- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 8 September 2011
- Bench
- Hima Kohli
- Case no.
- LA.APP. 479/2011
Judgment
ORDER %
08.09.2011
¶1The appellant is aggrieved by the judgnnent dated 2.05.2011 passed by the Reference Court in respect of land situated in Village Alipur covered under Award No.15/2003-04 made on 28.08.2003 pursuantto notificationIssued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short't/ie-Act') on 22.08.2001.
¶2Counsel for the parties jointly state that the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LAA No.266/2008 entitled 'Jai Sinah vs. Union of India & Anr.' Learned counsels particularly draw the attention of this Court to the operative paras 78-79 ofthe aforesaidjudgment,relevantportionsof which are LA.APP. 479/2011 reproduced herein below:- "Villaqe Ali Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001"
¶78With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect fronn
1.4.2001 mininrium price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.
22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category "C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to ^17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by
2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by
2.5% prices comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category W lands; decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to sale deed for date
22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Ali Pur comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ^16,32,637.50 per acre for Category lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is ?16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager ?9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.
¶79All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has been prepared labeled as 'GRIDH' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court." LA.APP. 479/2011
¶3It is sutpmittedby the counsel for the parties that the appellant is also entitled to a similar relief as granted to the other similarlyplaced appellantsin the aforesaid batch of matters, to which counsel for the respondents have no objection.
¶4Followingthe aforesaiddecision dated 23.08.2011in the case of lai Singh fsuora), the present appeal is,also disposed of on the same lines, while grantingthe same reliefto the appellantherein as granted to similarlyplaced appellants in LA.APP.266/2008. HIIVIA KOHLI,J SEPTEMBER 08, 2011 sk LA.APP. 479/2011 3 of 3 sS« IM THE HIGH COy^T OF DELHI MEW BELi-ii % iud.arnent Reserved-Qn: 12^^ August,. 2011 judgment Delivered On: 23'^^AuqusL 2011 -1-LA.APP. 265/2008 jAI SINGH Through: UO! & AISIR." Through: Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi, MrDeepak Khosia/ Nr.S.K.Yadav, f^r.MC.Verrfia, Nr.Y.P.Rana. NrRaj Singh, Nr.Uday Ram, Mr.D.R.Tomar, Mr.i.S.Dahiya. Mr.M.S.Dalai, Mr.S.M Bhardvvaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta, Mr.S.K.Rout, • Mr.S.S.Rana, r-.lr.SLinii, Dalai, Hr.D.S-.Khatri .and Mr.T.P.S.Kang, Advocates Vs. • ... . Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with r^r.Sanjay' Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin • Nawani, Mr.Slddharth Panda Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran/ Advocates for R-1. Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Advocate, for DSIDC. . Mr.Ajay Verma, • Mr.Pawan l^^athu-r, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, IVfr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Blharl Sharma,- Mr.Sumer •'Sethi ; Ms.Beenashav^/ Son.i Advocates"for :DDA, AND CGRiD»A) + LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP.•'264/2008. LA.APP. 255/2008, LA.APP. 257/20P8. LA.APP. 258/2008. IJ\.APP. 270/2.006, LA.APP. 271/2008, LA.APP.- 272/2008, 'lAAPP. 273/2008,. 'LA.APP. 278/2008"'^nvTAPFL. 5338720W~tCross~^&ject!WSl7~l::A^ • LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters Page! of74 -LA.APp-_-.28I3/21JOS—CWTAPPL." 5~25T72009 "Ol3fectiQ.sisj.:•"l«PR.-:-3€1/3O0:8^-LAtAP^ 286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP-. ' 293/2008, LA^SfPPr-2-94/2-00S-& CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP-LA.AP-P. •3O1/2-0OS,-- 289/2.TO, 292/2008, (Cross 296/2008, LA.APP. (Cross i:a..app. •tA.APp-; LA.APP. 299/2008, 304/2008, 339/2008, 401/2008, 472/2008, 487/2008, 495/2008, 527/2008, 541/2008, •548/2008, 566/2008, 627/2008, 648/2008, 724/200.8 756/2008, • 861/2008, 880/2008, 895/2008, 907/2008, 925/2008, •931/2008, 934/2008, 941/2008, • 946,/2008, 999/2008 1014/2008, 1026/2008; 273/2009, U.APP. 300/2009, 454/2009, 'U.APP. 455/2009, •532/2009, U.APP. 535/2009 ' & ObjectEons), U.APP. 536/2009 tATAPPr LA.APP.- LA..APP. ••LA.APP. LA.APR. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. -3-117213-0:8, LA.APP. 35^77"2008, -LA.APP. 337/2008, 394/2008, 413/2008, LA.APP. 443/2008, 4-83-/2G0B, • LAttW; - 484/2Mg-492/2008, LA.APP. 496/2008, LA.APP. 535/2008, LA.APP. 545/2008, • LA.APP. 554/2008, LA.APP. 621/2008, LA.APP. 628/2008, LA.APP. 649/2008, 'LA.APP; 493/2008, 526/2008, 537/2008, 546/2008, 563/2008, 623/2008, 635/2008, 662/2008, & CM APPL. 535.3/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008,' LA..APP. U.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 875/2008, 888/2008, 905/2008, 910/2008, 926/2008, 932/2008, 936/2008, 942/2008, 955/2008, & CN' A.PPL. 5360/2010'(Cross Objectsons), LA.APP. 1019/2008,' U.APP. 1023/2008, LA.APP. 1064/2008, U.APP. 1071/2008 .1244/2008, LA.APP. -1245/2008, LA.APP. 1255/2008' 1268/2008, LA.APP, 1273/200.8, CN APPL. 2377/2009, (Cross Objections)-U.APP.86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, U APP 97/2009 101/2009, U.APP. 110/2009, U.APp! lll/2009_-U.APP. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, UuAPP. 251/2009, U,,APF.. ..2:5.2/iQ09,; LA.APP. 265/2009, U.APP." -^^^6/2009-&-GM-AFPL.No.5366/2010(Cross Objections),U.APP. 267/2009, U.APP. -268/20Q9,. -LA-APP.' 269/2009, ' LA APp' /7n/7rnlQ_ I a . . LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 879/2008, 894/200-8, 906/2000, 911/2008, 927/2008, •933/2008, 939/20-08, 944/2008, 958/2008, 272/2009, U.APP. U.APP. -306/2009, U.APP. LA.APP. 521/2009, U.APP. CM APPL. 12886,/2011 (Cross CM APPL. 12917/2011 (Cross LA.APP. • LA.APP. LA.APP. -LA-itW-.- LA.APP, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.' L/^.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LAuAPP. U.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. Ij\APP. ubjectionsi; U.AFF-.-—•M-3/2::0-09r—-UrAFP.- •5;44-/-2"0B-9-,- LA.App.No.266/2008 & coxmectedmatters Page 2-of 74 566/2009.. LA.APP.••• 570/2009. & CM APPL13873/2011. LA.APP. 589/2009, LA;AFP-. ^^3/200^,'" "la.APF! 594/2009, LA:aPP: 63-4/2009., , LA.APP.- ^.35/2009, LA.APP. 636/2009, LA.APPT: 637/2009,-. LA.APP. -638/2069, LA;APP. 643/2009 & CM APPL.13878/20.11, LA.APP.'' 1/2010, LA.APP. 29/2010, LA.APP, 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP. 107/2010, LA.APP. 108/2010, LA.APP. .109/2010, .LA.APP.
1.68/2010, -LA.APR 169/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LA.APP. ' 171/2010, 'LA.APP, LA.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, • LA.APP. CM APPL. •9994/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP: LA.APP. 521/2010, CN APPL. LA-.APP. 522/2010, LA.APP. 220/2010, 430/2010, 520/2010 CM APPL.13968/2011, 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), 523/2010, • LA.APP. 524/2010 & CM APPL. 12914/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, .LA.APP. 527/2010, LA.APP. 528/2010,- LA.APP. 529/2010, LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL 229/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 531/2010, LA.APP. 532/2010 & CM APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 533/2010 Sl cm APPL. 12898/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. ••534/2M-67-i:A-.7^'P-.-535/2010 & .CM APPL. ' 12867/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 '& CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 53.7/2010, 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. Objections), LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010, LA.APP. 581/2010, LA.APP. 592/2010 & GM 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.
5.96/2010, 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. 663/20X0 & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 666/2010 & CM" APPL 6748/2011 (Cross Objections], LA.APP. -675/2010CM APPL. 9988/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 761/2010,- LA.APP. 792/2010 & CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 793/2010 & CM-APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. .40/2011, LA.APP. 195/2011 & CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 21-5/2011, LA.APP. 229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011, LA.APP. •232/2011, LA.APP. 233/2011, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008 &'connected matters 19857/2010 (Cross 12903/2011 (Cross 12888/2011 (Cross 566/2010, I^.APP:- 12899/2011 (Cross 795/2010,- LA.APP. 128'92/2011 (Cross 228/2011; LA.APP. 2-31/2011, LA.APP. 389/2011. . U"APP. 392/2011, LA.APP. 420/20H7'. '"D™PP;"" 42472OT4^-•4A^.P.. 425/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated
07.08.2000 & Award No.19/2002-03. Village-Pooth Kiiurd) AND + LA.APP. . 972/2008 & CM-2349/2009 (Cross' Objections), LA.APP. 1122/2008 & CM 2099/2009-(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1150/2008 & Ci\^ 12216/2011 (Cross" Objections), LA.APP. 1151/20Q8 CM 2345/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1152/2008 & CIVI 2102/2009' (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 115372008 . & ' CM ' 2338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1154/2008,. LA.APP. .1187/20.08, LA.APP., 1188/2008, IP^APP.' 1189/2008,. LA.APP. 12i8/200B,. LA.APP. 15/2009, LA.APP. 82/20(39, LA.APP. ' 100/2009, LA.APP. I02/200'9., .LA.APP. 113/2009, LA.APP. '571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009, LA.APP. 214/2011. •(Re'l'ating"to Notification u/s 4 dated 0/..08.2000 & Award No. 11/2001-02, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND , iGRm-Q + LA.APP.' 359/2007. •LA.APP. 202/2007, LA.APP. 382/2007, LA.APP. 383/2007,-.LA.APP. 269/2008, LA.APP. 811/2008,'LA.APP. 928/2008, LA.APP. 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/2009, LA.APP.
96.9/2010,- (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated-07.08.2000 & Avt/ard No. •08/2001-02, Viliage-Bawana). ; AND . , • , CGaiD-DI • • - + LA.APP. 144/2011, LA..APP. 145/2011 & €^412911/2011 (Cross Obiections), LA.APP. 146/2011. & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters to' '•''^tiftcatk3n-T!/5—4^^ 1i .D9..20&0-€r Avvafd-Mo-- •20./2002-03, Vmage-Khera-Khurd). ^ AHD + LA.APP. 585/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, lj5^:APfr-e4e/2OO#7-b^:APPT-§lt2^O7-bATAPf7-§3/2O1:07-tt 94/2010, • LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP. 191/2010. & CM 22402/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 192/2010, 193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, 196/2010, LA.APP. 197/2010, LA.APP. 297/2010, 299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010,. LA.APP. 308/2010, 309/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA..APP. 3/3/2010,
49.3/2010, •• LA..APP. 494/2010, 495/2010, LA.APP. 497/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. 503/2010, 506/2010, 509/2010, 512/2010, 515/2010, 505/2010, 508/2010, 511/2010,. 514/2010, 517/2010 518/2010, 611/2010, 618/2010, 621/2010, 628/2010, Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & CM No. 7702/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 519/2010, LA.APP. 610/2010, LA.APP. •LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 612/2010, 619/2010, 622/2010, 647/2010 < 650/2010, LA.APP. CM -No. LA.APP. m Ho. CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.iAPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP CN No LA.APP 495/2010, L/i..APP 22728/2010 . (Cross 499/2010, LA.APP. 23186/2010 (Cross 10382/2011. (Cross 504/2010, U^^.APP. 507/2010, 510/2010, 513/2010, 516/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.- 613/2010, LA..APP. LA.APP. 620/2010,' LA.APP. LA.APP. 623/2010, i_A.APP. ; cr>^ Ho. 3847/2011 (Cross LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM fMo. • LA.APP. 552/2010, LA.APP. , CM ^0. 3563/2011 (Cross CM No. LA.APP. 856/2010 & CM iio. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), LA^APP. " 857/2010, LA^APP. 920/2010. &"CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross • Objectrons)-, LA^f¥'r--lO-OB/30iO--fr--eM-lfe.--^ (Cross —1jbiErtlmTS77n:A.-APFr-TOn^^^^ -LA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP. -^-/26ti7-l:A7APPT-&e/^0Hr7---LA;AP-P^T-SM^lT-y^^^--8-2/2aiI., -••-i.A:AFFT--:83/2-d±tr lA..AFfT-^7'-2M^^ 85/2011, LA.APP. 86,/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP; 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/2011, LAtAP-P. 324/2011.& CM APPL.l!3ll0/2011, LA.APP. 385/2011. 3560/2011' (Cross Objections),
8.41/2010, LA.APP. 845/2010 Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & -whj&fWTt—(CrObb ObjectfUTTst, tAcAPPr-855/2010, LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page S of 74 (•ReTaTing; to fsTdtlTfcation u/s 4 dated
02.05;2001& Award iMo. 24/2003-04, Viliage-Narela) AMD LA.APP. 497/2008, LA.APP. 141/2009 & CfVi 5302/2010 (Cross Objections). (Relating, to Notification u/s 4 dated
22.08.2001' & Award' No.. 18/2003-04, Vinage-Holambi Kafan) AND • • CGi^iD-G| LA.APP. 777/2.010 & CM APPL3808/2011, LA..APP. 778/2010 & GM •2686/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 779/2010 & CM 12966/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP., 213/2011, LA.APP. 261/2011, LA.APP. 326/2011, LA.APP. ' 327/2011, U^i-APP. 328/2011. • LA.APP. 330/2011.- LA.APP. 331/2011. LA.APP. 332/2011, • LA.APP. 333/2011, LA.APP. 334/2011, LA.APP. 335/2011, LA.APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, LA.APP. 341/2011, LA.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP. 350/2011, LA.APP. 351/2011, LA.APP.. 365/2011, LA.APP.377/2011, LA.APP.388/2011. (Relating to'^4otification u/s 4 dated
22.08.2001 & Award Mo. 33/2003-04, Viilage-Hofambi Kalan) AND CGRIP-H) + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, LA.APP. 409/2011. • t^tattng to •Motification u/s 4 dated'22.08.2001'& Award ^0= 15/2003''-04,Viilage-A!iPur) AI^D + LA..APP. 481/2010 T .i ...." X!- 7.^10/7,008& traatiTTg-tcn^mrmrHtlwrTi^^ jsjo. 9/2003-04, Viliage-Hoiambi Khurd) AND -f . LA.APP. 780/2010 & CMMo.2561/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM No.3833/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 900,/2010 & CM No.3541/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 970/2010, LA.APP. 971/2010 & CM i\io.3805/2011 (Cross Objeetions), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM iMo:;2667/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Crbss Objections), LA.APP,974/2010 & CM iMo.l4333/2011(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM iVio.9992/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.' 977/2010, LA.APP." 978/2010, LA.APP. 979/2010.. & - CM Mo.9990/2011, L/^.APP. 980/2010 & CM NO3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP, 982/2010 ,& CM Mo.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 983,/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections),- LA.APP. 984/ZUID'" &"• CM rSTo.6745/2011- (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), L^^^APP. 985/2010, LA.APP. 988/2010 & Cf^^l No.3836/201.1 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA,APP, 990/2010, L/iv.APP, 991/2D10 Si CM IM-q.99.84/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.- 1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 & CM r^lo.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 (Crbss Objections), LA.APP. 1/2011 & CM No.12964/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 2/2011 & CM r^o;6752/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 25/2011, LA.APP. 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, L/^v.APP. 53/2011 & CM No.6766/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 73/2011 & CM No.12922/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM No.6775/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, fjA.APP. 110/2011, LA.APP. 111/2011, LA.APP. 112/2011 & CM No.10050/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP. 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011 (Relating to hiotification u/s dated
22.08.2001 & Award Mo.2072003-04, Village-Rajapur Kalari) A^iD (GRm • LA.App:No.266/2008 & connecled matters m + LA.APP. lA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/20(58T fNJo.10393/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. , 491/2008, LA.APP. S^872mrS •& GM 896/20t)S & CM —LAtAPPt -8-97-/5-G08-, 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. 516/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011, LA.APP. 421/2011 (Relating to" Notification u/s No.17/2003-04, Viliage-Sanoth) dated
07.12.2001 & Award AMD + LA.APP. -341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2'008, LA.APP...352/200.8, LA.APP. 364/2008, LA..APP. 38S/2008, LA;APP. 387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP. 464/2008& CfV] 1^0.11333/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP., 468/2098& CM Wo.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP. 470/2008, LA.APP. 471/2008, LA.APP. 560/2008, 561/200.8, L^..APP. 611/2008, • LA.APP. 663/2008, 676/2008, LA.APP. 678/2008, LA.APP. 679/2008, LA.APP. 682/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 731/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 825/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 850/2008, LA.APP. L^^.APP. 903/2008, LA.APP. •LA.APP. 935/2008, ' L^..APP. LA..APP. 940/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 956/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1001/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1065/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP., 106/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 374/2009, LA.APP. LA.APR. 468/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 547/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 628/2009, LA.APP. 23/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010, LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010. 681/2008; 722/2008, 786/2008, 842/2008, 883/2008, 924/2008, 938/2008, 945/2008, 998/2008, 1007/2008, 1079/2008, 309/2009, 465/2009, 546/2009, 624/2009, 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, 530/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. • LA.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. • LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. y\.APP. LA.APP.. 35/2010, (Relati-ag t-o.. M-Qtlflcation u/s 4 .datad 15.05.2002 & Award No. 29/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters m AMD + 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.APF. 369/2008, LA.APP. 370/2008, LA.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP; 384/2008, LA.APP. 386/20Q8, LA.APP. 388/2008, LA.APP. 389/2008,-• LA.APP. 434/2008, . LA.APP. 435/2008, bfi..APP. 436/2008, • LA.APP. 444/2008, LA.APP. 456/2008& •CM .11332/2008 (Cross" Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM Mo. Objections), 680/2008, 720/2008, 760/2008, 823/2008, 908/2008, 1022/2008, 1053/2008, 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.APF. LA.APP. 311/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 463/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 542/2009, LA.APP. 16150/2008. (Cross 552/2008, U.APP. 716/2008, LA.APP. 757/2008, LA.APP. 793/2008, LA.APP. 837/2008, LA.APP. 952/2008," LA.APP. 1025/2008, LA.APP. 307/2009,- LA.APP. 384/2009,. LA.APP." 467/2009, 'LA.APP. 548/2009, LA.APP." 527/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/2010. (Relating to SMotification . u/s dated
23.05.200,2 & Award No.22/2003-04, Viilage-Shahpur Garhi) AND " CGRiO^i^l LA.APP. 485/20-08, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CH 13228/2008 (Cross Objections), LA..APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 304/2009 & Cr4 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. .12/2011 • . , • • . .(Relating to Motlfication u/s 4 dated
23.05.2002 &-Award f4o. 15/2003-04, Viiiage-Holarnbi Kalan) AND (GRID- + LA.APP.37972008, -LA^APP. 381/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, Ua.APP. 499/2008, LA.APP. 530/208, LA-APP. 836/2008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cross Obiections),-LA.APP. 310/2009 & CM 16027/2009 .(Cross Objections), LA..APP. 782/2010, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 9 of 74' ...^8teQmr-^":-APPv--g3§/2Q-l^^^:LA-.AP-P-.--g/2-011& Cl^'9960/20.11'- • 14852/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.381/2011. • . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.05.2002 & Award Mo. 17/2004-05, ViUage-AM Pur) . • CGiliD-PI + LA..APP. 654/2008 & Civ| Mo.2357/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP. 674/2008 & CM fMo.7818/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, LA.APP. 706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008,' U.APP. 808/2008 & CM' Mo. 7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008, U.APP. 88-2/2008, • LA.APP. 885/2008, LA.APP. 891/2008,' LA.APP. 898/2008. Sd CM Mo.2355/20(39 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 922/2008, LA.APP. 923/2008, .LA.APP.' & CM l\!o.2351/2009 (Cross Objections), LA..APP. & CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 980/2008 & CF^ No.855/2010' (Cross LA.APP. 981/2008 & CiV? rs!o.1261/2009 (Cross LA^APP. 962/2008, LA.APP. 983/200.8' & CN 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 i\io.2111/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP. 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), IJ\.APP-. 1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 & CM Nq.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.i4321/2009" (Cross ObiectiOns), 123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, •1-74/2-005, LA.APP. 250/2009, LA.APP. 250/2009, _2_6Ji2m)9, iA.APP. •._252/200g,''""TA:APP. .-^4/2009, 902/2008, 929/2008 930/2008 960/2008, Objections), Objections), 293/2009, 302/2009. LA.APP. LA..APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. 301/2009, 303/2009. LA.APP. 365/2009, 433/2009, . LA.APP." 449/2009, LA.APP. 461/2009, 471/2009, LA.APP. 487/20.09, LA.APP. 501/2009, •5IB72t)^09, "LA.APP. 527/2009, LA:aPP= 530/2009 = 531/2009, LA.APP. 533/2009, LA.APP. 537/2009, LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA..APP •LA.APP LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters Page of 74 r 538/2009, LA.APP. 545/2009, LA.APP! 55472009^ LATAPP 555/2009, LA..AER—S5-8/2flL0S-;—LAnAPP-—S85/-2-0O9 LA APP 588/2009, LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP. 625/2Q09: ^^:APP 626/2009, LA.APP. 629/2009, LA.APP. 649/2009 LA APP 38/2010,LA.APP. 43/2010, U-APP; 131/2010,LA.APP 202/2010" 2W201G, LA.APP. 225/2010, LA.APp' 227/20X0, LA.APP. 269/2010,. LA.APP. 303/2010 fAAPP ^^^/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010: ^.ApP ^80/2010, LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP 483/2010, LA.APP. 484/2010, LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP 486/2010, LA.APP. 487/2010, LA.APP. 604/2010, LA.APP^ 606/2010 & CM No.19878/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 607/2010, LA.APP. 608/2010, LA.APP.-• 609/2010, LA.APP." 614/2010, LA.APP. 515/2010, 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. 787/201Q, l_A.APP. /88/2010,, LA.APP. 789/2010, LA.APP. 790/2010,'- LA.APP. 820/2010 & CM Mo.12880/2011 (Gross LA.APP._ 821/2010, L£^.APP. 915/2010, l_A.APP; 916^2010 & CM Mo.6773/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 26/2011 & CM IMo.6763/2011 (Cross Objections) LA APP 55/2011 & CM INJO.12B94/2.011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP." 59/2011, LA.APP. 63/2011, LA.APP, 69/2011, LA.APP'. 70/2011 LA.APP. 72/2011.&CM Mo.-6777/2011(CrossObjections),LA.APP". /6/2011 Si CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 & .CM f\lo.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), IJ\.APP. 135/2011, LA.APP. 136/2011 & CM fsSo.12971/2 (Cross Objections)Oil,LA.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/7011(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 (j^elating to Notification u/s 4 dated
27.01.2003 & Award fMo.11/2004-05,Village-Sanotli) AMD CGRIO'-QI + LA.APP. 336/2010 ' & CM APPL.14845/2011, LA.APP.
6.24/2010,. LA.APP. 625/2010, , LA.APP. ,626/2010, • LA.APP.
62.//201Q &. C.M. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 629/2.010, LA.APP.- .630/2010,'• LA.APP. 642/2010, LA.APP. 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA.APP. 645/2010 & e..M. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page11 of74 No.3587/2011 (Cross a&j^ions), LA:APP. 645/2010. LA APP .664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. 66772^^" KaPK 668/2010, LA.APP. 669/2010 Si C.M. f\lo.6769/2011 (Cross (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 672/2010, LA.APP. 673/2010 & CM. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, LA.APP. 701/2010 & C.M. 1^0.3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 702/2010, LA.APP. 703/2010 & CM: i\fo.9941/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 & CM. IMo.12878/2011 (Cross_Objectio05),^^.M 735/2010, LA.APP .736/2010, LA.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/20.10,- LA.APP. 739/2010 & .C.M. Mo.3569/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 740/2010 & Cl^ IMo.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP •^00/2010...,&• C.M. 1^0.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP. 802/2010, •LA.APP.- 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010, LA.APP. B09/2-01Q, LA.APP. 810/2010> •LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP. .^.^2/?010, LA.APP..- 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010,. LA.APP, 815/2010, LA.APP. 816/2010 & C.N. t\lo.3862/2011.(Crpss Objections); -LAvAPP. 817/2010,. LA.APP. S38/2-Ql'o, LA.APP. 839/2010 &• C.r^. No.l033t)/2G11 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 870/2010 &• C.f^'/I. IMo.9946/2011 (Cross Objections), LA..APP. 917/2010, LA.APP. 922/2010, U^..APP. 923/2010, LA.APP 924/2010, LA.APP. 925/2010, L/S^.APP. 945/2010 & C.M. f\lo.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 975/2010' & C.M.- No.2564/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M. No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1005/2010, LA.APP. 56/2011 & C.i^^. No.9939/2011 (Cross Objections), l_A.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,' l_A.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 Motification u/s 4 dated
27.01.2,003 & Award No.10/2004-05, Viiiage-Rajapur Kaian) CORAiVi' JUSTICE PMOEEP l^«O^AJ0G
¶1W.lietlierthe Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
¶2To'be referred to.Reporter or not?
¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page12 of74
¶1• 10 •villag.es; namefy, Pooth Khurd, Hotambi Kala-n, Hofambi-Khurd, Bawana, Khera IChurd, Narela, AH Pur, Rajapur Kaian, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue . District ..(North-West)' and'if we see'the map of the city of Delhi —weH¥^i^ld-4md--feat^es-e villages li-e4frthe-N^fth-\¥€-stern part of Delhi. They .lie within an area between the ''V' formed by Rohfcak . Road i.e. 'MH-10 G.T:Karna! Road i.e. IMH-l.' The Delhi-Ambaia railway line runs somewhat parallel to MH-1. Whereas • villages Marela and Shahpur Garhi are in between'the'-raifway line and.MH-l, the otiier villages are on the opposite side of th.e raiiway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line. I'Jareia and Shahpur Garhi .-are, towards the east of the raiiway line. The urbanized city of Delhi where' the coiony Rohini exists has been .developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is • situated in.the land withiil the aforesaid Bawana mdustri,ai Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is aiso on the land within the aforesaid,'V. Historicaliy, except for village Nareia, all villages have-been' • treated as equivalent with respect to their location.
¶2The instant decision decides the is.sue as to what should bethe fair .market value of agricultural larsds in the said visiages" as of the dates
7.8.200U,
11.9.2000,
2.5.2001,. .22.8.2001; • 7.12.2001,
16.5.2002.. 23.5.2002 and 27.1=2003., INSeedless to state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time> on "ator5S^atQ""dates under Section 4 of the Land .Acquisition Act •'TBWrvasf tracts ofTand in said 10""'vmages"we^^ acquired and g:a_yp' ^nd..gxrpnt lands in the Revenue'Estate of Villacie Mare's v^here the purpose of acquisition was partly residential and..- paitly industrial, in the other villages, acquisitionwas'for the.- purpose of establishing an industriai estate or laying down a LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page13 of74 m iruBdr-ur^might-mmptex, Tli€"r.§-§'§wr'wliy.•sycn,-i'a-r^e tracts"-"of lands were needed'was to set up an industrial estate pursuant- • to a decision taken 'to shift aH_ industries operating' i;n non-conforming areas within Delhi to conforrnsng areas,,
¶3I must highlight .that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the, samelo. aJLappei^...fi!ed':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 IMarela, vs^here an additional . argument was advanced; being that, the township.of Narela had existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Mare.la had a better value.an.d for which it was urged thafway back in the year 1963'when lands in the revenue estate of village IMareia. and adjoining viiisges Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village IMareia were given a price advantage of f2/'- per sq.yd. vis-a-vls the price determined for lands' in village , Bhorgarh and ^/famurpur. I must further highiigiitthat learned counsel conceded that village Marela and Mamurptir comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village rslareiaa.nd the village abadi.being in ivlamurpur." .4.. The positionof the awards made from time to time and • 'the relatable notification under Section 4 of the La.nd Acquisition Act 1894'have been detailed by me while_noting the various Land Acqu.isitionAppeals and the Cross Objectionsas per ihe index hereinabove-and thus I need not repeat the same.
3.:. A perusal of all the awards announced from time,to . ihatUtR^i&a"jT).ad--Laad...Acquisition •CoHector has determined compensation payable with reference to 'not[fi^tions/ord€rs Issued by the Government of HCJ Delhi from time-notifying the minimum rates for agricultural'lands in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits havi'ng deptlis between.. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters • Page14 of74. 4' to b', the iand yaSue has been appropriately depressed this is to be found in a fev¥ aww^^wftereloTi^^riave been put in 2 or 3 categdnes'"];ev:'CaTegbr^/ 'A', Category 'B'- and Category 'c. •••,.• • ?
¶6A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the iearned Reference Court has determined fair marj<et value on different .principles and for purposes of clarity I may note basis on which the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court have-, determined the compensation payable.. The same w/ould be as under:- ' • • A. Pertaining to the notification dated
7.8.20G0 issued 4--of-th-e Land "Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant vifhereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against ^13,82 lacs per acre for Category 'A'Jands and f12.26-lacs per . acre for Categon/ 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land AcquisitionCollector(by adoptingthe, price as per the policy fos' minlmijm rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Couii: has adoptedthe same rate i.e. ?13.82 lacs,per acre and"has-granted increment'at the rate of 12% per anrsum for the period 1.4.2000 till 7,8.2000 I.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 and thus .determinedfair market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- pes acre and-'tiasignoredthat there was Category'B' land for which he had to make necessary adjustment. B. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000i pursuant whereto -211.14 bigha land i¥as acquired in vi'lcioe Holambi ICalan, the Land'AcquisitionCollectortreated the land as of same character and determined fair market value with reference to the policy for minimum rates In sum of fl3.82 lacs' LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters PageIS of74 per acre which has been enhanced^by-TlTe-tearrreci Reference Court to ?14,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decision of a. --BtwsTt3rr-Beiii±-o1^thts-Cot3ix-rBpcri1^ti--as-20©-6—13 Gairai Vs. wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market vaiue deternnihed was ?9,76,121/- per acre for Categoiy 'A' lands and treating the said date and the said.price as the base, giving 12% per annunTBjTprerratiijn^fDT period of 3 years, 8 months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market .value has been determined. C. Pertaining to the same notification -dated
7.8.20Q0 • pursuant whereto" agncultural lands In village Bawana-were^' acQ.uir.ed, the.Land Acq.uisltion Coilector determined fair market' value for Gategory 'A' lands," with reference to the policy and .fixed the same at ?13.82 lacs per acre for Categoi"y 'A' lands and fl2.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. .The' learned Reference Court maintained'the same. D. 'Peitaining to notifica'fcion dated
11.9..2000 pursuant whereto-agriculturai .lands in village Khera Khurd were acquired for shifting industrial units, Land Acquisition Coilector has, for Category 'A' lands deterinined fair market value, with reference to 'the. policy effective fron"! 1.4.2000 in-sum of fl3.82 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands'has fixed • .'the.same at fl2.62 lacs per acre. The'-fearned Reference-Court has adopted policy wherein minimum-price-, fixed as of
1.4.2000 wa'S'?13.82 lacs per acre and for 128. days i.e.'the number of days...between .1.4.2000 till 11.9.2000,'appreciating •the same by 12% has -determined' fair market value at f14,40,157/- 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 scqyired -in Narela for development of sectors 1 to 4, Phase I, Narela, with respect to policy of minimum price-with effect from
1.4.2001 LA.App.N6.266/2008 & connected matters learned Land Acquisition Collector determined, fair market value in sum of tl5.7 lacs per acre for Categps^ 'A' lands i.e. the same price, notified as of -1.4.2001 for Category 'B' .lands determined same at fl4''lacs -p-eT-a-crg-. 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. •±aTinrtcqn{si1^0TT-Act-iS§^ dated -2.5.2001-'and enhanced compensation •to T15,85,700/- per. acre which ha-s'.uniformly-- "award"ed.' - ' . ' •• pertaining to notification dated
22.8.2001 whereunder
512.15 bigha iand in village HolambrKaian. were: •acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned'. Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on -the minimum price' notified as of 1.4.2.,001 i.e.,?15.7 lacs'per a'cre which has been held to be the fair market value for Category 'A' iands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determined at 514 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. ?15.7 lacs per acre has appreciated the same by-12%-per annum., for 143 days an^^ the price so fixed'is tl6,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly aw.arded. G. Pertaining to same notification dated '22,8.2001 pursuant whereto' 512.16'-bigha -land was acquired in village Alipur, on the same reas.pning which ^has been adopted-for 'village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land' same compensation"as determined for village Holambi Kalan has been worked out by-the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also by^ learned Reference Court vs/ho has .done away with • — H. . Pertaining to the same notification dated
22.8.2001 pu-rsuant whereto .192.15 bigha'of-land ¥\/aS acquired in-village LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 1-7 of 74 •Hoiambi Khurd, reasoning of th6 LAC and learnEcl Reference Court and the-price determined Is the-same as has been determinedfor villageHoiambi Kalan save and except that; In this viHage even the LAC has treated aff 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 sam.e as adopted for village HoiambiKalan, HoiambiIChurd • and Alipursave and-except in this village'the acquired land was. • of uniform category. • i-Pertaining to notification' dated
7.12.2001: pursuant whereto 222.05 -bigha land was acquired in village Sanpth ibr laying a 80 meterapproachroad to IMareia 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 appreciationfor 250 days at the rate of 12% per annum to reach the figure of ?16,99,042/-per acre. K. Pertainingto the notificationdated 16.5.2002pursuant^• whereto agricultural'lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired, the learned Land.AcquisitionCollector has determined compensation In sunr of-TKTT-tac^per,-acre"-which is the. 'minimumprice notified by the Government as of 1,4;200-1. The ' learned Reference Court has simply held that the land .owners' would be entitled to enhance compensation at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded., I may .highlight'that-the learned '• ReferenceCourt'has not worked out the compensation'-andhas left -it to the Executing Court to. do so, however I ftnd that the enhanced compensation . which would work out would be LA.App.No.2.66/2008&connectedmatters Pagep of74 TIT,75,3^9.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as "X^CKFi and the base price'at ?15.7""lacs, for^lTye^ and 45. .days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the rate of 11.5% .per annum compounded as per the learned Additional Sessions-Judge. L. -Pertaining to notification dated'
23.5.2002-pursuant whereto agricuitura!. lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired the'learned. LAC and the learned Reference Court have determined same compensation as per the reasoning pestafning to same village for notification dated.
16.5.2002 and Tfind that since;there i.s a gap of 7'days in the two notifications, the compensation'payable as per the decision of the Reference Court comes to ?17,.79,781.78 per acre. • -fvh Peftatrrhig-i;0-^+i«a-ni^ic>ttfii;^^ -d-at:ed—2-3.5.2002 pursuant whereto
445.81 bigha land in village Hoi-ambi Kalan was acquired, the learned LAC has determined fair market value in surn 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 Kal.an' 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%'compounde.d-per"annum the price determined-is f22,14,239/- per acre.' - M. Pertaining to the same notification .da^ed
23.5.20Q2- ^ pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricuitura! land in village Alipur l." were acquired ..•.the. .iearn€d__J_an.cl,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 & connected matters Page 19 of 7s,-- Pertaining-• to^^- the notification dated • 27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04, bigha .land in village Sanoth; and --2^-B:B3-trlgha4antHTrvH-lage-^ Kaian.'were acquired,.the learned Land Acquisition'Collector, resting his reasoning on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.200l"fTxed the same value as the compensation payabte for Category 'A' lands.In both yijiages" i.e. fl5.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of f 14 lacs per acre and-for Category 'C lands in sum of •t12.3 iacs 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 minimum price in sum of?I5.7 lacs per acre^-^-ir^OOl-^^d-appreciating the same by 12% per annum for a period of &56 days has fixed fair market vaiue at a9.13,765/- per acre which ^ has been uniformly a¥*/arded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair mari<et value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder'1 bigha and
13.bsswa of agricultural land-com,prised-in Khasra No.200 in the revenue ;estate-of village-Rajapur Kalan was-purchased -for ?5,39,690/-. -
¶7Since the learned. Land Acquisition Collector as .'also the learned Reference "Court have relied upon the notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing minimum price for agricoltorarrands in "Pelhi. let-me therefore note the-dates and the minimum rates notified from time -to time - pertaining to agricuitural lands in Deihi since the same would"be relevant for.the present decision. The same would be-a-s under:- • LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page 20 of74 S! ^-'o" na|-p rif • •. Q/ ^ /O increase per annum a : - • Notification of the price (in Iakhs/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 • 8, From tabulation hereinabove noted it wouSd . be apparent that •after minimum price was last fixed w.e.f.,
27.4.1990, in sum of. ?^4.55 lal<hs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to flO iai<hs/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. 1.1.2% to reach the figure of fll.2 lakhs/acre and. thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 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 iakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% annum with .reference to price determined as of J^4..1998 .and vide,., same notification the '' price vvas retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.
1.4.2000 to ?1.3.82 lakhs/ace i.e. increased by 11% per annum •vis-a-vis previous i.e. fl2.15 iakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-^-vis the previous price of ?13..S2 Iakhs/acre to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters enhancedw.e.f. 30.8.2005to ?i7.584lakhs/acre ~arriTrcres5E-af-o7Tly^a%per annum and then the price rose to ^53. fakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annum with referenceto the base figure of ?17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30,8.2005.
9... relied'upon •by .the iand ownersand Union of India beforethe learnedReferenceCourt, it would be beneficial-for the reader of the presentdecision, as I 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'thatthey would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, railing which as per the second argument, fai.liijg which as per the third argumentand so on. From the side of Union of India it 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 Kalan; the notification dated
7.8.2000Tor villageBawana;the notificationdated 11,9.2000.for village Khera Khurd; the notificationdated 2.5.2001for village Nare!a;'andthe notificationdated 22.8.2001,forvillage AH. Pur; ;and the notificationdated 27.1.2003-for village Rajapur Kalan and Scinoihtreatsas if all lands'wereof uniformcharacterand-it ' _v^,iJrge_d:.that_mrrective_ai:tion by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Governmentfrom time to-time, per-annumand excessive-with reference to the'- .,.dat^.^thenotificationsunderSection4_ofthe Land Acquisition' Act 1894; requlnngthe same to be reduced to 10% per annum sn tlie least.'~Secondly,.the learned Reference Court was not Justified in treatingall 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 Coliector and-in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land o\A/ner had chaiienged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category/ 'B' Category 'C, on account of pits and depressions of various, depths, as per the awards passed, by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.
¶10Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference Courl; was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 253=2000., Ex.PW-1/3,-in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.Mo.780/2010 as also itie"3B"te""de'eT! tfated
25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, -i.n the same LA.Appea!. Vide sale deed Ex,PVV-l/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricuitura! land in village Namurpur was sold @ ?26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.P\¥-l/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of f32.4 ia!<hs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price, as of 25.3.2000 «nder Ek.PW-1/3 would be T28.89 lakhs/acre . pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be. ?63.478 iakhs/acre. It "was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds \¥Quid be good evidersce to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in'the aforesaid 10-villages as of 7.8.2000, •;il.9.20Q0,-
2.5.2001,
22.8.2001,
7.12.2001,'
16.5.2002,
25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003'i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications, were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894-by suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument, pertaining to village Marela, it was-urged tha'^ .. the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for v\/hsch learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page23 of 7'% for which argument was that when .in . th-e-.-pa-st-, pertaining to a notificatiGn issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, ^he Reference Court had given said benefit to agricufturai lands in. village ^1amurpur-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 UOf vs. Dharambir & On?. The said decision would reveal that price per bigha in . sum of ?6,650/- ' determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to . tl6 J50/- 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, Narela •Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed Into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in subject lands having acquiYed a building potentiality, required fair niarket value to be determined with respect to the price .at which DSiDC and DDA j.e. the implementing agencies, which acted as the ^Modal Agencies for development of Rohini ResidentialScheme and Bawana Indus'trialArea, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana-Industrial Estate and for which learned-counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted-by the learned .Reference-Court, which \ would be noting hereunder while dealing v\i\th the •submission-urged. 12, Alterii-ative to the second suhmlssiDQ, 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 Bed! Ram LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page24 of74 -vsr -Uivvn of India, »t was permissible to determine fair market • yaJue of acquired lands v^ith reference lo the fair market value determined by-Courts at an earlier point of time by giving • suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between-6% per annum to-12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land , owners handed over a chart, vi/orked upon by learned counsei, with,reference to the decision in Bed! Ram's case (supra) as' per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965, had to be @ 6% per annum with reference to the base price T16J50/- per bigha as of 30.10.1953-i.e. the price affirmed-by the Suprem.e Court in Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till
31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per-annum till the various dates~wfTeh the 8 notifications under Section 4;-of the Land Acquisition Act ,1894 were issued from time to time, a:nd with —whitii L_am.,.concerned,.i.n.liT.epresent..ap.pe.ais. So.v\/orked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair markel , value-would come to ?55,88,759/- 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
7.8.2D00,
11.9..2000,
2.5.2001, -22.8.2001, 7,12.2001,
15.5.2-002
23.5.200-2. - ,
¶13The fourth-argument' advanced was, for which ' ' -refer-ence was made by learn©d--xeL!4nselfor the parties in the evidence led in LAC Mo.99/2005, which is subject'matter of 2 cross appeals I.e. LA.AFF.ifo'.2'68/2008 filed by the land owners , ,.—and LA.APP.No.292/2008 fil.edJjy UrslODJ^iindia, 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 & connected matters t-estimQRy of Rafn Kisfrapi-t-Q't-hg effect that by selling aqricultura! .. pixidiJce--£ijQrn-bis-4afl4s-h-e--4Jse^ to earn fl iakli 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 Jand of Ram Kishan •and others were acquired. It was:thus .urged that the fair • market val.ue as of said date-should-be^20 lakhs per bigha. :- f may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by •Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan' and others i.e. the appellants in LA.APP.Mo.268/2008 and'the respondents in LA.aPP.I^<Io.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 __whic.h was closest in point of time where under minimum land • value was fixed by the Government and the notification dated
24.1.2008 where under ?53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument.-
¶15The last argument, which was in the' alternative to-the first 5, pertained to-the .notification dated .27.1.200.3, 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 Mo.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for f5,^§,6-§-0/-., determined the fair market value as per the.-said-. sale deed"! n~the"fo11owing'' words: (Refer, para 17 of the decision -xiBted-^^-.2010-4n4JiC-MQjJM/2009}: 'If we add stamp the sale price X3,69,906/- .mr^-bjghs ^5,39,6907- .-f 70.160 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes to f 17,74,109/- , per acre or 13,68,906/- per'iDigha. Further if we give 22% LA.App.No.266/2008 8cconnected matters' Page 2S of 74 ^ , increase on said amount for interveningperiod between ttie^ date when sale .deed. .mas-.exBcuted-..and. date of -nxjtifix:Btfon u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003} i.e. 8 months it comes toXlQ,16,037/- (round offt 19,16,040/-). " The argument was that if we look at the award relatabie to the said acquisition. i.e. Award r\lo.l0/DC(lMW)/2004-05, it would reveal that award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3-bisv^a land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land.was put in Cat^ory '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 .iand"being comprised in Khasra Mo.•200 "and that page i^lo.56-57 OT'the award .would. evidence 'that "lancJ"comprised. in Khasra , Mo.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13-biswa was placed in' Category, 'C. . Whereas Land Acquisition Coifector 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 xl.l lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value determined whereof was-fl2.3 lakhs per acre. ' It would be apparent what the .argument was. The argument precisely \A?as that if the market-value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in questiorj, the same had to be for Category 'C lands arsd . for Category/' 'B'' and Category/ 'A'. lands price, had to De."- increased by ?1.7 lakhs per acre for each categor>^
¶15• I have already noted hereina"bove the arguments wh.ch were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, iearried senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected.in para 9 above and-hence I need not repeat the. same. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters
¶17In various sub-paras~~oT para b hereinabove, f have capsuled the reasoning of the iearned Land AcquisitiGfi _apd-th-e4eam@d-R-€fe-feR€e-GQeftpertaining to the 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatabie to the 10 villagesand thus I commence i^y journeyto deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the iearned Reference Court as per various sub-paras.of para 6 above.
¶18But before dealing with the arguments f 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 Cate.goiy 'B' lands, having depressions and pits, deduction effected vis-^-vis the price, for Category 'A' lands is ?1.56 lacs-per acre and pertaining to the notificationdated 11.9.2000 where price has been determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd, said:-price-diff-efentia!has been worked out at ^1.2 lacs per acre and'while determining fair market value for agricultural lands in village Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 2.5.2001 the deduction'effected ls.?1.7 lacs per acre, which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of agricultural land in village, Hoiam.bi Kalan was determined as of date' 22.8.2001. Pertaining .t^..the.',,,n,otmeation dated
27.1.2003 and Tefatable to village Sanoth the price differential on said count has again been taken at Xl.l 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 lacs'per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and ?1.7 lacs per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page2§ of74 m B. . The learned Land Acquisition CoHector has adopted the minimum price notified closest in point of time to the date when. Section'4 notification was issued without appreciating the land price with.reference to the date of the Section 4 notification i.e... no benefit ,of price rise for the inter\/ening period has been .given. C-.---. Th-eiearned Reference Court has-adopted ttie miniiinum • price notified has given appreciation ranging between
11.5% per. annum and 12% per annum and in some cases has compounded the same and in some given said benefit at the simple rate,. D. Pertaining-.to village Holambf Kalan ..where acquisitions •were made pursuant to the notificatians dated
7.8.2000
23.5.2002 the learned Reference Court has adopted the price determined by this Court in Gairafs case .(supra) as of
15.11.1995 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 the. •learned Reference Court, in some references has determined fair martest 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 Categos^ 'A', 'B' and 'C reasons thereof have ""&een giverrHTthe'award but the learned Reference Court, while "aWaTding umfor^ compensation, has given' ho reasons as to why it was treating bH lands to be of sa me chara.cter and qu a Iity. •
¶19Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and-8 notifications issued, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition-A.::t 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant .LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters ' Page2^ of 74 --•tacts, jmcb:.wMS:.be'P"t in a tabular form the data would, be as unden-Village Date of Section IMotification LAC compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons ADj compensation (in la!<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. fl4.3728. • Minimum price as of
1.4.2000 with ; 12% increase p.a. Holambi Kalan
7.8.2000 fl3.82 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 fl4.12995. Price as in Cairats case as of
15.11.1996 with 12% Increase p.a. «i Holambi Kaian
22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' fl5.7 Cat. 'B' ?14 Ninirnum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. ,^16.43811. fviinimum price .as of
1.4.20,01 with 12% increase p.a. . Hoiambi Kaian
23.5.2002 ;fl5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001
02.14239. Price: as in Gairafs case. as of
15.11.1996 with 12% Increase p.a. (compounded) Bawana
7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' ?13.82-Cat. 'B' =^12.62 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 No enhancement given.. m Khera Khurd
11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B' n2.52^ Minimum price as at1,4.2000 Cat. Uniform. fl4.40157. Minimum price as of
1.4.2000, with 12% increase p.a. — — . Narela
2.5.2001 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Cat. 'B' fl4 , Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. a5.B57. NInimum price as of
1.4.2001 with LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page 3® of 74 AH Pur Ali pyr Hoi a nab i L; ro : KBjap i Sa noli' Sei iiotn
22.8.2001
23.512002' Cat. fl5.7 Cafc;'B^fl4 Minimum price as of
1.4.2001 wlxh of 1.4.,2001 fl5..7 t-'On::rril?rn ' 0: '..M-J/W 12% Increase p.s. fl6.43813L Mifurnurrj cnce 12% increase r.c-ij.- ; cf i..-:,;:;.-,,;:.: i •-c1..
22.B.20(n.. 'fUJ ;:•! r-:rn r- , -uf >. ^ •.. <:io.43ei • : • . r rrr-• •?- ; ' • ^ri or i, .i, : ' "11% - r -f 271L20Q3 t;; .1 --i:- • L. risii:i; ;• ,. • •. •; i: •• •• :• •• 111:. :h.;:2c.?i :-i: - f ! . :i .A,, \ .k •• • llr rrr. ^vv-- r?sv.f:-i •:/••• 'C.£: C. '• 15,::1.2 1l.1 •- r-.- - .... i.,. .• !- !l i V M^-rrr;. ^-r pr of 1,4,20:11 ; f 16119042 : M!null urn ; a Cat. 11^ i:05.7 Car.. 01# - - 1Cat 112,3 ^Mihilmurn orica as ;of 1.4imoi. of. 1,4.2001 vOO-:. ; 12% increas'^;: qj?. ^
219., 1370 5 • vor liini'ferm - -Ccfieg'&ry, f4iniFnum price as of
1.4.20Ci v^?th 12% increase p.a. LA,App.«o,266/200'g&. comiectedmatefEi Page 3i of 74 , m Snalipiir Shatajii' Gsirhi lo.",, S¥-fl.5-.7 23JT20C)2"' "Mifilroifni -piT Cat./A= fl5.7 Minimum oric-s as of 1.4:2Cr01 fl7,Z53€5. ice 3s -©f-^rT«0-et--with-compound Interest f® 11.5% p.a. fl7,.79781. M^nirvium pries S'S of ;L4,2uD1 With co^mpcijnci interest; @ 1:l57o p.E-. I
¶20i ncvv i":- ::;njD-v;:s£2./-:;:: NSsirTVSC: i-?:nc-0v';:-'iprs E;;C; tM'-.: 2. 3v.; lU'Ciad 2;, 2V:;:' 2-u::ir;: as 'MitPC-2\ ijsras j:.C to IS 2"- ilp-erta-i^ric: c.,.- ti'i'S ;;?rr:;: 'Siia pi-i"? 3 s.c-y'/e: u:er2: :i'--:ira;
¶21•'MTt sp,,;:p:.c;-"t ::;'--i;;;P\::;:2.ipior. •;•••:€: 'I :®:;:.Pf, Ev'^ ••; c:i;-. i, ••1 Ciiiit:::::P '? ;:5,3,' il 3 ;?r" P uri,:•;? ^ :;J ,i• '-v ••• i/2 :::• aacea Z5.4.2;P22 ms per ^2;:Pr : 2--r 12;,;;: P:>r'r:-;j" i:;':>r^as tc-22£:275 par -'icre enp t:"/e iap:cM-p:;^ ''6?,422 r;Pcns per PC:--P "niP 2;;:arnr -i FP:Pare''-rc: CGr;:. has rp^?y::crs t:hp .2 ii^rpift; c'epcis as rp2ab:p pv!c2^p.v::;p ro c2:p:prrr: fair maP'-rri s-p;y.e rrf pp;yciii2,r-c;i 'iarpcis. "2>r-cji 2rr;i:. r2i2yrMBa '- questhjr; cs'' fnp rprBiSonrny th&t tira ssip clepc? 2r,22vp,;,;2 pr:a£ purchasep 2^y j ^''eng2:)i...iS trust p) 'tha na-!Tis o-f "-raai^ia 5'r-;a-rr Sstssrpp rrrc: y:r-p:; Hriaa iFp:P-2 VMa:;;, nap rePCMsrprii t2s sa?e. da-aa in evidence, while ijepcsing in CoiPt In L/M2 Mp/5y/2tHj5 fiaa stated that to his kmrnledae tlic; isncl was purchased for rs^^yicus pyrppaaparr2 vva bphw;:! yaed for a rehcaa^^s pi.irpass. The; sale deed t>L?SN-lf2 has i\¥:&mse been he^a nca to oe "2^i3l5I^'ev1cia'nce^ to'"cletemwie fair H s/bIus of agricaltarai lands on tne reasoning §t vvas purchaseo by a ?PDa (P:>varTi-ra.ant Ore•wazar^on "Christian OrganiaatSon^^' a/'O aa aar t2a tsst^w^-::ap LA..Apy.r-.;o.,i;2a/;a:'jQS coauected matters PKg.s32oa?4 -ii-of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated ted to p..^....the^n£e;:fexJ:he. said piece of land as it was the only plot of the.requisite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.
¶22• As heid in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 . Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. l/s. Isti Rohini & Ann (Refer para 6) 2009
(14) SCC RaUfuddin l/'s. Land Acouisition Officer (Refer para-13) saie transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an^ exemplar saie deed to determine the market value" of !and jn an area for the reason there may be special clrcumstarsces which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a we!! informed willing-buyer would pay to-an equally ,we!i 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 relied upon the sale deed dated
20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated.
27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kaian was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for'a much-leaser-price i.e. fl7,74,109/- per-acreas against the price which comes to f63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-l/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds •Ex.PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, LA.App,No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page 33 of1': n themselves are having intrinsic evldence_of the tancsful price -arrct'ex^facie destroy eacti ottreT: • •• "23. Tt[U5/ apartrrfcan—the ' reasoning of learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be adiiijLLO-nal reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair 4:s:i4!tet-value-jof_sub-iect_Iattds.xan....be,.dfitenT)lned -and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area,'it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on-sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer.' \ would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.LS.Dahiya being the decision dated
19.12.2008-disposing of a batch of appeals,'lead matter-being. LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs 1/5. UOTEs Ors. It -was highlighted tli^the sale deed "therein which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good ..evidence of value of land in the area, was rejected by. the Court and the price in question, with suitable deduction on account of .the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the Court and 'thus even in the instant cases the 2 safe deeds in question i.e. Ex..PW-l/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as basis to determine fair market 'value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 Wherein the Division Bench, did' not accept the value in the safe deed on its own -logic,as indicative of the market value, but'~touim'~that if the price therein v/»/as reduced by the price arrived at would be the same as' LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page34of74 would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate d the.saie deeds produced by the Union of India Le. the safe deeds : produced by the Government were giving a price of fl,37,000/-per bsgha-and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the..price53,26,600/-per bigha and the^verage vvoyld. ••-mffle--tQ-^273i76-0S/=--which mm~ near atiout tlTe price of f2,15,160/-per"bigha, If 1/3''^ would be deducted from the sum of f3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment, the year of the sale was'1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 -and-the Court determined fair market vaiue as of the. said, dates'at the same sum' arrived at as aforesaid I.e. f2,15,160/-. 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. • 1. would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per sale deeds and • this itself is intrinsic mutya!l|/ destructive evidence of the 2 sale.deeds reflecting fair market• value.-
¶24• Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above^ is rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended ifmb of argument that afcer accepting said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to vlHage---^4arela,"'in •vie¥/ of the decision in Dharambir's case 9^ Isupra}•, land""pTlc¥Should be suitably'^Wan'ced .would be dealt with by me Bf the^nd-wli.en.i determine the-fair--Dmckgt4/31 ye of iands for the villages in question.
¶25The second -argument, contours whereof are-to' be^ found In para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA.A,pp;No.266.-''2008& connectedmatters Page3Sof.74 m Courf on the.issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La/ Chand vs. UOL 26, • But before that I must -hsghlightthat the decision in LM [^-.xase (supra) predicated a claim .on a .DBA .broGhure w.hereunder, on iease-hofd basjs, residential plots were allotted ! ... for residential housing schem.e-,.and •th-e-argument'was being •considered for fixation of-fair market value of agricultural-lands, in village Rithaia, where further lands v^ere acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agriGulturai lands in village Rithaia are situated within the 'V formed by I^H-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road.
¶27Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agficultura]' 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:- "Wh&thBF the DDA btQchuf&.m relevant ewidmnce?
¶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 Rithaia' and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives ' the following provisional rates, for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: % SL No. Plot size Category Rate (per square metre) i. 26 sq m. Economically weaker sections -Rs 100 ^^— imm" • ".
¶232 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125 48 SQ-m j ow inconie-qrnup_XLlG) Rs 1.5.CL ._. ~4T~'' SQ.s.q 'm Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200 •
¶590 sq m f\4idd!e income gro'up (rv1IG) Rs-200 • LA..App.No.266/2008& coimectedmatters Page36of74 • The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the said pFWi^iona!rates, should be taken as iodicativeofthe ruling market price.
¶12On-careful consideration, we are of the view that such allotrnent rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several-reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determinedwith referenceto large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates, of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developedlayoutfalling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities ado.pt dsTferentrates for plots in the same area with reference to the economiccapacityof the buyer, making it difficultto asceilain the real market value, whereas .market value determinationfor acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. ihirdiy, we are concerned with market value of-freehold •fain^--w1weasthe allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotmentof plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First fact&r
¶13The percentage of "deduction for develooment" 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 percentage depending upon the nature of development of the lavout in which 'the exemplar plots are situated.
¶14The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first' -Js with reference to area required to be utilised for developmental works and the secoiad is the cost of. the development works. ^For example, if•a residentiaMayout .is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land' area in the layout, for roads; drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (communityTacilities),
15.-- deve.lopinent authority will also .incur considerable ^ expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout,, which includes •the cost of levelling the land, cost, of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page37 of74 underground drainage and sewage facifities'/Taylrig water iines, eiectricity lines developing parks . and .cMi -tlie developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.
¶16On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of ^^4s4y-Gti-on—fGf-dev-ste|>men-t"-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 comparatryely less and minimal. Thus-the deduction on account of. the two'factors in respect of .plots in unaothonsed layouts, would be only about 20% pl-us-2-0-% in all 40% as against 75%. In regard to DOA plots. •
¶17The "deduction for development" with reference to' , prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range bet¥\?een. 50% to 65% depending' upon the starsdards and quality of the layout.
¶18The positionwith reference to industrial layouts wifS be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of . the size of 'one or two acres -or more as contrasted with the sise of residentialplots measuring100 sq mto 200 sq m), and as there will be ven,/ limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for.roads, parks, playgrounds and civic a.menities) will.be far less; and the cost to be'incurredfor developmentwill 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 55%'to 75% for residential plots.
¶19If the ••acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the, 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.) •20. Th-erefore the -deduction for the "development' •factor" to be made with reference to the-price of a small .plot In a developed layout, to .arrive at the cost of undeveloped' land, will be far more than the deduction LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page38 of74 with reference to -the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is • als€-wefr-kn0wn that the, development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the costlncorred' by private developers, having rega4^-tG-higher overheads and expenditure.
¶21Even among layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of iand utilised for roads, civic •amenities, paries playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residential- —Gym-mmmefc4ai-eiM«dastrial; an-d-even-among residential . layouts, the percentage will differ having .regard'to• • size of the piote, width of the roads, extent of community -fa-erlttfes",-parks and playgrounds provided.
¶22• Some' .of.''the I^outs formed By"Yhe statutory •d-ev^d-opment authoriti-es m-ay ha-v'e 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 ^ctor-
¶23DDA and other statutory d.evelopment authorities . adopt different rates .for allotment of plots in the same sayout,- depending upon economic . status of the •allottees, ciassifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, economically • weaker sections. As a conseqyen'ce, in the same layout, plots iii'ay be earmarked" for persons belonging , to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, ¥i/hereas 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 belonging to high income groups.
24.' The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for H.IG, MiG, LIG and EWS may ...also vary. Ail these varying factors reflect in the rates for .allotment..It will be illogical' to take the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but'upon the paying capacity of "the"appHcarit's for allotment. . . Third factor LA.App.Nd.266/2008&connectedmatters Page39 of .'^4 m annual rental standard methods for freehold J freehold (ownership):rights with 3liotmenrprfc:)'ctarg^ the marketvalueof the propeay. ,.gfg.|.ed to 'h ""it^^s^norsafforadSfsable to rely upon the by DDA In adeveloped/Ighold lands. The ofA^rl^ure'^iceL'sthereforeto be excludedas being not relevant." 2" ThP evidenceon the subjecthas been discussedby the learnedReferenceCourtand Ireproducethe same by extract,r.e from LAC Reference NO.U7A/2009. The argument aovancea before the learned Reference Court, being the same as v«s advancedbefore me, has been noted by the learned Reference Conrtwith referenceto the evidencerelied upon. It re«ds.v EX PW6/1, Allotment letter dated 26.05.200-, o. . pirket 03 =;ector-05 area measuring .0 So,, ' 'dated 09.07.90 of industrialplot allotted by DSIDC i.e. Page40of 74 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters il plot •nOj^270, measuring-.350 sq. ysrds at . I^arela industriar"Comp!ex at the -rate of ?65Q sq. metres which 'is Exi' PW3/1' another allotment letter dated
25.04.2000 of industrial plot which-is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at OOOO per sq. metres.- • Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that' from statement of , PW9-Kanv\^al Singh & document •Ex. PWll/1, which 1s detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total .land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost bigha wotrld—ITf^^^OOOOO- = ?248911 whereas Ld. Counsel-has submitted' that DDA by selling alternate plot in Nsrela Residential Scheme ®- ?3208 would be ?2531408/-per bigha. ' . : ^ -And if 30% of the total area litiiized.for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sate Is 70% so.th.e price of per bigha would.come, to (2531408 - 759422 = 17719856 per bigha). And . after- 'd'e'ducting development charges from' sale price of orse .bigha i.e. ^1771986 - 248911 - 1523075 per big.ha_^ 'where as petitioner ha.s been given rate only t3p27,0S3/- per -SimifanV he has .tried'to demonstrate the profi..ts earned-by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW7 R.D, Sharma, Asstt. Manager. DSIDC who has produced documents. Ex. PVi/77A (Coiiy). Ld. Counsel has argued that total .expenditure incurred 'on development of Narela Project by DSIDC -was 720526901 .till 2001 and total area of. plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is f2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total'area under plots !
112.47 hec Le.-1361250 sq. j^ards. Price per sq. metre in year 2000 at vtfhich-DS.IDC sold plot f3000/- per sq. yards Total earning • f4083750000 Total expenditure ?720526901 . ' ' ' Totalprofit = ?33632230.99 ^----•-ive.----Pi^FeQ-fneS"-to'?2470 per-^qT-YSiid^r t247riQ00 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1351250 sq-. yards) only, meaning thereby that DSID.C has earned a profit of ..0142MI..perbigha..___ Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued .that LAC has awarded compensation @ f327083 per LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters Pjage41 of I'V il bigha for the !andjn.,ciuest[on Jf 200% appreciation of the p.t is deducted frQnri.saiia_ ,Mice_._per .bigha i.e. ^24700000,. figure comes to. ?i815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled.for the same." • —^—i^lewy—wa-ds—evidence as .to .what-was; the extent of plotted land'sold by DSfDC or DDA with reference to : the Bawana Industrial Estate-d@¥eiop€-d--by DSIDC and f-Jarela •" Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it vms .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 de.termine 'the value of-land in ' the-subject cases.
¶30It is no doubt true, as held even—fey----the—leaffled.-- Reference Court, that with development of Bawana IndustriaL Area,- -Rohi-ni Residential Scheme Narela • Residerstial Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building po.tentiaiityj but the question -wouid be what would be the value to ¥\?hic;h the building potentiality would trarsslate itself. •
¶311hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view, the obsei"vati'on and the findings of the Supreme Court in Laf Chancfs 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 v^hat should be .the fair market-value of the lands. 3T: • " The third submissioFr m the altem-ative w.as. based upon the.observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram's -eose-tsupra),'arsu the submsssiurris^asmoted in para 12-herein above. The land owners require .the price determined, in DharambiYs case (supra) relating to notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters
30.10.TQ6.1-• Mamurpur/1^' to be treated as the basis'and"pro.gressiveiyincreased, firstiy by .6% per annum, then by 10% perannurn and lastly by 12% per . annum for -different periods anc! .thereby -determine the'fair market value for the 8 notifications in question.
¶33It be highlighted that in Bedi Ram's-case (siJorRV with reference to the base date as,, of the year'19597for the year 1975 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% tiy the year 1955 and then by 10% per annum til! the year-1973 and finally by 12% for •th.e remaining 3 years.
¶34-However, in La/ Chancfs case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as-under:- "Whether itee award relating to acquisition on 24-: • 1961 is relevant?
¶47-The appellants contend that some lands in Rithaia vi/ere acquired under Section 4(1) Motification dated 24-10-1951 for the planned development of Delhi and cornpensatfon was'awarded at the rate of Rs 7000. per bigha. Their-contention is "that as present acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the-acquired land should be determined with reference to . . the miarl<et value determined for the 1961 acquisition by , providing an appropriate increase ' at . cumulative/compounded rate of 12%- per annum. This. Court .had occasion to exa^mine this issue recently. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Pate^ this Court, held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) •; _'li5,___Norrnally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining -the' market value by providing — ••3-ppropri-ate--escaSation over-^th^-proved"market .value of nearby lands in-previous years (as . . evMef^ed-^y-s-a Ie tra nsaettcrns-ar^eq-tttsiti^a-ns), where there is-no . evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions • -.Qf . acquisitions of comparable lands in' the - neighbourhood. The said method'is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters # ••^Te •tfa'Rsaetions/aeq-ulsitions precede acquisition bv/ oniy a few years, that is, up to foui-ste-to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even If it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a '.few years, may become unsafe unreliable standard where the gap is larger For example, for determining market-value of a land - a(^iredHti—l-t92ratiuptrn annual increase, ' method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970. or 1980. may have many pitfalis.-This is . because,^over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo •..drastic change apart from the iikeiihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden . spusts in prices affecting .the very standard of • increase." (em-phasis supplied)
¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court'should, iDeforeadoptinga standard escalation, satisfy itselfthat there were no adverse circumstances.For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possibleto determinethe-market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices,,by providingan increase'of 12% or 15% per year,, as the newspaper reports disc-lose'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 necessarx/ before increasing price with reference to 'the old transactions. Be that as it m.ay. It is clear that the'award •made in regard to a 1961 acquisitionwill 'not be of any use for determining market value for a 1981 acquisition." apparent that the ratio" of law laid dovi/n by.-the Division Bench in Bed! R3m^^^se-{su-pfd.)runs in the teeth of the law declared by the'Supreme Court: in. laI Chands case vSti^ra)T"which decision foHo-%^—a-n—earlier decision of the 5u_preme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Rameshbhai Uvanbhai VBtpJ. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters
¶36IrritiB-instaTilrcase there is anotner good reason""iiot to follow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's case (supra) for the reason' ! find that a;Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi &Ann 1/5. UO! & Ors.. pertaining to agricultural lands in village' Mamurpur - Na.rela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambi'fs case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would .have resulted in-the land price being determined in village MamurpLir-Marela as of 14.3.1980 @ f2010/- per annum per bigha and. gave the increase @ ^lOOO/- per bigha. If Beds Ram's principle was applied the price would-have come to approximately ?50,00.G/- per bigha but the learned Division Bench" determined the same at O3,0.0X)/-:pe-r blgna,
¶37That apart, as ¥/Quld be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market, value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of'a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.Mo.866/2005 decided on ll.5.2G06, Mahender Sinah vs. UOl &: Ors.-arsd connected Land AcqiJisltion Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana', and ! highlight that one. village with which I am dealing Is village Bawana, pertaining to a notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acc|uis.ition Act vvhere-under 3604 .bigha 18 .bi.swa-of-agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as.of
15.11.1§§6 was deterrni-ned © ?1,99,904.68 bigha which equals to f9,59,542.46 .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..' Govern.ment was ?I0 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters Page 4S.of 74 determined by the Division Bench would equal minimum price notified by the Government. were—t-©—ice-^s—o1^i:5-; i 1• @ ^9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with vi'hich I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if ! 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 wouid be holis.ticalSy discussing the subject while opining upon, the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8' notifications in question.
39.. . The toijilb. argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi-, ieamed counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.NO.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India' i.e., LA.APP.Mo.292/2008, is as noted in para . 13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands beionging to the family they were earning fl iakh per bigha by safe of agricultural produce.
¶40The learned Reference Couri: has not accepted testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave Ro'proof in support of his oral testimony.
¶41. The reasoning of the Court that there was no-crop standing.on the land when its possession .was taken over on
4.10.2000 .would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not being put; to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, js fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3'"'^ week of September, rice is harvested in DeH-ii and if vegetables are grown, even they are 'harvested and the land is left fallow-for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters r ~ " sown af^tTd lfie first week or the-second week of Jsioveraber ... .e_ac.li.'year....,
¶42But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony of Ram Kishan he., was working as an Administrative Officer in the Nunicipai Corporation of .Delhi ti!l 31.3.1996 i.e. was-not a tiller himself tlH said period and thereafter earned a-pension. If the-family, as claimed by him, was earning ?1 lakh per bigha, for •the lands belonging .to the family, -which admeasure 18 bigha -and 18 biswa, the annual4R€eme~w-eukJ be fl9 lakhs and one., •fin-ds-It-strange that not-la penny vvas iBv-ested 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 iocai Mandi or othenA'ise. The trader to whom produce was sold has not been examined. - Mo proof of number of workers employed, diese! purchased to run the tube-weli/ if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electricaHy driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by .canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by . capitalizing the same, to determine the.fair market value of ' lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of.the yield • and the self serving 'deposition of Ram Kishan has. been rightly •rejected. . -- -43-. - If there is reliable evidence of ars independent expert or tl=vefe-45—athef¥ifi5e--Fe-lsable evidef^-er—a-s—^vas-found In decisio-n of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (1) SC 444 ^state of Guiarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to the .yield from agricultural Isod, only then it would be safe to • determine fair market value by applying principle of LA.A.pn.Mo,2.66/2008& connected matters i\. c3^ca J!ZifJ'y being 10•times the annoatyreTd and not ZD times as was sought to be.projected.
¶44The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle b^A^_opt_ed vi/ith reference to. the notification dated 24.1.2QQ8. .
¶45in para 7 above, I have put in-a tabular form, minimum prices-notified for agricultural land in Delhi-from time to time, f highlight that notifications with which \ am concerned are dated 7.8.2000,
11.9.2000,
2.5.2001,, 22.8.2001,
7.12.2001,
16.5.2002,
25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7 above, we find'that minfmum prices have been notified as of
1.4.2000',
1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under notification dated
24.1.2008 which is w.e.f.
8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 yeaTs"away from the last year with which ! am-concerned i.e. the. year 2003. I. highiight that.reci<oned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the-first year with which .1 am' concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The Jaw of statistics which governs mean avera-ge .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 wquIg-De-cte-se-st-to—the—p-ointf-e-F--the mean-average has to be determined. —4-6— -1 am left-to deal v^ith the last submission, as noted in —pB-m-i5HiefeirratroYe,--snd"forwhich t highlight that the [earned 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 vv/as sold in vlHage.RajapurKala-n and LA.App.No.266/2008&•connected marters Pgge48of74 has determined that based :.thereo T the' price as of said date 4A/-oi^<-s-&y-t^of 17,7 <1:;10 9Ai-per jicrg a r months by 12% per annum, for Itl-would be" f 19-i6;037/-'per aCfle TOu acre. -1--
¶47With reference'to the; Awa is apparent that iaild comprised;:in ii;d:,it:^°^^ for S e date
27.1.2003 the price nded off to f19,16,040/- per d NO:10/DC(NW)/2004-05 it Chasra. I\]Oi200 admeasurinq 1 bigha and IB biswa was a Category 'C land. The sale deed in question pertains' to the same land a if said sale deed had to be accepted value of Category 'CMand. As;per the learned Land Acquisition Collectoi-Ta.7 lakhs per acre'would, be required to fill up the depressions for .land in Category 'B' and further ,sum of ^1.7 nd indeed there is logic that , it would,reflect fair market Jis -per-ssi-ons in Category 'C iand,. meaning thereby land were less vis-a-yis Category,;c depressions in Category 'B' land/ In other words, with reference to Category 'A' land, the v/vould have to be reduced and'lvice-' price of Category 'C land /ersa, vis-a-vis Category 'C land, the price for Category 'B.'la.nd and-for Category 'A' land would be required,to be increased suitably. l.now enter the finalssljageof my discussion.-In view of and, reflecting upon id Acquisition Collector and the question: What should
¶48the' evidence herein above 'noted reasoningadoptedby.thelearnpd:La theJearned Reference iCourt.Jjppse be the fair market value of-tfte-subject lands as of 7.8.2000,
11.9.2000, • .2.5.2001, - 22.8a00-l,
25.5.20.02- .• and ,. 27.1:2003',Mle.^ •tl notifications were :issued underiSecti Act 1994.' "l •
¶49. i have; in para! 37 abQ^e|..ric Bench of this Court- :in ,.L/|v.AP.P. •LA.App.No>266/2008 &-connected matters : . 7.12.200,1, e dates on
16.5.2002, which 5n 4 of the Land Acquisition ted ardecision of a Division, iMo.866/2005 decided o.ii Page 49 o-f74
11.5.2006, MahehUer Sinah-V5:::UOL& • • V • I • i . Ors. wherein pertaining to of 15.11.1996 is ?1,99,904.68 per biqha Which ,dquals to ^9/59,542.46 per acre, the issue of potentiality, :uss. ^The decision notes with which; Division potentiality inasmuch as,, ecision,' rural areas in the The said "deeision would be relevant or an 'issue which 1-have-promised;.:to'idi5 . • i i. i that the, subject lands i>e. the ilands Bench was concerned,; had acquii^ed a • as discussed in paras 25.to 28 oflthe d Union Territory of Delhii was atjtractipg migrants/ Based on population growth,, 5. villages in irural providing major •health fadtiti-e^'suh De-l-hi were identified .for jols, markets-rural. industry, one of which ,w^as village:; Bawana. It was noted that G'.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road .w,ere village .Bawana; and.,that the MasterlPlai year-1990 had indicated the landlu^e in the area to-be changed ;,in future to .industrial iconmercial, but had also utjservsd that notwrthstandiingthijST^iforthe reason no•zon pIan" was-notifi-ed as contemplated ii)y .Section llA of the Delhi * ' i • . Development Act 1957, ithe lands! cointiriued to be used for agricultural purposes and there •jwas no evidence .that till the year 1996, any land^use-had beeh Actually changed and put to the use cbntemplated^by the Master Plan. As in, .the instant case, where all subject lands;" (were continuously put to •, agricultural use, same:was the case noted-in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use qf tte lands .giving birth to a potential land yalue withJreferehceijto ,;he area^being known to all as being•required in the future|for-building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential iibeing valued with reference to the potehtiality i.e. theilands beinp; in the hear future capable of.being built upon. To put it .differently, the. decision, though not 50. expressly,stating, would' be-a pij'op^tTo'h'lihathere is a difference between the: undeveloped land having building LA-App.No.26'6/2008 & connected,matters •. I providing good access to n for Delhi notified in the potentiality' in presenti . vis-aKvis .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 ma'ket value determined was T9,59,542.46 per acreiand whith I. lighlight once again is the same as would be determined iwith r being closest • in poirit of" time ; i
25.7,lMZ...where-undet| for agricultural lands in ..DeJ.hi minimum eference to the notification e., notification dated price fixed .by the Government as: of I acre. Interestingly, the same-Divisi •another judgment reported as Sin.Qh 1/5, UP! & Ann where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi iCajan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated
15.11.1996,
1.4.1997 was ^10 lakhs per on Bench had pronounced D IV AD (Delhi) Gairai fair market, value determined for ^9,7^,121/- per acre and for Ca'tegor per acre i.e. near approximate to the Category 'A' lands was / 'B' lands was ^9,51,121/- fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs;- to-be 'highlighted-that white determining the fair market value a Holambi Kalan, evidenced from'|the o para 19 and 20 of the^ decision, location and potentiality with re'ference to develo.prnent work-carried out in the, surrounding lands was considered. I wouldi highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another .adjoining village in the same 'V 5 of 15.11.1996 in village Dservations of the Court in i.e. between. G.T.Karnal Road ^and S ih g h 01a d ete rm ih e d fa ir rn afket v .^1,30,5,23/- per bigha i.e.-1:6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision i; ,..xep.ojlecLas..2004 ;(4) AD'(Delhi) 207?a/?7 Chander vs. UO! and the ..•.sarae-DivisiQ-n-Ji-enGh, asi per the jdecis DLT 95 Hukum Singh vs. '.pertain Rohtak Road,. i.e. village alue as of
19.3.1993 (co on-r-epo rted-a-s -l 11 (2004) ng to a notification dated
14.1.1994--for viilage/Singhola determined fair market value f1,40,230/- per bigha i.e^^6,73f]]04/- per acre. 'LA.App.No.266/2008. & connected matters j , I 5U Tne".,aTo;i.:es^.', j fe-dl-in preceding paragraphs as also the;various notifieat 1>ime by the Government of NCT Delhi for agriculturar lands in Delhi as;: tabu above bring out two very Importantifacis relevant tk detern'iine Che growth/rise in the prices Of agilCUltural land in Delhi over the i i • ' years-commencing from^ the. year 1990. . As of 27.4..1990 minimum price was ?4.65 lakhs i3i^r acre which rose to flO lakhs per acre as-of 1.4:1997 i.e. the increasie is f5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 1155054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would; be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years-and 11.5% for the next;year i.e., as, of. 1.4.2001. ft shows that due. to urbanization, between the year 1990 pns issued from time to notifying minimum price iated by me in, para 1997 prices grows fairly sharply, a • evidence for this would be the decision • • • . • • . I •this Court in Gairafs case (supra), which 1 have discussed in para 49 above. : •
¶511 need.-to elaborate a little'm • decision in Ga/rafs case.. Discussing th • fair market value of agricultural land in , of
15.11.1996, in paras' to th valuation on the, basis of| agricultural y Td good corroborative of the Division Bench of 3re with' respect to the 2 evidence pertaining to ^/illage,Ho.lambi Kalan as e Court discussed ield and found that the gross return per acre per annur|i was f95,000/- for multiple . cropped land having good lirriga • i" "i -swreufi^rtfrg-ai^eas ^inc1udtiTg-potef#a;H Court discussed matter with'- refe tibn facilities . and thuf capitalized the land price .at'?9'.5 ifekh5 per acre. Discussing the second method of land; prices'pfii comparable lands in the para 19 onwards the ence. to land prices in adj oin ing viIiage• BhOrg arhi wh e re,vBGr Go ' 'l3'ased~on'.''"^^^^^^ instances found that downs had come up and )a5ed^ on said stile LA.App.N.o.266/2008 & coimected.ma.tters Instances and gwmg—l!^n-efi-b-oHncltrstriMxBtroiT^t{Te-t-a-nd-pri(;.e would come to ?10,03,364/- pesi acre-(Refer para 31). The Court then considered tlie-prices-fiiotified by the Government as per policy dated 1;4.1997 and thuk w,or<ed out the mean average figure of f9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and ! ?9,51,121/-. per acre for Category highlights that'the potentialityj had the Government issued minihium price notification w.e
1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact tha; even with''respect to sale transactions the Court found that as notified as of 1.4.1997 atflO lakhs p 'B' lands. The decision Deen well-factored in when against the minimum price er acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was l'10,03,364/- per acre. Singh's case, pertaining l:o
¶52. The decision in Mahender vilJa-g-emwaaa,referredto. by me in para 49. above,..highlighi:s with reference to para 28 to 31 of t Plan for Delhi 1990 had beenkaker . • i • whi-ch; was projecting^ resideiptiai, future exploitation of agricultural'lar of potentiality had noted thati notw ie decision that the Mastei into account by the Court: commercial industrial id in Delhi and on the issue- ,thstanding the Master Plan so, projectingand the landstheoreticallyacquiringa potentiality, the same had not translated iiljto.a r that till the.year 1996 i.e. the date c the Division Bench was concerhed,-v taken place in village Bawana and had exploited' the: potential.; |As 1 J • • ' i para 49 above-there is a gap-; to be the market growth, and eality evidenced by the fad: f the notification with which irtually no development had Holambi Kalan and nobody have already highlighted in between what, would be expected ::What The decisions in Gairsfs case a highlightthat potentialitytrarjslateditselfinto a reality betwe-en 1990 and 1997-when prices rqse:by thereafter the extended potqhtialit LA.App.No.266/2008&coimectedmatters the market actually grows id Mahender Singh's cas-c about 16.5% per annum and y did not translate with the Page 53 .of 74 requisite momentum and tlie^acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum, i One:;reason could be that pursuant to Master Planifnr Bellii ^IQQin fairly iarne area. came to be developed, both residential, corrmercial and industrial probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hungerofthe^marketgot sat!urate(i.
¶53The empirical evidence!in the instant cas.e; apart from 2 sale deeds relied upon, by the land' owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference iCourl: has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not r sale deeds, to determine fair market v sale deed relied upon by the learned pursuant whereto in some references the learned Reference Court has held ' ' I ' deed Ex.Fl-2 as of the date of the sale-i.e.
20.5.2002 the fair i .. . • ' -I . market value of agricultural lands would be fl9,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land.which was sold for f5,39;,j590/- and f70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that f70,1,60/-) were spent would yield t\ acre as of the.date of the sale i.el 2^.5 ,54. ' Thus, the best which! cpuki be said as the most favourable situation fori the l.ahd; owners would be that with i i ' reference to the sale deed dated
20.5.2002 for Category 'C lands the price i.e. fair nnarket value of lands in the area would ' • 1 ' be ^17,74,109/- per acre; For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land •the price would'have to be suitably enhanced and here we find another area of dispute for reason,, as noted by me •hereinabove in sub-para
(a) - of 'pa'a learned Land-Acquisition Collector in different LA,App,No.266/20.08 & connected matter 2lying upon, being fanciful alue, we have with us the Land Acquisition Collector in village Rajapur Kalan that as per the said sale 09,850/- (^5,39,690/- ,+ e price .fl7,74,109/- per 2002. awards has deducted Page 54 of 7^ . sometimes tl.2 laklis per acre/sometimes ?1.56 lakhs per acre and sometimes ?1.7 lakhs per acre 'A' lands to determine price wherever lands were in Categbry 'C deducted further by fl.7 iakhsjper a 55; . Mow, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would' be the money.required to be spent to level the —[a-f)•ds-a^=l^-4-^=^e%e-tj^a^corte^efk-attofi certain lands having pits dep -i^dtrmg-^the-same to be leveled iar frorn the price of Category br Category 'B' lands ' as W:ell-the price has been ere. •s l!j-a'S-ed-"0-i=vlyon the basis of ressions of various depths d this' would require money .to be spent. But on what basis Collector held, in some awardsithat - spent and in some'that fl.56 lakhs 1 in some that fl.7 lakhs per. acre wc no clue.
¶56In Gairai Singh's case , (sl worked out was f25,000/- per acre. that the acquisition in Gairai Sinali% case pertained to the date
15.11.1996. Sn' Gairai Singh's :case the price for Category .'A' land determined was f9,76,12:1/- per acre and 'for Category 'B' land the price determined was f9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land.
¶57I thus hold, that Gairai Singh's case should be my has Land Acquisition
1.2 lakhs per acre would be )er acre would be spent and uld be spent? There is just pra), price di'fferentiai I have noted hereinabove guidingstar for.pricediffeFentialiin the insta.ntcases as well and thus
¶1hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' Category 'C have to be differentiated on price, the differentia should be 2.5%. , ;
¶58Thus, if ?17,74,109/^,|roun ' acm woTrtd^beTne price~^ror a ied off to til .lb lakhs per ry 'enaTTcrrn-vlllage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighti ng that the sale deed Ex.F<-2 LA.App.No.266/2008.& connectedmatters admittedly pertains to a .Catego y .'C land, price for Category 'B' land would be Jakhs per acre for akhs per acre. g a little further it assumes importance that as-per minimum price notified by the Government as ;of •1.4.2000 the per and as of ,1.4.2001 the same iwas ^ •percentage increase between the^ye i treat Category !A'. land price|at i?l based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, ded Category 'A' land would be ^18.655
¶59• Taking the logical reasonin acre price was ?13..82 lakhs
15.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the ar was 11.5% per annum, if
3.655Hakhs as of 20.5.2002 jcting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.20pi would come to-approximately fl6.40. lakhs per acre this \ contrasted with the minimum price vould highlight that when notified by the Government at ?15.7 lakhs per acre as of jl.4.2001, the price differential is t70,000/- per acre i^e. 4A6%i :S.in •i achieved while determining falf marl' :e exactness can never be :et value of a large chunk of land with reference to. a few sale deeds where small parcels of thin a colony, the size, the of land would vary the price 0 highlight is that even the fair index as per which the are sold for the reason even w location, the frontage etc. of a piece •by plus or minus 5%. iWhat I .wish t sale deed in, question yields tq us a minimum price notified by the Government has an'element of rationality and-acceptability, jit ne though under normal circumstances is normally not held good" Wi^ericel: date prior thereto but: hnay be Usec land price on .subsequent •date/ fc paiticular date is the result of vario having already impacted the l^hd ;pr to fathom existence of linarket forces/conditions walkinq backwards. But, in the instahtica LA.App.No.266/2008 & coimected mattei's' eds to be highlighted that a sale on a particular date rwoi1< ouT;^laTdl. price on a as evidence to determine r the^ reason a price on a us, market forces/conditions ice and it would be difficult e, with reference to the Page 56 of 7^ p^dflcatla«s--dat©d-J^nr2Q-G ,•= - J-O-Ot—• 2-Z .8.2001 and 7.12.2001, the differential peHod is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5;20p2 and thus in the peculiar d in question, which itself India as an evidence of would be. a relevant piece it -while 'tJetermining tes
7.8.2000,
11.9.2000, Narela had always been facts of the instant case, the sale dee has been projected by the lJnipn;of market value of land as on said hate, of evidence to be taken into accou . market' value of-.land as on de
2.5.2001,-22.(3.2001 and 7.12.2001. 60, The argument that village treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of Narela was in existence sincejiong when, pursuant to a notification] issue this was recognized d in the year 1963, vis-a-vis the •adjoining villages f2. per square yard price advantage vvas given to lands in village Narela in DharambiYs case, looses sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational, advantage was keeping in view;the.'realities in the year 1963. Over the period of time, as urbanizatiiDntook place in Delhi and more and more areas came under p' included areas in North-West of|Delhi am concerned today, the price differentialfaded and by the year ,2000 and onward, it has become non-existent. .61. I thus hold-tha;t, pertaining l:o the notificationsdated
7.8.2000., 11,9.2000,
2.5.2001, r22.8 land prices would-have to be c|etern minimum price' notified by the; G ' reference to the saje deed dated 25.5 no other cogent evidence wherefrom could be determinea'.' otted development which i.e. the area with which 2001
7.12,2001 lined on the basis of the Dvernnnent as also with .2002 for the reason ! find Pertaining"!
16.5.2002,23.5:2002and 27.1.^003,- determined with respect to the sa ' I and price as on said dates D^fhe notifications dated the land price needs to be e deed dated
25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters; g) ::b-ecay s-@- -wltli' fefei=en€e^ t-e^he -s-aB-sSe • land price as of said date comes toimore respect to the notification dated 19.8.2 land price notified was ?15.7 lal<l)s per' acre with effect from
1.4.2001. • ; i.' •
¶62With respect to the pricei,differential for Category 'A' Category 'B'. lands., noting, that pertaining to said CXTTCer determined with wherein minimum notifications categorization has been don land acquired in village Pooth Khurc (pertaining to the notification dated'2 ' i . Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela Ali notification dated
22.8.2001) r .liold that vis-a-vis said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing' the same for Category 'A' ^lands effected by decreasing the same byi 2.5% fnr Category'B'. land. g3. Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Categc prices would marginally' increase ^ in substantially in the other, .a striking mo e only pertaining to the Holambi Kalan Z.8.2001 only), Village 3ur (pertaining to deduction has to be to determine the price ry 'A' lands,, the land a few cases :e of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price,determined pertaining to the notification dated, 23.512002 pertain ng to village Holambi jCalan wherein the learned Re'feren(ie:.Courthas determined the fair market value at ?22,14,23,900y-per acre as of 23.5.2002, --btrt hieed t(j^rTtg"ht1ght'ttrat pertaimng tcr:the same notification ^ "^ated
23.5.2002 in relation to Village Alipur learned i^eference Court has determin-ed+the-fair market value at pertaining to village he notification dated for Category 'A' lands ?17,85,240/- per acre 1 find/that • • j • i • Rajapm-Kalan and Sanoth/'pertaitTl|ng~i
27.1^2^3 the fair market value assessed is fl9,16,040/- in some cases and fl9,13,760/-. in a few, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters meaning thereby that much: lesser> worked out in the.year 2003 vis-a-vis' out for Hoiambi Kalan pertaining t compensation • has been the compensation worked the. notification dated abrasion . is that in said in Galrai's case (supra) as eased at the rate of 12%
23.5.2002 reason for notificptioh th.e land price deternijned of 15.11.1996 has been taken and incr per a n n u m co m po u nded.
¶64With . reference to the! noti wherein with effect from'
1.4.2000 mi Pication dated
9.8.2001 limum price notified per acre is ?13.82 lakhs and requirjing said price to be suitably updated to reach the.date of the notification i.e. .7,8.2000 with reference to the sale deed! dated
25.5.2002 wherein for Category''C'lands; land price per acre comes to .fl7,74,109K rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre,.and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2^5% the price comes to t^l8.2 lakhs per acre further, increasing byj 2.5% prices comes to fl8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for date
7.8.2000; mean average price for Category 'A' lands in viliage Poolh Khui'd comes to ^'14.75 lakhs per acre and .decreasing the: same by 2.5%, it comes ,to f14,38,125/'- per acre for. Category^;'B' learned Reference Court ihas, wit|hoUt' .with Category 'B'. lands and i uniftprm price awarded is fl4,37,280/- per acre, the price^dlfferentiai worked out by me ^comes to a meager ?1,000/- per^^cre^aid thus-qua Category'B' lands I maintain the amoont awarded t^y the learned Reference Court. • . ^ : • •• H .
¶1• . _.
¶65All Land. AcquisitionApp.dals filed by the Union of India and cross obje.ctions wherever filed fc' LA.App.No.26.6/2008Sc connected:matters lands. Noting that the any reasons, done away y Union of India in the Pa.ge 59 of 74 '.x" appeals filed by land owners iit respect whereof .grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' he?einabove are dismissed.
¶66.• All Land .Acquisition Appeals, fl'led by the land owners and cross-objectjons filed iby the lbnd'owners in^ appeals filed by .Union of India are allowed by deci'eeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village'Pooth Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of 1^;.4.75 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands i compensation awarded at f14,37,280/-per acre is. maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain; to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.,.-
67." • Pertaining "to such appeal where compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as Der the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1^5. ,(/D/.2001
(93) DLT 569 s.hai! be granted, except for the period [ _ • where there is a delay in filing the appee i' which period'of delay no interest on the shall be paid. These appellants Ior cr entitled to proportionate cost. Village HoJanibLKalait-Motification .d
¶68For the reasoning: given in paras 64 to'67 hereinabove pertaining to the notification (sanrie) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, ali -appealsi as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove cross objections stand disposed of enhancing compensation to fl4.75 lakhs pef; acre per the award .and even as per the ref al or cross objection, for enhanced compensation OSS objectors would be ate.d 7.8:2000 and 1 highlight that as ^rence all subject lands - were of uniform category. l\?eedless to state af3peals filed by the 2ver filed are dismissed, d owners are allowed by fakhs per acre-together Acquisition Act 1894 as Union of India and cross objectiohsrwher Appeals and cross objections filed by:Ian enhancing the compensation to ?14.75 with statutory benefitsas ;per the'Land LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters explained in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. UP/-2001
(93) DLT 569, except for the period where, there is a delay in filing appeal or crtjss objection, for which period of delay no ation shall be paid. . These be entitled to proportionate interest on the enhanced compens; appeilants or cross objectors would cost. Villeqe Bawan'e
¶69Pertaining to village! Bawana,.,xelatinq to same dated:!.8,2000 notification dated
7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court has not enhanced the compensatior , for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category 'A';"land5 is fixed at tl4J5 lakhs pet acre and for Category.'B' lands at fl4,38,125/- per. acre and noting'that Union of India has; neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRlD-C hereinabove are allowed by fixing compensation as hereinbefore mentioned needless to. state on the enhaihced compensation the appellants shali be e-ntitled to',statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the pudgn i/a/-2001
(93)'.DLT 569, except for delay in filing the appeal, foriwhici- ! • on the enhanced compensatidin shall be paid. These appellants would be'entitled to proportionate cost. Viilaae Khera lCiiura:l'l6tification dated 11.9-2Q.Q0 dtification dated
9.8.2001 minimum price notified per requiring said price to be suitably•updated' to reach tjhe date of the^ notification i.e. ,11.9.2000 and with referencejto the sale deed dated 25.5.200^ wh'erein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to
¶70With .''reference to wherein with effect from
1.4.2000 acre is fl3.82 lakhs per acre lent reported as Sunder Vs. the period where there is a period of delay no interest 75,000/-,. p.er'•acr;e, and for me by 2.5% the price comes Pa.ge61of74 . .f 17,7 4,1.05./r.,..--i:o,und.ed...oft tOi^L7 ^ Category 'B' lands increasing the sa LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters to ?18.2 lakhs' per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices •-60ffi-e-&—t0-^-8T§-57^G/—p€f— aere-^r— Gateg-ofy 'A--iands; decreasing said prices by .1:1% to reflect price with reference to the saleideed for tihe date
2.5.2001; mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Narela comes to ^16,16,500/- per acre decreasing same by
2.5%, it comes to fl5,76,087-per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away-with Category 'B' lands uniform price-awarded is .^15,85,570/- per acre and since fqr Category 'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by ^9,,000/- per acre which is a meager amount, ! hold that for Category 'B' lands the price determined would be 'as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the _.pjic_e_sla_Qiis__e_oJ2a_nmd_J:a.CLfi-,l&,5Liii}/ri^p.^^
¶73Ail Land Acquisition Appeals^as per 'GRID-E' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing corripensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Narela, pertaining to the notification: dated
2.5.2001-in sum of ^16,16,500/- per acre and as! per the reference order for-Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals fiied by the Union of India as also cross objectionsfiled by Union of India ,as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross, objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compensationstatutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained in the judgmentreported as Sunder l/s. UOj 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters • to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and further incn^asing by 2.5% the prices comes to. ^18,65,500/- per acre Tor • decreasing, said prices by-11% t ategory •'A' lands; 0 reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the; date
11.9.-2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' jlands comes to fl4,83,500/- pen acrejand
2.5%, it comes to fl4,46,413/" per acre
¶71All Land Acquisition Appeals as land owners and cross-objections fileci by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera iChurd pertaining to the notification de fl4,83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' per'acre for Category 'B' lands. 1 not notification and the village, the Union Df 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. UOI7.QQl.m) [)LT 56.9 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay i-n filing the appeal, for which period of. delay no interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These appellantswould be entitled to proportionate cost. ^ Village-Narela Motification dated 2.5.2001 72'. With, reference i to thei notijl in village. Khera Khurd decreasing the same by for Category 'B' lands, per 'GRiD-D' filed by the ted 11.9,2000 in sum of ' lands and fl4,46,413/- :e that pertaining to this fication dated
9.8.2001 wherein with effect from'-lT4!2001,,miiin-ium price•notified per acre is tl5J lalchs per acre ;and^ requiring, said price to be - ' suitably updated - to reach thef date
2.5.2001 and with reference to the Sc wherein for Category 'C iands^ 'iaii' fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7i75, of the notification i.e. le deed dated 25^5.2002 price per acre comes to 000/- per acre, and for Category'B' lands increasingtheisamd by 2.5% the price comes LA.App;No.266/2008& connectedmatters / interest on the enhanced co:mpe.nsation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. ataon dated 22.8.:
¶74With reference to notification dated
9.8.2001 "minimum price notified per acre is fl5.70 lal<hs per acite and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the o|ate of the. notification i.e.
22.8.2001and with reference!tothe sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, la f 17,7.4,109/-, rounded off tO: ?17, Categoiy 'B' lands increasing the sai to ?18.2 lakhs .per acre and further i comes to Tr8,65,5.00/- per acre fDr Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the .said prices by liyo -to refteet—the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22:8.2001; the mean average, price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan -wfTremiiTnwttli^-effert-i'iTrnT-^ id price per acre comes to 75,000/- per acre, for me by 2.5% the price comes icreasing by 2.5% the prices :comes to ^16,74,500/-per acre arjd decreasing the same by 2;5°/o, it comes to fl6,32,637.50per acre for Category'Er lands. -Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any 1easons,.done, away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price .awarded is f16,43,811/- per acre, the price differentialworked out by me-comes to a meagerf9,o|oo/- per acre,and thus qua Category 'B' lands l: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 app.eals.filedby land owners in respect whereof grid has been •prepared and labeled as 'GRID-P S dismissed.
¶76All Land Acquisition Appeal 'GRID-G' hereinabove are by th e Iand owne rs and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appealsfiled by LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters' U^iion of. India are alloVved by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village!tiplambi^Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8;2001 in sum of ?16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands i co fl6,43,811/- per acre is maintained cross references which pertain to dismissed. .
¶77•Pertaining to such afipeal stands enhanced sta'tuton/ benefits e mpensation awarded at and thus such appeals or Category 'B' lands are where compensation s per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder 1/5. iZO/2001-•(93i) DLT'569: shaii be grar where there is a delay in filing t|he ap which period of delay no interest on t shall be paid. These appellant' or entitled to.proportionate cost.
¶78With reference to the • no wherein with effect from
1.4.2001 n 1 ' ' acre is ?15^/0 lakhs per acre |and suitably updated to reach dat ted, except for the period peal or cross objection, for ie enhanced compensation cross objectors would be tification dated
9.8.2001 linimum price notified per "equiring said price to be e of notification i.e.
22.8.2001 an.d with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands^, lane price per acre come i to .fl7,74,109/-, rounded ioff to- ?17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the Sam e by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2 lakhs per-acre and further incfreasing by 2.5% the prices e. for Category 'A' lands; 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed foH the date• 22.8.2001; the mean comes to fl8,65,500/~i per ac decreasing the said pitices by average price for Category---.A^lahds ; , I• fl6,74,500/- per acre decreasi comes -to ?16,32,637.50 per acfje .for. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters; in village Ali Pur comes to ig the same by
2.5%, it Category 'B' lands. Noting tfrat th rn encH :Cqudt.Sas,-4Aith&yt any fea.-sons, done away, with Category 'B' lands atid, uiliform price awarded is 116,43,811/-per acre,..the price-differintialworked out by me gornes to a..meager ?9,000/- per acre a lands I maintain the amount avVarded I ; I Court., . _ ' I
¶79All Land A.cquisitionAppelals fil in respect whereofgrid has been firdpar H' hereinabove are dismissed. ! npte tr filed any ;app.eal challenging the decisior
¶80• There shall be no order as to cobts.
¶81With reference to .notif wherein with effect from
1.4.2001 min acre is fl5.70 lakhs .per acre rec suitably updated to reach the bate
22.8.2001 and with .reference to the sal wherein for Category 'C ilands, l^nd p id thus qua Category 's' y the learned Reference 2d by the Union-oMndla-ed and labeled as 'GRID-at land owners have not 1 of the Reference Court. cation dated
9.8.2001 mum price notified per uiring-said price to be of notification i.e. e deed .dated
25.5.2002' rice per acre comes to fl7,74,109/-,-rounded Off to fl^,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the s'ame 1 to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and furtheHincre •comes to fl8,65,500/-• per acre ^for C decreasing said prices by 11% tc reference to the sale deed for tile 6a\ 5y 2.5% the price comes 9si:ng by 2.5% the prices ategory. 'A' lands; ' reflect price with e
22.8.2001; mean ^e_rag.e_.Qj:ice.-.fox.-Categoi':y'A' .faf^^ifl--v-^ttege-H-0te-mbi-l^hurd comes to fl6,74,500/- per acre and decreasi.ng the same by (
1.5%, it comesto.fl6,32,637.,.50^.pen..acr5..for Cci.tegory'B' lands. ^oring"'Tfi'^"the l^rhediReference Court Tias, without any •reason.5_,_..d-0-£Leawa^/..with'Categ^M^/•'B' lands -and-uniforiri price awarded is^'16,43,811/- per acre,^the price differential worked per acre and thus qua out by me comes to a meager ^:9,000/ LA.ApiD.No.2.65/2008 •&. connected matters any appeal challenging'the'decisipn of
¶83. There shall be no order :as to G ' • •. Village Rafapur Kalan E^otifkatio
¶84With reference to the - not wherein with effect from
1.4.2001 mi Xatefliiry ".''B'..lands' i intam4th^ arn-ouot—awa^^d-ed •by •the •learned Reference Court.;
¶82The appeal filed by the. Union of India in respect • •whereof .grid has-been prepared labeled as 'GRlD-l' hereinabove is dismissed. 1 noteithat land owners have not filed the Reference Court, osts. n dated L2001 fication dated
9.8.2001 nimum price notified per acre is fl5.70 lakhs per acre, and requiring said' price to be suitably updated to reach thej date of the notification i.e. 22,8.2001 and withTeference to the sale deed dated
25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, jiand price per acre comes to fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to' ^17,75,000/- per acre, for Category 'B' lands increasing the^sanrieiby 2.5% the-price comes to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and further incr comes to f18,65,500/- per acre for decreasing tlie said prices by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date
22.8.2001; mean ands average price for Category 'A' i comes to -fl6,74,500/- per acre
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'j lands and uniform price awarded is fl6,43,811/- per'acre,, .thel price differential worked outJay. me. comes to a meager^9,0QD!/~..perjrm^ thus qua Category 'B' lands 1 maintain ithe -amount awarded by learned Reference Court. • I
¶85All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters casing by 2.5%.the prices Category 'A' lands; in village' Rajapur Kalan decreasing the same by :a/ia{iLeais:-fiied by iBnd;o¥/TrerrS"i7i"i"e5pect "whe r<e0^-g#e!-lms-beeH prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereina
¶86All Land Acquisition Appeals fi bove are dismissed.. ed by the land Qwners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by.decreeinc for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur compensation payable Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum Of ^16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands, corapi fl6,43,811/- per acre is maintained; anc cross references which pertain ito Ci . i ciismissed. • .
¶87Pertaining to such appeal' wft stands enhanced statutory"benefits as p Act 1894 as explained in the judgimeht UOi 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be. granteci, except for the period where there is a delay in filing thelappeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the shall be paid. These appellants:;or cn: entitled to proportionate, cost. ; - . -Viliacie Sanoth Motificaten:'dated 7j2.2Q0l ,, . With reference to notifi wherein with effect from
1.4.2001 min ensati.on awarded at d thus such-appeals or ategory 'B' lands are ere compensation er the Land Acquisition reported as Sunder Vs. enhanced compensation Dss objectors would be lation dated
9.8.2001 mum, price notified per .acre is ?15.70 !akhs; per 'acre an|d Tequiring sai^ price to be suitably updated to reach date of notification i.t:. /.12.2001 and with reference to.the:sale deed dated 25.5.2002 : I wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to f17J4,1 Om--_r_ouMed.Dfrto~f17,75_^QQ.Q/- per acre, and for Category 'B! lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to f^l8.2 lakhs per acre and further|inci"easing by 2.5% the prices c&m-es-to'?lSi65,500/- per acre ifor C decreasing said prices by 11% to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ategoP)^' 'A' lands; reflect price with Page 68 of74 date
7.12.2001; the mear r reference to the sale deed for the average price for Category 'A"lands ^17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that a in village Sanoth comes to II lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value 1 hold that for. acquired lands \i village Sanoth for notification.dated
7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of ?17,29,500/-.
¶89All Land Acquisition Appeals cross objections wherever filed appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and. labeled as 'GRiD-K' hen^inabove are dismissed.
¶90Ail Land Acquisition Appeal^ filed by the land owners filed by the Union of India by Union of India in the and cross-objections filed by the lane owners in appeals filed b Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of fl7,29^500/- needless to state on enhanced compensation statutory benefits-as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOi 2001.(93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or period of delay no interest on the en be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled 1• to proportionate cost. ; j ••Villade Slialip.ur Garhi;MQtif!bation dated 16.5.2002
91.' Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by rne herelnabove the land price would .have to be determined with reference to.the sale deed datfed 20i5.2002 and for which land ! price for Category 'A' .lands has been determined by me 3.t r cross objection, for which nanced compensation shall ?18,65,500/-per acre and since the days between, the date of sale and that for the notification in question owners are entitled to compensation LA.App.No.266/2008 8cconnected matters' -e is just a difference of 4 notification I maintain dated-
16.5.2002 land at the rate of ?18,65,500/- per acre and ! highlighfthat as per the al! lands are in the same category: App filed by the land ownersi as per jthe'' needless to state on, the enhanced owners would be entitled'to..all istatutory benefits as per the I • • • i Land Acquisition Act 18,94 • as Interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 200lh(93) such appeals or cross objections filed there is delay, ho interesti would be pai Proportionate costs stand awarded. objections filed by Union of India aire dis award a h d'TlTe' refe re nee als and;cross objections 3RID-L' are allowed compensation land DLT 569 except that in by land owners where :l for the period of delay. Appeals • and cross missed. ¥cPla€se Shaiipyr IMQtiflcatlon deterf 233"2
¶92Pertaining to notification dated
23.5.2002 i pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the i sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days 1 hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the. land owners v\/ouid be entitled to compensation at the rate of \18,65,500/~ with statutory benefits as per the Land I Acquisition Act 1894 as-interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder l/s. UOI 2001
(93) DLT 569 ex|cept 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 apjpeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRiD-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and ail appeals cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed.
¶93As, noted by me pertaining tcj), the notification dated
23.5.2002 relating to village Holarnbi Kalan ail lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Coji.ector -iearned Refere Reference Court .has avyarclexl .. c f22;i4,239/- per acre, which |! have found to be excessive _ • • 1 inasmuch as for.the date 23.5.2002 \ have held that fair markei: value would be-65,500/-, per acre and thus all appeals ice Court. The learned nitinpimaMnn in sum ^oJl wners as per 'GRID-N' are ejections filed by Union of cross objections filed by the land o dismissed and appeals and cross o India are allowed by modifying,the impugned decree passed by learned Reference Court reducing compensation payable to fl8,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, ice with reference to granted stand maintained. with reference to the enhanced pri •award the statutory benefits already i No costs. i Village Ala Pur Motifacati^n 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 fair nnarket valise payable at fi8,65, appeals and.. cross .objections :filed 'GRlD-0' are dismissed and ali appea by land owners as perisaid Griid are allowed by enhancing compensation payable to ?18,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acqui the judgment reported; as Suri'der \/ Shahpur Garhi 1 determine 500/- per acre and thus all by Union of India •as per s and cross objections filed 5ition Act as interpreted in 5,. UOf 2001
(93) DLT.569 shaii be-paid save and. except in such appeals or cross objections where there iis a delay, interest would not be paid fof-the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Village Sanotli Moliiflcatim dated '27.1.20iQ3
¶95. Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the • . I land owners and Union of India ias per 'GRID-P' pertaining to the notification dated
27.1.2003 relating to village Sandth, I nqte LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected,matters Page 7,1 of74 that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has pjaced the lands in 3 categories and I find that!the'learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation.; - ;
¶96•On the mean:average|basis which 1have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing -^prre—wlt-{r^r-efer^'rce—tc) the ..sale de^ dated
20.5.2002 •taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to ?19,43,500/--jDer; acre and^fOr ^tegory. '1' land the.price comjs to fl8,94,912.50 per acre and for Category'C lands the price comes to flS,47,539.68: per acre. 1find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly deteirmined fair market value at fl9,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners thej same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'E ' and,Category 'C lands and similarwould be the fate of appealsjand cross objectionstiled by I Union of India pertainingto Category'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' cross objections filed by land^ownei lands are allowed by decreeing conipensation payable in sum oi fl9,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced I compensationstatutorybenefitsas per the Land /AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpreted in the judgmervtreported as Sjjnd^VsuJOl 2001 (93). DLT 569 sITali; be paljd say^^^ except in such appeals and cross objections whdre there is a delay, interest would hot be paid for the period of|delay. Proportionate co^ts well. The appeals and cross objectionsfiled by Union of India pertainingto. Category'B' and Category'C lands are allowed by finefUfyi-Pfg—the-H--elats-b!e the -Reference Order &y reducing compensation' for Category • 'B' land to LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters are dismissed. Appeals and rs pertaining to Category 'A' -fl8,94,9p.5Q per acre and | for Category 'C land f: 47,559.68 per acre. ' 27/1.2
¶97For parity.of.reasoningab per para 96 above pertaining to village Sanoth, similar fcorreitive action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to .notification dated
27.1.2003 relating to village Raja 3ur Kalan and where I find that the learned Reference .Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of n9,13-765/- per acre and in some cases at fl9,16,040/- per acre b^ treating all lands of uniforrri category. . On the^ rnean-average basis which I have been following by increasingthelpricejas of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issuedi'by Government as also by increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated i
20.5.2002 and,taking the nrjean average, for Category 'A' iands^ -the pn^--eom-es--tcr-f-19743,-5-00/^per'aer-e-^rrd for Category 'B' land the pricecomesto fl8/94,9l|2.5Qper acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to fl8,47,539.68 per .acre. Thus such appeals or cross •objections .which have been filed by land owners the same have to be disnjiissed in so far they pertain to i .' • _ Category 'B' and Category 'C lainds and similar would be the fate of appeals cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands.j • The said appeals and cross objections as .per 'GFUD-Q''.are dismissed. Appeals and cross ! objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 7A' lands ! • are allowed by decreeing;' com!:|)ensation payable in sum of fl9,43,-500/-' per acre and-'needless"tD''^a1:e-0Ti--the enhanced i compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition /Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s, UOi •2001--(-96-)—D'cT—56'9—is-imll:43-©—s-ave—afld-- .except in sueh appeals and'cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters. not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cros5;Objectionsfiled by Union of India pertainingto Category-'B'and Categ|ory'G' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in' the .Reference•Order by -F0d-y-E!-R-§ ifh-e eo-Fn-p-eRsa-ti-si-n"—^-foi^-^Categdry"'B' Icjnd ^18,94,912,50 per acre for • Category 'C 'land' fl8,47,539.68 per acre. Ii!IIj a?.BADEE AUGUST 23l" LA.App.No.266/2008 Si connected mattersj. ^ iil NAMDimjOG) JUDGE to to
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 479/2011 SAMAR SINGH ..... Appellant Through : Mr. S.K. Yadav, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA &ANR Respondents Through : Mr. S.K. Pathak, Adv. for R-1. Mr. S.K. Sethi, Adv. for R-2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.