there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or '• - a'cquisittions .of ^.CQraparab.le laads:'. in--' ijhe.-^-^'' neig.iTlD.0u.rhQe.d;.-.Thesaid method is reasonably ]LjA.Aj»i^j^A.266/200?,&.eoiineetMJ'J#t?ra ••; , • ;Jag6^i|Qf"4 g@f@ wC^gre cn©- r©lied-QR transa«ians/ac-9wisia9nsprec:?drthe ,uWec? acquisitionby gnly afew years, that is, up'tofour tg ftve yprs. Beyondthatit m^ybe unsafe, evin a Fpf-fhif? -9 n^imourrngland. Whatmaybe ^@mme unsafe unreliahfs . st§nd^rdwJi.em the-gap Is: larger. For example f@r determining the market value of a land acquired in 1902, adopting tine annual Inerease 1970^t'TqRn®'®'®"l® acqulsitioRin 1970 or .1930,mgy have many pltfaUs, This is becaup, over the course of years, the 'rate' of a,nnual increase may itself undergo drastic changeapartfrom the lii<e|ihoQdof occurrenc®of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spur"s in^ prices affecting the very standard of increase. (emphasis supplied) 48, gven ir the relied upon trgnsactiqnis only two to ^ ree years prior to the acquisition,the court'should, before adoptinga standardescalation,satisfyitselfthat there w^re no adverse circumstances,For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be 7nn7 nr ^•^I'ket value, based on the IK?/ plaices, by providingan increaseof 12% of 15/o per year, as-the newspaper reports diselose that • the price, of imra.ovabiepropertiesin rnbst-areas of'the • country•ca;frie,,doVyn "fey m0r^^than;4Q%"to 50% from^the ' 2007 '(^.i^tion-therefor^"necessary,,6lfore increasing.•,.;th,^; ';price^V,witb;\referenceto'". tiHe'': old transaetioni;S,/.Be is-clear.thatth:ejward made<in;;.t:egard:^JiO;aT^^^ a,cqgifi.tj:on.will ^riot'ipe^ofilW use for-determlnm^^ the ^n-i^ark-.et-'value "for -a 19|1 aqquisitipn,^ i - ' •. ' 3S. It is-rapparent,.that,the,ratio of law lajd down by the Division Bench i.n. Bedi-'Ram''s-£B^9.(supra) runs |n'the teeth of the law declared. by the .Supreme. Court in La/ Oia'nds c.r\<=.i> (supra), which d.eGisio.n •.fol;lovvs an earlier .decisio.n.of the Supreme Court..reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. l/s. LA.App.^Vx?,.66/^.00H&.ponjifigtBdmatfeiT i?f)gs44,-.Qf74 ; i. ;i • ^ --t'• •; • T • •• : -:- |6, in instant;case tihepf i§ anothergped F^ggspi Pi©t 0 f?)liovv the lavv laiel ciQwn in Bed/ Ram'% case (suprg) reason i.find that s Co-orclinateDivision Bench of this Court in the decision reported as 8'8 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi pertaining to agricultural lands in village iMamurpur-Narela, did. not §pply the progressivepercentage increase With reference to the price determined in Pharambir'% G0se (supre) as of the year 1963, whie:h would havq regulteci in th§ land price being determined in vijiage Mamurpur ~ Ngrela as of 14,3,1980 T2010A per'annum per bigha and gay© thg ingre^se @ ^iQOO/- per bigha, • If Bedi Rgrn's prineiplg wgs applied the pnce would have come to approximately'?g0,000A per .bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at ?33,000/-per bigha.

37.. that apart, as would be notedjnerein aftQr by me; while discussing on the issue of the fair marl<etvalue of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005'decided .on 11,5.2006, Mahender Sinah i/s. •UOJ &Ors: and co.nr:iect.e,d.,,LaT^d,Acquisition.Ap.p,,ea.ls-p^r.t,ai.nj.ngto. a.gricultural ra>nds' i4i ^village'Bawana;..:and ] ••h.igh.ligKt>.that one yi11,a:gewith which l;am-dte§Ii.n.g-Is .villa.ge'Bawaria;-pertaini:i3g/|l|_p'^ Qotificati-ondated-l'5-,ll;]:996-:is5uedjunder.SeGtion;4. pf;tl|^,Lan^ Ac,(j|Uisit.ip.n. A^t/whererunden .3:60,4^=big.ha-aind, %18.v; bi:swa. ag ricuIturaI land-i.n -yiILage Bawan.a•was -acqui;re,d.f.Q.r an J ndust.ri.al estate i\e. Bawa'na iridus.trial Estate, the fair m-a.r!<et-'valu@'''as.---ol 15;ll-.i9-96was VJetermi'ried@?i,99,9b4,68bigha vvhi-ch'e'^uals to •.'?9,5,9,5.4,2,4r)''p^acre and relevant would"it"'Be fqr' me-fo h.igh%httti,atjf.;thenotificationdated 25,7.1997^bywhich,price for.agricultural .land,being.the min.i.mum'.price ciet0rrTiined-..by,ths Government wa-s 'UO. lakh?, per ac.re..as .of .,1,4,19.9.7,the .price LA.App.No.266/2QQ.8&,connectednialicr.s Pagp 4| of^'4 detepraiPied -by the Division Bench wouicl ©qupl the miRlmut-Ti price notified by the Government,

¶38' If I were to tal<e the price as of 3.541.1996 fi ?9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which i concerned, the price would be approximately th^ same as determJ-ned by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum, But, I leave it Qt that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein ab^ve, I would be holistically discussing the subject while opining ypon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the $ notifieations in question,

¶39the fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.API?.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i,e, L:A,APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para above i.e, the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to th;e..fa:nn.ily.,th:ey^w,ere,,.earning,n.lakh per feigha,by,,p|,^of agricultural,produce. #0. . The learaed,. RefeF,en,Ge,..,Cp.urt, has jncit.aecsptRd. tlie testip.ony of; R,ann:;l<isha:Pfjbecause,he:g0,ye,,,rio:proof in.supp.prt,.Qf hi5 oral testimony,'c ' • • / ; 4i;' . The 'reasonjing of. the Court: th^t there-w.as:.hqi^erop Standing on the/iand when Its possession was t^ken joyfr; on

4.10.2000 would;: require-.: an inference to .be;.dra.wj'i tjfeiat the acquired'lands-belongih'g.-to the fanriily were hot being-,,-put'.to agricultural .Lis'e and growing 3 to• 4'crop's'per year^,'is'-faripciouS no doubt,, for the reason it is matter qf cgmmon knowledge that by the .3'''' w^ek of,,Septemberrice is harvested,in Delhi and^.if \/egeta-,bles a,re,;,g.i;o.w,n,-,evenvthey,a.r,eharveste.d-and.theJa.nd is left faljow-for.some time, tp be readied to .grpw wheat vvhiqh i,s LA.App.No.266/1^008& oonpecteclmatters Pag?|i6 of ?4 sawpi around the first wegk ©r the seeonsi vve^k Qf N©vem.b^t= each year,- 42, •. But the other reasoning of thife being no evidence led in the form of documentsis relevant, Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he. was working as an Administrative Officer In the Municipal Corporationof Delhi till 31,3.199.^ i.e. was t^iot g tiller himselftill said period and thereafter earned a pension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning 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 Mandl 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 th,e fields or electricity bills paid if the pymp was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated ;by: canal w.pter,:no proof of any paym.ent made tQ the Lrrlf^tiondepartment has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justifiedHnnot'adopting tKe yield'sis','by capitalizing the 'sam§, to determine the fair" market" ValUe''of lands. .There'ls.ho reliable,evidence on' the^.ifis'ue'of'lfhe:yield and th,e,..s.elf-seryi.ng dqp9.sition/of,,Ba._m.Kishan.has.been./rightly rejected. -.

¶43. If there is reliable evidence of an independent e)^p@rt er tliere3|s ,othervv'i|,e'reliable,evid^ as. was'found'i,n'^the decision-,of the. S-upreme ^o,urt reported as .JT 1997. (1J,,.SC 444 State of Gu/arat &-.Ors.- VsyRama Rana &-Ors..:'aertai.njng:Jtoe yifeld, from •agricultural -land, unly thgp it -wQulcl ba^sal^ deterrhine fa^ i^arket 'value .tey-applying' the-•principl.e'-of LA.ABp:Np:a66/2QQ8;!^:,oQijineo . , , u cai3italigin@ gn the yieiel .bssis gnd that tog, th? ea.pitill^ing being 10 times the annual yield and not. 20 times as wets sought to b@ projeeted.

¶44The fifth argument v\^hieh was advanced, as noted herein above in para X4, 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 fornn, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that thf notifications with which I gm concerned are dated 7,8.2000, XI.9,2000, 2.5,2001, 22.8,2001,

7.12.2001, 16,5,2002, 25,5,2002 and 27.1,2003 i.e, ths years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of

1.4,2000, 1,4,2001 and 30,8,2005, Thus, there would be no need to factor in minimum price notified under the notification dated 24,1,2008 which is.w.e,f, 8,12,2007 i,?, 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 •val.ues, requires the 2 end points-to .b,.,^ tine ones which v^ould-b.e closest to the point for wliich .th.e .mean average has to'be determined,

¶46I am left to deal witii the last submission, as noted in para, 15, herein .-above, and for which I highlight,that the learned Reference Court, has, pertaining-to notification dated 27,1.2003 determined the fair market value in. some Refereaces with respect to. a'sale deed dated 20,5.2002 where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold-in village Rajapur Kglan arid LA.App/Np,266/20(^8&eoiuieetgdiwa.lter.s "• ' P9g&48qP'.4 has that theFesFi thg prlc;® ip (jf sai^ e,iat@ works out te '74,109/-per acre a,n(^ increasingthe samg fgr 8 months by 12% pgr anhsj-m, f@r the date 27,1,2003 the prise. wQuid ?19,11,037/-per |sr@ rounded off t® ?19,16,040/' per $ere. - ' 47, , • With reference to the Award No,i0/DC(NW)/20Q4-05 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No,200 admeasuring 1 bigha and IB biswa was a Category 'C land. The sale deed.in question pertains to the sahie land and Indeed th^re is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflect fair rT/igrket value of Category'C land.' As per the learned Land Acquisition Collector Xl.l lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum of 'tlJ lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions in Category 'C land, meaning thereby depressions in Calggory 'B' land were less vis-^-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:^yersa,vis-l-vis Category 'C la^,.,,the price:iQr,pt^^Ofy'E' Jand and for Category.;a' J^d would be re:qulredi.to-b.^Jhgpe^s@dsiyita^ r ,-; -a Lnov^^nt^R:thefif^Bl sta^e of my-diseu|si,Q^.,^^lJn;yievy.o| the • evidence .iherein' above •-noted--and . reftecting ^'Upbl^- th-e reasoning adopted by the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoran0 the learned Reference Court,"I pose the"question: What'sh'dulcJ be the fair market value of,the subject landsVas of 7r8;200Q';

11.9^2000,, ;2.a,2p01,.\ ^22^8,2001,' 7.12'2001/' I6,i:'20p2| 25,5',2002 ,a^nd -,27.1,.20Q3, i.e., dates • on. yvhich, the notifications,we.re issued under Section4.of the l-and Acquisition Act 1894,

49.I. have,.dni para 3^^|t)ove,-ne^ed a. deGision of,a. ^vision B,eneh -- ^of :tNs-'? Court v in^ ^LAAPR.No.856/2.0Q5; -^decijded;-'on LA,.Ap.p,N.C).266/20Q§&eoniieotedB}|tt0i:s Pap # of 74 ^ ••••• h.

11.5,2'QQ-i;,,Mahet^derSijiah vs. Ubf&Ors. wherein pertaiPiiR|to village/Ba.wana, fair market value determined as of 15.ll.19i6 is ?1,95,904.6.8 per bigha whig:h equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre, The .said •d'^cisip;n;ww^ relevant on th® issue of potentipiity, an issu€ which 1-Kave promised to discuss! The decision notes that the subj.ect lands-, i.f, the !an(^s with which-th® Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch ss, as discussed in. p^ras 25 tq 28 of the decision, rural areag in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on popuiati-on growt;.h,- 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.Karnal Road gnd Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and that the IMaster Plan for Delhi notified in the-year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed In future to industrial and .commercial, .but hgcj also observed that nptwithstahding this, for.the reason no zQni! vy.as ..notified, as vonteiriplated .by .Section, Qf the iel.hj Deyeldp^rfieht-'Act 19.57i,"thf.'iin.cls "cpntinue.d,;to^/.bf..us,e^Xf.gr ajri^Cultu.raj. purp0.sgs ,and ,,th.,e,re was, no evidenee that ,|i|l .^thg y$|rj^l99§,.^nyja'nd,us^-,.ha(d.-^een-aptuallyc|nanged..and,pyt,tG t:h.e;"M?e canter pipt^d, by, .the. Master. Plan. -.As Jn th^.Jrist^jnt cas^,.---^hjere-.sjl'i;subject^ la;nds,-.'wer€ • coRti.n,uous!y ^pytj;}-o agpi.cuitural-u-sep^sapifiwas-the..case rnpted m,th:f s.ai4"Qlecisi0tn,, To,put Jt^pithi•ly^;lth:g1pQtentta!:use of the .la;nds givirijg-^fei0:h;tp-® potential-'land'^vaiye -with reference 'to the•are-a b-eing %npwn-to all'as being' repuireci ;in the 'future' -for buiidin'g••'purposes;''was •found' npt resulting'ln the potential being valued with reference tp the potentia'lltyi.e. the lands'being,' in-the near future capable of b.eing built upon. To put.it differently, tbe decision, though .npt sp^.fxpres^slystating,,.wpgjpbe a propositipn^haj:,tber.^js^i difference between,, the, undeveloped Jand,-haying;,.t3uildi_ni LA.App;];J,p.256/2O0"B.^..<,|,eQiua^^^^^ . , , •. -B^geSslA.f?4 s <5V potentiality in presenti • vis-a-vis a land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already notecj toy rne in para 36 above, as of the date. 15.11,1996, fair market value determined was' ?9;59,542,46':per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of-time, i.e. notification dated

25.7.1997 where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum' price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was ?10 lai<hs per acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) Gairai Singh i/s.. UP! & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated

15.11.1996, fair nia'rket value determined for Category 'A' lands was ^9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ^9,51,121/- per acrfe i.e. near'approximate to'th'e fair market value df lands in village Bawana. It needs' to be highlighted that' while determining.'tlie 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 GT.Karnai 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 decisioncis reported as 2004 (4) AD (.Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. ^0/and the same Division Bench, as per the decision reported as 111 (2004) DLT 9i5.Hukum Singh i/5. UOI, pertaining to a notification dated

14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ ?1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. ?6,73,104/- per acre. LA.App,No.266/2008& GonnectedmEjtters . Page51 of 74 so. The 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-l:a.nds in Delhi as tabulated by me iri para above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the.growth/rise in the prices 6f agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from year 1990. As of 27,4.1990 minimum price was f4.65 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 ll5.054% increase in 7 years and the average price ihcrease 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°7o 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 b:e thedecisioh. of .the Division Bench of this Court'in Giirai's case "(supra), which'I haOe, discussed in para 49 above.'' •; , " ^

¶51-" I need to elabojate a iittle more'with respect to "the decision in Gajraj's case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of-'15.11.1996, •in paras 9 to Court" discussed valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum, was T95,000/- for multiple cropped land haying good irrigation •facilities and, thus capitalized the.land price at f9.5 lakhs per acre.- Discussing second method: of iarid-prices: of comparable lands in the surrounding areas-including potentiality, in para 19'onwards Court discussed matter with reference to land pri.c.e.s in adjoining village.Bhorgarh where FCr Godowns had.come.up anqi based on sale-Instances .found -.that based ,on .the said ,sale LA,App.'No.266/2008& connectedmfvlters- • Page 52of 74 itr-- f instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price would come to n0,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices notified by the Government as per • •policy dated r.4,1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of-fg.Tea^lA .per _dcre for Category 'A' lands and ^9,51,121A per acre for' Category 'B' lands, The decision highlights that the potentiality had been welUfactored 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 ^lO lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was f10,03,364/- per acre:

¶52The decision in Mahender Singh's cas§, 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 19,90:,had been-taken into account by:the Court which was projecting''residential, commercial' industrial future-exploitati'on of agricultural landMn'Delhi'and oh'the' issue of potentiality'had noted that notwithstanding the .Master Plan so projecting and the. lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the' same. had not .translate.d:into, a, reality evidenced lay the fa.ct thattill the,year 1996 J.e. the date of the notification with vvhich the Diivision Bench was concerried, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows, The decisions in Gairafs case Mahender Singh's case i - • • ' • 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 p'otentiality did not translate with the LA.App,Kl'o'.266/2008&• connectedmatters ' Page.53of74 requisite morrientum-and-the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum; to Xl% 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.

¶53The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect, whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to. rely upon and for which 1 have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for hot relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of, the date of the sale i.e.

20.5.2002; the fair market value of agricultural lands would be'^19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha'and 13 biswa of land which wasjsold.for ^5,.39,6pp/- and.f70,160/-,was,paid .as stamp-cd.uty-w^Guld,••.n^ean-. •-yiatv.;;p,,09,850/- (^5,39,690/- + ^70,160/-) .were;,.spent.-.would-yield, the-prj-ce fl.-7r;74:,1.0S/-"-per acre as of.thadate of thte sgle i.e; •20v5.2002.•;

¶54' Thus,-iShe-best •..-which -could be ,sal,d-as - the most favourable situati.bn 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 T17,74,109A 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' the reason, as noted ' by me hereinabove in sub-para

(a) of para learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA.App.No.266/2008.&connectedmtters • PageS4.Qf74 t sometimes T1.2 i.al<hs.per acre, sometimes ^1.55 lakhs per acre and-sometimes ?1,7 lakhs per acre from the price of Category 'A' lands-to determjne price for Category 'B' lands wherever lands Were in Category 'C as well the. price has been deducted further by fl.7 lakhs per acre. 55, Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money reguired to be spent to level the lands and I note that categorization is t^gsed 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 oh what basis has Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that ^1,2 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that tl.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 Sinoh's case (subra)/the 'price differential worked .out was ?25,000/- per acre, I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gairai Singh's case pertained to tfie date 15,11.1996, In Gdirai Singh's case the price for Category''A' land: determined ,was ^9,76,121/-per.acre and for _Cate.gory 'B' land the-price .determ.ined .was f9,51,12.1/-,.p.er^. acre ,and .ttn.e price diffe.renti.al:-comes., to a.bout 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 b& differentiated on price, the differential should be 2.5%.

¶58Thus, if ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^7,75 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&connectedmatters .Page55 of74 5^= i admittedly pertains to a Category 'C land, price for Category 'B' land would be ?18.-20 lakhs per acre for Category 'A' land would be TIB.555 lakhs,per acre,

¶59Taking the logica.i reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4..200'0 l:He per acre price was fl3.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was fl5,7 lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat. Category 'AMand price at fl8.555 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 fl6.40 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-coJony, the size, the location, the frontage'etc-;'of'a piece'-of land Would.'vary the'price by plus or minus 5%. ' Whatl wish to highlight is'that even the sale,deed in question yields to us a"fair index'as pef'which'the minimuim price notified by the Government hias-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,d,etern^ine land price" on .subsequent dates, -for. the reason a price on ,a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having .already, impacted, the land price and it would be difficult to fathom existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 LA,App.'No.266/2008&• connectedmatters • .Page,56of-74 % • dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001,the differentialperiod is sinaii inasmuch as the sale deed in questionis dated 25.5.2002and thus in the peculiar tacts of the instantcase, the sale deed in question,which itself has l,een projected by the Union of India as an evidence of marketvalue of land ason,saiddate, would be arelevantpiece of evidence to be tal<en into account while determining the market value of land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000

2.5.2001,22.5.2001and 7.12.2001.

¶60The argument that village Narela had alv»ays been treatediocatlonaliyadvantageousfor the .reasonthe townshippf •Narela was in existence since long and this was recognized when, pursuantto a notificatloqissued in the year 1953; vis-a-vis the adjoining villages ?2 per square yard price advantage was given to iand.s in village Narela in Dharawbiiscase, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locationai advantagewas keeping in view the realities in. the year 1963. Over the penod of time, as urbanizationtook place in Delhi and more and, more areas.came under plotted deveiopment.which included areas in North-Westof Delhi i.e. the area with which |' am concernedtoday, the price differentialfaded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non:-existent.

¶61. I thus h.old that pertaining to the notificationsdated 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-reasonIfind-no othercogentevidencewherefromland price as on said dates-could be d'etermined. 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.No.266/2008&'connectedmatters Pase57of74 •m j 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 ndtifi'ed .was fl5,7 lakhs per acre with effect from

1.4,20.01. • •62-.. ^ With-respect-to-theprice differentialfor Category 'A' and Category 'B' 'tends,' nQting that pertaining to the'said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village ^ooth Khurd Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22,8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Xhera, Khurd, Narela Aiipur (pertaining to the notification dated

22.8,2001) I hold that vis-a-vis said notifications, after increasing the pric^ for the date differential, fixing the same for Category .'A' lands, deduction has to' be effected by decreasing the same by 2,5% to determine the price for Category'B'land. 63, Before r'work out the compensation and since'it would be evidenced-t'hk-pertaihing'"to Category 'A' lands, thV land ®prices would marginaily ihcrease in a few cases substantially ih the other;' a striking note of discordant' would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification'y'ated' 23,5,2002 .pertaining to village Holambi Kalah wherein the learned Reference'Court has determined fair-.market value' at t22^,14,2;3,900A per acre as. of 23.5,2002, but I n^eed to highlight thft pertaining to the.iSame, notifjcatipn dated -.23,5,.20,02;.-in . rel'ati.on ; to-.yillage Allpyr, the-.-, learned Reference Co.urt-has determined fair market value at ?17,85,240/- per 'acre ah# I find that-pertai.hing' to 'villag'e Rajapur'Kalan a;nd"S'an,pth',' pertaining to th'e notification dated

27.1,2003 the fair market value-assessed for Category 'A' lands is ^19,16,040/- in' some cases f19,13,760/- in a few, L'A.App.NQ.266/2008'&coiii-iectedmatters ' meaning thereby that much iesser compensation has been worl<ecl out in the year 2003 vis-a-vis the compensation wori<ed out for Woiambi l<alan pertaining to notification dated

23.5.2002 reason for abrasion is that in said notification the iand price determined in Gairaj's case (supra) as of 15.11.1995 has.been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per,annum compounded. Village PoQth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.20Q0 64, With reference to notification dated

9.8!2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ^13.82 la!<hs and-requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 with reference to the sale deed dated

25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2,5% the,price comes.tQ fl8.2 lal<:hs per acre further .-increasing by

2.5% prices comes to ?18,65',500/- per acre f.or.Category'A' lands; and-decreasing.the said, prices by..H%-to reflect the price with, referen.ce to thasale deed for the ••date-^.S^.^OOO;- -mean average • price .-for Category 'A,' lands in village-Pooth Khurd comes to fl4.75 lakhs per acre decreasing same by

2.5%i, it comes to ^14,38,125/- per-acre for Category 'B' lands. N.oting 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& connected.rnatters • Page 5?-of74 k)-- _ I appeals filed by land owners in respect wliereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRI,D-A' hereinabove are dismissed. ^ / 65, Air Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and Cross-objections.filedby 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 fI4.75 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 Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filihg the appeal or cYoss-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.-, • • VlUaae Hoiambi Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000

¶68, For th,q reasoning given in.paras 64 to 67 hereinaboye pertaining to., the notification

(same)-dated,

7.8..200.0 relating to village Mo.lambi;: Kalan, all-a,ppeals:as-per 'GRID-B.' hereinaboye cross objections stand disposed .of - enhancing, compensation to ^14.75 lakhs per acre and 1 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.266/2058&coniiectedmatters { explained in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. UP/2002. (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, Village Bawana Notification dated 7.3.2000 69, Pertaining to village Bawana relating to same notification dated' 7,,8.2000 where the learned Reference Court has not enhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A' lands is fixed at f 14.715 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands at fl4,38,125/- 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 mei:itioned ./ 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 l/s. UO! 2001 (93) ,DLT 569,• except foRthe period where there is a delay Tn filing th.e^'a'ppeal-,''f6r'whichperiod of delay•ho'i'hterest on.the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitle;d' to pr6portibnate cost. Village Khera Kh'ura Notification dated 11.9.2000 .

¶70' With • reference to the' notification' dated

9.8,2001 wherein with effect fronn 1,4,2000 minimum price notified per ^ acre is fl3-82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price'to be I'"' 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& connectedmatter.? . . b'y t0 Ia1<hs per aere and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to f 18,65,sop/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; decreasing said prices by 11% to reflect price with •reference to the sale deed for the date 11,9.2000; the mean averag.e price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to.tl4,-83.,500A per_ acre and decreasing the same, by 2,5%, it comes to tl4,46,4l3/- per acre for Category '13' lands, 71, All Land Acquisition AppeaJs as per 'GRID-D' filed by the land owners Gross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union '-of India ar§ allowed ' by decreeing compensation payable for Categofy 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11,9.2000 in sum of. fl4,83,500/- per acr^' "for Category 'A' lands and ^14,4§,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 perth;e'Land Ac.qui.siti.pn /\ct 1894 as explained in theju.d.gm.e.nt reported as Sunder-Vs, UOl 2001 (93) DLT •569, .shal,L be.-g^nted, except .for the'.period-where there i=s a delay in filing the-appeal, for" w:h,ich-peri'od'-.of,-delay -no'- interest on:.-the -enhanced compensation shati be paid. -These appejlants. would be-entitlejd to;proportl'onate'-cpst. ,ir-••• • - i Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001:

¶12With reference to notification dated '"9,8'.2'00l wherein with effect from 1,4.2601 minimum price notified per acre.- is ^15.7 I'akhs^ 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 Categ.ory 'C .lands, land price per acre comes to ^7,74,109/-, >9u.nded off to..?17,7'5,00.0/- per. acre,^ and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by,2.5% the price .comes LA.App.No:.266/200'8iS; conneqtedmatters Page 62 of74 /«' to lakhsper acre an:d furtherincreasingby 2.5%the prices comes CO n8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with rererence to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for Category •«' lands in village Narela comes to <16,15,300/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ^15,76,08r-per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting thatthe learnedReferenceCourt 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 l?y «,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 standsenhancedto ns,16,500/- per acre,

¶73All Land AcquisitionAppealsas per 'GRID-E'filed by the land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are aliowed-by decreein.g, compensationpayable for.,Gategory>'A' lands-in village-Marel,a. pertaining' to th^ ^mtification.'dated. 2.5.200a::in sum' :of -: •^6/16,500/- per,acre-.and as per the; reference'order -for^ Categai^y'B' lands,-iThus,appealsfiled^y the Union of lnd,fa-as^ also cross'objection's-filedtoy'iJm'onof'lndiaas also such-appeals--' which-relateto Category•^'B'Mand^-filed by land owners -are:' dismissed and the o:nes i.e.' t-he appeals and cross obj'e'ctions'^'' filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A" lands are'' allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compensationstatutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained in the judgmentreported as Sunder iim 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted,exceptfor the periodwhere there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.ApilNb.266/2008&connectedmatters " * k< interest on-the. enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to-proportionate cost. Village 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 the notification i.e.

22.8,2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for'Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to fl7,74,109A, rounded off to fl7,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B'Jands 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 said prices by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date

22.8.2001; the rnean average-price for Category'A' lands in village ..Holambi'Kalan comes, to-fl6,74/5'00/- per acre and -decreasin.g the same by

2.5%, it conies tc)-^16,32,6'37,.50 per acre'for.Category-.'B' lands, Noting that-th-e-^learned ••Reference Court-has, without''any . reasons, done'away with Category 'B' lands and uniform-price award'ed is tl6;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 ( maintain amount awarded by the learned Reference Court, ,, 75, , All 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, ' , ,,. ., . . 76,. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land ovyners and cross-objections filed^by the land o.vyners in appeals filed by LA.App,No.266/2008 connectedmatters Page 64 oi'74 m- £6" Union of India are aliowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22,8.2001 in sum of ^15,74,500/- per acre and for Category- 'B' lands compensation awarded at ?16,43,Sll/- per acre is mai-.ntalned and thus such appeals or cross references which., pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶77Pertaining to such appeal where compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 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. Viiiage 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. f.15,70 lakhs per acre requiring .said. price,to be suitably updated "to reach-the date of the notification i,e.

22.8,20^1 and'.wJth-referen^ce'to the sale deed •dated 25 •5;.20:02 whereih 'for Category 'C lands, land price , per acre qomes to ?17,74,109/-,, rounded off to" ?17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lahcls'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 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 the same by

2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting LA,App.No.266/2008 & connected matters m •that th^'learned RefefehceCourt has, withoutany reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is •fl6,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worl<ed out by me comes to a meager ^9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands !' maintain the .amount awarded by the learned Reference. Court., .

¶79All Land AcquisitionAppeals 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, Villaqe Holambi Kiiurd Notification dated 22.8.2Q01

¶81With reference to notification dated

9.8,2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ^15,70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated ' to reach'•the date of the notification "i,e, 22,8.2001 and With reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for CS'tegory 'C lands, land price per acre-comes tb fl7,74,l'09/-, rounded off. to •n7,75,000/- 'per acre, "and for Category 'B' lands increasing the sahne by 2,5%.the price comes to, ?18,2 lakhs per acre and-further increasing by 2.5% the.prices comes to ?18,55,500/- per, acre, for Category .'A' lands; 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 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' land$. Noting that learned Reference Court ha.s, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands-and uniform price awarded is ?16,43,811/- per acre, .the price differential worked but by me comes to' a meager f9,000./- per acre and, thus qua LA-App.No.266/2008&coiinecled.raatters Page 66 of74 m Category ,'B' lands-I maintain the amount awarded by the iearned f^eference Court.

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

¶83There shall be ho order as to costs. VillageRaiapurKalah Notifiratinjidated 22.8.2QQ1

¶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 ©cre.and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e. 22,8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to j ?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 tl8,2 lakhs.peR acre and further increasing by 2,5% the prices comes to ^18,,65,500/- per.; acre for Category .'A' lands;, and decreasing the said prices-by 11% to reflect price with reference to the >sal:e',deed for'the'date 22,8/2001; •the-mean a\/eragfe"'price'fQrtateg6V lands in' vi'lla'ge'Rajapur'Kalan comes to tl6,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2,5%, it comes to;?16;32,637,5-0 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that .the lea.rned "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 f9;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&connected.matters Page 67 of74 m- ) app(gals filed by iand owners in respect whereof grid It^s been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶86All Land Acquisitign Appeals filed by the land ov/vners 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 Rajapgr Kalan pertaining to the •notification dated 22.8,2001 in sum of ?16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands compensation awarded at ?16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or • cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed,

¶87Pertaining to §uch appeal where compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits ps per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 56'9 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 obje.ctors would be entitled-to proportionate cost. . . . . • • Villade Sanoth Notificstion dated 7.12.2001

¶88.. .With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherei.'n with effect-from ' 1.4.2001 minimum •pricG-notified per atre is'115 .70 lakhs per''acre :and requiring •• said 'price--tb 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,i09/-, rounded off to f17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2,5% the prjc^ 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 price with LA.App,No.266/2008 & connected matters rererence to the sale cjeed for the date 7,12.2001; the mean average price for Category'A' lands in villageSanoth'comesto n7,29,500/-per acre. Noting that pil lands in villageSanoth as per the award and as per the ReferenceCourtar^ of same value i hold that for acquired lands In village Sanoth for the notificationdated..7..I2..2001the lar!d-..own,e^s--would.be entitled to the enhancedcompensationin sum of f17,29,500/-.

¶89All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union of India • and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepa.redand labeledas 'GRID-K'hereinaboveare dismissed.

¶90All Land Acquisition Appeals-filed'by the land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners In appealsfiled 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. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 559 snail be granted, except for the period vyhere there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objecdon, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. The$e'appellants 'Or cross objectors would be entitled CO proportionate cost. ViilaQe Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2Q02

¶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 t price .for qatagory"'A' lands has been determined by me st ^'18;65v5G6/---per--acre-'-andsinee-^ days between the date of sale and the notificationi maintain that for the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners'areentitledto corripehsationat the rate or ?18,65,50u/- A,App.No,266/2008&connectedJV!..tars • Page^9 of/4 ( ^ - ' Sed--5ti-',^7-~ "leu oy tne land owners as per thp 'Roin i' . .. i ''7 owr"'' compenslLrZ^and i fTd^'lentitled to all statutory benefits as per the . and A.qu,s,tion Act 1894 as. interpreted in the judgn^en rted as ,001 ,93, PLT 569 exce tZ ' z:: t" . . costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross oDiectionsfiled by Union of India are dismissed. Penaining to the ^notification dated

23.5.2002 I^ertamingto villageSliahpurGarhl, noting that the date of fhe ^ oeeo and the notificationhas adifferentialof only 3days I . ".0 :nat pertainingto this notification,since land is of' same -a^egpry,the land owners wouldfie entitledto compensationat • ^.:e.rateof ri8.65,500Awiti, statutorytenefitsas per the Land, AcquisitionAct 1894-asinterpretedin the decision reportedas ^JOderVsUJQl2001 (93) DLT'569 except in such appeals,or ^ross objectionsfiJed by land,ownerswhere there is adelay, no interest would be paid for the'period'-ofdelay. Proportionats costs stand awarded. Ali such'appealsand cross objections'by -ang owner^ as per •<3,RID-M'stind allpWed as;aferesaidand aii'^ appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are d.i.5miss&d. - i '• 2 ^. S.200^—. pertaining to the riOtification dated •c:>.o.^o02 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been created,in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition -,-^.ApirNo./6fcv'2008&conjiectedmatters. . : •• Page70 of74. m I'' Collectpr and .the 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 inasm^uch as for the date 23,5.2002 I have held that fair market value would be ^18,65,500/- per, acre and thus all appeals and •cross objections'filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by th.e learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to ?I8,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. No costs. Village Ali Pur Notification dated 23.5.2Q02 j I

¶94Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity.of reasons qua the said notification relatihg' to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at ^18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals cross objections filed by Union of India-as per 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land, owners as per said Grid are, allowed by enhancing compensation .payable, to,,, f 18,6,5,5.00/- per acrg, on.,vyhich statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported bs -Sunder Vs. UP! 2001

(93) DLT 569 shall be paid save except in such appeals .or cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not b.e pa,id-for-the period of del-ay, Propgrtipnate costs as well. Village 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&connectedmatters . Page71o-f74 m I • that the learned tand AcGiuisiti(DnCollector 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 the price as of 1,4.2001 with reference to the notificationissued by the Governmentas also by increasingthe same with reference to the sale deed dated

20.5,2002 talcing the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to n9,43,500/^ per acre and for Category .'B' land the price comes to ^18/94,912.50. per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ns,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at tl9,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by'land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they p%rtain to Category 'B' and Category •'€' lands and simJIar wouid-be'the fate of appeals and cross',objectioris filed by ijnjonof India pertainingto 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 fl9,43,500/- per,acre 'and needless to state,on the .enhanced comp.ensation statutory benefits.as'per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as-interpreted in the jud.gment reported as Sunder 1/5. UO/ 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 relatab'le decree in the Reference Order'by reducing compensation for' Category 'B' land to LA.App.No.266/2008$c conneetedmatters Page 73of 74 m -nu -I W8,9ft,912,50 :per -acre and for Category x' land to n8,47,S39.68 per acre, ' • Wl^qgJSlia^ur^^^

27..1 • reasoningas iDer para 96 -above pertaining to village Sanoth, -sinnJIar corrective,action is to be required pertaining-to l.ands acquired pursuant to notification dated 27,1.2003rela.ting'tovillage Rajapur Kalan and wher? Ifind-that the learned-Reference Court has -in some-cases awarded compensation,in sum of ^9,13,765/- per acre and in spme cases at t19,16,04-0/-per acre by treating all lands of uniform rategory. On ,the mean average basis which i have been ,• rollowing by increasingthe price as of 1,4.2001 with reference' , to the, notification issued.,by the Government, as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed ,dated 20,5,2002and tal<ing the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price:comes t,p:vfl9,4-3;,.500/-.per-acre.and for Catego.ry'B', land;th,eprice cp-rri-^sto'?18,94,912.50per acre and for Category 'C lands the price-comes-totl8,47,539^68per'^cre TbUs^&uch appeals-or cross -•objections which have -been'filed by.land - owners.the same have to be dismissedin'so far they pertainto Categoiy 'B' and Category 'C lands and sinnilar would be the fate of appeals-'and cross'objections filed by' Union of India pertainingto-Category 'A' lands. The said',appeals and cross objections as per 'QRIP-Q' are dismissed,- Appeals "and cross objecti.onsfiled by land owners pertainingto Category'A' Ignds are' allowed by decreeing compensation payabte in sum of tl9,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpreted in the judgment, reported as Sunder Vs. 'UO! 2001 (93) DLi-569 .,.shal-i be paid save and, except in such appeals.and cross objections w,here, there is a delay, interest LA.,App.No.266/2008&cpm-ieetedniacters Pagg 73 of.74 ' / would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as weil. The appeals and erosis objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by modifying the reidtable decree iii the Reference Order by reducing compensation for Category 'B' land to ns,94,912.50 per acre for Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.58 per acre. AUGUST 23, 2011 mm/dk (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters . Page74 of74

\ $--23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 179/2012 SUNIL KUMAR CHAUHAN & ORS Appellants Through: Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Sahay, Standing Counsel ^ for LAC y Mr.Kunal Kohli, Advocate for DSIIDC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR