UOI v. Karan Singh & Anr

ORDER %

23.08.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.266/2008. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. AUGUST 23. 2011 mm Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT MEW DELHI 7 ^ % Judgment Reserved On: 12^^August 2011 judgment Delivered On: 23'''^ August 2011 + LA.APP. 266/2008 jA! SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.S.Chaturvedi, i^lr.Deepak Khosia/ Mr.S.K.Yadav. Mr.M.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana, Mr.Raj Singh, Mr.Uday Rann, Mr.D.Fl.Tomar, Mr.i.S.Dahiya, Nr.N.S.Dalai, Mr.S.IVj.Bhardwaj, Ivir.B.P.Gupta, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.S.S.Rana, Mr.Sunil Dalai, Mr.p.S.Khatri and Mr.T.P.SXang, Advocates Vs. UOI & ANR. ... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kunnar Pathak, Mr.Sachin NawanI, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K.Kaonaudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1. Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Advocate for DSIDC. Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Nr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihar! Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi and . Ms.Beenashaw Soni Advocates forODA, AMD CGRiP-A) . + LA.APP. 259/2008. LA.APP. 264/2008, LA.APP. 265/2008, LA.APP. 267/2Q0S. LA.APP. 268/2008. LA.APP. 270/2008, LA.APP.

27.1/2008, LA.APP. 272/2008, LA.APf^. 273/2008, LA.APP. 278/2008 SrCFTAPPL. ,A.App.No.266/2008 & connected mailers Page I of 74 8-LA.APP: 28W2008~n&-CM-^m:f^2^^ XIQemon^ tS^SPF^^Sl/aeeSr^ 286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP. 28^/2008, lAAPP 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP. 292/2008, U.APP. 293/2008, LArA:PP7-2M/2d08& CM APPi. 12^18/20^1—(Cross-Obj€Ctk>ns), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP. 296/^008, LA.APP 299/2008, LAvAPP. 301/2008, LAtAPP. 303/2008^—bScrAPPr 3^n7200B, LA.APP. 337/2008,' La!aPP. 35-7/2008, 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 267/2009, 770/7009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. -i:A,APP. 394/2008. U.APP. U.APP. 443/2008, LA.APP. LAtAPF, 484/20087^~tA:APP.- LA.APP. 493/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 526/2008, LA.APP. 537/2008, LA.APP. 546/2008, LA.APP. 563/2008, LA.APP. 623/2008, LA.APP. 635/2008, LA.APP; 662/2008, 413/2008, 48372008, 492/2008, 496/2008, 535/2008, 545/2008, 554/2008, 621/2008, 628/2008, 649/2008, & CIV! 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, LA.APP. LA.APP. 955/2008, LA.APP. & CM APPL. 5360/2010 {Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1014/2008, LA.APP. 1019/2008, U.APP. 1023/2008, U.APP. 1026/2008; U.APP. 1064/2008, U.APP. 1071/2008, U.APP. 1244/2008, U.APP. 1245/2008, U.APP. 1256/2008, U.APP. 1268/2008, LA.APP, 1273/2008, CM APPL. 2377/2009, (Cross Objections)U.APP. 86/2009, U.APP. 96/2009, U.APP. 97/2009, U.APP. 98/2009, U.APP. 101/2009, U.APP. 110/2009, U.APP. 111/200S" U.APP. 114/2009, U.APP. 120/2009, iAAPP. 251/2009, U,Am 252/2.009, U.APP. 265/2009, U.APP. ^6/2009 &-CM APPL. No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. U.APP. U.APP. 4^.APP. 879/2008, 894/2008, 906/2008, 911/2008, 927/2008, 933/2008, 939/2008, 944/2008, 958/2008, 269/2009, U.APP. 272/2009, UAPPr 306/2009, U.APP. 521/2009, U.APP. 12886/2011 (Cross 273/2009, U.APP. 300/2009, U.APP. 454/2009, U.APP. 455/2009, U.APP. 532/2009, U.APP. 535/2009 & CM APPL Objections), U.APP. 536/2009 & CN APPL. 12917/2011 {Cross "O^emons), U.APR.—543/20O^r—LA^PP. -M4/2BB9^; 26QI20Q9, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. IA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters 589/20nq APPL.13873/2011,LA^ 589/2009, LA.APP: ^3/2009, lA.APR 59472009 IA ApW .634/2009, LA.APP. ^35/2009, LA.APP. 636/2009' LA.APP" 637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, LA APP. 643/2009 & CM APPL.13878/2011, 1^.APP. 1/2010, LA.APP. 29/2010 LA APP 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010. LA.APP 107/2010^^ 108/2010, LA.APP. 109/2010. LA.APP. ieS/loiS.' U.APp 169/2010, LA.APP, 170/2010, LA.APP. 171/2010 'LAAPF 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010,' LAAPP] 430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 (Cross Objections) LA APP" 521/2010, CM /\PPL.' 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 522/i2010 LA APP 523/2010, lA.APP. 524/2010 &CM APPL. 12il4/2SilXss Objections), LA.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL 192/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, LA.APP. 527/2010, LA.APP ooQ/om?' 529/2010, LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL Objections), LA.APP. 531/2010, LA.APP. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. APPL. 12898/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 534/20107i:A;AsPP. 535/2010 & CM APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross Objections),LA.APP. 536/201().& CM APPL. 12887/2011(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 537/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010 & CM APPL. 12972/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPL. 12900/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP. 541/2010, LA.APP. 542/2010 & CM APPL. 19857/2010 (Cross Objections),LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. 12903/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL. 12888/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010, LA.APP. 566/2010, LA.APP. 581/2010, LA.APP. 592/2010 & CM APPL. 227/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 593/2010 & CM APPL. 12969/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 594/2010, LA.APP. 595/2010 & CM APPL. 226/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 596/2010, LA.APP. 597/2010 & CM APPL. 228/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP; 598/2010 & CM APPL. 487/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 600/2010 & CM APPL. 12897/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 601/2010, LA.APP. 602/2010, LA.APP. 603/2010 & CM APPL 12881/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP. 663/2010 & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), Le^.APP. 666/2010 & CM APPL. 6748/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 675/2010'& CM APPL. 9988/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 761/2010, LA.APP. 792/2010 & CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 793/2010 & CM APPL 12899/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. 795/2010, LA.APP. 40/2011, LA.APP. 195/2011 & CM APPL. 12892/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 215/2011, LA.APP. 228/2011, LA.APP. 229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011, LA.APP. 231/2011, LA.APP. 232/2011, LA.APP. 233/2011, LA.APP. 389/2011, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008 &'connected matters 392/2011, iJ^.APP. 420/20117 I:a:SPPT "4247203^.^-4^^ 425/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

07.08.200,0 & Award No.19/2002-03, Village-Pooth Khurd) AND (GmD-B) + LA.APP. 972/2008 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1122/2008 & CM 2099/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1150/2008 & CM 12216/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1151/2008 & CM 2345/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1152/2008 & CM 2102/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 115372008 & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1154/2008, LA.APP. 1187/2008, LA.APP. 1188/2008, LA.APP. 1189/2008, LA.APP. 1218/2008, LA.APP. 15/2009, LA.APP. 82/2009, LA.APP. 100/2009, LA.APP. 102/2009, LA.APP. 113/2009, LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009, LA.APP. 214/2011. (Relatrng to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 11/2001-02, Village-Hoiambi Kaian) AND {GRID-O + LA.APP. 359/2007, LA.APP. 202/2007, LA.APP. 382/2007, U.APP. 383/2007, LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP. 811/2008, LA.APP. 928/2008, l_A.APP. 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/2009, LA.APP. 969/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 08/2001-02, Village-Bawana) AND _ • , CGHID-DI + LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2011 & CM-• 12911/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page4 of 74 1x3 Motifrcatrorf u/s 4~cteted 11 .^9. 20/2002-03, Viilage-Khera Khurd) AMD CGRiD-E) + LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, 1:A;:APFr-646/2O0§7-t:A:AFPr-91:/2Meri:A7A:Pfr-93/201:^^ 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP. 191/2010 & CM No. 22402/2010 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 192/2010, LA.APP. 193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010. LA.APP. 195/2010. LA.APP. 196/2010, LA.APP. 197/2010, LA.APP. 297/2010. LA.APP. 299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, LA.APP. 309/2010. LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 & CM No. 3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 373/2010, LA.APP. 493/2010. LA.APP. 494/2010, U.APP. 495/2010. LA.APP. 496/2010. LA.APP. 497/2010 & CM No. Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, LA.APP. 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& CiVj No. Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 & CM No. Objections)> LA.APP. 503/2010, LA.APP. 506/2010. LA.APP. 509/2010, LA.APP. 512/2010, -LA.APP. 515/2010, LA.APP. 505/2010. 508/2010, 511/20T0. 514/2010, 517/2010 518/2010, 611/2010, 618/2010, 621/2010, 628/2010, Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. j CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 495/2010. 22728/2010 (Cross 499/2010, LA.APP. 23186/2010 (Cross 10382/2011 (Cross 504/2010. LA.APP. 507/2010. 510/2010, 513/2010, 516/2010, 7702/2011 (Cross Objections), 519/2010, 612/2010, 619/2010. 622/2010. 647/2010 & LA.APP. LA.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. CM No. 610/201D. 613/2010, 620/2010, 623/2010. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 3847/2011 (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 Objections). LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP, 854/2010 & CM No. -i^3f8/201:1r-(Ctobb ObjectiuTTs), 1:A7AFP7-B55/2010, LA.APP. 856/2010 & CM No. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010 & CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross Objecttons}, tA^m i§08/2^i0-^€R-Nt).-9956/2Oll (Cross -Objections), LAtAPF.-"lOriCTlO. LA.APP. 78/2011. LA.APP. -^/2Q11, LA.APP7-BO/2011, Bl/2011, LA.APP. 82/2011, -•-tATAPPy-••LA.AFPr-W261-i7-^cA-:APP. 85/2011, LA.APP. 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP; 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/2011, LA^PP. 324/2011 &CM APPL15110/2011, LA.APP. 385/2011. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters (TleTatfng to MdtTfication u/s 4 dated

02.05;2001& Award No. 24/2003-04, Village-Narela) AMD . CGRID-F)- + LA.APP. 497/2008, U.APP. 141/2009 & CM 5302/2010 (Cross Objections). (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No. 18/2003-04, Village-Holannbi Kalan) AiMD CGRID-G) + LA.APP. 777/2.010 & CM APPL.3808/2011, LA.APP. 778/2010 & GH 2685/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 779/2010 & CM 12966/2009 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 213/2011, LA.APP. 261/2011, LA.APP. 326/2011, LA.APP. 327/2011, LA.APP. 328/2011, LA.APP. 330/2011. LA.APP. 331/2011, LA.APP. 332/2011, LA.APP. 333/2011, LA.APP. 334/2011, LA.APP. 335/2011, LA.APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, LA.APP. 341/2011, LA.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP. 350/2011, LA.APP. 351/2011, LA.APP. 365/2011, LA.APP.377/2011, LA.APP.388/2011. (Reiating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 33/2003-04, Viilage-Holannbi Kalan) AND CGmp-H) + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, LA.APP. 409/2011. tRetattng to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 15/2003-04, Viliage-AH Pur) AMD + LA.APP. 481/2010 LA.App.No.266/2008 c-opr ! 9/2003-04,Viilage-MolambiKhurd) /--=^ + AND CGRiD-J) LA.APP. 780/2010 & CM No.2661/2011(Cross Obiectinnq^ LA.APP. 899/2010 &CM No.3833//oil (CrosfoSeSions' LA.APP. 900/2010 &CM No.35412011 Crol^ oSlS ^.APP. 970/2010,U.APP. 971/2010&CM No%5/20n Qbjeetions), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM No.2667/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Crfass Objections), LA.APP,974/2010 & CM No.14333/201l(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011 (Cross 977/2010, LA.APP. 978/2010, LA.APP E 9®^ No.9990/2011, LA.APP. 980/2010 & CM r Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP. r ^0.^42/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections) LA APP ^ ™Wo.6746/2011 (Cross Objections),' LA.APP. ^ No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2()10, LA.APP. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP, 990/2010, LA.APP. 991/2010 & CM No.9984/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 & CM .No.9970/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 1018/2010, LA.APP. 1020/2010 & CM No.12939/2 (Cross 0bjections)011, LA.APP. 1024/2010 & CM No.6771/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1/2011 & CM No.12964/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 2/2011 & CM No.6752/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 25/2011, LA.APP. 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, LA.APP. 53/2011 &CM No.6766/2011 (CrossObjections),LA.APP. 73/2011&CM No.12922/2011(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM No.6775/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.APP. 110/2011, LA.APP. 111/2011, LA.APP. 112/2011 & CN No.10050/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP. 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

22.08.2001 & Award No.20/2003-04, Village-Rajapur Kalan) AND LA.App.No.266/2008&. conneciedmattefs Page7 of 74 + LA.APP. 488/200B7~tArAPP7r2|:9tD/2008rl-A.APP.491/2008, LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/2008; LAJ^P. 8B8720IT8 & CM NO.10393/2P09 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 895/2008 & CM (Relating to Notification u/s No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth) . .. 8§7f2^0&, 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. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011 LA.APP. 421/2011 dated

07.12.2001 & Award AND imm-i) + t^.APP. 341/2008, U.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, LA.APP.352/2008, U.APP. 364/2008, LA..APP. 385/2008, LA;APP. 387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP. 464/2008& CM No.11333/2008 (Cross, Objections), LA.APP. 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP. 468/2008& CM No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP. 470/2008,. U.APP. 471/2008, U.APP. 560/2008, U.APP. 561/2008, U.APP. 611/2008, U.APP. 663/2008, U.APP. 676/2008, U.APP. 678/2008, U.APP. 679/2008, La.APP. 681/2008; U.APP. 682/2008, 722/2008, 786/2008, 842/2008, 883/2008,

92.4/2008, 938/2008, 945/2008, 998/2008, 1007/2008, 1079/2008, 309/2009, 465/2009, 546/2009, 624/2009, U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP-. U.APP. U.APP. 23/2010, U.APP. 24/2010, U.APP. U.APP. 37/2010, U.APP. 41/2010. 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, U.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 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, 53Q/2009, 26/2010, U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. 35/2010, (Reiatifig t-o Motificatlon u/s 4 dated. 16.05.2002 & Award Wo. 29/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters AND CGRgD-M} + LA.APP. 338/2008, LA.APP. 343/2008. LA.APP. 356/2008 LA.APP. 366/2008, LA.APP. 367/2008, LA.APP. 368/2008, LA.APP 369/2008, LA.APP. 370/2008, LA.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP 384/2008, LA.APP. 386/2008, LA.APP. 388/2008, U.APP 389/2008, LA.APP. 434/2008, LA.APP. 435/2008, LA.APP. 436/2008, LA.APP. 444/2008, LA.APP. 456/2Q08& CM No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008 (Cross Objections), 680/2008, 720/2008, 760/2008, 823/2008, 908/2008, 1022/2008, 1063/2008, 308/2009, 385/2009, 540/2009, LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP.: 723/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 767/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 824/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 909/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1024/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 173/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 311/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 463/2009. LA.APP. LA.APP. 542/2009, LA.APP. 562/2008, 716/2008, 757/2008, 793/2008, 837/2008, 952/2008, 1025/2008, 307/2009, 384/2009, 467/2009, 548/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/20,10. (Relating to Notification u/s dated No.22/2003-04, Viilage-Shahpur Garhi)

23.05.200,2 & Award AND •f LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 304/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 • - • . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

23.05.2002 & Award No. 16/2003-04, Viiiage-Hoiambi Kaian) AND CGRID-O) + LA.APP.379/2008, LA.APP. 381/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, LA.APP. 499/2008, LA.APP. 530/208, LA.APP. 836/2008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cross Cbiections), LA.APP. 310/2009 & CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections), LA..APP. 782/2010, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters -ia3/2Q^1^, 4A.AP^v §35/20^1^^^ LA.AfiP. 9/2Q11 & CM 9960/2011 -i4S5ftf2ei1r-Xt:mss=^Q!4emms),— 14852/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 381/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

23.05.2002 & Award Wo. 17/2004-05, Village-Ali Pur) \V3' AMD-CGRiD-P| + LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP. 674/2008 & CM !S!o.7818/2009(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, LA.APP. 706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 & CM No. 7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008, LA.APP. 882/2008,- LA.APP. 885/2008, LA.APP. 891/2008, LA.APP. 898/2008. & CM No.2355/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 922/2008, LA.APP. 923/2008, LA.APP. & CM No.2351/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. & CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 (Cross LA.APP. 981/2008 & CM No.1261/2009 (Cross LA,APP. 982/2Q;08, LA.APP. 983/2008 & CM No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 & CM No.839/2010 (Cross 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 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. 1127/2008 & CM Nb.2111/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP. 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), LA..APP. 1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 & CM No.7791/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 13/2009 & CM No.2151/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 22/2009, LA.APP. 83/2009, LA.APP. 99/2009, LA.APP, 103/2009, LA.APP. 104/2009, LA.APP. 107/2009, LA.APP. 115/2009 & CM No.6482/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 122/2009 & CM No.i432i/2009 (Cross objections), 123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, X-74/2m9, LA.APP. 250/2009, LA.APP. 260/2009, 23JJ2Dn^\ A.APR. •-262/^0^7'TCAFP: "264/2009, 293/2009, LA.APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. 301/2009, 302/2009. LA.APP. 303/2009. LA.APP. 355/2009, 461/2009, 902/2008, 929/2008 930/2008 960/2008, Objections), Obiectiyns). 433/2009, LA.APP. 449/2009, LA.APP. 471/2009, LA.APP. 487/2009, LA.APP. 518721)09, LA.APP. 527,/2009, LAAPP. 531/2009, LA.APP. 533/2009, LA.APP. LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters 501/2009, 530/2009, 537/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. l^.APP. la.App. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, LA.APP. ^ ^- • Vi 538/2009, LA.APP. ^>45/2009. LA.APP. 554/2009 TXapp 555/2009, ULAEE^^58«009^.LA^iig^; 588/2009, LA.APP, 619/2009, LA.APP 625/2009 LA APP 629/2009, LA.APP. mI/IoM,' I^.APP: 38/2010,LA.APP. 43/2010,I^.APP. 131/2010,LA APP 202/2010 LA.APP. 269/2010, LA.APP, 303/2010 LA APP ^10/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010,' LA APP 480/2010, LA.APP, 482/2010, LA.APP 484/2010, LA.APP. 485/2010, LA,APP 486/2010, LA.APP. 487/2Q10, LA.APP. 604/2010, LA.APP/ «n7omn ^ (Cross Objections'), LA.APP. 607/2010, LA.APP. 608/2010, LA.APP. 509/20ld, LA.APP 614/2010, LA.APP. 615/2010, LA.APP. 671/2010,' LA APP 695/2010, LA.APP. 705/2010, LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.APP." 785/2010 & CM No.12968/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 786/2010 & CM No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 787/2010, LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. 789/2010, LA.APP. 790/2010, LA.APP, 820/2010 & CM No.12880/2011 (Cross LA.APP. 915/2010, LA.APP. 916/2010 & CM No.6773/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 26/2011 & CM No,6763/2011 (Cross Objections), i_A,APP. 55/2011 & CM No.12894/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 59/2011, LA.APP. 63/2011, LA.APP. 69/2011, LA.APP. 70/2011, LA.APP. 72/2011 &CM Np.6777/2011(CrossObjections),LA.APP. 76/2011 & CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 & CM No.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 135/2011, LA.APP, 136/2011 & CM No.12971/2 (Cross 0bjections)011, LA.APP, 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 143/2011, LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APP. 203/2011 & CM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 273/2011 & CM No.13289/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 338/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

27.01.2003^ Award No.11/2004-05, Village-Sanoth) AND CGmD-QI 4-LA.APP. 336/2010 & CM APPL.14B45/2011, LA.APP. 624/2010, LA.APP. 625/2010, LA.APP. 626/2010, LA.APP. 627/2010 & C.M. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 629/2010, LA.APP. 630/2010, LA.APP. 642/2010, LA.APP. 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA.APP. 645/2010 & C.M. LA.App.No.266/2008& connected matters Pkgeilof74 No.3587/2011 (Cross ODjectionsTTl-A.APP.646/2010. LA.APP 664/2010, LA.APP, 665/2010, LA.APP. 667/2010,' KaPP. 668/2010, LA.APP. 669/2010 & C.M. No.6769/201i rCrn«;«; (Cross Objections)> LA.APP. 672/2010, LA.APP. 673/2010 & C.fyi. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, LA.APP. 701/2010 & C.M. No.3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 702/2010, LA.APP. 703/2010 & C.jVj. No.9941/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 & C.IVi No.12878/2011 (Cross Oi3iectjp_nsJ,,.XA.APP.735/2010, LA.APP .736/2010, LA.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP. 739/2010 & C.M. No.3569/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 740/2010 & CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 800/2010 & C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP. 802/2010, LA.APP. 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010, LA.APP. 809/2010, LA.APP. 810/2010, LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP. 812/2010, LA.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010, LA.APP. 815/2()10, L4.APP. 816/2010 & C.M. No.3862/2011 {Crtss 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, LA.APP. 925/2010, LA.APP. 945/2010 & C.M. No.3844/20il (Cross. Objections), LA.APP. 975/2010 & C.M. Nd.2664/20I1 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M. No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP. 56/2011 & C.M. No.9939/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, 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 & Award No.10/2004-05, Viliage-RajapurKalan) CORAiV!: HON'BLE iVIR. jUSTSCE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgnnent?

¶2To be referred to-Reporter ornot?

¶3Whether the judgnnent should be reported in the Digest? LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page12 of 74

¶1villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan.. Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela. Aii Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanqth are comprised in the Revenue District (North-West) and if we see the map of the city of Delhi —villages 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 the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line. Narela and Shahpur Garhi are. towards the east of the railway line. The urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has been developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is situated in the iand within the aforesaid 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 NareSa, all villages have been treated as equivalent with respect to their location.

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

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001> 7:12.2001,

16.5.2002,

23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003. Needless to state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to timei on •^"lTwB5Eiy°°QltWs uhuer Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act raw/vast t^^^ in said 10 WFa^es Wfe acquired and god lahd.q in the Revenue Estate of village Narela where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential and partly industrial, in the other villages, acquisitionwas^or the purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters . Page13 of74 _ . 7^. ~rociu ui TfelgM complex; vyhy sucn iarge Fradts^ iands were needed was to set up an industrialestate pursuant to a decision taken to shift a!! industries operating in non-conforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas,

¶3I must highlight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the smejn. all a^e^. filed by them as also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and except pertaining to village Narela, where an additional . argument was advanced; being that, the township of Narela had • • • • ....... , i . 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 iands in the revenue estate of village Narela and adjoining vHlages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of ?2A per sq.yd. vis-a-vis price determined for lands in village Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight that learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi being in Mamurpur.-

¶4The position of the awards made from time to time and the relatabie 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 heremaboveand thus I need not repeat the same. _5. - . A perusal of all the awards announced from time, to iim£=^saidr-^fS3^eal_that-ihe-ieaixted-Land Acquisition Coliector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from time notifying the minimum rates for agricaltural 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& connectedmatters Page14 of 74 - - - . . 4 to d', rne lana value has been appropriatelydepressed and this is to be found rn a few aw^rd^wtieml^Ftiwe been put in 2 or 3 categories 'A', Category 'B' and Category • • • . . ?

¶6A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the ReferenceCourt in various Land AcquisitionReferencesmade, would show that the learned Reference Court has determined fair market value on different principles and for purpps^ of clarity ! may note basis on which the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court have determined the conipensation payable. The same wouid be as under:- A. Pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.2000 issued Sectleft 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant w/hereto 1372.00.10 big,ha land was acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against ^13.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and tl2.26 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the policy for minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. fl3,82 lacs per acre and has granted increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1,4.2000' til! 7,8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fair mari<et value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and tias ignored that there was Category 'B' land for which he had to make necessary adjustment. B. Pertaining to the same notification dated

7.8.20G0 pursuant whereto -211.14 bigha land -was acquired in village-Hoiambi 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 tl3.82 lacs LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page15 of74 —^- - . XV • per acre which has been enharrced by LhB-teamBcf Reference Court to ?14,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decisIdTTof a ~ Gairai Vs. 6^0/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 annurrrBj^re-dation'^foT-a period^:^ 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 v/vhereto agricultural lands in village Bawana were acquired, the Land Acquisition Collector determine^ 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 fl2.52 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. The learned Reference Court maintained the same. D. Pertaining to notification dated

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

1.4.2000 was ?13.82 lacs per acre and for 128 days i.e/the number of days between 1.4.2000 til! 11.9.2000, appreciating same by 12% has determined fair market value at ?14,40,157/- and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands. . E. 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 1, Narela, with respect to policy of minimum price with effect from

1.4.2001 LA.App.N6.266/2008& connectedmatters Page16 of 74 N' •—• • :—^— learned Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category 'B' lands determined sajne at tl4 lacs per-acre: The learned Reference Court adopted the 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 i^TTd-AccpjisTtturr Act 1S94-is dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced compensation to ^15,85,700/- per acre which has uniformly "awarded. F, . Pertaining to notification dated

22.8.2001 whereunder

512.16 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on 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 fl4 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. ^15.7 lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% p^r annum for 143 days an^ the price so fixed is tl6,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded. G. Pertaining to same notification dated 22,8.2001 pursuant whereto 512.16 bigha land was acquired in village Alipur, on the same reasoning which ,has been adopted for village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same compensation as determined for village Holambi Kalan has been worked out by the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoras also by learned Reference Court who has done away with H. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuantwhereto 192.15 bigha of land was-acquiredin village LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Pag® oi 74 • 5"i Holambi Khurd, reasoning of the LAC and learned Reference Court and the price determined is the same as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that, in this viiiage 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 the acquired land was of uniform category. j. Pertaining to notification dated

7.12.2001 pursuant whereto 222.05 bigha land was acquired in village Sanpth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Marefa township, learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed compensation uniformly in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per the policy for minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the learned Reference Court has adopted the same price and given appreciation for 250 days at the rate of 12% per annum to reach the figure of ?16,99,042/- per acre. K. Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural iands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired,the learned Land AcquisitionCollectorhas determined compensation in sum ot TtSrT-tac^-per acre which is the minimumprice notified by the Governmentas of 1.4.2001. Th^ learned Reference Court has simply held that the land owners would be entitled to enhance compensation at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded, 1 may highlight that the learned Reference Court has not worked out the compensation and has left it to the Executing Court to do so, however 1find that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be LA.App.No.2i56/2008&connectedmatters Page1^8 of74 •1^ ?17;75,3^9.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as "X^OUl and the base price at fl5.riacsrfor~l~yprand days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned Additional Sessions-Judge. L Pertaining to notification dated

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

16.5.2002 and I find that sinceithere is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision of the Reference Court comes to ?17J9,781.78 per acre. pursuant whereto

445.81 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan was acquired, the learned LAC has determined fair market value in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopted the same reasoning as was adopted while determining the fair market value of lands In village Holambi Kaian which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the decision in Gairai's . case (supra) and appreciating the same by 12% compounded per annum the price determined Is f22,14,239/- per acre. N. Pertaining to the same notification dafeed 23.5.2002 pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Alipur were acquired . the learned Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at the rate of ?15.7 lacs per acre based on the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which price has been adopted as the base by the learned Reference Court and after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page19 of7^, • • X4^0m^ij|-2M72a0244he^ "~a~cfer Or Pertaining to notification dated

27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha land in village Sanoth and -^^S703H?tgtra4ancHrrvtttage-R Kalan were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the minimum price notified as of L4.2001 fixed the same value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages i.e. n5.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of f 14 lacs per acre and for Category 'C lands in sum of n2.3 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different reasoning in some impugned decision and different in a few. In some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted the minimurn price In sura of?15.7 lacs per acre-as of;a.4.200:^^aM appreciating the same by 12% per annum for a period of 655 days has fixed fair market value at ?19,13,765/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for f5,39,690/-. .

¶7Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned Reference Court have relied upon notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agricuirarat tands in Delhi, let me therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same would"be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page20of 74 .Cl Mj-h Ertecm^-Date-Ffjee—• '• • % increase per annum Notification of the price (In lakhs/acre)

1.

3.5.1990

27.4.1990

4.65

2.

25.7.1997

1.4.1997

10.0

11.5

3.

24.9.1998

1.4.1998

11.2

11.2

4.

21.11.-2000

12.32

5.

9.8.2001

1.4.1999

1.4.2000

12.16

13.82 .

6.

9.8.2001

1.4.2001

15.7

11.5 .7. .•

30.8.2005

30.8.2005

17.584

2.98

8.

24.1.2008

18.12.2007

89.51

¶8From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after mininnum price was last fixed w.e.f.

27.4.1990 in sum of ?4.55 lakhs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to ?10 lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998 the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of fll.2 lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to ?12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.1999 to ?12.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% ^ pej lanrLU with reference to the price determined as of ._J..4:i998 and vide same notification price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.2000 to ?13;82 lakhs/acre • \ i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-a-vis previous i.e. fl2.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-^-vts the previous price of fl3.82 lakhs/acre to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters enhancedw.e.f. 30.8.2005to ?i7.584lakhs/acrewagPi givesi.. -^^^rcreBse-DfOTly^.ya% perannum and then the price rose to ?53 lal<hs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annunn with referenceto the base figure of ?17.584 lal<hs/acre and the date 30,8.2005. -S-— Befoifi—n^jtlng-the-evidenceFefied upon by the land ownersand Union of India beforethe learnedReferenceCourt, it would be beneficial-forthe readerof the presentdecision,as ! feei, that argumentsadvanced on eitherside may be noted. I would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the alternativeand it was urged that they would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, failing which as per the third argumentand so on. From the side of was urged that the land price fixed by the Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.2000, for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated

22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kaian; the notification dated

7.8.2000for villageBawana;the notificationdated 11.9.2000for village Khera Khurd; the notificationdated 2.5.2001for village Narelai'andthe notificationdated 22.8.2001,forvillage Ali Pur; and the notificationdated 27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Kaian and Sanothtreatsas if all lands were of uniformcharacterand it -Jl^Jirg^. tJiatxQn:ectlve_^£^^ by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Governmentfrom time to time, 11.5% increaseper annum and —±2^ Mtir drmum-mcreas-e-wasexce^ive-withreferenceto the - lates^the notificationsunderSection4of Land Acquisition Act 1894; requinhgthe same to be reduced to 10% per annum m fhe least. Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not justifiedin treatingail lands as of the same characterand thus LA.App,No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page22 of74 ^^ requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C by Land Acquisition Collector 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 such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C, on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect .

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

25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as afSD th^SHte deed dated

25.4.2001, Ex.PW-l/2, in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex,PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village Namurpur was sold @ ?26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-l/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of ?32.4 lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 binder Ex.PW-1/3 would be t28.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-l/2ithe land price would be ?53.478 Jakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000, il.9.2d0p,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by suitablyincreasingor decreasingthe price. As an extendedlimb ofthis argumeht, pertainingto village Narela, it was urged that the price needs to be suitablyenhancedand for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page23 of74 • and for which argument was that when m 1 - 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 agricuitural 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! vs. Dharambir & Ors. The said decision would reveal that price per bigha in .sum of ?6,650/- determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to ?16,750/- per,bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to ?22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored.

¶11• Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Nareia Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSipc and DDA i.e. the implementing agencies, s'' • • which acted as the fModal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate and for which learned counsel took me through evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the •submission; urged. "

¶12AitOTative to the second siibmisslon, being the third • submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this ^ Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram. ,LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page24 of74 X -vsr-Unkmof Sncfia. It was permlssibie to determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitableincreasein the marketvalue of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with referenceto the decision in BediRam'scase (supra)as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6% per annum with reference to the base price ?16,750/- per bigha as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum til!

31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various dates when the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with which !..am.concerned inJJie present 3pp<pak. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to ?56,88,759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel urged that on the same principle market value should, be assessed for preceding notifications dated

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001, 7,12.2001,

16.5.2002 and

23.5.2002. ^

¶13The fourth argument advanced was, and for which -refej-^ce was made by learnBd-cguns^J for the parties In the evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.NoT268/2008 filed by the land owners . and LAJkPP.Mo.292/2008 filed__by UniQn,_QtJndia, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page25of74 testffnoRy of Ram K4shaFvto effect that by selling aqriculturar; : -produce from his-iaftds-be^-usedto earn lakh per biqha per "annum i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification Issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date shoufd be^20 lakhs per bigha. I may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel v\/ho appeared for Ram Kjshan and others i.e. the appellants in LA,APP.No.258/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.Mo.292/2008.

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

24.1.2008 where under f53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18,12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument.

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

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

20.5.2002, where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.2dQ (1-13) In the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for f5,3§,6§1}/-, determined the fair market value as per th^e-saJii sale deed IrTthe foilowihg'words: (Refer oara 17 of the decision in LAC-Moai-7A/2009) ; If we add stamp 4Uty-m~ the saie price 13.69,906/- per bio/ia fK5.39.690/- ^

70.160 = 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa} which comes -to^17,74,109/- per acre or ^3,68,906/- per'bigha. Further if we give 12% LA.App.No.266/20088c connectedmatters PageM of 74 • . increase on said amount for intervening period between date wtien the sale deed executed-^j^d the date of notificatior, u/S 4 (20.05.2W2 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes toX19,16,037/- (round offX19,16,040/-)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatableto the said acquisition i.e. Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land.wasput in Category'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra 1^5.200 and thai: page No.56-57 oT~the award would evidence thatHam^- ^ in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in Category 'C. Whereas Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of ?15.7 lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated

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

¶15I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India end the same are reflected in para 9 above and hence 1need not repeat the same. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page27 of74 : ^^

¶17: In various sub-paras of para b fi^lnabove, I have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisitloftgotiector-- -aad-£h€4eamed^R€fe-penceCourtpertaining to'the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatableto the 10 villagesand thus I commenceFny journeyto deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collectorand the learned Reference Court as per various sub-paras,of para 6 above.

¶18But before dealing with the arguments 1 need to highlight various anomalies which strike reader at the outset. The same would be:- A. Pertaining to the notification dated

7.8.2000 wherein lands were acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for Category 'B' lands, having depressions and pits, deduction effected vis-^-vis the price for Category 'A' lands is n.56 lacs per acre and pertaining to the notificationdated 11.9.2000 where price has been determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd, sa4drpricedifferentialhas been worked out at ?1.2 lacs per acre and while determining fair market value for agricultural lands in village IMarela which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 2.5.2001 the deduction effected is ?i.7 lacs per acre, which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan was determined as of date

22.8.2001. Pertaining to notification dated

27.1.2003 and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential on said count has again been taken at ?1.7 lacs per acre to inter se differentiate the-price between Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C lands. In other words, the price differential has varied between fl.2 iacs per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and tl.7 lacs per acre. LA,App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page28of74 --—— . B. The learned Land AcquisitionCollectorhas adoptedthe minimum price notifiedclosestin pointof time to the date when Section 4 notificationwas issued without appreciatingthe land price with referenceto the date ofthe Section4 notificationi.e. no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has been given. -^phe-lBarnedReferenceCourt has adopted the minimum price notified arid has given appreciation ranging between

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

7.8.2Q00 and

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

15.11.1995 and has given appreciation at the rate of 12% simple per annum for the former notification and at the rate of 12% compounded per annum for the latter. E. Whereas for notification dated

27.1.2003 learned Reference Court, in some references has determined the fair markiet value with reference to the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001. and has given appreciation, in some cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale deed dated ,20:5.2002. F. Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Collector has classified lands in Category 'A', 'B' and 'C reasons thereof have ^"been given in the award but the learned Reference Court, while " awar^ng umfoiTificom^^ has given ho reasons as to why Lt_ma5Jx£MDg^il lands, to be of same_character and_qjjaiity.

¶19Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued^ under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page29 of74 tactj, WRIch -wmna'^ Put in a tabular form the data would be as under:- Village Date of Section Motification LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre)With reasons ADJ compensation (in lai<hs/acre) with reasons Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 Cat.'A'n3.82 Cat. 'B' n2.26 Minimum price as-of 1.4.2000 Cat. Uniform. n4.3728. Minimum price as of

1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a; Hoiambi Kalan

7.8.2000 ?13.82 Minimum price as of 1.4,2000 fl4.12995. Price as in Gairats case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. Hoiambi Kalan

22.8.2001 Cat 'A' n5.7 Cat. 'B' n4 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. ,?16.43811. Minimum price as Of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Hoiambi Kalan

23.5.2002 ?15.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 ?22.14239. Price as in Cairat's case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. (compounded) Bawana

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B'a2.52 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 No enhancement given. Khera Khurd

11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B' n2.62 Minimum price as af 1.4.2 QQQ Cat. Uniform. ?14.40157. Minimum price as of

1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Narela

2.5.2001 Cat. 'A' tl5.7 Cat. 'B' ?14 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. fl5.857. Minimum price as of

1.4,2001 with LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page30 of 74 All Pur i Pur Hoiambi Khurd Rajapur Kalan Kajapur Kalan Sanoth Sanoth

22.8.2001

23.5.2002

22.8.2001

22.8.2001

27.1.2003

7.12.2001

27.1.20Q3 Cat. 'A' fl5.7 Cat.'B'fM l^inimum price of 1.4.2001 U5J Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as as ?15.7 i^inimum price as of 1.4.2001 ?15.7 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as Cat. 'A' aS.7 Cat. 'B' ?14 Cat. 'C ?12.3 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 n5.7 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 Cat. ''A' ?15.7 •Cat. Cat. 'C ?12.3 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as as LA.App.No.266/2008Sc connectedmatters 12% increase p.a. ?16.43811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. ?17.8524 Minimum price as ^ 174721)01 with 12% increase p.s. ?16.43811 Mtnlnium price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. ?16.43811 Minlmuni price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a.

¶1?19.13765 for Uniform category. Minimum price as of

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

¶2?19.1604 for Uniform category based on' sale deed dated

25.5.2002 with 12% increase p.a. a6.99042. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. n9.13755 . .for fofm-gery. Minimuni pnce as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Shalipur

16.S.2001 -CatT W-^15;7 n7.-75369. -— -Garni Mifrifrmrrr-prrce~-^5r Iviinimum price as of 1;4'-2001—wtth~ W wV 1 IkI ( compound Interest @ 11.5% p.a. Siialipur Garhi

23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' ^5.7 Mfnlmum price as of 1.4.2001 fl7v7g7ei; Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a.

¶20I now proposeto deal with the 6 submissionsurged by couhse! for the land owners and the 2 submissions urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above {pertainingto Union of india).

¶21The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to ?26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ ?63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricuitural lands, for all the villages in question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 v\/as purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC Mo.68/200^ had stated that to his knowledge land was purchased for religious purpose and was BeTrig used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PVV-1/2 has likewise been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricufturaf lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land AcquisitionOfficerBum & Ors. l/s. Isti Rohini&Anr (Refer para 6) and 2009

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

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

27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. ?17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes "to f53.478 iakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and t28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex,PW-l/3, LA.App,No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page33 of7': ^^^ \.\Q themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price Ttmis/ apart from Lhe reasoning of learned Reference Court, with which ! concur, afore-noted reasons in para 23 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair ma4:k8t4^aJ4je_of-subi.ecUacuis-_carL.be_d-etermiaed.^^^a^^^more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area. It would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiyabeing the decisiondated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being l_A.App.No.l93/2006Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs 1/5. UUr& Ors. it was hlqhiiqhted tharthe sale dee^ therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansionof Its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good .evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was acceptedby the Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2 sale deeds in question I.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argumentignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not acceptthe value in the sale deed on its own logicas indicative of the market value, but-found"that if the price therein was reduced by l/S'^ the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters , . Page34 of74 , : ^ would be price arrived at with referenceto the average rate of. the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Governmentwere giving a price of ?1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed underwhich L&T had purchasedthe land gave the.pricef3,26,600/-per bigha and the average woyld -eonriG to—which was" near about price of ?2,15,160/- per bigha, if 113^^ would be deducted from the sum of f3,26,500/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. ?2,15,160/-. in other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value.

¶24Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of argument that after accepting said saie deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to village ^arela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case ""(supra), land prfc'eThbuid be suitably enhaWcM^ufd be dealt vA/it-h hy mfi af t-hp pnri whpn i determine the fair m.arket: value of lands for the villages in question.

¶25The second argument,, contours whereof are^ to be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, 1need to note the LA.Axr!'..T--Jo.?.66/2008& connectedmatters Page 35 of.74 : • UV iatest pronQuncenrvefTt of th^iipjeme Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UOI.

¶26But before that I must highlight that the decision in Chand'S-case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA broGhure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and th.e-:ai::gument was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricuitural lands in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i^e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the 'V formed by NH-1 and NH-IO i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road. 27, Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agriculturar lands, developing the same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts, in paras 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the DDA brochure..Is relevant evidence?

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

¶126 sq m Economicallyweaker sections Rs 100.

(EMS)

¶232 sq m Low Incomegroup (LIG) Rs 125 dR qn m Low inrome nroupiLlG) Rs 1SIL_ "4T 60 sq m Middleincomegroup (MIG) Rs 200 5, 90 sq m Middleincomegroup (MIG) Rs 200 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters contend that Rs 150 per square metre _ ^ averageof the said pi-ovi^dnairates,"should be taken as indicativeofthe ruling marketprice. consideration, we are of the view that such aHotment rates of plots adopted by development the basis for awa?S 0? compensationfor acquisition of undeveloped lands for several-reasons. Firstly, market value has to be ^f^^eveloped agriculturallands m a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of developn^entauthorities are with reference to small pots in a developedlayoutfalling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt differentratp ror plots in thesame area with referenceto the ^ononisccapacityof the buyer, making it difficultto II ascertain the real market value, v^/hereas market value determinationfor acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. concerned with market value of freehold te^wh^as the altotment"rates" in the DDA brochure referto the initial premium payableon allotmentof plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. ' First factor

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

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

¶15The development authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/200B&connectedmatters Page37of74 underground drainage and sewage facilities, Taylrig water lines, electricity lines and developing parks and rivii developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.

¶16On the other hand, if the residential plot is jn an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of --^^^e4y€ti©fv-far-devel0pmeBt^'~-may-be far less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, Just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of piots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% In regard to DDA piots.

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

¶18^ The positionwith referenceto industriallayoutswill be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.

¶19If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. {Note. The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.)

¶20Therefore deduction for "development factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters with reference to price of a snna!! plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is ais^^-weff"known that the development cost Incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regain to higher ovarf^eads and expenditure.

¶21Even among layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residential- -Gu«v-€emR^emal-efMf!4ustr4af; an^-evefhamong residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community faclHties, parks and playgrounds provided.

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

¶23DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon economic status of the allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequerice, in the same layout, plots rffay be earmarked for persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be Rs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons belbnglhgto high incomegroups. ' _

¶24The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EW5 may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogicalto take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA. statutory authority, but'upon the paying capacity of ~the a^fi^l^sW"a^riotment. Third factor . LA.App.N6.266/2008&connectedmatters Page39 of74 vv> annual rental ^a'"®.^''•^-rftlsostandard methods for freehold , gf freehold(ownership)rights with determiningthe value or rreeno i

3.^13^leases, referenceto the annual rentel income ^J ^ But it is very ^5 to the premium for a freehold property wth refere jj 1-r-ratelafiotmentprfcl)'chargedby DDA, as being equal to the marketvalueOfthe property^ difficulties referred to

¶27However, in view of , . ^gjy upon the above, it is not safe ^J-gggrdto the plotsformed allotmentrates/auctionrates in Q .^ by DDA in a developed lands. The value of the adjoining ^ excludedas being DDA brochureprice has thereforelo oe ex^ not relevant." 2^^ Theevidenceon the subjecthas been discussedby the learnedReferenceCourtandIreproducethe sameby exacting r^C Reference NO.117A/2009. The argumentadvanced Co«.mr.t.renc. totl,.e.l(l.nce •-L,. ens., that DDA &DSIDC allotted plots in ware ^ Ares and Narela nU^tterdated 04.01.2000 He has relied pi^t. 03, Sector A-5, issued by DDA of ^° Chander at the Narela which ^4528/ which he has proved as pre-determlnedrate f tg^ 26.06.2003 of plot EX. W6/1, Allotment lett^^^^ measuring 70 Sq. metres''in which andl^liXeMletter S'69.Sf90oTiErialplot allottedby DSIDC I.e. ^ Page40of/'* LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters plot npi270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela - lal \^oi"np{exat the rate of ?d5Q sq. metres which Is Ex. PW3/1 and another anotment letter dated

25.04.2000of industrialplot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at ?3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW9 Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PWll/1, which1s detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost bigha WQtfld-be-^-794400000 = ?248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by sellingalternateplot in Narela ResidentialScheme@ ?3208 would be ?2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 -759422 = 17719856 per bigha). And after deducting developmentcharges from sale price of one bigha i.e. fl771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only f3,27,083/- per Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of P\fM7 R.D. Sharma, Asstt. Manager, DSIDC who has produced documentsEx. PW7/A (Coliy). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of IMarela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1351250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is ^2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area underplots ='

112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in year 2000 at which DSIDC sold Diot f3000/- per sq. yards Total earning = ?4083750000 Total expenditure ?720526901 Total profit 0363223099 fre.-J^^of{t^eom€s-tof2470'per'^.-yard^ 'fS^^ per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) -and the LAC has-paid compensstien-@^35^083-p€r bigha only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of ?21429J.I per bigha. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ f3270B3 per LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page41 of ?'l bigha for the iand in question if 200% appreciationof the Vl V comes to f6541§6^—If^^e-amoynt is deducted from saip _ Mce__per bJgM iVe7 ?24700000 the figure comes to ?1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." -M.—-—Mowy-we-d©-n©t-4^a^,'e 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 ryarela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in Lai Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

¶30it is no doubt true, as held even—by-~the-4eamed-Reference Court, that with development of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be v/hat would be the value to which the building potentiality Vtfould translate itself.

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

¶32The third submission m the alternative was. based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in 8edi Ram's -c&se (supra), ditd the bubtnission is as noted In para 12 herein above. The iand owners require price determined in DharambiYs case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page42 of74 , • \\a 30^0 TQPl in-5Ui3X-om^75QA-pgiiJ^^ Mamurpur to be treatedas the basisand progressivelyincreased,firstly by 6% per annum, then by io% per.annum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby det-ermjne the fair market value for the 8 notificationsin question.

¶33It be highlightedthat in BediRam's case (supra), with reference to the base date aS: of the ySar'1959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied the progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years.

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

¶47The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present C acquisitionis In the year 1981, the marketvalue of the acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. V. Rameshbhai jivanbhai Patella this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) "15, Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining market value by providing — --appropriate-escalation over-thB-pToved-iriarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as evMeficed-by-s-ale transa€tf0ns-©r-a€^msitf©tis), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr acquisitions of comparable lands in neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters whore -—sate^ traPrsaetfoFis/aequisitlonsprecede stifejeet——^— acquisitionby only a few years, that is, up to foiir——— » Z ^~ ^^ ^ ^ -WWII WBIWK. Wp UW l<CfUI to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouringland. Whatmay be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining market value of a land a€qtriT^cHir-i992r-axfopirig~thi^e"BnWaalincrease method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970. or 1980 may have many pitfails. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of ; increase." (emphasis supplied)

¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itselfthat there were no adverse circumstances.For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports discJose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing price with reference to . the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any use for determining market value for a 1981 acquisition."

¶35It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case (sif^fa^r which decision follows—an—earlier decision of the Su^eme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Rameshbhai Hvanbhai Patel. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page44of 74 5'\-

36.- trrthe iiibLdnt-cgse-thereis anTOergood reason"notto follow the law laid down in Bedi Rsm'^ case (supra) for the reason I find that a Co-ordinateDivision Bench of this Court, in the decisionreported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati &Ann 1/5. UP! &Ors,, pertainingto agriculturallands in village Mamurpur-Narela, did not apply the progressivepercentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambii'^ case (supra) as of the year 1953, which would have resulted in the land price being determinedin villageMamurpur-Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ ^2010/- per annum per bigha .and gave the increase @ ?1000/- per bigha. if Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would have come to approximately?50,000/- per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at ?33,000/-.per bigha.

¶37That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, whiie discussing on the issue of the fair marl<et.value of subject lands, in the unrepbrted decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinah vs. UOl & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and 1 highlight that one village with which I am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a . notification dated 15.11.1995 issued, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market vyalue as of

15.11.1§§6 was determi^ned @ n,99,904.68 bigha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the Government was flO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.Nb.266/2008&connectedmatters Page45 of74 determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. " prfce-3S—of-i5Tii.i§^ @ ?9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which l am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein above, I would be holisticallydiscussingthe subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notifications in question.

¶39The -fourth argument, which Vvfas advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.258/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APP.Mo.292/2008,is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the ' testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning ?1 jakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce.

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

¶41The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on 4,10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3'^ week of September, rice is harvested ,in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page46 of74 • • ^ sown arounS the first week or the second week of Ndvember . each year.

¶42But the other reasoningof there being no evidenceled in the form of documentsis relevant. fMovv,Tsperthe testimony of Ram Kishan he was worl<ing as an AdministrativeOfficer in the Municipal Corporationof Delhi till 313.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himselftil! said period and thereafterearneda pension. If thefamily, as claimedby him, was earning?i iakh per bigha,for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and l'8 biswa, the annualle€effle-w©iildbe ?19 ia1<hs and one ^ strange that not-a penny was invested in a bank or a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined. No proof of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tube-well, if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity biJIs paid if the pump was ielectricaliy driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value of lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of.the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly rejected. ^ 4^- 4f there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or there is othefwfrse—Tjeliable evidence, as was -found in the decision of the Supreme Court reporced as JT 1997 (1) SC 444 Stste of Guiarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors.. pertaining to the yield from agricultural iarsd, only then it would be safe to determine fair market value by applying principle of LA.A-pp.No.266/2008& connectedmatters being timesthe annuati^'relUand not 20 times as was sought to be projected.

¶44The fifth argument which was advMced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang,Advocate was that the mean average principle b^dqpted with referenceto the notification dated 24.1.2008.

¶45in para 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notifiedfor agriculturalland in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which 1 am concernedare dated 7.8.2000,11.9.2000,2.5.2001,22.8.2001,

7.12.2001, 16.5.2002,25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 above, we fincT that minimum prices have been notified as of

1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there wpuid be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years away from the last year with which I am concerned i.e. the year 2003. Ihighlightthat reckonedw.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statisticswhich governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would be clesest-to-^he-peint for tl^e mean average has to be determined. am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in ~P^ra~K~tweiiT-atFO¥e,^BTTdfor which t tiighiight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to notification dated

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

20.5.2002 where under bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in viliageRajapur Kaian and LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page48of74 ""-s. has determinedthat based thereon the price as of said datl^ for 8 months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1,2003the price would be ?19,16.037/-per acre rounded off to fl9,16,040/-per acre. • •. .

¶47With referenceto the Award No.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05It IS apparentthat land comprisedIn Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category'C land. The sale deed In questionpertainsto the same land and Indeedthere Is logicthat if said sale deed had to be accepted,It would reflectfair market value of Category'C land. As per the learnedLand Acquisition Collector?l.7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressionsfor land in Category 'B' and further sum of ?1.7 lakhs per acm-wdiUd-bprpgnirpfj to fill up the dcprcccionsin Category'C land, meaningtherebydepressionsin Category'B' ^^nd were less vIs-^-vIsCategory*C' land. In other words, with referenceto Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C land would have to be reducedand vice-versa,vis-^-vIsCategory'C land, the price for Category -B' land and for Category'A' land wouldbe requiredto be Increasedsuitably.

¶48I now enter the final stage of my discussibri. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the reasoningadopted by the learnedLand AcquisitionCollectorand theJearned ReferenceCourt, I pose the question:What should be the fair market value of the subject lands as of 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002, i.e. dates on which notificationswere issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

¶49i have7 in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.Mo.866/2005 decided on LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page49 of74,

11.5.2006, MahenderSinahvsTMQI-&Ors. whorein pfirH^fningto -vH4a^e-B^wana7--fatf-i!n^iicet-^s7akjedetermined as of 15.11.1996 Is n.99.904.68 per bioha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre. The said decisionwould be reJevanton 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 areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth,. 5 villages in rural De4hi were identified for providing major health factHtresy schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was vHlage Bawana. It was noted that G.T.KarnalRoad 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 had also =T3b5ervedthat notwithsmn^ing this, for the reason no zonal plarT was as contemplated by Section llA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, lands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to the use contenhplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agriculturai use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being known to all as being required in the future for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capable of.being built upon. To put it differently,the decision, though not so expressly stating, would be a propo^tToh~tlT^ there is a difference between the undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters PageSO of74 • • 5-potentiality in presenti vis-a-vis a land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was ?9,59,542.46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. notification dated 25 j_j_997-.where-under for agricultural lands in DeJhi mininnum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was no lakhs per acre. Interestingly, the same Division B6nch had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) Gairai Singh vs. UO! & Ann where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated

15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was ?9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ?9,51,121/- per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to be highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development work carried out in the surrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola determined fair market valuq as of 19.3.1993 @ >1,30,523/- per bigha i.e.t6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is ^ T-eported-as-20a4(4) AD (Delhi)20 Rann Chander vs. £/0/and the same OMsioi^enGh, as per the decisiofi-T-eported-as 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukunn Sinah vs. UOI. pertaining to a notification dated

14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ n,40,230/-per bigha i.e. ?6,73,104/-per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page51 of74 50: r. ~Tlie atgresaffl" judgments-^o^^d^ 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 hie in para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant t| determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was ?4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i,e, the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 15.436%. 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 this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gairats case (supra), which 1 have discussed in para 49 above.

¶511 need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gajrafs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agriculturaMand in viHage Holambi Kaian as of 15.11.1996, in paras to Court discussed valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was ?95,000/- for miiitiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices of corrsparable lands in the —stmmH=^dift§-ai^as iflc!iidmgpot«iT^daiity7~iTtpara 19 onwards the Court_discussedthe matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarhwhere FCI Godowns had come up and instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page52 of74 ' mstances and ;L would come to fl0,03,364/-per acre (Referpara 31). The Court then consideredthe pricesnotified by the Governmentas per pohcy dated 1.4.1997and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76.121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and f9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highfiglits.that the ixteiitiaHtyhad been-4¥@li4a€^tGredin when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f.

1.4.1997,evidenced by the fact that even with respectto sale transactionsthe Court found that as againstthe minimum price notifiedas of 1.4.1997atflO lakhs per acre, sale instanceswere highlightingthat the pricewas flO.03,364/-peracre.

¶52The decision in MahenderS/noh'f^. ra«;p, pertaining to villageBawaiia,referredto by me in para 49 above, highlights with referenceto para 28 to 31 of the decisionthat the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which v^as projecting residential, commerciai and industrial future exploitationof agriculturalland in Delhi and on the issue of potentialityhad noted that notwithstandingthe Master Plan so projectingand the lands theoreticallyacquiringa potentiality, the same had not translatedinto a realityevidencedby the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the DiyjstonBench was concerned,virtuallyno developmenthad taken place in village Bawana and Holarnbi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 a-bove there is a gap between "what would be expected '^ to be ttre market growth and what the market actually grows. •""~Ttre~"dexrs"ions in Galrafs case and imhmner Smah's case highlight that Dotentiality translated itself into a reality betwe'en 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about-15.5%-per annum.and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the LA.A.pp.No.266/2008& connectedmatters requisitemomentumand the accelerationfell to between 10% (yO =pfiii-annum ±0 --piirsuanLtoMastprPhm fnrftp-tM-raaffia^Airlvlarga ^=rrts~ to be developed,both residential,commercialand industrialand probably there was enough availabilityof developed land and the hunger ofthe,market got saturated.

¶53The empiricalevidencemthe instantcase, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, In respect whereofthe learned ReferenceCourt has given good reasons not CO rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras21 and 22 hereinabovefor not relying upon, beingfanciful sale deeds, to determinefair marketvalue, we have with us the sale deed relied upon by the learned Land AcquisitionCollector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the-learned ReferenceCourt has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale ie. 20.5.2002 tfie fair market value of agriculturallands would be fl9,15,040/-per acre as of 27.1.2003on the reasoningthat 1 bigha and 13 blswa of land which was sold for ?5,39,690/-and f70,160/-was paid as stamp duty would mean that ?6,09,850/- (?5,39,690/- + t70,150/-) were spent would yield the price.fl7,74,109/-per acre as of the date Of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶54' Thus, the best which could be said as the most favourable situation for the land owners would be that with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C lands the price i.e. fair mar!<etvalue of lands in the area would .109/-peracre. For Category'B' and Category'A' land er^nced and here we find another area of dispute for the reason, as noted bf me hereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned Land-Actiursition Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page54 of74 4\ sometimes fl.2 lal<hs per acre, sometimes ?1.56 lakhs per acre and sometimes ?1.7 lakhs-per acre from-tt^e-prtee-^f-Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C as weH^ the price has been deducted further by ?1.7 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 —lan^s^f^d-l-Rete-fehat categorization ts based-onty on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths -same to be leveled and this wduld require money to be spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that ?1.2 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ?1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ?1.7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There is just no clue.

¶56In Gairai Sinah's case (supra), price differential worked out was ?25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Gairai Sinafis case pertained to the date

15.11.1995. In Gairai Sinati's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was ?9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was ?9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about

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

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

¶58Thus, if fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7.75 lakhs per acre wourd^tne priced a Category 'C^Tfd~fm7tllage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App.No.266/2008.& connectedmatters PageSS of 74 ; .. admittedly pertains to a Categoryjr:_land, Ee price for Category 'B' land would be n8.20 lakhs per acre ~Categur7-"A^iaTTdi^^^ per acre.

¶59!aking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Governmentas of 1.4.2000the per acre price was ?13.82 lakhs —aftd-a5-6f-ir4T200^^^the-safRe-was~fl5r7--lakhs per acre i.e. the percentageincreasebetweenthe yearwas 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, deductingthe price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately ?16.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrastedwith the minimum price notified by the Government at ?15.7 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001,the price differentialis ?70.000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be deterhiiningfair marketvalue of a largechunkof land with referenceto a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location,the frontageetc. of a pieceof land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlightis that even the sale deed in questionyields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationalityand acceptability, it needs to be highlightedthat though under normal circumstancesa sale on a particulardate is normallynot held gdod^evidenceto work oOt~a iand price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page56of74 "IjI _riotifi€atiaas-dat@d—Z.S.2000,

2.5.200^7-32.8.2QQ1 and 7.12.2001, the differentia! period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be. a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account while determining market value of-land as on the dates

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000/

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001.

¶60The argument that village Narela had always been treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of isjarda was in existence since long and this was recognized when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1953, vis-a vis the adjoining villages ^2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Marela in Dharambir's case, looses sight of the fact that the price differentia! due to locational advantage was keeping in view the realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanization took place In Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which included areas in North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with which ! am concernea^today, the price differential faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.

¶61\ thus hold that pertaining to the notifications dated

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001 and

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

16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page57of74 toecaus# w te-the-satd-sale price 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 ?15.7 lal<hs per acre with effect fronri

1.4.2001.

¶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 to 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) I hold that vis-a-vis said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine the price for Category'B'land.

¶63Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases 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 Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined fair market value at ?22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, Hstrt f-need ta-higtrtlght that pertaimng to tHe same notification dated

23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur learned Reference Court has det^rmmed-the-lBir market value at ^17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village Rajapor-Kalan and Sanoth, pertaiTTmg~ts^1ie notification dated

27.1^2^3 the fair marketvalue assessed for Category'A' lands is ?19,16,040/- in some cases and ?19,13,760/- in a few, LA.App.No.266/2008&conBectedmatters Page58 of74 bS meaniTig-th^tsy mat m lesser compensation has beeff^ worked out in the year 2003 vis-^-visthe compensationworked out for Holambi Kalah pertaining to the, notification dated

23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said notificationthe land pricedeterminedin Gairafscase (supra)as of 15,11.1996has been taken and increasedat the rate of 12% per annum compounded. VillaQe'PoothKhurd tSjotificatioridated 7.8.20QQ

¶64With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is fl3.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notificationi.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 increasingthe 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 Category'A' lands; and decreasingthe said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to n4.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing same by 2.5%., it comes to . fl4,38,125/- 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 fl4,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me _^x0rDjes-to-3--meageiLXl,OOO/- per ar-rg-and tliys qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. - .

¶65Ail Land Acquisition Appeais filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA-.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page59 of 74 appeais fried by land owneTlIgLmsi^t^wt^ef^ —

¶65All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Tand owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appealsfiled by Union of India are allowed by decreeingcompensationpayable for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertainingto the notificationdated 1.4.2000in sum of ^14775 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at ?14,37,280/-per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. »

¶67Peftalmrig-to such appeal where the compensation stands enhancedstatutorybenefitsas per the Land Acquisition explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. U0[2^^1 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted,exceptfor the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal orcross objection,for which periodof delay no intereston the enhancedcompensation shall be paid. These appellantsor cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Viliaoe Holambi Kalan ^jptlficatlon dated 7.8.20QQ

¶68For the reasoninggiven in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertainingto the notification(same) dated 7.8.2000 relatingto village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensationto ?14.75 lakhs per acre and I highlightthat as per the award and even as per the referenceall subject lands were of uniformcate^oi:^-Me£dless.fcQ--£tateappealsfiled by^e Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appealsand crossobjectionsfiled by land ownersare allowed by .__enhancmgtne compensationto ?14.75 iakhs per acre together with statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as ; LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page60 of74 (^ , explainedin the judgmentreportedas SundprVc nni.->nm (93) DLT 569, exceptfor the.^jeriod.where there-is-a-deteyin filing -the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no intereston the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These appellantsor cross objectorswould be entitledto proportionate cost. ViiiaQe Bawaria Notiliration dated 7.R.7()na M, Pertaining to viHaae Bawana._relatingto the same notificationdated 7.8.2000 where the learned ReferenceCourt enha.ncedthe connpensation,for parityof reasoning,fair marketvalue for Category^'lands is fixed at ?14.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands at ^ per acre and noting that Union of India has neitherfiled any appeal or cross objection,appeals as per 'GRID-C hereinaboveare allowed by fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and needlessto state on the enhancedcompensationthe appellants shall be entitledto statutorybenefitsas perthe Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgrnentreported as Sunder Vs. UQlimi (93) DLT569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhancedcompensationshall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2QQQ

¶70With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is fl3.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to .fl7,74,ia9/T,.-roynde£l .off to-XlJ,75,OQ0/r per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page61 of74 to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and further in^^smgJby 2.5%^tbe4xrices connes to fl8,65,5po/- per acre for Category 'A' landsr^^ct decreasing the said prices byTl% to reflect the price with reference, to the saie deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to fl4,83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by —2:5%7it:eoiT^-t^^-4746741-3^i3er-a^^^for Category 'B' lands.

¶71All Land AcquisitionAppeals as per 'GRID-D'filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum of n'4,83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?14,46,413/- , per acre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertaining to this notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. L^O/2QQl (93) DLT 559 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay irs filing the appeal, . • i for which period of delay no interest on enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Nareia i^otification dated 2.5.2001

¶72With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is fl5.7 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated

25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category '8' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page62 of74 to fl8.2 lakhs peracre and furtherincreasingby 2.5%the prices decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Narela comes to ?16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to per acre f©r-Gate§eF^ iands. Moting thatthe learnedReferenceCourthas, withoutany reasons,done away with CategoQi' 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ?15.85,570/-per acre and since for Category'B' lands the price workedout by me is less by ?9,000/-per acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category'B' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' iands the —Brice-standsenhanrpdfo c;nn/- pof- ^

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

2.5.2001 in sum of ?16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order for Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objectionsfiled by Union of India as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land ovv/ners pertaining to -Category 'A' lands are aliowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced conrpgnsatton statutorylpenef its' as per the Land Acquisition Act 1B94 as expiam^rTh the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These entitled te-pfopoftitmate -==73^-: — -Vtfeae--l4-DlafflM-ICslaFiMatificatsQndated 22.8.2001

¶74With reference to the notification dated

9.8.2001 -wher^eHi vwth-effei-lfjum i.4Tz0OlTninimum price notified per acre is fl5.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date af the notification !,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 f17,7.4,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comes to?18.2 lakhs peracre and furtherincreasingby 2.5% the prices comes to f18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reffeet-^e price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22:8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Hoiambi Kalan comes to fl6,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to fl6,32,637.50 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 ?15,43,8H/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager f9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the iearned Reference Court.

¶75All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the -appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has Men prepaTSQ and labMed as 'GRiD-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶76All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA..App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page64 of 74 . . • - Union of India are allovyed by decreeingconnpensatlonpayable for Category'A' lands IftvitfageifolamtotKdiar^ pertainingto the notificationdated 22.8.2001in sum offl6,74,500/- peracre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at ?16,43,811/-per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶77Pertaining to such appeal where the connpensation stands enhancedstatutory benefitsas per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. U012QQ1 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection,for which periodofdelay no intereston the enhancedcompensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Ail Pur Notification dated 22.8.2QQ1

¶78With reference to notification dated

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

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ^17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^7,75,000/- per acre, 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 fl8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and , decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category-AMands in village Aii Pur comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to f16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page^5 of 74 CourtJ»s,.4Arit^ fW away with i,ategory 'B' lands and unifomn price awarfleSTTs -^i6^378tl^-pencre,the price differentialworked out by me comesto a meager?9,000/-per acre and thus qua Category'B' lands Imaintainthe amountawarded by the learned Reference Court. ——AU-4^n^-^uisi^&FhA^peaisH^ited~^^the Um©n in respectwhereofgrid has been preparedand labeledas 'GRID-h; hereinaboveare disnnissed. Snote that land ownershave not filed any appealchallengingthe decisionofthe ReferenceCourt.

¶80There shall be no order as to costs. VjjIaQeHojambiKhurd Motificatsondated 22.8.2Qm

¶81With reference to the 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 suitaWy updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001and with referenceto 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 increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and furtherincreasingby 2.5% the prices . comes to ?18,65,5b0/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with referenceto the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean _SMEca©e_4)rice-fQJi-CategaFy-'A' laf^s-if^-vHIageHHelamfe^hHKhurt^ comes to fl6,74,500/-per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to f16,32,637.50.peracrelor Category'B' lands. "t^sting~ThaT-the Teamed Reference Court has, without any reamn3_^dnae_awaywj>h_Xat@gai^ uniform price awarded is ?16,43,811/-per acre, the price differentialworked out by me comes to a meager?9,000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/20b8&connectedmatters Page66 of74 Category—'B' lands I maintain-the—amount—awa^^dby the learned Reference Court.

¶82The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-I' herelnabove 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. VIHaae Rafapur Kalan 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 the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands Increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5^0 the 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 the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price^'forCategory 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to fl6,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' la'nds and uniform price awarded is fl6.43.811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager ?9,000i-43er_Bjcra_an;d thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶85All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union ©f India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page67of74 — — Tl &ppfials:-fHed birtamt ownersirrTesped: wfieree#-gf4d-te^-feeefi prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J'hereinabove are dismissed..

¶86All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners In appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by.decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of ?16,74.500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands compensation awarded at fl6.43,81iy-per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶87Pertaining to such appeal where compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Vitiaae Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001

¶88With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring sa\4 price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

7.12.2001 and with reference to the. sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to tl7.74.1Q9/-.. rounded off to ?17.7SilQ0/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with LAApp.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page68 of74 reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in villageSanoth comes to n7.29,50p/- per acre. Noting that ai! lands In villageSanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value 1 hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the mtLfjcatiDJi,d[ated 7.12.7001 the lai:id_ownaf5-wauld--beentitled 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 in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-K' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶90All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and^ross-objections filed 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 enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Shahour Garhl Notification dated 16.5.2Q02

¶91Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by me hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at ^1^,65,500/- per acre and slnce-there Is just a differenee-ef 4 days between the date of sale and the notification ! rnaintain that for the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of ?1S,65,500/- LA.Add,No.26^-/2008 & connected matters 1higniight that as perthe^waT^^fr^tWT^ei^rg "~^ aii lands are in the same category. Appeals and cross Qbiections filed ,by the land owners as per the 'GRiD-L' are allowed and needless to state on. the enhanced compensation land owners would be entitled to ail statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is-delay, ho interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. • Viiiag© Shaliisyr GarM Motifieatiori dated 23.5.2002 .

¶92Pertaining to notification dated

23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days f hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of ?18,55,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRiD-|V|' stand allowed as aforesaid and ail appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed.

¶93As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated

23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kaian all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page70 of74 - Collector and learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awarded^ coDipen.sation in sum—ol— f22,14,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have heltf that fair market value would be fl8,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to fl8,55.500/- 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. ViHaoe Ail Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002

¶94Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at fl8,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India as per 'GRID-0' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancingthe compensation payable to fl8,65,5O0/- per acre on which statutorybenefitsas per Land AcquisitionAct as interpretedin the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT.569 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or cros^ objectionswherethere is a delay, interestwould not be paid for the periodof delay. Proportionatecostsas well. VHtaoe Sanoth Notification dated 27.1.2003

¶95Pertainingto the appeals and cross objectionsby the land ownersand Union of India as per 'GRlD-P'pertainingto the notificationdated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sanoth. I note LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page71 of • =' - - " "• that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has pface^-the-land-s— "in-^-xategories-and-t-fhid-that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of unifornn category while awarding compensation. -——

¶96On the mean average basis which I have been following -by-4«cmasmg-J:h^price--as-^ota^4.2001-with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing -safne-^witlr-Tefer^nce-to sale deed dated

20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to fl9,43,500/- per acre and for Category 'I' land the price comjs to fl8,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ?18,47,539.68 per^ acre. I find that tht learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at, ?19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P'are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of ?19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894.as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOt 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be jaaid sWe and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would hot be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objectionsfiled by Union of India pertainingto Category'B' and Category'C lands are allowed by r^latabie -d€€fee--if^ the Reference Order by reducing the compensation for Category *B' land to LA.App.No.266/2008&. connectedmatters ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.68 per acre. Village Raiaour Kaian Notifjcation dated 27.1.2003

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

27.1,2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that learned Reference Court has in some cases aw:arded compensation in sum of ?19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at ?19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to notification issued by Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated

20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands! the pfte€-comes^-to-^3:9743^,500/- per acre^antl-for Category 'B' land the price comes to ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Categoi7 'C lands the price comes to ^8,47,539.68 pef acre. Thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'I' and Category 'C lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross Objectionsas per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objectionsfiled by land owners pertainingto Category;A' lands are allowed by idecreeing compensation payable in sum of n9,43,500/- per acre and needless-tu^^ate-orrthe enhanced compensationstatutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpretedin the judgmentreportedas SunderVs. HOI 26pl:-f93)-BtT—569-sha^lH^e-patch-save-Emdexcept in such appeals and cross objectionswhere there Is a delay, interest LA.App,No.266/2008&connectedmatters &0 jyquid not be paid for the periodofdelay. Proportionatecosts^^as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by the—eempensatiott——Category 'B' land to f18,94,912,50 per acre and for Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.68 per acre. CPRADEEPNANDRAJOG) G ^ JUDGE . s. I ^ AUGUST 23, 2011 mm/dk i I 11- ! "• , ^ i-o nl LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page74of74

'b c $-74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.894/2008 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr.Siddharth Panda, Advocates versus KARAN SINGH & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG