Khazan Singh Decd Thr Lrs v. Union of India & Ors

ORDER %

29.05.2012 Learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that in view of the decisionof this Court in LA.App.No.266/2008,Jai Singh vs. Union ofIndia and ors.^ renderedon August2011, this appeal has to be dismissed. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. flL 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 PELHI AT DELHI 12'''Ai/nnc:t-70 n + U.APP. 2'.56/200& JAI SINGH Appellant - fl^fChaturvedi,Mr.DeepakKhosia, Mr.S.K.Yadav,N-^r.M.C.V/erma •Mr.V.P.Rana,Mr.RajSln^h ' • Mr.UdayRam, Mr.D.,R.Tomar Mr.l.S.Dahiya,Mr.iM.S.Dalal Mr.S.M.Bhardwaj,Mr.B.P.Gupta, Mr s K.Rout, Mr.b.S.Rana, Mr.Sunil ' Dalai, Mr.D.S.Khatri and Mr.T,P.S.Kang,Advocates Vs. UOI & ANR. • ^ ••,.. -• -ru , •-sspondents-•: - '• Through; Mr.SanjayPoddar.SeniorAdvocate'" MrSachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran Advocates for R-1, • ^li^^^suya Salvvan, Advocate for l^r.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan Mathur Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun Birbal Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi and Ms.Beenashaw Soni • Advocates for PDA. AIMP ' . (GRID-A) + U.APP., 259/2008, LA.APP, 264/2008 1_A APP 278/2008 &CM APPL.. 5338/2009 (Cross Obiectrs,,.U.APP: LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatteFS p i rfige 1 oi 74 ! \ •./ •279/2008, LA.APP. 280/2008 & CM APPL, 5261/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 281/2008, LA.APP. 284/2008, LA.APP, 2H6/200'8, LA.APP. 287/2008, LJX.APP, 289/2008, LA.APP. 290/2008, LA.APP. ' 291/2008, LA.APP. . 292/2008, LA.APP. 293/2008, LA.APP. 294/2008 & CM APPL. 12918/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP. 296/2008, 299/2008, LA.APP, 301/2008, LA.APP. 303/2008., LA.APP. 311/2008, LA.APP. 337/2008, LA.APP, 357/2008, LA.APP. 394/2008, LA.APP. 413/2008, LA.APP, 443/2008, U\,APP. 483/2008, LA.APP". 484/2008, LA.APP, 492/2008, LA.APP. 493/2008, UX.APP. 496/2008, LA.APP. 526/2008, LA.APP. 535/2008, LA.APP. 537/2008, LA.APP. 545/2008, LA.APP. 546/2008, LA.APP. 554/2008, LA.APP. 563/2008, LA.APP. 621/2008, LA.APP, 623/2008, LA.APP, 628/2008, LA.APP. 635/2008, LA.APP. 649/2008, LA.APP. 662/2008, 304/2008, 339/2008, 401/2008, 472/2008, 487/2008, 495/2008, 527/2008, 541/2008, 548/2008, 566/2008, 627/2008, 648/2008,. 724/2008 756/2008, 861/2008, •880/2008, •895/2008, 907/2008, 925/2008, 931/2008, 934/2008, 941/2008, 946/2008, 999/2008 1014/2008, 1026/2008, 1244/2008, 1268/2008, & CM APPL. 5353/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP^ 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP. '875/2008, LA.APP, LA.APP. 888/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 905/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 910/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 926/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 932/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 936/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 942/2008, 1_A.APP. LA.APP. 955/2008, LA.APP. & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross LA.APP, 1019/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP: 1273/2008, CM APPL. 879/2008, 894/2008, 906/2008, 911/2008, 927/2008, 933/2008, 939/2008, 944/2008, 958/2008, Objections), 1023/2008, 1071/2008, 1256/2008,- 2377/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA A PP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. •LA.APP. U\,APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAAPP. LAAPP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 'LA.APP. LA.APP. UV.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lA.APP. (Cross Objections)U\.APP. 86/2009, lA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 97/2009, LA.APP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, IJ\,APP. 111/2009, LA.APP. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, LA.APP. 251/2009, LA.APP. 252/2009, LA.APP, 265/2009, LA.APP. 266/2009 & CM APPL No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), UX.APP, LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters 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. 535/20O9 & CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009 & CM APPL. 12917/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 543/2009, LA.APP. '544/2009, LA.APP. 269/200.9, LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APP. 306/2009, LA.APP. 521/2009, U\.APP. 12886/2011 (Cross 556/2009, LA.APP, 570/2009 & CM APPL.13873/2011, 589/2009, LA.APP. 593/2009, LA.APP. 594/2009, 634/2009, '[J\.APP. 635/2009, LA.APP, 536/2009, 637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, UX.APP, 643/2009 APPL.13878/2011, LA.APP. 1/2010, LA.APP. 29/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & CM LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 104/2.010, lAAPP. 105/2010, LA.APP. 108/2010, U\.APP. 109/2010, LA.APP. 169/2010, LA..APP. 170/2010, LA.APP. 220/2010, U\,APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 (Cross 520/2010 CM. APPL.13968/2011, LA.APP. 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 523/2010, LA.APP. 524/2010 & CM APPL. 12914/2011 Objections), U\.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters 107/2010., 168/2010, 171/2010, 426/2010, Objections), 521/2010, CM APPL. 522/2010, LA.APP. (Cross (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, UX.AEP. 527/2010, LA.APP. 528/2010, LA.APP. 529/2010, LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM' APPL. 229/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 531/2010, LA.APP. 532/2010 & CM APPL 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 533/2010 & CM APPL 12898/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 534/2010, LA.APP. 535/2010 & CM APPL, 12867/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 & CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 537/2010, LA.APP, 538/2010 & CM APPL. 12972/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 539/2010 St CM APPL 12900/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP. 541/2010, LA.APP. 542/2010 Si CM APPL. 19857/2010 (Cross Objectiotis), U\.APP. 543/2010 St CM APPL. 12903/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL 12888/2011' (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010, [_A.APP. 556/2010, LA.APP. 581/2010, LA.APP, 592/2010 & . CM APPL 227/2011 -(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 593/2010 8i CM APPL. 12969/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 594/2010, LA.APP, 595/2010 & CM APPL 226/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 596/2010, LA.APP. 597/2010 & CM APPL. 228/2011 (Cross Objections); LAAPP. 598/2010 Sl cm APPL. 487/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 600/2010 & CM APPL, 12897/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP. 601/2010, LA.APP. 602/2010, UX.APP. 603/2010 St CM APPL. 12881/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP. 66-3/2010-St CM APPL 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 666/2010 St CM APPL. 6748/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 675/2010 St CM APPL. 9988/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 761/2010, LA.APP. 792/2010 St CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 793/2010 St CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. 40/2011, . LA.APP. 195/2011 St CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 215/2011, LA.APP. 229/2011, UX.APP, 230/2011, LA.APP. 232/2011, lA.APP. 233/2011, UX.APP. 12899/2011 (Cross 795/2010, LA.APP. 12892/2011 (Cross 228/2011, LA.APP. 231/2011, U.APP. 389/2011, LAAPP. 425/2011 420/2011, LA.APP. 424/2011, LA.APP, ^

07.08,2000 & Award No,19,/2002-03,ViHage-PoothKhurd) • • ' AND • (GRID.B) 972/20^08 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Objections) ., ^ CM 2099/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APp! ^ 12216/2011 (Cross Objecti.ons), LA.APP,' f 2345/2009 (Cross Objections), LA,APP, ^ 2102/2009 (Cross Objections), LA^.APP, 1153/2008 & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections) LA APP 1154/2008,. LA,APP. 1187/2008, LA.APP, 1188/2008 UAPP 1189/2008, LA,APP, 1218/200-8, u:aPP. 15/2009 U,APP 82/2009, U\.APP'. 100/2009, LA.APP. _102/2009, LA.APP. 113/2009, LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009 LA APP 214/2011. . ' (Relating,to Notification u/s'4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award-. No 11/2001-02-, Village-fHolambiKalan)' ^ ' AND (GR!D-C) + IJX.APP. 359/2007, LA.APP. 202/2007, U\.APP. 382/2007 U\.APR 383/2007, LA.APP. 269/2008, LA.APP; 811/2008, LA.APp' 928/2008, IJX.APP. 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/2009, LA.APP. (Relating to Notifi.cati'on u/s 4 dated' 07.08.2000 & Award No 08/2001-02, Viliage-Bawana) AND (GRID-D) + LA.APP. 144/2011, U.APP. 145/2011 & CM 12911/2011 (Cross Objections),U.APP. 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011(Cross Objections), LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters-r (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

11.09.2000 & Award No. 20/2002-03, Village-Khera Khurd) • . AND (GRip-E) + LA.APP. 58672009, LA.APP. 520/2009, U\.APP. 621/2009, LA.APP. '646/2009, LA.APP, 91/2010, LA.APP. 93/2010, LA.APP, 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP; 191/2010 CM No. 22402/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 192/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, lAAPP. 197/2010, LA.APP. 297/201O, UX.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, LA.APP, 338/2010, LA.APP, , 370/2010 & (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 373/2010, LA.APP, 494/2010, LA.APP. 497/2010 & LA.APP. 498/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& 193/2010, 196/2010, 299/2010, 309/2010, 3555/2011 493/2010, 496/2010, Objections), 500/2010, Objections), Objections), 505/2010, 508/2010, 511/2010, 514/2010, 517/2010 518/2010, 611/2010, 618/2010, 621/2010, 628/2010, Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & CM No. U\.APP. UX.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 & LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. 495/2010, ' LA.APP. CM No. 22728/2010 (Cross LA.APP. 499/2010, LA.APP. CM No. 23186/2010 (Cross CM No. 10382/2011 (Cross LA.APP, 504/2010, LA.APPv LA.APP. 507/2010, LA.APP. • 510/2010', LA.APP. 513/2010, LA.APP. 516/2010, (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 610/2010, LA.APP. 613/2010, LA.APP. 620/2010, LA.APP. 623/2010, CM No. 3847/2011 LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross 650/2010, 'LA.APP. .651/2010 & CM No. 3560/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 652/2010, LA.APP. 841/2010, LA.APP. 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross Obiections), LA.APP. 853/2010, lA.APP. 854/2010 S( 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 Obiections), LA.APP. 1008/2010 & CM No. 9966/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1021/2010, LA.APP. 78/2011, LAAPP. 79/20]1 LA.APP. 80/2011, LA.APP, 81/2011, LA,.APP, 82/2011, LAAPP '83/2011, LA.APP. 84/2011, LA.APP. 85/2011, LA.APP. 86/2011, LAAPP. 87/2011, LA.APP, 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/2011, LA APP 324/2011 & CM APPL.15110/2011, LA.APP. 385/2011. LA.A,pp,No.266/200R&connectednmtters U (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

02.05,2001St Award No. 24/2003-04, Vil.lage-Narela) AND (GRID-F) + U\,APP. 497/2008, LA.APP. .141/2009 Si CM 5302/2010 (Gross Objections). ' (Relati'ng to Notification u/s 4 dated

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

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

22.08.2001 St Award No. •15/2b03-04, Village-AliPur) AND (GRlD-i) + LA.APP. 481/2010 ^A.App.No.266/2008& connected matters • i (Relating to "Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 9/2003-04,"Village-Holambi Kl^urd) AND (GRID-J) + LA.APP. 780/2010 & CM .No.2661/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM No.3833/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 900/2010 & CM No.3541/2011 (Cross Objections), L7\.APP. 970/2010, lA.APP. 971/2010 & CM No.3805/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM No.2667/2011 (Cross Objections), U.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 Si CM No.9990/2011, LA.APP. 980/2010 & CM No.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP. 982/2010 & CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP. 983/2010 St CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections), U\.APP. 984/2010 & CM No.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2010 & CM, No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 986/2010, [J\,APP. 988/2010 CM No.3836/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP, 990/2010, LA.APP. 991/2010 & CM No.9984/2011 (Cross Objections)," LA.APP. 1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 & CM No,9970/2011 (Cross Objections), U\.APP. 1018/2010, LA.APP. 1020/2010

¶6,CM No.12939/2 (Cross 0bjections)011, LA.APP. 1024/2010. St ..CM No.6771/2011 • (Cross Objections), LA.APP.' 1/2011 CM No,12964/2011 (Cross Objections), IJ\.APP. 2/2011 CM No.6752/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.- 25/2011, UX.APP. 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, U\.APP. 53/2011 & CM,No.6766/2011 (Cross Objections), '.U^.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, U\,APP, 252/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22,08,2001 & Award No,20/2003-04, Viliage-Rajapur Kaian) AND (GRID-K) LA,App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters• • + LA.APP, 488/2008, LA.APP. 490/2008, LA.APP. 491/2008, LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. .755/2008, U.APP. 86:8/2008 & CM No, 10393/2009 (Cro,ss Objections), LA.APP, 896/2008 Si CM No.5364/2010 (Cross Objections), U^.APP, 897/2008, LA.APP. 1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP. 34/2010 & CM No,7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 488/2010, LA,APP-, 605/20.10, U.APP, 616/2010, LA.APP, 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, Lj!\..APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011, LA.APP. 421/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s No. 17/2003-04, Village-Sanotli) dated

07.12,2001 & Award AND (GRIP-L) + LA.APP. 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP, 344/2008, LA.APP. 352/2008, LA.APP. 364/2008, LA.APP. 385/2008, LA.APP. 387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP. 464/2008Si CM No,11333/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 465/2008, ' LAAPl^. 466/2008,' LA.APP. 468/2008& •.•'CM No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 469/2008, -LA.APP. 47072008, LA.APP.- 561/2008, • LA.APP, 676/2008, LA.APP. 681/2008, lA.APP. 722/2008, LA.APP.- 786/2008, LA.APP, 842/2008, LA.APP. 883/2008, LA.APP. ' 924/2008,' LA.APP. 938/2008, LA.APP. 945/2008, LA.APP. 998/2008, lA.APP, 1007/2008, LA.APP. 1079/2008, LA.APP. 309/2009, LA.APP. 465/2009, LA.APP. 546/2009, LA.APP. 624/2009, UX.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. U\.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. lA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LAAPP. LAAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, 560/20.08, 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.AP'P, 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. LTX.APP. LA.APP. 35/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s '4 dated

16.05.2002 & Award No. 29/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters AND .(GRID-M) + 'LA.APP, ,338/2008, LA.APP. 343/2008, U.APP. 356/2008, LA.APP, 356,/2008,;LA.APP. 367/2008, LA.APP. 368/2008, LA.APP, 369/20d-8-, UX.APP, 370/2008, U.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP, 384/2008, U.APP. 386/2008, LA.APP. 388/2008, LA.APP. 389/2008, U.APP. • 434/2008, LA.APP. 435/2008, U.APP. 436/2008, U.APP. 444/2008, U.APP. 456/2008& CM No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 458/2008, U.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 CM No. 16150/2008 U.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. Objections), 680/2008, 720/2008, 760/200&, 823/2008, 908/2008, 1022/2008, 1053/2008, 308/2009, 385/2009, 540/2009, U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. U.APP, U.APP. U.APP. 715/2008, 723/2008, 767/2008, 824/2008, 909/2008, 1024/2008, 173/2009, 311/2009, 463/2009, 542/2009, U.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. U.APB. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. 562/2008, 716/2008, 757/2008, 793/2008, 837/2008, 952/2008, 1025/2008, 307/2009, 384/2009, 467/2009, 548/2009, (Cross U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.AF^P. U.APP. U.APP, U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. 627/2009, U.APP. 631/2009, U.APP. 22/2010, U.APP., 30/2Q10. (Relating to Notification u/s dated No.22/2003-04, Viliage-^Shahpur Garhi)

23.05.2002 & Award AND (GRID-N) + U.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2008 (Cross Objections), U.APP, 1149/2008, LA.APP, 263/2009., U.APP, 304/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 12/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 d'ated 23.05.2002 & Award No. 16/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kaian) AND (GRID-O) -I-U.APP.379/2008, U.APP. 381/2008, U.APP. 390/2008, LA,APP. 494/2008, LA.APP. 499/2008, U.APP. 530/208, U.APP, 836/2008 Si CM 5300/2010 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 310/2009 & CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 782/2010, U.APP. •LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page9 of 74 o sSrr''?™ AND - (GRjp-P) + LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009(Cross Ohipn-innc^ ^.APP. 655/2008, U.APP. 574/2008&CM No.7818/2009(Cross Objectioris), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP.- 705/2008 LA APP 706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 &' (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008 LA,APP. 885/2008, 7837/2009 882/2008, 898/2008 902/2008, 929/2008 930/20()8 960/2008,- Objections), Objections), 122/2009 123/2009, 174/2009, 261/2009, 293/2009, 302/2009, 433/2009, 471/2009, 518/2009, 531/2009, & CM No.2355/2009 LA.APP. 922/2008, & CM No.2351/2009 & CM No.7821/2009 LA.APP. 980/2008 UKAPP. 981/2008 LA.APP. 982/2008, LA.APP. (Cross LA.APP. (Cross (Cross &L CM & CM 891/2008, Objections), 923/2008, Objections), Objections), No.855/2010 No.1261/2009 CM No, 1-A.APP. I-A,APP. IJ\,APP. LJX.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Cross. (Cross LA.APP. LA.APP. Lj^.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 124/2009, 250/2009, 262/2009, 299/2009, 303/2Q09, 449/2009, 487/2009, 527/2009, 533/2009, LA.APP. 983/2008 & CM MnR^Qnmn^r LA.APP. 984/2008 &-CM ^ Objections), LA.APP. 985/2008, LA.APP, 997/2008, LA,APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008' LA APP 1027/2008 LA.APP. 1078/2008 &CM No.2247/2009^foTs Objections), LA.APP. 1123/2008, -LA..APP. 1127/2008 & CM 1246^/2nnR°°^^ LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP. I7™nn« ^ CM NOM0387/2009 (Cross Objections), L^'APP. 1257/2008 Li\.APP., 1258/2008 & CM No.7791/2009 (Cross Objections, LA.APP,. 13/2009 & CM No,215.1/2009 Cross Objections).LA.APP. 22/2009,LA.APP. 83/2009, LA APP 99/2009 LA.APP. 103/2009,LA.APP. 104/2009,L7\.APP. 107/2009'LA APP 115/2009 & CM No,6482/2.010 (Cross Objections)H APP & CM No,14321/2009 (Cross Objections)', LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LJ\.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. LA.APP, LA,APP. 128/2009, 260/2009, 264/2009, 301/2009, 365/2009, 461/2009, 501/2009, 530/2009, 537/2009, LA.APP. LA,APP, U.APP. LA.APP. 1J\.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. V LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters // 538/2009, LJ\,APP. 545/2009, LA.APP. 554/2009, LA.APP. 555/2009, LA.APP, 558/2009, LA.APP., 585/2009, LA.APP. 588/2009, LA-.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP. 625/2009, LA.APP. 626/2009, LA.APP. 629/2009, LA.APP. 649/2009, lAAPP, 38/2010, LA;APP.. 43/2010, LA.APP. 1.31/2010, LA.APP. 202/2010, LA.APP. ^OS/ZOIO, LA:APP. 204/2010, LA.APP. 225/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP, 269/2010, LA.APP. 410/2010',. • U\.APP. 480/2010, U\,A;PP, 484/2010, L^.APP. 487/2010, & cm' No.19878/2010 LJX.APP. 608/2010, •LA.APP. ' 615/2010, LA.APP. 705/2010, Si CM No.12968/2011 & CM No.12967/2011 227/2010, 372/2010, •479/2010, 483/2010, 486/2010, 606/2010 607/2010, 614/2010, 695/2010, 785/2010 786/2010 787/2010, 790/2010, LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. 820/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. 821/2010, 916/2010 Si CM No.6773/2011 14/2011 Si CM No.6754/2011 26/2011 Sl cm-No.6763/2011 55/2011' & CM • No,.12894/2011 (Relating to l\|otification u/s No.11/2004-05, Viilage-S.anoth) LA.APP, 303/2010, LA.APP, LA.APP. 43,8/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP. LA.ARP. 485/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP.. 604/2010, LA.APP. (Cross, .Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 609/2010,- LA.APP. LA.APP. 671/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.APP., (Cross Objections), LA.APP. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. lAAPP. 789/2010, LA.APP.' CM No.12880/2011 (Cross LA.APP. 915/2010, LA.APP, (Cross Objections), LA-APP. (Cross Objections), L.AAPP, (Cross' Objections), LA.APP. (Cross Objections), Ca.APP. 59/2011, LA.APP, 63/2011, U\.APP. 69/2011, LA'.APP. 70/.2'Ori, LA.APP. 72/2011'St CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 76/2011 Sl CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.- 114/2011 Sl CM No.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 135/2011, LA,APP. , 136/2011 & CM No,12971/2 (CjQSS 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, dated

27.01.2003 Si Award AND (GRID-Q) + lAAPP. 336/2010 & CM APPL.14845/2011, LA.APP. 624/2010, lA.APP. 625/2010, LA.APP. 626/2010, LA.APP. 627/2010 & C.M. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 629/2010, LA.APP. 630/2010, LA.APP. 642/2010, UkAPP. 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA.APP. 645/2010 & C.M, LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters No.3587/2011 (Cross Objeetions), LA.APP. 546/2010, LA.APP. 664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. 667/2010, LA.APP. 668/2010, U\.APP. 669/2010 & 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 S( C.M. No.3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, •702/2010, UV.-APP. 703/2010 Si C.M. No.9941/2011 (Cross Objections), LA,APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 & C.M. No,12878/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP, 735/2010, LA,APP. 736/2010, LA.APP. . 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP. 739/2010 & C.M. No.3569/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 740/2010 & CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 800/2010 Si C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP. 802/2010, LA.APP. 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010, lAAPP. 809/2010, LA,APP. 810/20T0, LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP. 812/2010, LA.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010, LA.APP, 815/2010, LA,APP, 815/2010 & 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, LA,APP, 922/2010, LA.APP", 923/2010, LA.APP. 924/2010, U\,APP, 925/2010, LA,APP. 945/2010: Sl C.M-. NO.-3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.' 975/2010 C.K. No.2664/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/201Q& C.M. No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, •LA.APP. 56/2011 Si C.M. No,9939/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP, 98/2011, lA^.APP. 99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011, LA.APP. 104/2011, LA.APP. 105/2011, LA.APP. 106/2011, LA.APP. 107/2011, LA.APP. 108/2011, LA.APP. 109/2011, LA.APP. 113/2011, LA.APP. 165/2011, LA.APP.329/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

27.01.2003 Si Award No.10/2004-05, Viliage-Rajapur Kalan) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1WhetLier the Reporters of local papers nnay be ollovyed to.see the judgnnent?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the'judgment should be reported in the Digest? LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page13 of 74 PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

¶110' villages; namely, Pogth Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, All Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue District (North-West) and if we see the map of the city of Delhi we would find that these villages lie in the North-Western part of Delhi. They lie within an area between the 'V formed by Rohtak Road i.e., NH-10 and G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-l. The Delhi-Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-l. Whereas villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway, line and NH-I, the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line, Narela and Shahpur Garhi are towards the-east of the railway line, The urbanized city of Delhi where the cglony Rohini exists h3S been developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1951 and is situated in the land within the aforesaid 'V. Bawana Industrial Estate came up on lands which were acquired' post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid 'V, Historically, except for village Narela, all villages have been treated as equivalent with-respect to their location,

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

7.8.2000,

11.9,2000,

2.5.2001, .22.8.2001, 7,12.2001, 15,5.2002, 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 §aid 10 villages were acquired and save and except lands in the Revenue Estate of village Narglg where purpose of acquisition was partly residential and 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 & connecteclmatters road or freight complex, The reason why such large tracts of lands were needed was to set up an industrial estate pursuant to a decision taken-to shift all industries operating in non-conforming areas within-Delhi to conforming areas. 3' .1 must, highlight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in all appeals filed by them as also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Sgye and •except pertaining to village Narela, where-an additional-argum-ent was advanced; being that, the township of Narela had existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Narela had a better value and for which it was urged that way back in the year 1963 when lands in the revenue estate of village Narela and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of ?2/-.per sq.yd., vis-a-^vis price determined for ..lands-in V-illa,-ge Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight-that learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi being in Mamurpur. 4-. The position of the awards made from time to time and the reiatable 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 sgme, 5'. A 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 and wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters c 4' to 6', the land value has been appropriately depressed and this is to be found in a few awards where lands have been put in 2 or 3, categories i.e. Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'c. • ' .

¶6. A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the learned Reference Court has determined fair market value on different principles and for purposes of clarity I may note basis on which learned Land Acquisition Collector and 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 w.as acquired in,viljage Pqoth Khurd,- for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against ^13.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?12.-25 i.acs.'per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the policyfor 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 15 of74 per aere which has been enhanced by the learned Reference Court to ?14,1-2,995./" per acre by relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (Vl). AD Delhi Gairai Vs. <70/wherein for the date 15,11.1996 fair market value determined was ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and treating the'said date and the said price"as the base, giving 12% per annum appreciation for a period of 3 years. 8 months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been determined. C. Pertaining to the same notification dated

7.8.2000 pursuant whereto agricultural' lands in village Bawgna were acquired, the Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value for Category 'A' lands, with reference to the policy and fixed the same at ?13.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and-t'12.62' iaGS per acre for 'Category 'B' lands.' ' The" learned Reference Court maintained the same.- D. Pertaining to notification 'dated 11,9.20Q0 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd were acquired for shifting industrial units, the Land Acquisition Collector has, for Category 'A' lands -determined fair-niarket value, with reference to. the policy effective from 1.4.2000 In sum of ?13.82 lacs per acre and for'Category 'B' lands has fixed the' same at ^12.62 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted the policy wherein minimum price fixed' as of

1.4.2000 was ?13.82 lacs per a'cre 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 the policy of minimum price with effect from 1.4.2001 the LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters (i learned Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value in sum of tl5.7 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of

1.4.2001 and for Category 'B' lands determined sanie at ?14 lacs per acre, The learned Reference Court adopted minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001 and gave appreciation for a period of 1 month for the reason the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is dated 2.5,2001 a,nd enhanced compensation to ^15,85,700/- per acre which has uniformly awarded. F, Pertaini.ng to notification dated

22.8.2001 whereunder 512,15 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on the minimum price notified as of 1.4,2001 i;.e. "?15.7 lacs per. acre which' has been held to be the fair market Value for Category -'A' lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determined at ?14 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with r-gference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e..'^15-.7 lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum for 143 days and the price so fixed is ^16,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded. , G,Pertaining to same notification dated 22,8.2001 pursuant whereto 512,15 bigha land was acquired in village Alip.ur,.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 pursuantwhereto 192.15 bigha of land was acquired in village LA.App.No.266/2008&connecjtedmatters , 17 of74 Holambi Khurd, reasoning of the UXC and learned Reference Court and the price determined is the same as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in the same uniform-category,", , I. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22,8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural' lands in village Rajapur Kalan were acquired reasoning and fair market value determined by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd and Alipur save and except in this village_theacquired land was of uniform category. j, . Pertaining to the 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, the- . learned Land Acquisition Collector has . .assessed compensationuniformly in sunn of ^15.7 lacs per acre which, is the'same-as per-the -policy for minimum price w.e.f, 1.4.;20O.l and'theMearned 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 would be entitled to enhance compensationat the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded. I may highlight that the learned Reference Court has not worked out the compensation and has left it to the Executing Court to do so, however J find that the enhanced compensation which would work out would b.e LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedHIalters - Page 18.of74 '^17,75,369.44 per acre for the reason treat!ncj the base (;Jate as

1.4.2001 and the-base price at ?15.7 lacs, for 1 year and 45 days to reach the date 16,5.2001, appreciation would be at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned Additional Sessions Judge, L. • Pertaining to the, notification dated

23.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court have determined same compensation as per the reasoning pertaining to same village for notification dated 15,5.2002 and I find that since there is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision of the Reference Court comes to ?17,79,781.78 per acre,' M. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23,5,2002 pursuant: wh.ereto ,445,81 bigha. land in village,, Holambi.,^ was'^acquired, the learned LAC has determined fair market value in' sum of ?15,7 lacs per acre which is the san'ie as-per tn-3jnimu.m price w.e.f. 1.4.2001.' The learned Reference.Court has a0.0pte(^' the same reasoning as was adopted while deternnining the fair market value of lands in village Hoiamlpi Kalan which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 7.8..20.G0i.e. adopted the price determined-as of 15.1U996 iiTthe decision.in Oairaj's case (supra) and' appreciating the same by 12% compounded per annum the price determined is ?22,14,239/- per acre. N. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.5.2002 pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Alipur were acquired learned Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at the rate of ?15.7 lacs per acre based on the .mininium 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 19 of74 1,4.2001 till 23.5.2002, the price determined is "?1J,85,240/- per acre. •

¶0, Pertaining to tine notification dated

27.1,2003 pursuant-whereto 3092,04 bigha land in village Sanoth'.and 2188,03 bigha land in village Rajapur Kalan were acquired, learned Land Acquisition Collector, restin_g 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. tl,5,7 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. !n some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted minimum price in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre as of 1.4,2001 and appreciating the sarrie by 12% per annum for ,a period, Qf 566 days has fixed fair nnarket value at '^19,13,765/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference,Court has determined the fair marl<et value with reference to.a sale, deed 'Ex,Rr-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/-. • T. Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned "Reference Court have relied upon notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi, let me ,therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural-lands in Delhi since the,same would be-relevant for the present decision. The same woul-d be as under:- LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmaHens Page 20of 74 SI-.IXIo, pate of • Notifi-ca'tion Effictivi^ate'' of the price Price (in 'al<hs/aere)

1.

3.5.1990

2.

25.,7.I99T

3.

24.9.199a

4.

21.1172000 5,

9.8.200f

6.

9.8,2001 7; 30,8,2005"

¶824,1.2008 2'7.4,1990'

1.4.1997' 1V4.19'98

1.4.1999

1.4.2000 1,4.2001 30,-8.2005

18.12^007"

4.65

10.0 11,2

12.32 12,16 13,82 15,7

17.5"84~ % ~ increase per annum Ills 11V2 11,5 2,98 89,51

¶8From the-tabulation hereinabove noted It:-would be parent tnat atte. .ini™. "as last .ix.d•J, -4.1990 ,n sum of ?4.65 lakhs/acre it was Increased after" ne y7years to no laKhs/acreand the annual Increasecomes'

011.5/pper annum (simple), The nextyear i.e. w.e.f, 1,4 1998 ' he pnce was enhancedby 11.2% to reach the figure of'hi2 lakhs/acr^ and thereafter ".e:f. 21.11.2000 the price /was. enhanced to n2.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded,inasmuch as when the notificationdated c,,a 2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.1999 to 712.16 lakhs/acreI.e. the price Increased by 11% per annum with reference to the price determined as of .4.1998 and vide same notification the price was retrospect,veiyenhanced w.e.f. 1,4.2000 to n3.82 lakhs/acre increased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis the previous l,e. " .16 lakhs/acreand w.e.f. 1.4.2001the price rose by 11.5% per annum vis-a-visthe previous price of 713.82 iakhs/acreto LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page .21 Qf74 reach figure of ^U5,7' i3l<hs/acre. The price was next-enhanced W.e.f. 30.8.2005 to ?17.584 ial<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 figupe of ?17.584 lakhs/acre and the d^te 30.'8.2005.

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

22.^..20Q1 for village Holambi Kalan; ,.the notificgtion dat;ed

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

2.5.2001 fon,yill,age Narela; and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Ali .Pur; and the notification• dated

27.1,2003 for village Rajapur Kaian 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 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 Page 22 of74 requiring further correction by suitably depressing the pric^ for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that sucIt larids which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C', on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.

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

25.3.2O0Q, Ex,PW-l/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also sale deed dated

25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 bisv^/a agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ ?26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex,PW-l/2, 2 bigha and 3-9 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera KKurd for a sum. of ?32.4 lakhs and ad.ding 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 lakh,s/acne.a,n,cl' pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price -wpujd be "?6,3'.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.266/200? & connected mattens " y) K and for which the, argun-ient was that when in the past, pertaining to-a notification issued on 30,10.1963 under Section 4 of-the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur-Narela by_ giving, a price benefit of '?2/- per sq.yd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated

6.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UP/ i/5. Dharambir & Ors. The said decisipn would reveal that price per bigha in sum of ?6J50/- determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to ?16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to ?22,0G0/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored.

¶11Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative tp the first, that the learned Reference Court, h-.aving accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate,,, Narela Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having, resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developedinto-itesident.ialand-industrik'estates-,had resultedrih the^ subject lands^ having, acquired a buif'ding potentiality, required'fair market value to be determined with respect to'the price at which DSIDC and DDA. i.e. the implenlenting' 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 the-evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which i 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 Coul't in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Rdm LA.App-.No.266/2008&connected.raatters Page 24 of74 vs. Union of India, it was permissible to'determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the-fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier p.gint of time by giving suitable in'crease in the market; value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per ahnum 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 Dharambir's Q3SQ (supra) and thereafter @ 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 l" 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 I may h'ighliglit 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,.

16.5.20p2 and

23.5.2002, . ...

¶13The fourth argument advanced was, and for which f-0f0f-ence 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 LA,APP.No.292/2008 filed by Union of India, that fair marl<et 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^ connectedmaUers 25 of 74 i;@§tim©nyof KisKan tq t-hs effQeetfhat by selling i^ricgljsyFgi l^roduee frohn nis lands hg used to earn fi lakh p&r bigha pgr annum i.e, the fair marked value-' as of 7.8,2000 i.e. the date of th© ngtif.icBtion i.ssued under Section 4 of thg Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued faursuant whereto the land of i^am Kishan and-others were acquired., l-t was thus urg^d that the fair markft'value as of said date should be ^'20 lakhs per Iglgha, I may Inighlight that the fourth argument-was only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedl, learned counsel who appealed for Ram, Kishan • and others i.e. the a-ppeiiants in LA,APP.No.268/200§ and the .respondents in l^.APP.No.292/2008. 14, The fifth argument advanced V'Jbs by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate who-appeared' in a feyj 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 wN.ch was closest in point of time where--un.derminimum land value was fixed by the Government and the notification dated

24.1/2008 where under ?53 lakhs per acre was the minimum .price fixed .as^.pf18..12.2007;the,mean average,principle.tqbe .adopted was tht precise ^argument,

¶15The last argument, whieh was in the alternative,to the . first .5, •,pertained to'the^..notificationdated 27.1.2003, dealing •with Jiwbich., jnjsome:.,.Referencesthe iearn^ Reference GqiJrt ;-haiJ,vWith:::refecen^e<f:o-a sale d.eeci dated .:2Q^5,20P2i';.wl:i^5e unde:r 1 bigha and 13 biswa^-ofland compnsed-ihvKh.asraiNo^200 ,(1-13)'inthe revenueestate'ofvillage Rajapur'^Kalanw-as's&id'for J5.i39;,690/-;determijied,the ^fair marketvalue.,s^i-d -sale.deed-in-the-,following,words: '(Refer para 17 of the decision dated X1.2010'in LAC No.117A/2009) •: "if we add stamp, dutydn '•tiw-4hi& pnce''t3~69,906/' per ipigha ^5,39,690/- + 70/i60- - '6,09,850for1 bfgha and13hiswa) whiciieoiiies-totl7;74,ld9/-- •per • acre" or \3,^66,906/-perbigha. 'Further if'ive giv^ 12% LA.Ai3p.No.?66/2;008'& eonneGtedmatters Pag? 26 ot 74 imsr-esj-e on sdi0 .amgunt-fer inteFvming period b§twe.§n tfw datQ when sale deed was exQcut^d and the. daM Qf • notification a/S 4 .(20.05,2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 moms ii; comes to'^19,1^,0'37/'- (round off ^1946,040/-)." The argumeni; vvas that if we look at the award relatable to the gaiql aeguisitisn i.e. Award No,10/DC(NW)72O.04-O5, it would reveal that th^ award pertained to 21§8 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1022 bigha an(^ 18 biswa land wgs put in Category 'A', 45 bigha and t bIswa in Category 'B' and t-hg remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C. The subject sale deecj clearly referred t© the land being comprised in Khasra No.200 and that page NQ,5f-57 of the award would evidence that land comprised in Khgsra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and bisw.a ws§ plac@(^ in Category 'C. Whereas Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date.of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of X15.1 lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated

9.8.2001 where under said price hgid been fixed as the nninimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed; the.,san7A-,by,,^'l.;7 lakhs.^per acre for C^at^g^ry )a,nds, .faiir..ma,rket:-va].ue,.determined. ,whei"epf was ^.•14-Igkhs. p,e.r •acre'a:nd-further-depre'ss-ithe same :by another .-lakhs•pef 'acre•••'•for' •Category'''C' "lahds,' fgir'"•market value''determi'ned whereof was' ?12,3iakhsper acre.' It would bfe-'appar^ht'^-wlnat the argument•w.as! ^ The'argumentprecisely Was that;'if'tHe .market.value,had" to '.be''determinedwith' respect.^^9 ^111 sare .cleeiin. q,uesti,Qn,tip ^am^.hadj:o.,be;fQrC^tegop/'p';.l.ai|d|^n| •for-Caise,gary--'e'-en^ .Categpry.'A',J^r)^s,the,prix:@;h^d.|Q.be i^ncre^sed.by ?l;;7J,al<h,sper^^gcijefgr each category,v :.1.6.- .;:• ;-l-:haye-#lready,"n.oted;hereinabpve;the,srgym^ntS:,vyWch were'advanced;by-Sh.SanjayPpddar, learned-seniorcpunsekiwho appeared for the-Union-ofIndia and th.e same-are-r.ef.l.eeted-.-ip para-9 above a^nd hence rneed not repeat the same. •O'v '• UA.App.No.'266/200,8&o,dnnected-roatt6i"^^ P.^g&2,7Qf-W

¶17' In verfeus sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I h§v@ capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned-Reference Court pertaining to the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatgbie to the 10 villages ^nd thus I commence my journey to deal .with the-ai-g:uments advanced keeping in view the fgcts noted, as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various syb- •paras of 6 sfeove.

¶13But before dealing with arguments I n®@d te highlight various anoi^aiies which strike the reader at the. outsat, the sarr.cf would be:- A. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2Q00 vvhfrgin lands were acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for Category 'B' lands, having depressions and pits, deduction effected vi's4-vis • the., price for Category 'A' lands is ^^1.56 -lacs per acre and 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 gt tl,2 J.acj per acre and whj;le'd.eterminingfgir.market value for-agricultural;|aacjsJn •village: Narela-whiG.h were*'acquir:e.d.;pursua:nt;to,the,..n0tifiiatio.n dated 2,5'.200i:Hhe,deductibh 'effected is Xl j lacs'p^r ia@, which is the same' figure pdopted" when fair;market^y^'fu^ a^riculture11'aad'Hnvillage HolamW Kalah was c^eterniin^d^as'ef tbe •,d;ate-.22:.8._2001,.,. Pertainjng; to, the .notification,_%tfd v27;:1..2003and^neJatable to village Sanoth the price differential on said count has:agai-h'been taken-at*?1-:.7,lacs-'per acre'Jtb inter se diffkehtiat^ the price between Category 'A'] Category^'B'€ih'd Category/C' 'lands..'' In Other^words, the price,dir'fereritialhas va,ri:ed b,etw,eAP ^.1,2 lacs,^p@,r,,acre,.1,36.lacs p^r . lacs,per.:3qre.;.v;,,. . •;••• ;• ^ s l.A,,App.N!:3.266/20.0SSi Qpmieetecia^Eitlgrs Pagf IS of B'. The leapn@d Lanql Acquisition Collector has adopted n^inimunh price notified closest in point of time to the d'^te when Section 4 notification w^s issued without appreciating the land price with reference to the date of the Section 4 notification i.e. ho benefit of price rise for the intervening period hgg been given, C. The learned Referefice Court has adopted the minimum price notified, gnd has given apprecidtion ranging iDstween 11,5% per an.nuhr "and 12% per annum and in some eases has compounded the s^me and in some given said benefit at the simple rate. D. Pertaining to village Hoiambi Kalan where acquisitiong were made pursuant: to the notifications dated

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

15.11.1996 and has given appreciation at the rate of 12% simple per annum for the former notification and at the rate of 12% com.pounded^per,annum.for the latter, , E. ..Whereas ., for_ the ..notification dated .27.1.2003 ^.the le,arned^Reference:Court, Ir some-,references.,his,..dste|min^d 'the.ifain ^rn3r|<.et^;value-with^^referencey.to'the-Fninimum,price • riot!fi:fed'"as^of!'li^2003: and has'^given'appreciation; :ih some .cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale deed dated'2,0:5,2'0'02. ^ ^ ^ ; R. . Wherever the .le,arned Land Acquisition Cpll$ctG^^^ has .cla^ssified.landg^n^-Qategory'A', 'C\r^aspn^,th^iil£^%Vf /beeA'.gi-ve.nin the award but the learned'ReferenceCourt, while awarding-untforhi:compensation',--has given no rea'sonsvas^ti^v^'hy it'wastreatingalVfendsto be of-samech3racter.and±iUal.i%.-'

19." "• Since r%Wdealing-with'acquisitionsin-lO village'sahd'-f notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, 1think it advisableto put in a tabular form the Velg-vant XA^App,No.266/20GS:&connectedmatters '• " ' P?ig6#Qf'74 facts, whieh WQU'ld'be my iigta for further analysis, Pyt in a t,gbul|:r*fQrm thf-^iti vy.QijI.d b.e as under;- Village pate of Section Notification 'LAC corrnpensation (In lakhs/acre) with reasons • corn pgn git ion' (in lakhs/aci-ejwith reasons PooBn Khurd 7,8.'2000 Cat.'A''^13.82 Cat: 'B' ?12,26-Minimum price as of 1,4,200Q Cat, Uniform, ?14,:S728. , Minimum price as of 1,4.2000 with 12% incp^^s^^.a: Holamt^i Kalan 7,8:2000; • ?i3,82 Minimum price as Qf 1.4,2000 ^p,12995. • Price as in Gairai's case as of 15,11,1995 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi Kalan 22,8,2001 Cat.''A''?15,7 Cat, 'B' ?14 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat, Uniform. ?16,4381,1, Minimum pric© as of

1.4,2001 with 12% iner'eis© p.a. Holambi Kalan 23,-5,2002 ^15.7 Minimum price as of 1,4,2001 . ^•22,14239. Price as in Gairai'% case ss.- of "15',11.1996' • 'wit-h 12% incregisf p,a, (compQuncif^,) Bawana 7;8,20£)Q . Cat.. ''A'.?13.82 •Cat.' 'B'?12.62 "Minimum •.pflte as :Qfa.4,-2dfto:--: Nt3•V;:er)hI Qpmitnj:: given,.-. J • , V-Khera ' Khurd '11,9',2000 'Cat,^'A''^i3,82 Cat, 'B' ?12.62 .Minirwm pries-as ;0f.1:4.2000 - •Cat. UnifQj^m. • •^14^.40157 ; Minimum.: price as. •of,' ,;i:4:2:0aQi..wj^: incre4se'p:a:r' "Nar'^la '2,J.2QQ1 ^ Cat 'A'?15.7 . Cat, 'B' ?14 Minimum . price as •of 1,4.2001 Cat. Uniform. V i f15,857. ' Minimum, price as ,;0f. :i>;4.20Ol with lyA.App.No.266/2008 connectedmatters- •, Page30on4 T2% incpgigg •^IJ P^F^• •• 2l;8.l0Oa' (fat,,'A'?r5,7 • .Cat, 'r ?14 Minimum price as of 1,4,2001 fl6,43Sir7^'^'"^' Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Ali Pur' 23,5.2002 ?15.7 •Minimum price as of 1,4.2001 ^7,8524 Minimum price as of 1,4,2001 with 12% inereisa p.a. Hoiarnbi Khurd 22,S:200F' fil,7 Minimum price as of 1,4.2001 ?r6,4:381l Minimum price as of 1,4.2001 • with 12% increise p.a. Rajapur Kalan

22.8.2001 ^^15.7 Minimum price as of 1,4.2001 n6.438H Minimum price as of 1,4.2001 with 12% increase p,a. Rajapur Kalan

27.1,2003 Cat, 'A' ?15,7 C^t, 'B' ?14 Cat, 'C ^12.3 Minimum price as of 1.4,2001.; ;i. ns.i37@S for' Uniform category, r^inimum price as of 1,4.2001 with 12% increase p,a, i.B' spme-cages,.:' 2y ^^19:1604 for; 'Uhif.or.m'', ,Gat.@gQ,py based- -• •S31§ deed' dated

25.5.,2002 with ';12%.:i.ncreas.a p,a, ; Sanoth 7,12,2001 •' •?15.7'"-- ^ Minimum price as •of ;a',4,2001 • ' • •?lg;?3042,;; • Minimum 'prici ' as •Of^s .l.:4.2001' 'With; 12%-incr^a^.'p,% ; Sanoth 27,1,2003 Cat.'A'15.'7 .Cat. 'B' ?14 Cat,'C'?12.3 Minimum price as of 1,4.2001 n9:i37B"-'' 'for Uniform, category. Minimum' price iS' of

1..4".-2Q.0i '"wit.h• 12%'in<rr,ea;te.p•..a, LA.App.No,266/2008 connectedmatters PagV31off4' . 5> Shah.pur^ ll:5.2i0Qi: • Gar-hi. •Minimum price as •Minimum price as of 1.4,2001 Qf 1,4,2001 With compound interest Sh'ahp:ur' |3.5,.».2^ ®r'F?15,7'" Garhi-" Mini.mum. price as Minimum price as •of-1,4,2001 of X.4J0Q1 with compound intapest

¶20' I now propose to'deal with the 6 submissions urged by learned counsel for the land owners and subrpiissions urged by the-Union as noted in paras XO to 15 hereinaboye (pertaining to'the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India).

¶21The first argument is predieated on the 2 gale deedj, 'Ex.PVV-1/3 which is dated

25.3.2000, and the Sale deed W%.P\N-1/2 which is date.d

25.4,2001, As per the former,'fair mgi^kft value for the former qbmes to ?26.75 laKhs per acre and the 'l^ter @T63!47&Makhsper'acre;• The learnfd'Refe&nceCourt' has rej.'ected the 2 sale dseds as-reliable evidence.tQ-^.§termlne' fair market valu^e of agrieulturai lands, foprin-yljlages'lh •qu.e-stion on: >t:h;®.vre:a,:Soningthat .the. sale d^ed Ex..pyv-i/3 was : purchased by a religious',trust by .the; na:me of;'F!.a:dh|.:'Swamj• Satsang'and Suraj Bhan PW-'6 who had-tendwcl5^^:^^afe:d$^d^ in evidence, -while deposing in Court in LAC No,68/2005, ..had: stated that to his knowledge land was purchased for religious purpose,and was being used for a reli'gidus purp'Qs'e. The sale deed jx:PW.-l/2 has, likewise been held '^ 'fe, be .reliable.eyideince ta,determiine fair market valu^ of a,ei.(icHitural lan.ds on-the.reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Prganization."Ch^stianO.rga.ni?ation."^.nd-as•.p,er the,;tpsfij^,Qt3y 'L'A..App:>j;Q.266/2008& co'iinectedmatters ' Page32on4 ) : . :0f PW-7 $\5ter Amm, tKe $ecr^tary of the-QPgariiiationstatsd that the organiziation had to pay the price for the? said piece of iand aslt was tln^^ only plot of the requisite size suitable ffr th® requirement of the organization and is being gseel for destitute women-:i.e. there was. a special circumstance, persona! tq the vehi^eev , •• • •

22.' • As held i.ii th'e deqisipns reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Lancf Acquisition-Officer E/uru & Ors, l/s. !sti. Rohini & Anr. (Klefer para 6) and 2009

(14) SCC 369 Moiid. Raufuddin Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deeid which are tendered in evidence by virtue ofSeetion 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reasqn there may be special cirqum.stances yvhich have led the buyer to pay a higher price. Thf true test is tht , ^ -i . price" which a, well informed willing buyer woul# pay to equally-well informed seller withpyt being influenced by any specrar'5i^cum5ta;nces or.'th^/fahey.tQ^'bUy -a "particuiar ^piefee^of land.-' Ari-informed^'buyer would be one. who-has'-studied; market and has Ippfi^ed himself of alj' &uailabieHandln.the;-areai understodd'^ the-tb^ol;6:^y-'of--the'' area'-and=^th'e prey&yjn| •price's. If '^a bu'yeV'RaSa'' fa'h'cy for a -parti'dular'pieQ'e'''bf'lahci,^ may-pay^ a .much, higher price and this would,/iPt be, a ,gqpd index ,of,fairmartetvalue pf the lands in the'area.' J would ^be fa.inng;,ifl.4:o notliigliilghth.at the. Uni,on'of India iiad relied upqo the' sale deed ,dated^-20,.,5.2002,which was acceptedi'^the learneGl. l^eference.. Court:^pe.rtainin,g to., the..-, noti.fieatj.on:,.^st^.d

27.-.l,2,003where-under agricultu.ra,L,landin,village ^a.j,ap,,ur,^al,s,n vv;as;sqia.by aa agficulturi:?t .to an ,agricuitunist-fQria;much; pripei-.e. ?17,74,1:09/Kpe^ acre as-^against the ipri(:§'wN,cjT to ^63.478 lakhs*:per a.cre for Ex.PW-1/2. ahd-?28.89.lakhs p# acre-for Ex.P\A/.^l/3. The 2 sale deed.s Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW4/3' LA,AppJ^Io/^66/2008 connectedmatters . ' " • 'Page'33of'74 </ ^hgraseives §Fe Kayj.ng. intpingie evidenef gf tihg fanciful priee and ex^facie destroy ea^h other. 23,. Thus, ; apart from reasoning of legrried References Court, with which' i concur, afore-noted reasons in par-a 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair niarl<et value of subject lands can be determined and mer^ 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 aeguisition is of fuch large ah area, it would make aii the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds hiiving mtrinsjg evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer, I would be failing not to note an u'nreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh,l,S,Dahiya being the decision dated 19,12,2008. disposing of a batch of appeals, lead being-LA,AiDp.No.193/2006Pratap Sinah {since dec&ased) thru LRs Vs, UO! & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural .land for expansiGn. of its-factory which had been ignored by.the le.arned-Reference^.Co.urt-.o.n,th.e, ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and'.hence-the price reflected thBrein-.,cQ,uld>n,ot:.b,f tr'eaxed as a-good •evidence of value of lan.d.in the ai?.ea,;iWas rejected-by-the •-Court and the price in question; with,.;sultabl.e deduction on account Of-the parcel -of land toei.ng'Margs/'was accepted'by the Court and thus'even in the instant•cases t'h€^2 sale deed-sjn.q.uesljo.n,i."e.,,,Ex,pW-l/2and .Ex,P\/\/-l/3'S,ho.ui.d',be .treated .as .:the^.b-asis:^tQ; d.eterrTDine.fair' market: valm;.;.;!!^ argiurhent ignores the-reasoning in-the •decision of the DJvisi-Q;n Be'neh i.n-'.p'a'ras 37'to 38 wherein the Bivis,ion ESench;,.-.-d,i,ci•..not accept the value.;i-nthe sale deed on'its: own jo,gi.c^.a..s,in,dj.csti,v.e :of^.the'-market'vaiue, but found-tKat if the,ppice.^therein..yv^a.? reduced'-by l/S^-'-^the,'price arHved.at would-'-'be the--s;am:,e-.a,s LA,App.No.266/2008(^'eoiinecteci.-raa^^^ •, •• • •' • •••Page.34,Qf'^.'^. would, priee arrived at with referenceto the gvergge rate of • t"he sale deeds producedby the Union of India i,e. the sale deeds produced ipy the Governmentwere giving a pri^e of 37,000/- • per b.igh.a and the sale deed under which L&T had purchasedthg land gave the price^3,?.6,600/-per bigha and the averagewould come tp ^2,31,800/- which was near about the price of \2,1S,160/-per bigha, if i/3f'i would be deducted from the sum of f3,26,§po/-, It may further be highlightedthat in the said •judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification underSection4 of the Land AcquisitionAct was dated 24>7.1995 •and 16.114995and' the Court determinedfair market value is 'IP . of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i,e, T2,15,lo0/-. 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 thg basis for if it was so, the appreciationfor 2 years had required to tse given, I would highlight once again, that I-have hereinbeforealready noted the inherentcontradictionin the value of the land price as ..,2" sale, dee^s,,;and..this itself js intrinsic mutually.. destructive:^yid.ence.,fi;fthe 2-sale deedsreflecting.,.fajr,maS|t, va-lue.- . ; . . • . / "

2.4. , Thus,,the firs.t.argumentas noted in para 10 above,.is rejected a:nd.J. immediatelyhighljghtthat^the extended limb,'of the-argumenit^that^iafter-accepting 5ai,d, .sai^.deedsr a.P' ihdiptive-ofthe fafrr. m;arkefvalue of-the•land,' pertaining;to^ village iMarela, in view of'the decision-in 'D.harannbir's-cas^ (su^ra);;fandpncfe'sh'ouid'M'su^ enhancedwdukf'beifeftf with fey rne a.t the end when Ideterminethe fair marketvalue of lands for the viljages in. question. •' second argument,' contours'' whereof are' to' b© found in para 11 of my decisionherein above, Ineed to'notethe LA,App,^b.266/2008,& coane.oted Piip?35qf7d % latest prenog.ncemenl!. pf thg Sgpremp: C0urt 0F1 the issue as the cleeisiQn repofted as-2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chanel vs. UQL 26, • But before that I must highlight that the decision in La! Chdnd's case (supra)- predicated a claim on a PDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were aliptted for residential, housing scheme and the argument was being eonsieiered for fixation of fair market value of agrieultural lands in vil.lage Rithpla-, where further lands were acquired, for th@ same residen-tiiai' scheme i.e. 'Rohini l^esidsntiai Housing Scheme", i highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V' formed by NH-l and NN'^lO i.e. GJ.Karnal Road and Rohtak-Road. 27, Pertaining to the^price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural • lands, developing same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equajly be relevant to'industrial layouts, in paras 11 to'27, Suprering Court observed and held as under:- " Whether the PDA brochure is relevant evi'dmce?

¶11The PQ.A brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an ' ^ invitation ' Seeking applicati'dhs''from niehib'e'rs •of'•• tKe' • - public for "all'Otment of-plots'on lea§e-•basis.-und.en Rohini Residential Housing..Scheme.-The bcoch.ure'Stated . ^ tlnat the plots were in a layout formed/to'be forrned in"' Rithala and;'the'surrounding villages. The broclrure'gives' " the Tfollowi^ngj^ppovisidnal rates for allotment of; p:lQtS'<.Qn;.. leasehold tiasis; •SL No. Plot sige ' Category ' Rate (persquare

¶26s,q^ m, - ,Eco,nomjcally,..w.eaker.sections.. Rs IQQ.. . > "• • (Ews) • • •• 32^sq''m' - Low i^h'come'grQup^(LIG)'• •• 3,. , . , Low j,ncom'e,jrpup,,(UG).•, - .-Rs^lQ,. , 4,^ ' 60,sq [p Middle income group CMiG) Rs'200 '• '90 m" "'Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200 LA..App.No.266/20034 conneQted'nial'tpr.s The appellants contend that -Rs 15G pgr square metre which is the average of the said provisionalrates, should be, taken as indicativeof the ruling market price.

¶12On careful consideration,we are of the vi§w that such ailbtnieMt rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped land? for several ^reasons, •Firstly, market value has to be determinedwith referenceto large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of developrnent authorities are with reference to small plots in a developedlayoutfalling within urban gr®a. Secondly, PDA' and other statutory authorities a'glopt different rates for plotg in the same area with-reference to the economiccapacity 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 economic 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 allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We-may elaborate on these three factors. V-, • First factor.

13.;, The ^perdentag^ of "deduction for development"'io be, made tq'- arrive 'at the market value pf large-'tra'tts'of undeveloped,; agricultural land ' . (with ' ROtential .fgr development),,v.with:reference to the sale, .pri'ce,.'pfsmall cl,evelope:d:plots, yaries:.between-20% to 3 the-0rice-of':such developed pl-o.ts,,,-the percentage'.dipe,ncij.n.g^.u'p0n thfev:nature;j5Qf;?:dfevetopment•of-the layout' in-.which"th© -exefmplarplQtS-.a,re::sitU:ate.d.-- The, "de^u-ctipnfor development'''•.'epnglsts 'gf two-qQr;n,pqhents::"TKe'first;is'';w]th;-':reference!,,to'^ th^^^'^rea r^^iblr^d• to J).e}.utili,s§d'jgr deyeloprn§nta,l'works;'an#;^h-e secondi% it.life; cos'i ,.'6f. -tKe,-,'development''.wdrks.fV.;,F4r exarriple-,,.if.' a... residenti.al •la'yout,1s' formed by i3PA'-- or simi,jar statutory:.authority,'it;:.may-iitiJJse,,around<40,%oi th^ -land >apa Nh the layout,= for roads, dra'ins4.'|)barl<s^ playground-s.'-and -civic amenities, (c.ommunity..faqili;ti,es)-,

15.' The -•qwelopment-authority will " a-lsp-Vinquf considerable.- expenditure for development of undevelopedland,into a-developedlayout, whicbJacly.des the-cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roadsi LA,A.pp,No.266/2008 eoiinectedmatters pagg 37 of74 yr^depiTOundd.Fain.agfand sm&m fieilitiis, lsyiFi|.vvslep •lin^s,- electricity lines and developing pgirks ^nd civil ••amenities, vvhi-ch would IDs about 35% of thg value of th@ developed plot. The tvvo factors taken together would be , the "deGiucti-Q'nfpr development'' and can account for as much as 75:% ofthe-cogt of the developed plot,

¶16On the-other hand, if the residential plot is in m .unauthpriged•private residential Ipy.out, the percentage of •/''^eduction for .deveiopm^nt" may be far less. This is • because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will b® • $.gt apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. • Even if any iand is.set apart, it is likely to be minimal, Th§' roads and ,drains wjll also be narrower, just adequate for movement of veNcles, The amount spent on development • work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 2Q% .plus 20% in all 4.0% as against 75% in regard to pDA plots. . • .

¶17• The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and .quality of the layout. • 18. The position with reference to industrial layouts will-be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size, of one or two acres or more as contrasted with ' ,the size of\rpi"dehtial"piots_me^iuring;100'sq;mto^^ rh)/. and,as,ther.ewiIJ.'be ,yery iim'ited;c1yic'^,meni,ti#s..'a_nd no ,piaygrou,h:^s,the area'^to.b.e.set,apart.fpr-deveJ.Qp^ (for r'Qa.cfe,.^4^k5,,pla:ygj!0:Unds-^nd.,civic--ame;n:itiesi-\^^^^ fee faniless;-:andsthe' costrtO b.6-;incurredfpr.-dev.elopmen| \,vill also be^marginaily/lessv-with ^liKe result' the cleduction be;-.nH.a'de-Tron^'th^e-xostof,an'-in.d'ustria:lvplot?-na^y'ir^^^'^ oblybetween:45%'55%'|s-contrastedfmm;fes%,tc^'f^ • Insidenti^j.^glots,, . i-Si;: - •|f.,t;h',e!;;;.a,G;qujred^ is Tri, a.SfmbHeveJoped'urbar) ,^r0a;s and-not--an-:Uindeveloped-,.!:ui-ar'^Eea.Kwthe^;3"thi deduction for•d-eVelopment-maybe as, much .•l.ess.,-t|i:afe:j,5:, as; li-ttle as-'25% to,'40%, as some basic infrastructure .'wiij already ,.be'available: [Note: The percentages ment-i-oned above are temt^tive'standards and subject to proof td-tfe Contrary...) '• • • •; ^ 20-'.- ' Therefore deduction for th@ "development factor" to be.-,made with reference to the price of ..a' small plot •in a'.developed'layout, to arrive at-the cost of • undeve'loped; land, will be far'more'than the deduction I..A.App,N.C3.2Cx6/2Q08&CQnnsclsdnuittep • , • Pgige-3^.of?4 .... rgferencvi to priee ©f 9 gmal'l plot Ir gn unauthorised private layout or an "Industrial Igyeut, It is •also well known that the development cast incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred l?y private developers, having regard to higher overhesds •and expenditure. • •31, Iveh a'mong.:th-e layouts formed by DDA, tha pereentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout^whether it is residential, residential-cum-commercial or industrial; and even among residential-layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community .facilities, parks and playgrounds provided;

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

¶23DDA and other statutory development authoritifs adopt, different, ra,tes:...for allotment .of pjots in. t-he sartie layout, depifending-upon the' economic; status' of ji'he aH-dttees, cra-ssifyl.n them as high-income^groupr rtni'ddl® income .• group,.''\byv\ m'.come group,' anl; •ec-o '^e,a'ker;s'ecti.dh^;'fe consequence, in th'e'samW layout plots "iriay; be',, earmarked., .for,., p.ers^ns belQngi.ng .,to •e(:OAPmj!cany.:Weake sections ^at a ,price/p.r€^hiijjm^'Qf

¶190sq m,. wherea,s'th:eprlce/prem,ium charged,,.maybe/Rs jL50 per sgua/re"metre,.fonmemb,ers..ofl,o.w J.'ncorf].e'grQ.up, fls. 2,0,0 per:square,metre.for perso.ns!:b,el.on'g.ing,',t.Q.;'p^^ income group•'and;Rs •,250-per square-,.metre?for; persons be;l'onging't:phigh incdme'grpups-' ' • " '' 2'4. The ratrp;'of sites in'a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, l;IG and EWS may also vary, All these varying'factors reflectin the,rates fo.r allotment.It will be illogicalto'take the average of-.the allotment rates, as the ."miarket'.value" of those plots.does not depend.upon the cost: ihcurred.'.by PDA statutory authority, but .upon the paying capaeity/Qf the appli-ca..t:Usfor allotment.: , •' Thu'^m&op: . ' . _• . LA:ApK-No.266/2008 ccMineotednuitters . . . . , Page,39,of?4. • 1 ' o i '25.,/Some 'developn"ieFit authorities allot plots on -freeKold ba:si-s, that is, by way of gbsolute .sale. Scsm@ , d.evfloprriepli: a.uthorities like DDA, allot plots on leasehold basis.. Some h-ave. premium which is almo.st equal to sale •price,, with a nomi-nal annual rent, whereas others have lesser prem.ium, and more substantial annual rent.

¶26; There .t.re sta-ndard methods for determining an.nuai renter value with reference to the value of a fr^.eholcl property, Thtr? are" also standard methods fpr ' determini.ng th.e value of freehold (ownership) rights with rfferenqe to the anmai ffnta! income in rfgular leases. , -But it is very difficult to arrive at the ma.rkit valuf of a •frfehold property with reference to thg premium for-b leafehold plot a-llotted by D-PA. As the p^ripql of lea^g is long, the rent is very noniinai, sometimes th^re is s tendency among the public to equate the lease premium, rate (allotment price) charged by PDA, '$$. being equal to the market vajue of the property.

27." However, in view of the djfficulties referred tP above, it is not safe or advisably to rely.-upon allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a.developed layout, in determining the market • va.lue of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands, The • 'DDA brochurt price has therefore to be-txeluc!ed as ^.sing not relevant." 2'8. , ..The evidence-on'tine;s;ubj'ecth,as'.b,eendisc.uised learni,d:il^eferen'ee.Court-andTr^produ.ceth^,same by,e#raeting from/liAC Reference No.ii7A/2.009-. Thfe argurrient abv;ar!ced befo.re'.:.$he.learned Referen.ge.Court/;'.being,^he'-fa.me ai was adva-nced bpfcjf:ew,^!^s=;b^^^ theiljea'rnedReference rt;vv;ith-referfeffGe-to'th-6'evi^dence^relied upon,'ife;reads:'i^d' •''i.H. .rni.mtoi, ;.ln.r fhp'' hPi-iHhnfar<s R'a^' fijrther siibmlttecl ' Court-, 'iLd^-CounWlftr.the''peti.tioners^lias'-furthers;ubni]ttM \Kt''D£)Ai;S(/D|lDC''alJo^t^d^Riots1n;:Nar:el%me^denpl'% 5'Area"a.ndj^NapelaIndustrlaj.Are^ at mw;ch.,lqigher-r§.t@,| 'lH0':has'reliedup:om-allc)tm;entletter :dat0diG4,:OL,:3^QQ^. Mued. by'DDA of the-plot ^no^52,/:Pktv0^Sector-. A;?5,- •Nai'ela which':v\/a5allotted to Sh-. •Hem;Chah^er;:;at''-th.®y •pre-determ.ifleidTa.te of"^'3Q28/--.which h.e'has p.rQ'vfed>as-' '•.Ex. PW6/l,--'^Allotment-letter dat.ed 26.0^,2003^ of plot •to.55 Pocket 03, S^x:tor^05-area• mea.s"urlng-'^70fSqv; -rnetres in'-which rate -was-fixed _,as .^3',9S9 ' p.er-• .metres, wlti-chls.Ex.P\/\/6/2'both this'ahd a;ilot.mentletferf ,^ated 09.07^90'pf industrial pilot allotted by DS;lDC'i*,ir;: IvA.App;Np;266/20d8^'c9unc3cted-iha^ • • -•Pag0'4ii of'74 .. , • V ns-IlQ, measuring sq, yards at lMat«®la Industrial Complex at the rate of ?6S0 sq, metres whiete is Ex. PVV3,/1 and another allotment letter dated 25-,04,2000-of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at ?3000 per sq. metres. • , Further-Id, Counsel has submitted that from thf "Statement of PW9 Kanwal' Singh ^ document gx', PWll/1, which is-detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired iS' 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 17944QOOOQ ?248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has-submitted that PpA by sellingalternate plot in Narela ResidentialScheme'^ .?3B08 would.be '^253i40§/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized for roads, park, drain, etc. total area comes for sale Is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 - 759422 == 17719866 per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. ?1771986 ~ 248911,=: 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only ?3,27,083/- per bigha. . . Similarly he has tried .to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testi'mony of PW7 R:.D.. Sharma, Asstt. Manager, DSIDC who^h'as produced documents Ex, PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued th-at total .f'exp.enditure incurred on .development vof N-aye'la-Prqj'ect•'by -DSID was' 720526901 till-200i"and tptaJ;are^,pi; Iots vyith psiOC was '112;47: h#ctar^;M\^-: 1361250'$.q. y&rd.- therefo earning of bslDC'ls .?'M42917p4r bi:gha,,;,calcufe^^^^ ; ^ ' •TQta1.area. un.de.r"plpfs ' Jl2,g ;hiec:i/ev a3fia2.#:iq. • 's r . ^yards. ; , "• , , ; ' ' Rriqe^pe r.sq m§tre' fn, year,;''20^.' at-. ^?|000^^per sq,#|rds,v^ ^h ich"DSIpCi'sbld.piot,•' irnoBal;earning-"'..;; S^' ?408.3^f0000 • TotaLexpenditure •' :t720526901 ... > , "• ^3363223099 ' i,e. Profit comss to T2470 per sq, yard or 0470000 per bi.gha (i.e,, .33.6.322309..9 divided by 136125,0 sq. yards) and the LAC has paid .compensation@•?327083 per bigha only,, meaning' thereby that'DSIDC has'earhed ,a profit'of ?2:142917 per'bigha, ' ' " '• Ld. Counsel for the-petitioners has further.argued that LAC has awarded compensation "^327083.per LA.App.No.266/2008.&connectedmatters; . Page,.41of 74 " bigha in quistlQn if 2,Q<)% atap-reeiatlanQf" the said' price is cansidep^d on aceouRt of land, the figure comes to '^654165. If the amount is deducted from sale •price per iDighs i.e, •?24700000, fjggre cprnes tg flfri5834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled"for the gam,®,"

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

¶30It is no' doubt true, as held fven tsy ths learned Reference Cpurt, that with development of Bavyana Industnal Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, .but the question would be what would be the value to whj.ch the:,k)uil^i'n,gpotentialitywould tran-slati itselfr. V.

¶31, 1'hold'that'the learned .Reference Court';'keeping jrvvievv the-observatioh^-and'the findlngs-'Ofthe Supreme Cgurtf-^in''Z.o>/ 'Changs case ..-(supT.a).-has.-rjg.htly •rejected said- ,evjd.en'ce as reliable.-On th.e issue,of potenti^alityrelatingitselfto.tKe.y.alye,,.1 promiseihe reader of th,e decision,,to deal -with.^hesame \(y|\ile.J . shall. be'.d-iscMssing;,as'to-what shqulcl.'be the faj.r market? value'-.of tbe'lartds... •' ' • . • 32'. •- The third submission in the.alternative w.as-.bas6d';Upo,i^ the .observations of.a Dj.vision Bench of this Court in BedhRam's case-'(supra), and the submission'is-as noted'in'para 1'2 herein above. The land 'owners require price determined itn jO/wa777^s. ca^se (supra) relating to the. notification ..djted ,LA.App.Nq.266/2008&connectsdmatter."; ' ' Page 42 of74 (,h 30,10.1063 i.Fi sum ©f ^16,750/= per L^igha f©r village Maraupiuf^ to be treated as.tl^ie basis and progressively increased, firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% per annum and lastly by 12% per annum for different, periods and thereby determine the fair ma-rket vaiue for the f notifications in question,

¶33•• It be-highlighted ^hat in Bee// Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date as of the year 1959, for the year 1976 !,e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by IZ% for the remaining 3 years.

¶34Hpweyer, in Lai-Chands case (supra), the' Supt^@mg Court eategprically opined is un^er:-' "Whether the awardrelming to mquisltim W M.-1& 19^1 is relevant? " ' •

47.- The ap.pellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification cjated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and'compensati'on' was 'awar-ded'at "the rate' of.'Rs-'-y^^^ , per.-bigha.-; Their, contention is that,; as , th",e,-pres^nj:,- = acquisition i,? .i;n ,the year 1981,. the market value of the' acquired, land should be d'etermined with'reference•'te The rharket=WLue'determine'dfor the-1961-acquisition ' by-r-.p-ravi-ding ':-an .. appropriate- .increase at cumulatiye/cqm.pounded. rate.of 12% per annum. This., ... • Court had'occasion to' examine this issueTrec^'ntlyf In'' •" '••pA/dc ltd. y.^'kahieihbHaijfvanbhai'PatefX^ ••^••• 'held: (SCC piTST; paraUS) •' ^ - ' '•••'^•Zi;^"Norh1•ally," reebu.r'se is tal<en' to the ri^.@d&''.0f" •" •d.etermJnin.,g ,the .market value by-pravidini:;, . appropriate, escaiatiGn over the proved'maFkWt::" value of nearby lands-in previous years''-'(as''" 'i;- ' evidenced-'by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no, , evidence ....of - ..^ a.ny.,,:". ..ir Contemjjoranep.us , '.sale.', transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in th§ .. neighbmjrhoDd..The sai.d m.ethod js ,.rea,s.pn,a.bly LA.App,No.266/2b68&.,connecl:eclniatters ' Page43 of74 - pfe rglied-^on sg|@ transactions/aequiaitionsprecede the subject Requisition.byonly a few years, that is, up to four to five years,,Beyondthatit maybe unsafe even IfIt refdXmto gneighbouringland. Whatmay be a reliablestandardif the gap is of only a few y^rs may become unsafe and unreliable f^ndard where the.gap is larger For example, for detefmining the rnarket value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual Increase .p/0 or ,1980 may have many pitfalls, This is because,^oyer the course of years, the 'rate' of .annual increas.e may_ itself undergo' drastie changeapart.fromthe li!<ellhoodof occurrenceof varying pefigds of stagnationin prices or sudden fn^c^ease^''^^^sctingthe very standard of (emphasis suppligd)

¶48Even if the relied upgn transactionis only two to hlfn® .acquisition,the court should, before adoptinga standardescalation,satisfy'itselfthat there were no adverse ci.rcu.mstances.For example if the acquisition-is of this year 2009, it may not 'be 9 ^ ^ prices, by providingan increaseof 12% or per year,,^Sjh,e newspaper reports disclose'thst the price of im,movable,jDropertiesJ,n most areas of the came-.dp\^n/:by,nqore-.th:a;h;4Q%to, 50%;,from'the 2007 •.ratesr.-.qagtion• is.,:-therefore•••necessary' before increasing• the .•s-pri-ce:-''. with:, .reference^.'to.•'^th.e 'oid transactidns,B^that^asit-may..It1s-clea.rtlnat'the.'award made:i,n:f^gard/to^j^961 a'cquis^^ not ^b.e'of"ahv use for,.deteriTiining. th^.'. niarket value" for ^ 19'8i acquisition.-•• v-' •-

¶35lt.:^s^.a,p!Dq•re•nt^thstthe-ra^io/of;^^^^ Division Bench m case (supra)^ qf the law declared by ^le Supi-eme-..CourtsjHr (supra), which. ..de.ci$76.h"foilpvvs •^an' ^ decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 Ltd '\/s. Bameshbhai iivanbh-^i ^ ' LA.App.No.266/2008&ccynnectedmailers ' p,,,gQ4^ 36: in tine instant case there is another good reason not to -foiiow the law laid, down in B&d/ Ram's c^se (suprg) f(gr the reason I find that a' Co-ordinciiteDivision Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) Dl,T_650 (pB) Saraswati Devi &Ann 1/5, .UOJ &:Qt's., pertainingto agricglturallands in village Mamurpur - NgreJa, did not 9pply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined In Dharambir's case (supra) as of the year 19(33, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpgr - Nareia as of .3.4:.3,1980 '^^OlO/- per annum, per bigha and gave the increase

(5) ^1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would have come to approximately ?5O,0OQ/- per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at ?33,0Q0/- per bigh^, 37, That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the-iss.ue of the fair nnarket v^lue of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of thi? Court in CA.APP,No,8'66/2005 'decided, on 11.5.200^-, Mahen der Sin ah' i/5: UOi'Stprs.and' co-nriectedLand'ACqula Appeals'pePtaihingto agriquiturai^TancfsIn'Vili^^^ th^t' pne vijipge \^;ith wh.jch .Lam dealing Is villgpeBawana,petta(hTn|"iq'9 r},o;tifica,t;i.ondatiecl'1^ isslj,e,d.underSectiqn"4oltiieJ^^nd Acqui^sitioo-Act.wljier^-uticier,36(34 ^.bigha .ajad, 18:,.biswa,^pf •agricultural-1a.n.dJ.n ,vil:l.a.g.e.Baw,an^was acquired,for,.an.in,dustrial e.sta.te.'ive;,Baw^naj.IndustrialEstate,,the fair.market vai^ue-vasof 15,ll,199;Gwag, determine.d•© •?!,99,904,68. big.ha'which..,egual..s to ^9.i59,5.42,46'' per acre' and relevant would'it be for''me to highlight,that ifthe notification dated 25,7,19:97.by which price for agricultural.land being the minimun-i price determined>by:the Government was lakhs per acre as of 1,4,1997, the price LA.App.N6.2C'6/200|K&cqmiectediiTjitlcrs • • J?i3ae"i§.Qf74. deterpiTiiPied by the PivisiDFi Bench wQuld egu9i fchi minimum price notified by the Government.

¶38If I were to take the price as of 15.11.1996 ^ ?'9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which 1am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the i-earned Reference Court if i give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein above, I would be hoiisticaily discussing the subject while opining upon the fair mapke'f value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notificationsin question, |

¶39The fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in UA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APR.No.292/2008, is as noted in pgrg • 13 .above i.@. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging ta-.t|iefamily, they^ vyere. earning .^I Jakh p;er bigha, by .saie .of agricui5uraJ:pro^u.c,e.-. - •

¶40The learned . Reference. Court has not, aeeeptgd, the testimony of Ra,m;;Kishan.,beeausehe gave no proof,i,n.,supportof • his or^htestim^ony;, ... : , - , 41,, .-^The' reasoning- -of, th,?;..Court that th.ere, standing'on th.ej-land when •its .possession yvas'taken-ov^r 0,0

4.10,2000 would.: req.uire,-,an infe.renc©, to be-.drawri th.at..|he acquired .lands belonging to the family .were not beihg-putio agficuituraruse ahd 'gro'wihg 3 tO'4 crops per year,-is-'fallacious no-doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the,3''^,week of September rice is harvested 'in Delhi-and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land i? left fallow for some time, to .be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters' '• • Pa.ge'4$of ffi sown around the first week or the second week of November each year,

¶42But the other reasoning of there being no evidence Ig^ in the form of documents is reievant. Now, as per the testimony pf Ram Kish.an he was working as an Administrative Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi tiii 31.3,1996 i.e. was not a tiller himselftill said period and thereafter earned a pension, If the family, as claimed by hlm,'wasearning^IJakh per bighs,for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 blgha and 18 biswa, the annual income would be R:"19 ialshs and pne 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 volgme 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 the fields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electn.caljy,driven has.been furnished .and if tbejjelds W:^X.e irrigated by canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation'dlpa-rtmeWt-has been furnished;••Thus;-the^le:#ned Trial-Jud^eIs fully j'ustified in nc^ adopting'the'yield••B|isik,''^by capitalizing th^ same, tq" determine the fair''hiarl<et valge of lan.ds.^Therei's po reliable evidence on the'issue'ofthe yielcl and,it;h^-,^el|:^sqryiriQ^.depo§jtipof Ram ^!<Cisin3n\has.feeenjri^htjy r:ejjectfid... • ';V. , " 43;. :-if ..there.i,^-rel.ia,bl._aevidap.eepf.An if\d^pe.nd^ervt^K.p,.erj:,,o;; th.ere .jsj ;0therwj.se-reliable evidence,as was •.foun:c^.:,i.i,n...ih.e decision of the-.-Sgpreme.Court reported as JT..L9.97,.(1)p,.C?4,44 State-ofCuiarati&Ors. Vs. Rama Rana &Orf;... pentai;njag,to::.th@ yieid from agricultural land, only then it would^' be safe to determine fair-market value by applying the princi.pir of LA.App.No.266/2008(Si cpnneetedmatters Page47 of74 "••y V eapitali^ing .on the yield basis and ttiat top, the capitalizing being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 times as was sought to be projeeteql, 44,. • • The fifth argument vyhich was advanced, as npted . herei-.n above i.h p:sra 14, .Iby'Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Aclvoeate wa^ that the mean ayemge ppin:e-iple be adopted with referenee^ notification dated 24,1,2008.

¶45In para, 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time, I highlight that notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7,8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001, 22,8.2001,

7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27,1,2003 i,e. the year^ 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 und^r notification dated

24.1,2008 which is w.e.f.

8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years away from^tiiB last year vvith which? I am concernedyvs.i-the year^2(p03;-f hijhi'i-ghtthat reCl<ohedwie.f. the year 2000 i'.e; the ficsryear.witfr'w 1am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. . The, law'of st^ which governs mean ^yprage a:s^one,,ipf-,th^,j.recpgrii|:e^^^ to^.^eternnjrjel ^yalue,,Jp between:.?- given yaIinquires the 2 end points tg be the ones which yypuld, be closest tp the point for .which the mein-ayera.ge has tp be determin.ec^^ ...

¶46I am J.eft ;to.deal with the.last subrnissiPn, as npted,in para,1.5 herein above, ^and for which I highlight ..that the I,earned Reference Court,..has, pertaining to the notification,!,darted

27.1,2003 determi.n.ed -the fair marl<et value in some References with, respect to a sale deed dated

20.5,2002. where under-1 bigh.a'and 13-biswa of land was sold in village Raiapur Kalanjand LA.App.No,266/2008&connecfedmatlef? , • : - Fage.48Q.f 7.^ • - V ' V ' • v. has determined that bas^d thereon the price as of said date works out to ^17,74,109/-per acre and increasing the sartie fqr 8 months by 12% per annum, for the date 27,1,2003 thq price would be ^19,16,037/- per acre rpunded pff to ^19,16,040/-'per acre. • ' , \ •

¶47With .reference tp-the Award No,10/PC(NW)/2D04-.05 it is apparent that land .comprisedin Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C' land. The sale deed.in question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had tP be accepted, it would reflect fair rriarl<et value of Category 'C land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Coilectpr tl,7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum of ?1.7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions in Category 'C land, meaning thereby'depressions in Category 'B' land were less vis-a-vis Category 'C land, in pthei-words, with reference to Category 'A'r. land,, the price of; Category /C' fefid would-have to .be. reduced and vice-versa,, -vis-lvvis Cat^gb.ry-i.'G' land,^the price-for'Category 'B;' land and'for Category 'A'Mahd vypuld be required'to belncreaied'suitably

¶48l,:nQw..en.ter,th,efinal, stage..of my di.scus,s.i.Gn-.•j.^j.^yievy. @f the,;',evi.d.ence..,herein ..above. :_noted:,.and, reflecting.. ..upon,,thg reason,ing.adopted by th.ejea.rned.Land AcquisitionX.o.llector,a.nd the.J.e;arned Reference .Cgurt,.L.po.se the question;.j^.ha..t^^,sbQuld. be.; the .fair market •value,.'of-the su.bject lands ,:as,-of .7.8.2000, 11,9:2000,^

2.5,2001,' 22;8.20.01,

7.12v2e01, •. 16.5.200.2, 2'5'..5.;,2002 and;>..27,1,2003-•. i,e,' the^ dates ••on. ,:Which'v the notifications w.ere-issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act r894. ; • •.-.v;. ;.

¶49' I have,, In parp 37 above,-noted a decision of a piyisi.o.n Bench, of this, .Court in .LA.APP,No.866/200,5 decided on LA.App.No,266/2008&connectedmatters , Page 4^ of74

11.5,2006,M^henderSinghvs. UOJ& Ors. wherein pertainingto village Bawana, fair market value determined as of 15.11.1996 is ?1,99,904.68 per bigha which equals to m,59,542.46 pfr acre. The said decisionwould be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes that-the subject lands .i.e. the lands with which the Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as., as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural aregs in the Union Territory of Delhi' was attracting migrants. Based on population growth,^ villages in rural Delhi were identified for providing major health facilities, schools, markets and Fural industry, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted thit G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and that the Master Plan for Delhi notified in the. year 1990 had indicated,the land use in -the area to be changed in the future to industrial and commercial, but h§d also observed that notwithstanding this, for the reason no zom\ plan was .notified' cohteniRiated'^y/'Section llA* 6f'the -pfeljii Development,Act^ 1957,. the. lands;conti.nued to'^ be used' for agficuitural p.urposes and^ there was no evidence that till, the y.earJ9,96,"anyla,nd ,use had been actuallychanged,andp.yt to the,, use contemplated, by. the .Master Plan. As Jn-.the--Instant case,' wh.ere a|l.. subje,.ct .lands,- w.ere. continuously P;Ut T;t9 .a.griculturaluse,'same was the case noted i.n the;-sajd'Ci.ecisioa. To put it pithily, the potential use gf the lands giving-bJr.,th.,to,a pbtential 'land'value'-with reference to the area' being%n'oWn-''to all as being required in the future for building purposes, Was found not resulting in the po.tential being valued witfi reference to the potentialityi.e. the lands being, in the nearfuture capable of being built upon. To put i.t differently,the decision^ though not"s.o expressly stating, would be a proposition that there.is .a difference between the undeveloped land, having,',building LA.App;No,^266/200.8'&,c,oHnectedinatters ,. — •• .. PageS0,of1!4 .C\ potentiality in •presenti vis-a-vis a land having a building potentiality,-in futufo. As already noted by me in para 36 'above, as of the date X5,H.1996, fair market value determined was ?9,5-9,542.46 per acre and whi;ch I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. notification dated

25.7.1997 where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was ?10 lakhs per acre. Interestihgiy, the same Division Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) Gairai Singh vs. UP! & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan, where 940 bigha and 5 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated

15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was ?r9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ?9,51,121/- pe^.acre i.e. near approximate to the fair rriarket value..of lands in village Bawana, .it..needs to be highlighted, that_ while .'deternnl.ning. the fair, market value as of 15,11.1996 .in village Hol'hmb.i Kalan, evidenced from the pbgeryatjons of the. p.ogrt in para-19. and,-20,,of .the, decision,, location ,and ...p.otentia.lity ,w[th referegce to deyelopm.en.t work, carried .put in the surrounding lands-was con.sidered. J would highlight that another .Division Bench of this .Court, in another adjoinjng..village,.in the.same.'V i.e. between .G.T.Karnal. Road and Rohtak Road,- i.e. village Singhola determined fair market value as of

19.3.1993

(3) ?1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. ?5,26,510.40 per acre'. The decision is repbrted as 2004 (4) AD (Delhi).20 Ram Chander-vs. UO!and the same-Division Bench, as per the decision reported as 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sin ah i/5. UOL 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 & connected matters -' ' Pgge.Sl GfT^ V-

¶50The aforesaid judgments noted in preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands-in Delhi as tabulated by me in para above bring out two very important facts relevant to detern^ine the gfpwth/rise in the prices of agrituiturai land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ^4.65 l^l<hs per acre which rose to ^^10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4,1997 i.e. the increase is f5,35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115,054% increase In 7 years and the average price increase would be 16,436%, The price rise over the next 1 year Is by 11,2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11,5% for the next year i,e, as of 1.4,2001. It shows, that due. to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for thi.s would be .the-decision of-the Division Bench of this Court. Id Gairai's case .(supra), whi,ch;J'.have, discussed ..In para.'49 above^.-:,- y 5,1.;-.-'';l. need to" elaborate, a little more;-with respect to .the decisi-bn in Gairai's cas.e. Discussin.g-the.evidence pertajnlng to fair-market value.of agriGultural land in, villag^^Holambl Kai,an as of ' l;5,ll;'1995,,r;in;: paras 9 -,to- ;a;7 the"-Court'^ discussed'the valuation on --tJie-.'^b'asis-oT •ag'ri;cuIburaI yield' 'and, •found;;th;?t• the grdss'Teturn^-jDer'-aci-eper anhum-:^w|s.^95r00C)/--for^multip.le cropped land "ahd "having' good' irrTgatlon"•facilities and •thus capitalized the land price at ?9,5 lakhs per acr^, Discussing second method •of land p.rlces of coniparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale instances-found that based on said sale LA.ApP'No.266/2008(^ cGnnecteciraattprs , . Page.;52Qf74

¶0> instances and giving, benefit of industrialization tl^e 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 1.4,1997 and thus worked out the mean ayerage figure of ^9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?9,,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that, the potentiality had been, well-factored in when the Government issued minimum price notification w.e.f.

1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price notified as of 1.4,1997 at ^10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was tl0,03,354/- per acre.

¶52The decision in •Mahender Singh's case, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan, for'Delhi'

1.990 had been taken into accp'unt by the'Court which was projecting residential, -commercial and industrial future exploitation" of agricultural land in Delhi ahd on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the ,Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same'had not'trahslated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken pia.ce In, village Bawana a,nd,"Holambi Kalah and nobody had ^exploited the^?potential; As-i have already hi.ghlighted in para 49 above-there is a gap between what would be expected .to"be the market growth a.nd what the. market actually grows. The decisions inGairafs case and Mahender Singh's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 15.5% per annum and thereafter the -extended potentiality did not translate w-ith the LA.App'.No;266/2008 & connected matters Page S3 of 74 requisite-momentum and the acceieration fell to between 10% per annuni to. ,11% ..per annurti. One reason could be that pursi^a:nt to Ma'ster.Plan,fo'r Delhi 1'990 a fairly large area came to be developed, both Yesldentjal, commercial and industrial and proba.bly there-was enough availability of developed land and the hghger of the market got saturated.

¶53• The empirical'evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2, sale deeds relied upon by the jand owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to, rely upon' and for which I have given further reasons in' paras 2;l and ,22 hefeinabove,for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the. learned Reference Court has held that .as per the said sale deed fEx.R-2 as-of the date-:;of .the-sal©- i.e.. 20..5.;2.002,,J:he,fair rharket"''value; of •agricultufal •lands :wo.uld-b:er^l-9,16;O40/-.:'o.,e.r acre a-s'of 27.1^2003'on the reasoning that •l bigha and'13 biswa of land which was sold for f5',39,690/- and ?70,160/- vvas paid as stamp duty would mean that' f6',09;85'07-' (f5;39,69d/- + ?7,0,,.160/-) were spent'would yiel^ the price ^17,74,109/-per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20,5,2002. ' ' '' " ' ,54, _ , Thus,, the , best which'\,.couid be said'as the"'most favourabie, situatiipn. for, 1;,he.,land,.owriers,,..vyo,u.ld',be, tbat .with reference to the--&a;ie deed^: dated

20.5.2002 .-for,Category .-C lands the price i^.e:,, fair m.arket value of lands-in ,the .area would ^ be ?17,74,109/- per acre. For Category 'B' and Category.'A' land the price would have-to be suitably enhanced and here we find another area of dispute for reason, as noted by me herei;nabove in sub-pafa

(a), of para learned Land Acquisition' Collector , in different awards • has deducted LA.App,No,266/2008 & cQhneciednjatters " , sometimes fl.2 lalchs per acre, sometirnes ^1.56 lal<hs per acre and' sonnetimes ?i,7 I'akhs per acre from the price of Category 'A' lands to deterrriine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands-were in Category 'C as well the price has been deducted further by tl.7 lakhs per acre.

¶55Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the lands and I note'that categorization is based only on the basis of certain lands having' pits and depressions of various depths requiring the same to be leveled and this would require money to be spent. But on what basis has Land Acquisition Collector held, in-some awards that?l,2 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ^1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ?1,7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There is just no clue.

¶56•; In Gairai. Sinah's case (supra), price differential worked out was ^25,000/--per acre. I have noted hereinabove that:the acquisition in Gairai Sinail's case pertained to"the date 15,11,1996. in Gairai Sinati's case the price for Category 'A' land determined, wgs ^9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the. price ..determined was .?9,51,121/-. per. a.cre .and. the price differential-comes to :about

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

¶57' • I thus.- hold • that •Gairai Sinaii's case should be my guiding star for price differential-in the instant cases as well and thus I"hold that wherever Category 'A', Category -'B' and Categdry 'C have to be differentiated on price; the-differential should be 2,5%:-'

¶58• ' Thus, if ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17.75 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 of 74 admittedly pertaipis to' a Category 'C land, the price for Category 'B' la.nd would be T18.20 lakhg per acre and for Category 'A-' land would be tiS.655 lakNs per acre. 59, Taking th'e i-ogicar reasoning a little further it assumes importance that' as .'per. the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1,4.2000 the per acre price was fi3,82 lakhs and as of 1,4,2001 the same was fl5.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price.at ?18.655 lakhs as of 20,5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately fl6.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at '^15.7 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is f70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.4$%, Since exactness can never be achieved while determining falf imarket value df a'large'chOnk of land, with reference to a few sale d';seds where" small •parcels of land are sold for the reason eveh'within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would yary .the price by-plus or minus.5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us 9 fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability.. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held good evidence to work out a land price on a. date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to, determine land price on subsequent datps, 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,'i'n the instant case; with .reference-to .the LA.App,No.266/2068'&.''e:onn,ected matte.rs • •' ' '' • P^ge56off4 $ notifications dated 7.8.2000, U.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001,the differentialperiod is smali inasmuch as the saledeed in questionis dated25.5.2002and thus in the peculiar facts of the instantcase, the sale deed in que,stion,which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of •, marketvalue of land as on said date, would be arelevantpiece of evidence to be taken into account while determining the market value of land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000,

2.5,2001,22.8.2001and 7,12.2001, . 60. The argument that village Narela had always been treatedlocationaliyadvantageousfor the reasonthe townshipof existence since long and this was recognized whWi/pursuBrtlto a notificationissued in the year 1963, vis-a-vis the adjoining villages ?2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Oharamhir'-^case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential-due to locational •advantage was keeping in:view the realities'in the year 1963. : Over the penod bf time, as urbanizationtook-place'InDelhi and' more and more-areascam-e under plotted develppmenfwhich' includSd^^r^asin'Morth-Westof Delhi i.e. the area with which I am concernedtoday,the price'dlfferehtialfaded ahd by the year' 2000-andonward,'ifhasbecome n^n-^xistent.' vA pertajni-ng to the notificationsdated Ti 7,8,2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001-22.8.2001.and 7.12,200.1 the land p.rices would have to be determined on the-basis of the minimum price-notified by the Government as also with , referenceto the sale.deeddated 25,5,2002for the reason Ifind no other cogentevidence^wherefromland price as on .said dates could be d^etermined. Pertaining to the notifications dated 16,5.2002,-23.5,2002'and27,1.2003,the land price needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed' dated 25;-S.2G02 LA.App.No.266/2008&cdiTnectedmatters • Page57 of 74 ,r t because with reference to the said'sale price it is apparent that land price as of said date comes to more than if determined with , respect to the-notification dated 9,8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was. tl5,7 Ig.khs per acre with effect from • -1,4.2.001. • • •

¶62With respect to'the price differential for Category 'A' and Category 'B' lands, noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining tp the . .land acquired ;in •village Pooth' Khurd and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22,8,2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated 22,8,2001) 1 hold that vis-a-vis said notifications, .after increasing the price for the date differential, . fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2,S% to determine the price' for Categ.ory'Br4a.ftd^ ^ 63, "• • Before I; work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertai,:ning.to .Category 'A' lands, the land 'prices vyould. : marginally • increase • in .,3 .•• few •, casss 'and substantially -in the other, a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated'23.5,2002 pertaining''to'village'Hblambi kalan'wherein'''tfi'i''learned Reference CoL/rt h^s'^det'efmined fair mar-ket valu.e at ^22,1.4,23,900/-, per. acre .as of 23.5,2'00'2, but 1 need to highlight that pertaining tp the sarnie notification dated . 23.5.2002.. in relatio.ii to., village Alipur tlie ....learned Reference Court, has .determined the-,fair,, m.arket- .vglue. at ?17,85,240/- per acre and. 1 find that pertaining to village Raja'piur Kalan .and Sanoth,.^pertaining .to the notification, dated 27,1.'2003-the.faij market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is ^19,16,040/- in-some cases, and .?19,13,760/- .in a few, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matler;; * meaning thereby that much lesser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-a-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Kalan pertaining to notification dated

23.5.2002 and reason for abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Gairai's case (supra) as of 15.11.1995 has been .taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded, Village Pooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000

¶64With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect frorn 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ^13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7,8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated

25.5,2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?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 fl8,2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by

2.5% prices comes to ^18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing'the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for date

7.8.2000; mean average price for Category 'A' lapds in village Pooth Khurd comes to ^14,75 lakhs per acre and decreasing same by. 2,5%, it ^comes to t14,38,125/- per .acre for Category 'B' lands! Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category ,'B' lands and 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 & connecied matters H' t appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶66All L-a.nd Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections-filed by the iand owners in appeals filed by Union of India-are allowed'by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lai:ids in village Pooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of ^14.75 lalchs per acre and for Category 'B' lands compensation awarded at fl4,37,2'80/- 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 Stand's enhanced .statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as exp:lained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 56'9 shall be granted, except for the period where-there is a delay in fiiing the appeal, or cross objection,..for which period of delay no interest on th.e enhanced cornpe.nsation shall be paid. •; These appellants; on. cross Qbjectors would.-be entitled to [Drop:6T:tiohate:tost; ' • - "• ' ^ ' -• ' Village Hoiambi Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000 68: • '"For the reasoning given in paras 64 to-'67-hereinabove •pertaining to the-notification

(same) dated-7.8.2'000' relating to village Holambi Kalan, ail appeals as per ''GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections , stand .disposed of erihancipg the compemation to ^14.75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that as per the a.ward -.and even .as per. the reference ,all .subject Lands were of-uniforrn category. Need,less to state a.ppeals filed'^by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed-. Appeals and cross objections filed by iapd owners are allowed by I enhancing the compensation to ^14.75 lakhs per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as LA.'App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters explained in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. UP! 2001 (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 compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors.would be entitled to proportionate cost. • • " - . . Village Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2Q0Q

¶69Pertaining to village Bawana relating to the 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 ?14,75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands at ^14,38,125/- per acre and noting that Union of India Inas neither filed any appeal or cross Objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C liereinabqve are allowed by fixing compensation as heireinbefore mentioned and needless to stale oh-the enhanced compensaticpnthe appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the. judgment reported as Sunder 1/5, UO! 2001 (93) DUT 5.69, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for whi:ch period of delay no interest on'fhe enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to.proportionate cost. Village Khera Khura NQtification dated 11.9.2000. , ,

70.' With -reference to the • notification, dated , 9^.B,2001 wherein with effect fmm 1,4,2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13,82 iakhs per acre and requiring said price to-be suitably updated to reach date-of the notification i,e, 11,9,2000 and'.with reference to the sale deed dated,:25,5,2002 wherein-for Category 'C lands, land price per'acre comes to ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17,75,000/-. •per acre, and • for Categoi'y 'B' lands increasing-the same by 2,5% the price comes LA:App.No.266/2008& Gonnecteci.mattGi's to fl8.2 lakhs per acre.and further increasing by 2,5% the prices comes to fi8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the .said pri'ces by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed' for the date 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lan.ds in village Khera Khurd comes to fl4,83,500A per acre and decreasing the same by

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

¶71All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union' of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable fqr Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated

11.9.2000 in sum of. fl4,83,500/- per, acre for Category 'A' lands and f 14,46,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. 1 note that pertaining to this notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as'Sunder l/s. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the p'eriod where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for whi.ch .period,...of delay ^ no interest ,.oa ,.th^ enhanced corapehsation sfn/aJi^ be P9,id'.;,',These,appe|l.a..nts,.would-.be.^nltltled to proportionate cost. • . ^ v.. ; Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001 ..

72.- , With reference to th.e notificatipn dated • 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from

1.4,2001 minimum price notified per acre-is ?15.7 l-akhs per" acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of notification i.e. 2,5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25-.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C"lands, land price per-acre comes to ^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 LA.App.No.266/200? & connected matters , P.9ge62of-74 ) # ' • to ?18.2 lakhs per acre ari.d furtherincreasingby 2,5% the prices comes to-^8,65,500/-per acre for Category 'A' iands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for.Category^A' lands in village Narela comes to n6,16,500A per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ^5,76,087-per acre for Category 'B' lands, Noting that the learnedReferenceCourthas, withoutany reasons;dgne away with Category 'B'' lands and uniform price awarded is ns,85,570/-per acre-andsincefor Category'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by.?9,000/-per acre which is ameager amount, Ihold that for Category'g' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A'-lands the price standsenhancedto T16,16,500/-peracre.-

¶73All Land AcquisitionAppeals as per 'GRID.E'filed by the land,owners and-cross-objectionsfil'ed'by the land owners in appeals filed by Union-of India are 'allowed by decreeing compensationpayabieTor Category 'A' lands in village-Narela pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 in sum of n6,16,500/- per-acre and as per the reference order"for ' Category 'B' land-s.^ThtJs,"appealsfiled by tKe'Uhi'pnof India"as also cross objep^ by Qnion of'Indiaas also sucH appeals'" which relate to C^egory '6' lands, filed by.'land.owners.are^ dismissed and the ones i_,e.., the appeals and cross objections filed by the land ,ow,ners pertaining to. Category.'AMands a.re allowed as aforesaid-andneedless to state'on the enhanced compensationstatutorybenefitsas per the La.nd AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained.in,-thejud.gmentreported as Sunder Vs. jjoi 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted,exceptforthe period.where there is a delay in filing the appeal,for which period'ofdelay .no LA,App.No.266/2008-&connectedmatters Page 63 of.74 • /- r ,u interest on the enhanced compensation shall be pgid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Kolambi Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001 74, ' " Witb reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1,•4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is/?15.70 lakhs" per acre and'requiring said price to be-suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to n?,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ^18.2 lal<hs per acre and further increasing by 2,5% the prices comes to fl8,65,50Q/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing said prices by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22,8.2001; the mean averag'e price:fo:r Category''A' lands'in vjll:age<Holambi Kalgn comes to fl6,74^500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2,5%, it-comes to 32,637.50 per acre for Category-'B' lands. Noting that the learned 'Reference Court has; withbuf ' 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 rneager ^9,000/;; per acre and thus q.ua Category 'B" lands I maintain amount awarded, by tine learned Reference Court,.. , , • 75, . •All Land Acquisition Appeal$ filed by .the Union of Ipdia-and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in, the appeals filed by land-ovyners 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 owners and cross-objections-filed by-the land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/2008&coimected Page 64 of74 t,'' Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sun^i of f 1^,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B', lands compensation awarded at tl6',43,811/- per acre-is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category '3' lands are. dismissed.

¶77Pertaining to such appeal where compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Larid Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. IJQ1 2001. (93) DLT 559 shaH be granted, except for the period where there is*a del^y in filing the appeal or cross'objectipn, for which period of delay ho interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. , These appellants or cross objectors Would be entitl'^d to proportionate cost. Village Ali Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001

¶78'With reference tO' the notification dated' 9',§,2001 wherein with effect froni' 1,4.2001 minimurn price notified per acre'is^15.70 iakhs per acre and requiring said'price'to be suitably updated to reach the •date of' the'notification i,e, 22'.8.'2'00;1 and vvith 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, ,?nd for Category 'B' la.inds.increasing,the same by..2,5%.the priQe. eom.es to tI8.2 i.akhs per-acre and further increasing .by 2.5% th,e price,? comes to ?18,65;500/- per-acre-for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to,' reflect the price with reference to the sale deed-for the date 22,8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Ali-Pur comes to ^16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to t16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting LA.Ajap.No.266/2008&connectedimatters Page 6S of74 that the learned: Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is fl6,43;811/- per .acre, .the price differentialworked out t)y me comes to a meager ^9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands-1 maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Co^utrt'. •

¶79' All 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. ^ Village HGlambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2001

¶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 a,ere.and requiring sa.id. prj.ce to be suitably update.d;to reach •, the ., date of ,the, .•notification ,i.e., 22,8,2,001' and,.with reference to the-.sale deed..,.d5te.d...25.5.20.02. wherein for'.Ca..tegory;'C.-Landis, ,,lancl .pri.ce ,p.er..aore., cpme.s tp ^17,74,109/-,:: rounde;d. off-to .^.17.,7^5,000,/-:,per acre,,:,^,p,d,.Jiqr • Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5%.the price comes • to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and, further-increasing by 2.5%-.the prices comes to f18,65,500/- per acre for Cate.gory 'A' lands; and 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' land^s in village Holambi Khurd comes to fl5,74,.500/- per acre and decreasing the same by .

2.5%, it comes to'fa-6,32,637.50 per-acre .for Category 'B'. lands. Noting • that the ' learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' !ands^and unifo.rm pric^ awarded is ?16..j.43,811/-.per acre, the price d.ifferential worke-d out. by'me com.es:'to a meager ?9,00,0/- per acre and, thus qua LA.App.No.266/20Q.8&connectedmatters- , • - Pag9 66of74 a Category 'B' lands i maintain amount awarded by the learned' Reference Court.

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

¶83There shall be no order as to costs. Village Raiapur felan Notification dated 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 acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of notification i.e,

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ^17,74,109/-, rpunded off to fl7,75,0:00/- .per, acre, and for Category ',B.' lan.ds increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ^18.2 lakhs p,er acre and further increasing-by.2.5% the prices comes-to ^18,65,500/-, per. acre . for Category 'A' lands;- and decreasing said-prices by .11% to reflect price-with reference to the'sale deed'for the'date 22:8.2001; the-mean average price for Category ''A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan conies to fl5,.74,,500/- per'acre and decreasing, the .same by

2.5%, it comes to fl6,32,537.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is fl6,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a nneager ^9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶85All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA,App.No.266/2008 &.conHecteclmatters Page ,67 of 74 • • appeals Tiled by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRIP-J' hereinabove are dismissed.

85... All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners •and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Unioii of India are allowed' by decreeing compensation payable for:Categpry 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining tp the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of fl,6,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands compensation awarded at ^16,43,811/- per acre i.s maintained a.nd thus such appeals or cross. references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. . • •

¶87Pertaining to such appeal where compensation . " stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 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 oln'the enhanced compensation shall' be paid,' These appellants or cross objectors'would'be entitted to proportid'hate cost, Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001 • 88, - With 'reference, to','the ,' nptifica'tion.Jdated 9'.8.2001 wherein ..with effect frpm.,1.4.2001 minjrn.um price .,nptifi.ed pe,r acre is-.T15.70.^lakhs per acre.-an.d requiring, sai.d.',pri.ce.,to, be suitably up dated to - reach.', •the-date of-;:the,.,.notifi cation i-.e..;

7.12.20'01 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to'^17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the 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; and decreasing said prices by 11% to reflect price with LA.App.No.266/2008&. comiectetjiiiatters Page 68 of74 * , rererence to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average priee for Category 'A' lands in villageSanoth comes to - tl7,29,500Aper acre. Notmg that all lands In villageSanoth as per the award and as perthe ReferenceCourt are of same value i hold that for .acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notificatjandated,.X12,4.001the lai:id-..&wnetis-woul4be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of fl7,29,500/-.

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

¶90All Land Acquisition Appeals filecj by the lend owners -and cross-objectionsfiled, by the land owners in. appeals filed by Union of India are allowed-by granting compensation in sum of •<17,29/500/- and . needless to state on^ the enhanced compensation statutop>/ benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. UOJ . 2001 (95) DLT 559 shaii be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross,.objection, for.which period'of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be pdi'd.•• th4'se" ap'peiran;ti%F"cross objectors vvould be entitled to proportionate cost. -i ' " Viliaae Shahour Gibrhi Notification dated 16.5,2jl^

¶91.. ..Pertaining to village S.hahpur Garhi, as held by rne .hereinabovethe land pricg.would have to be determined with reference to the. sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category"'A' lands has been determined by me at ^•i€,65v506/----per-acre-andsince^there-iritrst-^titfferenee--of4 .. jays between the date of sale and the notification1 maintain that for the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land ow^i-ers are entitledto compensationat the rate of ?18,65,5p0/- j-A.App.No.266/2008&connectedrrs'Sars niad by the land owners as per the 'GRiD-f are allowed and •eedless.co state on, the enhanced compensation the land owners would be entitled to all statutoo' benefits as per the uno Acq.,s,t,on-Act 1894 as interpr^ed in the judg.en -ported as Sun^Vs^ 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objectiohsfiled by l.nd owner! wher^ there IS delay, no interestwould be paid for the periodof delay Poport,onate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross objectionsfiled by Union of Indla^are dismissed. . dated ^ tfis notification dated

23.5 ?002 .oerainingto yiliageShahpurGarhi, noting that the date of the .a.e-ueea and the.notlficatio:nhas adifferentialof only 3--daysI• •1010 tnat pertainingto this;nptification.,'since ianq is of samP. racegory.,the iand owners woiiidibe entitled'to-corfipensatiohat - .ut^ u, ?j.-j,55,j00/-with statutorybenefitsas per'theLand AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpretedin the decision reported'as Sunder V'; nni 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objectionsfiled-byland owners where there Is adeiay, no^ interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proporti,ona-te •costs stand awarded. All such appealsand cross.objections'.by ^ iBBd.-owners,a-s-per•GRiD-M' s.tand allowed:as,aforesaidand all" appeals and cross objections filed-by Union of india are dismissed. ,

23.5.2002,--. • As noted by me pertaining to. the notification dated <^3.5.2002 relating to-viliageHolambi K.a.lan all lands have been created sn the ssme category by the learned Land Acquisition :-^.,Apn.NA.266/200S&connectedmatters . • • Page70 of74 V" i t >• ColleGtpr and the -teamed Reference Court, The learned •Reference Court has .awarded compensation in sum of T22,14,239/- per •acre which. I have found to. be excessive inasmuch as for the'date 23,5.2002 i have held that fair'market value would be ?l-8,65;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 Indi-a are allowed by modifyingthe impugned decree passed by the learned Referehce Court and reducing the compensation payable to ?.18,55,500/- 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 Mi Pur NGtificBtion dated 23.5.2QQ2 94, Pertaining to the notification dated

23.5,2002 relating •tavi^llage All Pur, for parit/of reasons qua the said'notification . relatingto.viR-ageHolambi Kalan and ShahpurGarhi IdeWrmine fair market value payable, at.fl8,.65,500A per acre,and thus all appeals ...and cross-objecti.ons filed by .ynjpn. of. India-.as per 'CRIp-O' are di.sm.issed and all appeals and cross^obj.e.ctions filed by land owners as per.said. Grid'are allowed by enhancing cbmpensatio.n .payable to TIB,65,500/-. per acre on which Vj statutory benefits as per-Land AcquisitionAct as interpreted.in the judgment reported as 1/5, UP! 2001

(93) DLT 569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or cross objections where th'ere is a •delay, -interGst would not be' paid'for the period of delay. Proportionate 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 fe.connected matters • ' . ' 1"? that the learned land Acquisition Collector has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category , while awarding-cpmpensation, •96,

0.n the :rriea^n average basis which I have been following by increasing ,the^ price as Of 1.4,2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same-with reference -to the sale deed dated ;?0.5.2002' and taking the mean average, for Category'A'lands the price comes to ^19,43,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price comes to fl8,94,9T2,50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to.ns,47,539.68 per acre, 1 find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at • ^19,13,765/- and thus suCh appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category••C' lands^ ahd similar would be the fate'of appeals and cross objections filed by , Union of India pertaini.ng to,Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and :cross objections as per,'.GRiP-P' are dismissed. Appeals.and cross obj;ections..fjled by land owners.pertaining, to C.ate.gory:'A! lands' are allowed, by decreeing,compensation.. p.ayable.Jn,. sum ,of ^19,43,.500/- per-acre 'and-.needless tp state, on-the enhanced compensation-Statutory benefits as per the. La^d Acquisition Act 1894 gs interpreted-in the judgment'reported as 5under Vs.. UO! 2001-(93)" DLT''559 shall be paid save and except. in-such appeals and cross objections where there is" a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by . modifying relatable decree in the Reference Order by reducing the' compensation for' Category 'B; .land to LA.App.No.266/200.8-& connecteclmatters • Page. 72 of74 p / 9^ U8,94,312.50 per acre and •for •Category 'C land to xl8,47,539,58 per acre. Miii§9.gJlgJ3ayLj^ajTNoM dated 27.1.^nn^

¶97Parity of. reasomngas per para 96 above pertaining to Village San.olrh, sinjilar corrective'actionis to be required pertaining to lands, acquired pursuant to notifleation dated

27.1,2003relatingto villageRajapur Kalan and where1find that the learned Reference Court has In some cases awarded compensation in sum of ng,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at *19,16,040/.per ace.by treating all lands of uniform rategory. On the mean average basis which I have been rollowing.by increasi.ngthe price as of 1.4.2O01 with reference' to the notification issued.by the Government,as also by increasing the same with ieference to the sale deed dated

20.5.2002and taking the mean average, for Category'A' lands the price comes to ^9,43,500/-per acre and for Category 'B' land the brice comesto ?18,94,912.50per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to *18,47,539.68per acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been fiied-by' land owners the same have to be dismissedin so far'they pertain to -' Categoiy B and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the' fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India • pertaining to •Caf^.gory 'A'".lands.' ,The said appeals and'cross'" objecti.ons,35 per 'GriD-.Q' .g.re dismissed. ;Appeals and cross objectionsfiled by.land.owners,pertainingto Category 'A' lands ' are'.allowed .by de.creeing co.rapensati.on.payable in., gum, of, ?X9,43,500/- penacre'and heedless'to state dn the enhanced., compensation statutory benefits as per the Land'Acquisition Act 1894 as ihterpreteti'in the judgment reported as Sunder \/'s. UP! 2001

(93) DLT 569 shall be paid save and except in such . appeals ,and cross objections where there'is a delay, ifiterest LA.'App.No.266/2008i& connectedmatters Page 73 of.74 /.• -A, would not be paid for the period of delay, Proportionatecosts as well. The appeals and cross objectionsfiled by Union of India pertainingto Category'B' and Category'C lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by reducing compensation for Category 'B' land to ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.58 per acre. • , (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE august 23, 2011 mm/dk Prcc 1^ ot 1^ LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters

$-21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 177/2012 KHAZAN SINGH DECD THR LRS Appellants Through; Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Sahay, Standing Counsel for LAC Mr.Kunal Kohli, Advocate for DSIIDC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR