Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

29.08.2011 By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment 26.04.2011 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.239A/09 arising out of Award No.17/03-04 pertaining to village Sanoth, pursuant to the notification dated 27.01.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act'). Counsels for the parties jointly state that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APP. 266/2008 entitled Jai Singh vs. UOI & Anr. decided as recently as on 23.08.2011, wherein the learned Single Judge has decided the appeals preferred by the expropriated landowners as also LA APP. 56112011 2i the Union of India in respect of different notifications issued for acquiring land in 10 villages, namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, Ali Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth, comprised in the Revenue District (North-West).

¶3In respect of the land situated in village Sanoth, subject matter of the present appeal, the Court has held as below:- "Villaae Sanoth Notification dated 7.122001 With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is Z15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated

25.5.2002wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by

2.5% the price comes to Z18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category =A' lands in village Sanoth comes to '17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notification dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of 17,29,500/-. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-K' hereinabove are dismissed. LAAPP. 56112011 Page2of3 I

¶90All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of 17,29,500/- and needless to state on the 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 cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost." It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is also entitled to the same relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters. Following the aforesaid decision dated 23.08.2011 in the case of ]ai Sinqh (supra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant as granted to the appellants of village Sanoth, covered by notification dated 07.12.2001 in the LAAPP266/2008 :i HIMA KOHLI,J AUGUST 29, 2011 'anb' LA.APP. 56112011 Page3of3 'l * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On: 12 th AUctut, 2011 judgment Delivered On: 23August, 2011 + LA.APP. 266/2008 I . I . 4 JAI SINGH ". Appellant Through: Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Mr.Deepak Khosia, Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.M.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana, Mr.RajSingh, Mr.Uday Ram, Mr.D.R.Tomar, Mri.S.Dahiya, Mr.N.S.Dalal, Mr.S.M.Bhardwaj, Mr.B.PGupta, Mr.S.K.RoUt, Mr.S,S.Rana, Mr.Sunil Dalal, Mr.D.S.Khatri and • . Mr.T.P.S.Kang, Advocates Vs. UOl & ANR. ... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin • Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1. . Ms.Anusuya Saiwan, Advocate, for S DSIDC. Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan MathUr, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi and Ms.Beenashaw Soni Advocates for DDA. AND (GRID-A) • + LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP. 264/2008, LA.APP. 65/2008,, LA.APP. 267/2008, LA.APP. 268/2008, LA.APP. 270/2.008, LA.APP. 271/2008, LA.APP. 272/2008, LA.APP. 27312008,. LA.APP. 278/2008 & LM AVPL. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • • . 279/2008, LA.APP. 280/2008 & CM APPL. 5261/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 281/2008, LA.APP. 284/2008, LA.APP. 286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP. 28912098, EA.APP: 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP. 292/2008, LA.APP. 293/2008, LAAPP--294f2O&8 & CM APPL. 12918/2011 (cross Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP. 296/2008, LA.APP. 299/2008, LA.AP-P. 301/2008, LA7APP. 303/2008, Lk-APP. 304/2008, LA.AFP 311/20fl8, LA.APP. 337/2008, LA.APP. 339/2008, LA.APP. 357/2008, LA.APP. 394/2008, LA.APP. 401/2008, LAAPP. 413/2008, LA.APP. 44312008, LA.APP. 472/2008, tkAPP. 48-312008, Lk.*PP - 484/0U8 - APP 487/2008; LA.APP. 492/2008, LA.APP. 493/2008, L&APP. 495/2008, LA.APP. 496/2008, LA.APP. 526/2008, LA.APP. 527/2008, LA.APP. 535/2008, LA.APP. 537/2008, LA.APP. 541/2008, LAAPP. 545/2008, LA.APP. 546/2008, LA.APP 548/2008, LA.APP. 554/2008, LA.APP. 563/2008, LA.APP. 566/2008,LA.APP. 621/2008, LA.APP. 623/2008, LA.APP. • 627/2008, LA.APP. 628/2008, LAAPP. 635/2008, LA.APP. • 648/2008, LA.APP. 649/2008, LA.APP. 662/2008, LA.APP. 724/2008 & CM APPL. 535.3/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 756/2008, LA.APP. 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP. 861/2008, LA.APP. 875/2008, LA.APP. 879/2008, LA.APP. 880/2008, LA.APP. 888/2008, LA.APP. 894/2008, .......pp 895/2008, LA.APP. 905/2008, LA.APP. 906/2008, LA.APP. 907/2008, LA.APP. 910/2008,. LA.APP. • 911/2008, LA.APP. 925/2008, LA.APP. 926/2008, LA.APP. 927/2008, LA.APP. • . 931/2008, LA.APP. 93212008, LA.APP. 933/2008, LA.APP. 934/2008, LA.APP. 936/2008, LA.APP. 939/2008, LA.APP. 941/2008, LA.APP. 942/2008, LA.APP. 944/2008, LA.APP. 946/2008, LA.APP. 955/2008, LA.APP. 958/2008, LA.APP. 999/2008 & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. S. . 1014/2008, LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP. 1023/2008, LA.APP. 1026/2008, LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA.APP. 1071/2008, LA.A.PP. 1244/2008, LA.APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, LA.APP. 1268/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008, CM APPL. 2377/2009, (Cross Objections) LA.APP. 86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 97/2009, LA.AP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LAAPP. 111/2009,. LA.APP. .114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009,. LA.AP.P.. 251/2009, LA.APP. 252/2009, LA.APP. 265/2009, LA.APP. • 266/2009 & CM APPL. No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 267/2009; ,LA.APP. 268/2009, LA.APP. 269/2009, LA.APP. 270/2009, LAAPP. 271/2009, LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APP. 273/2009, LAAPP. 300/2009, LA.APP. 306/2009, LA.APP. 454/2009, LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 521/2009, LA.APP. • 532/2009, LA.APP. 535/200.9 & CM APPL. 12886/2.011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009 & CM APPL. 12917/2011 (Cross Objections), LA APP -54-3+2-0O*-L-A-APP --544121R}9, LA APP LAApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters ~9 - -. 566/2009, LAAPP. 570/2009 & CM APPL.13873/2011, LA.APP. 589/2009, LA.APP. 593/2009; LA.APP. 594/2009, .LA.APP. 634/2009, LA.APP. 635/2009, LAAPP. 636/2009, LA.APP 637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 & CM APPL.13878/201 1, LAAPP. 1/2010, LA.APP. 29/20 10, LA.APP. 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP. 107/2010, LA.APP,. 108/2010, LA.APP. 109/2010, .LA.APP. 168/2010, LAAPP. 169/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LA.APP. 171/2010, tA.APP. 220/2010, LA.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, LA.APP.. • 430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 520/2010 CM APPL13968/2011, LA.APP. 521/2010, CM APPL. 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 522/2010, LA.APP., 523/2010, LA.APP. 524/2010 & CM APPL. 12914/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, LA.APP. 527/2010, LA.APP. . • 528/2010, LA.APP. 529/2010, LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL. 229/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 532/2010 & CM APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross 531/2010, Objections), LA.APP. LAAPP. 533/2010 & CM APPL. 12898/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 534f21O --LkAPP....53512010 & CM APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross .... Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 & CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 537/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010 & CM APPL. 12972/2011 (Cross7 Objections), LAAPP. 539/2010 & CM APPL 1290012011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP. • . 541/2010, LA.APP. 542/2010 & CM AP:PL. 19857/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. 12903/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL. 12888/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010,. LA.APP. 566/2010, LAAPP.• 581/2010, LA.APP. 592/2010 & CM APPL. 227/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 593/2010 & CM APPL. 12969/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 594/2010, LAAPP. 595/2010 & CM APPL. 226/2011 (Cross • Objections), LA.APP.

5.96/2010, LA.APP. 597/2010 & I CM APPL. 228/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP; 598/2010 & CM APPL. 487/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 600/2010 & CM APPL. 12897/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 601/2010, LA.APP. 602/2010, LA.APP. 603/2010 & CM APPL. 12881/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP. 663/2010 & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 666/2010 & CM APPL. 6748/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. . . . 675/2010' & CM . APPL. 9988/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 761/2010; LA.APP. 792/2010 & CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross • Objections), LA.APP. 793/2010 & CM APPL. 12899/2011 (Cross • . Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. 795/2010, LA.APP. • . .40/2011, LAAPP. 195/2011 & CM APPL. 12892/2011 (Cross • • • Objections), LA.APP. 215/2011, LA.APP. 228/2011, LA.APP. • • 229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011, LA.APP. 231/2011, LA.APP. • 232/2011, LA.APP. 233/2011, • LA.APP. 389/2011, . LA.APP. LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters 392/2011, LA.APP. 420/2011, LA.APP. 424/2011-LA-APP. 425/2011 (R&ating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No.19/2002-03, Village-Pooth Khurd) AND (GRID-B) + LA.APP. 972/2008 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1122/2008 & CM 2099/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1150/2008 & CM 12216/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1151/2008 & CM 2345/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1152/2008 & CM 2102/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1153/2008 & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1154/2008, LAAPP. 1187/2008, LA.APP. 1188/2008, LA.APP. 1189/2008, LA.APP. 1218/2008, LA.APP. 15/2009, LA.APP. 82/2009, LA.APP. 100/2009, LA.APP. 102/2009 LA.APP. 113/2009, LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009, LA.APP. 214/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No 11/2001-02, ViUage-Holarnbi Kalan) AND (GROD-C) + LA.APP. 359/2007, LA.APP. 202/2007, LA.APP. 382/2007k LA.APP. 383/2007, .LA.APP. 269/2008, LA.APP. 811/2008; LA.APP. S 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 & Award No. 08/2001-02, Viltage-Bawana) AND (GRD-D) + LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2011 & CM 12911/2011 (CrossObjections), LA.APP. .146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), . Notcan4dtëd 1109.200g.. 20/2002-03, Viflage-Khera Khurd) AND • ', . . (GRID-E) + LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, • LA.APP. 646/2009, LA.APP. 91/2010, LA.APP. 93/2010, LA.APP. 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP. 191/2010 & CM No 22402/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 192/2010, LA.APP, 193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, LA.APP. 196/2010, LA.APP. 197/2010, LA.APP. 297/2010, LA.APP. 299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, LA.APP. 309/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP 370/2010 &, CM No. 3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 373/2010, LA.APP.

49.3/2010, ... . 496/2010, LAAPP. 494/2010, LAAPP. 495/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 497/2010 & CM No. 22728/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, LA.APP. 499/2010, LA.APP. 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& CM No. 23186/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 & CM N.o. 10382/2011 (Cross • , Objections), LA.APP. 503/2010, LA.APP. 504/2010, LA.APP. 505/2010, LA.APP. 506/2010, LA.APP. 507/2010, LA.APP. 508/2010, .LAAPP 509/2010, LAAPP. 510/2010, . LA.APP. 511/2010, LA.APP. 512/2010, LA.APP. 513/2010, LA.APP. 514/2010, LA.APP. 515/2010, LA.APP. • 516/2010,. LA.APP. 517/2010 & CM No. 7702/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 518/2010, LA.APP. 519/2010, LA.APP. 610/2010, LA.APP. .611/2010, LA.APP. 612/2010, LA.APP. 613/2010, LA.APP. 618/2010, LA.APP. 619/2010 1 LA.APP. 620/2010; LA.APP. 621/2010, LA.APP. 622/2010, LA.APP. 623/2010, LA.APP. 628/2010, S • Objections), LA.APP. 647/2010 & CM No. 3847/2011 (Cross LA.APP. 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM No. 3560/2011 (Cross Objections,), LA.APP. 652/2010, LA.APP. 841/20.10, LA.APP. 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM No. 10 -3-7-812 -01 LA.APP855J2010, LA.APP. 856/2010 & CM No. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010 & CM 'No. 3829/2011 (Cross • Objections), LA.APP. 10G812-0-1-0--&-CM No. 9966/2011 (Cross ObjttIun LA PP 1021/2010,tA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP. 79/2011, LA.APP. 80/2011, LA.APP. 81/2011, LA.APP. 82/2011, 8'31201 -17 LA.APP -84f201 HA . 85/2011, LA.APP. 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP. 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/20111 LAAP-P. 324/2011 & CM APPL.15110/2011, LA.APP. 385/2011. Page 5 of . 74 • . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 02.05.2001& Award No. 24/2003-04, Village-Narela) AND (GRD-F) + LA.APP. 497/2008, LA.APP. 141/2009 & CM 5302/2010 (Cross Objections). (Relating . to Notification U/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No... 18/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRID-G) + LA.APP. 777/2010 & CM APPL.3808/2011, LA.APP. 77812010 & CM 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, LA.APP. 328/2011, LA.APP. 330/2011, LA.APP. 331/2011, LA.APP. 3321/2011, 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 Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No. 33/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan) . . . . AND (GRID-H) + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, LA.APP. 409/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No. 15/2003-04, Village-AU Pur) . • AND (GRID-I) + LA.APP. 481/2010 . Page . 6 of 74. (0 tRtaring to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No. 9/2003-04, Village-Holambi Khurd) AND (GRND-)) + LA.APP. 780/2010 & CM No.2661/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM No.3833/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 900/2010 & CM No.3541/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 970/2010, LA.APP. 971/2010 & CM No.3805/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM No.266712011 (Cross • Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Crbss Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 & CM No.14333/2011(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 977/2010, LA.APP. 978/2010, LA.APP. 979/2010. & CM No.9990/2011, LA.APP. 980/2010 & CM No.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP. 982/2010 & CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 984/20IUH& CM No.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 986/2010, LA.APP. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA,APP. 990/2010, LA.APP. 991/2010 & CM No.9984/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 & CM No.9970/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1018/2010, LA.APP. 1020/2010 . & CM No.12939/2 . (Cross Objections)011, LA.APP. 1024/20 10 & CM No.6771/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1/2011 & CM No.12964/2011 (Cross Objections), LA APP. 2/2011 & CM No.6752/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 25/2011, LA.APP. 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, LA.APP. 53/2011 & CM No.6766/2011: (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 73/20 11 & CM No.12922/2011 (Cross S . Objections), LA.APP. 75/20 .11 & CM No.6775/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.APP. 110/2011, LA.APP. 111/2011, LA.APP. 112/2011 &. CM. No.10050/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP. 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.20/2003-04, Village-Rajapur Kalan) AND (GRID-K) LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected rijattets . . Page 7 of 74. + LA.APP. 488/2008, LA.APP. 490/2008, LA.APP. 491/2008, LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/2008, LA.APP. &68720Ua & CM No.10393/2009 (Cross ObjectiOns), LA.APP. 896/2008 & CM No.5364J2-01O (Cross-Gbjectionsh--LAApp; 897t2oG8, LA .APP. 1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP. 34/2010 & CM No.7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 488/2010, LA.APP. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011, LA.APP. 41/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.12.2001 & Award No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth) AND (GRD-L) + LA.APP. 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, . LA.APP. 352/2008, LA.APP.' 364/2008, LA.APP. 385/2008, LA.APP. 387/200.8, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP. 464/2008& CM NO.11333/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. • 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP. 468/2008& CM No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP. 470/2008, LA.APP. 471/2008, LA.APP. 560/2008, LA.APP. • 561/2008, LA.APP. 611/2008, LA.APP. 663/2008, LA.APP. 676/2008,, LA.APP. 678/2008, LA.APP. 679/2008, LA.APP. 681/2008, LA.APP. 682/2008, LA.APP. 683/2008, LA.APP. 722/2008, LA.APP. 731/2008, LA.APP. 754/2008, LA.APP. 786/2008, LA.APP. 825/2008, LA.APP. 826/2008, LA.APP. 842/2008, LA.APP. 850/2008, LA.APP. 853/2008, LA.APP. 883/2008, LA.APP. 903/2008, LA.APP. 904/2008, LA.APP. 924/2008, LA.APP. 935/2008, LA.APP. 937/2008, LA.APP. 938/2008, LA.APP. 940/2008, LA.APP. 943/2008, LA.APP. 945/2008, LA.APP. 956/2008, LA.APP. 957/2008, LA.APP. .998/2008, LA.APP. 1001/2008, LA.APP. 1004/2008, LA.APP. 1007/2008, LA.APP; 1065/2008, LA.APP. 1077/2008, LA.APP. • 1079/2008, LA.APP. 106/2009, LA.APP. 172/2009, LA.APP. • 309/2009, LA.APP. 374/2009, LA.APP. 464/2009, LA.APP. 465/2009, LA.APP. 468/2009, LA.APP. 539/2009, LA.APP. 546/2009, LA.APP. 547/2009, LA.APP. 565/2008, LA.APP. 624/2009, LA.APP. 628/2009, LA.APP. 630/2009, LA.APP.. 23/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010, LA.APP. 35/2010, LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010. (RelaUng to.Ntificaticn u/s 4 dated 16.052002 '& Ard No. 29/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . AND (GRD-M) + LA.APP. 338/2008! LA.APP. 343/2008, LA.APP. 356/2008, LA.APP. 366/2008, LA.APP. 367/2008; LA.APP. 368/2008, LA.APP. • 369/2008, LA.APP. 370/2008, LA.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP 384/2008, LA.APP. 386/2008, LA.APP. 388/2008, LA.APP. 389/2008, LA.APP. 434/2008, LA.APP. 435/2008, LA.APP. 436/2008, LA.APP. 444/2008, LA.APP. 456/2008& CM No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. 562/2008, LA.APP. 68012008 LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. 716/2008, LA.APP. 720/2008, LA.APP. 723/2008, LA.APP. 757/2008, LA.APP. 760/2008, LA.APP. 767/2008, LA.APP. 793/2008, LA.APP, 823/2008, LA.APP. 824/2008, LA.APP. 837/2008, LA.APP. 908/2008, LA.APP. 909/2008, LA.APP. 952/2008, LA.APP. 1022/2008, LA.APP. 1024/2008, LA.APP. 1025/2008, LAAPP. .1063/2008, LA.APP. 173/2009, LA.APP. 307/2009, LA.APP. 308/2009, LA.APP. 311/2009, LA.APP. 384/2009, LA.APP. 385/2009, LA.APP. 463/2009, LA.APP, 467/2009, LA.APP. 540/2009, LA.APP. 542/2009, LA.APP. 548/2009, LA.APP. 627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/2010. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.05.2002 & Award No.22/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) AND (GRAD-N) + LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 304/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 . . . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23052002 & Award No. 16/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRD-O) +. LA.APP.379/2008, LA.APP. 381/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, LA.APP. 499/2008, LA.APP. 530/208, LA.APP. 836/2008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 310/2009 • & CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 782/2010, LA.APP. Page 9 of74 - 78-31.241-0-, LAAPP 8-2512010LAAPP 9/2-011 & CM 9960/2011 -(CrosObjections), .APP. 289/2011 & CM 14850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 290/2011 & CM 14852/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 381/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated. 23.05.2002 & Award No. 17/2004-05, Village-Ali Pur) . •. . AND - (GRID-P) . . + LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP. 674/2008 & CM No.7818/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, LA.APP. 706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 & CM No. 7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008, LA.APP. 882/2008, LA.APP. 885/2008, LA.APP. 891/2008, .APP. 898/2008. & CM No.2355/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 902/2008, LA.APP. 922/2008, LA.APP. 923/2008, LA.APP. 929/2008 & CM No.2351/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 930/2008 & CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 960/2008, LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 (Cross • Objections), LA.AP.P. 981/2008 & CM No.1261/2009 (Cross ®jection), LA.APP. 982/2008, LA.APP. 983/2008 & CM No.2347/2009. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 & CM No.839/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2008, LA.APP. 997/2008, LA.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008, LA.APP. 1027/2008, LA.APP; 1078/2008 & CM No.224712009 (Cross • . Objections),. LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. 1127/2008 & CM No.2111/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP. 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 & CM No;7791/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 13/2009 & CM No.2151/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 22/2009, LA.APP. 83/2009, LA.APP. 99/2009, LA.APP. 103/2009, LA.APP. 104/2009, LA.APP. 107/2009, LA.APP. 115/2009 & CM No.6482/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. • 122/2009 & CM No.14321/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, LA.APP. 174/2009, LA.APP. 250/2009, LA.APP. 260/2009, LA.APP. 261/2009, LA.APP. 262J20tY9,LA.APP. 264/2009, LA.APP. 293/2009, LA.APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. 301/2009, LA.APP. 302/2009, LA.APP. 303/2009, LA.APP. 365/2009, LA.APP. 433/2009, LA.APP. 449/2009, LA.APP. 41/2009, LA.APP. • 471/2009, LA.APP. 487/20.09, LA.APP. 501/2009,. LA.APP. • 51872009,........ LA.APP. 527/2009, LA.APP. 530/2009, LA.APP. . 531/2009, LA.APP. 533/2009, LA.APP. 537/2009, LA.APP. 538/2009, LA.APP. 545/2009, LA.APP. 554/2009, EATAPP. 555/2009, LA.APP. 558/2009, LA.APP., 585/2009, LA.APP. 588/2009, LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP. 625/2009; LA.APP. 626/2009, LA.APP. 629/2009, LA.APP. 649/2009, LA.APR 38/2010, LA.APP. 43/2010, LA.APP 131/2010, LA.APP. 202/2010, LA.APP. 203/2010, LA.APP. 204/2010, LA.APP. 225/2010, LA.APP. 227/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010, LA.APP. 303/2010, LA.APP. 372/2010, LA.APP. 410/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010, LA.APP. 479/2010, LA.APP. 480/2010, LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP. 483/2010, LA.APP. 484/2010, LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP. 486/2010, LA.APP. 487/201.0, 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. 615/2010, LA.APP. 671/2010, LA.APP. 695/2010, LA.APP. 705/2010, LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.APP. 785/2010 & CM No.12968/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 786/2010 & CM No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. • 787/2010, LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. 789/2010, LA.APP. 790/2010, LA.APP. 820/2010 & CM No.12880/2011 (Cross • . Octions), LA.APP. 821/2010, LA.APP. 915/2010, .APP 916/2010 & CM No.6773/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 26/2011 & CM No6763/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 55/2011 & CM No.12894/2011 •(Cross Objections), LA.AP.P.: • . 59/2011, LkAPP, 63/2011, LA.APP. 69/2011, LA.APP. 70/2011, . LA.APP. 72/20.11& CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 76/2011 & CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 & CM No.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP; 135/2011, LA.APP. 136/2011 & CM No.12971/2 (Cross Objections)011, LA.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 143/2011; LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APP. 203/2011 & CM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 273/2011 & CM No.13289/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 338/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003 & Award No.11/2004-05, Village-Sanoth) + LA.APP. 336/2010 & CM 624/201.0, LA.APP. 625/2010,. 627/2010 & . C.M. No.3853/2011 629/2010, LA.APP. 630/2010, 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, APPL.14845/2011, LA.APP. 626/2010, (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 642/2010, LA.APP. 645/2010 1-c-No.3587/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 646/2010, LA.APP. 664/2010, LA.APP 665/2010, LA.APP. 667/2010, LA.APP. 668/2010, LA.APP. 669/2010. & C.M. No.676912011 (Cross Cross Objections), LA.APP. 672/2010, LA.APP. 673/2010 & C.M. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, LA.APP. 701/2010 & C.M. No.3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 702/2010, LA.APP. 703/2010 & C.M. No.9941/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 73312010 & C.M. No.12878/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 735/2010, LA.APP. .736/2010, LA.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP. 739/2010 & C.M. No.3569/2011 (Cross Objections), L.A.APP. 740/2010 .& CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 800/2010 & C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP. 802/2010, LA.APP. 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010, LA.APP. 809/2010, LA.APP. 810/2010, LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP. 812/2010, LA.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010, LA.APP. 815/2010, LAAPP 816/2010 & C.M.No3862/2011 (Crbss Objections), LA.APP. 817/2010, LA.APP. 838/2010, LA.APP. 839/2010 & C.M. No.10335/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 870/2010 & C.M. No.9946/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 917/2010, LA.APP. 922/2010, LA.APP. 923/2010, LA.APP. 924/2010, LA.APP. 925/2010, LA.APP. 945/2010 & C.M. No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 975/2010 & C.M. No.2664/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M. No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP. 56/2011 & C.M. No.9939/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP. 98/2011, L.A.APP. 99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011, LA.APP. 104/2011, LA.APP. 105/2011, LA.APP. .106/2011, LA.APP. 107/2011, LA.APP. 108/2011,• LA.APP. 109/20.11, LA.APP. 113/2011, LA.APP. 165/2011, LA.APP.329/2011 ' (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003 & Award No.10/2004-05, Village-Rajapur Kalan) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not? 3, Wheth,r.the judgment should be reported in the Di.gest? . S PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I. 10 villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, Ali Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue District (North-West) and if we seethe map of the city of Delhi we would find that these villages lie in the North-Western part of Delhi. They lie within an area between the 'V' formed by Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 and G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-i. The Delhi-Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-i. Whereas villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway line and NH-i, the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the.railway line. Narela and Shahpur Gärhi are, towards the east of, the railway line. The urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has been developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is situated in the land within the aforesaid V. Bawana Industrial Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid.'V'. Historically, except for village Narela, all villages have been treated as equivalent with respect to their location. The instant decision decides the issue as to what should bethé fair market value of agricultural lands in the said villages as of the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001i

7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003. Needless to state, pursuant to notifications issued," from time to time, on tratddatEs under Section 4 of the ,L,and Acquisition Act 1894, vast tracts of land in said 10 villages were acquired and save an except lands in the Revenue Estate of village Narela where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential and partly industrial, in the other villages, acquisition wasfor the, purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a conforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas. I must highlight that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in all appeJs..filed by them as also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and except pertaining to village Narela, where an additional argument was advanced; being that, the township of Narela had existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Narela had abetter value and for which it was urged that way back in the year 1963 when lands in the revenue estate of village Narela and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of 2I-per sq.yd. vis-à-vis the price determined for lands in village Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight that learned counsel conceded that village Narela and Marnurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi being in Mamurpur; The position of the awards made from time to time and • the relatable notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have been detailed by me while noting the various Land Acquisition_Appeals and the Cross Objections as per the index hereinabove and thus I need not repeat the same. A perusal of all the awards announced from time to time would .veai_thathe_iearnedJ.and.Acquisition Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from to time notifying the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to landowners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . • Page 14 of 74. 4' to,6', añd the land value has been appropriately depressed this is to be found in a few awards where lands have been put in 2 or 3 categories i.e. Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category Cl.

¶6A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the learned Reference Court has determined fair market value on different principles and for purposes of clarity I may note the basis on which the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court have determined the compensation payable. The same would be as under:- Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 issued undet-Se€tion 4-of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant • whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against n13.82 tacs..per acre for Category 'A lands and T12.26 .lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the. policy.for minimum rates as of 1.4.2000),the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. T13.82 lacs. per acre and has granted increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000 till 7 8 2000 i e the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fair market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,28,0/- per acre andtias ignored that there was Category 'B' land for which he had to make necessary adjustment. , Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 pursuant .whereto 211.14 bigha land was acquired in village Holambi Kalan, the Land Acquisition Collector treated the land as of same character and determined fair market value with reference to the policy for minimum rates in sum of 13.82 lacs 'H per acre which has been enhanced by the learned Reference Court to fl4,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decision of a _Division Bench-of-this--ert-reportethas-200 -fvf)-AD--DeFhf±3 Ga/ral Vs. UO/wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market value determined was 9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and treating the said date and the said price as the base, giving 12% per annum appreciation for a period of 3 years, 8 months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been determined. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2.000 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Bawana were acquired, the. Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value for Category 'A' lands; with reference to the.. policy and fixed the same at 13.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and

12.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. The learned Reference Court maintained the same. Pertaining . to the notification dated 11.9.2000 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd were acquired for shifting industrial units, the Land Acquisition Collector has, for Category 'A' lands determined fair market value, with reference to the policy effective from 1 4 2000 in sum of T13.82 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands has fixed the same at 12.62 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted the policy wherein minimum price fixed as of

1.4.2000 was U3.82 lacs per acre and for 128 da.ys i.e. the number of days between 1.4.2000 till 11.9.2000, appreciating the same by 12% has determined fair market value at 14,40,157/- and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands... Pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 pursuant whereto 1140.5.8 bigha land was Iacquired in Narela for de\(elopment of sectors 1 to 4, Phase I, Narela, with respect to the policy of minimum price with effect from 1.4.2001 the L-1 LA.App.No.266/2008 & cOnnected matters 2o learned Land Acquisition Collector determined, fair market value in sum of U5.7 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category 'B' lands determined the same at U4 lacs per—a-cre 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, is dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced the compensation to fl5,85,700/- per acre which has uniformly awrded. .. . ' . . F. Pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 whereunder 512.16 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2.001 e. T15.7 lacs per acre which has been held to be the fair market value for Category 'A' lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determined at Z14 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of, 1.4.200 1 i.e. 15.7' lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum, for 143 days and the price so fixed is 16,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly aw.arded. Ib G. Pertaining to same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 512.16 bigha jand was acquired in village Alipur, on the same reasoning which has been adopted for village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same • compensation as determined for village Holambi Kalan has been •worked out by the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also by the learned Reference Court who has done away with atgiri2atiOTh. ............ - .. .. H. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 192.15 bigha of land was acquired in villag.e •Holambi Khurd, the reasoning of the LAC and the learned Reference Court and the price determined is the same as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that; in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in the same uniform category. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Rajapur Kalan • were acquired the reasoning and the fair market value determined by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, H.olambi Khurd and Alipur save and. except in this village the acquired land was of uniform category. . Pertaining to the notification dated 7.12.2001 pursuant whereto 222.05 bigha land was acquired in village Sanoth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township, • the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed • compensation uniformly in sum of Z15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per the policy for minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and the learned Reference Court has adopted the same price and given appreciation for 250 days at the rate of 12% per annum to reach the figure of 16,99,042/- per acre. Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi were • acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has determined compensation in sum of t15.7tacsper acre which is the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001. 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 Reference Court has not worked out the compensation and has left it to the Executing Court to do so, however I fin.d that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be LA.AppI'To.266/2008 & connected matters A. 17,75,369.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as T1.4720U1 and th&béprice'at 15.1iacs, fofT3ëäiand 45 days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be atthe rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpür Garhi were acquired the learned LAC and the learned Reference CoUrt • have determined same compensation as per the reasoning pertaining to the same village for the notification dated

16.5.2002 and Ifind that sincethere i.s a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision • of the Reference Court comes to fl7,79,781.78 per acre. Perta+ng -to -the same notification -dated-2-3.5.2002 pursuant whereto 445.81 bigha land in village Hotambi Kalan was acquired, the learned_LAC has determined fair market value in sum of Z15.7 lacs, per acre which is the same as per minimum price w.ef. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopted the same reasoning as was adopted while determining the fair market 'value of lands in village Holambi Kalan which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the decision in Ga/rat's case (supra) and appreciatingthe same by 12% compounded per annum' the price determined is 22,14,239I-per acre. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.5.2002 pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Alipur were acquired the learned Land Acquisition Cllector has awarded compensation at the rate of T153 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. Page 1,9 of 7

1.4.2001 till 23.5.20.02, the price determined is 17,85,240/- per acre. •0. Pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 309204 bigha land in village Sanoth and -----2 -18-8-03gh-aHandinitHiage-Rajapur Kalanwere acquired,.the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the same value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages i.e. T15.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of 714 lacs per acre and for Category 'C' lands in sum of T12.3 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different reasoning in some impugned decision and different in a few. In some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted the minimum price in sum of fl5.7 lacs per acre-as ofL4.-?OO-1-a-n-d-appreciating the same by 12% per annum for a period of 666 • days has fixed fair market value at 19,13,765/- per acre which. has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunderl bigha and 13 biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the. revenue •estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for 5,39,690/-.

¶7Since the learned. Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned Reference Court have relied upon the notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing • minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi, let me therefore • note thedates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same would be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:- StNo. • -Date-of--- Effect eDate_L -P4ce--- (in Iakhs/acre) increase per annum Notification of the price

3.5.1990

27.4.1990

4.65

25.7.1997

1.4.1997

10.0

11.5

24.9.1998

1.4.1998

11.2.

11.2

21.I1:2000 -

12.32

9.8.2001

1.4.1999

1.4.2000

12.16

13.82

9.8.2001

1.4.2001

15.7

11.5

30.8.2005

30.8.2005

17.584

2.98

24.1.2008

18.12.2007

89.51

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

27.4.1990 in sum of, T4.65 lakhs/acre it was increased after.

nearly 7 years to T10 lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998, the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of fl1.2 lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to l2.32 Iakhs/acre, which notification was ' superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.1999 to U2.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11 6/o per annum with reference to the price determined as of

1.4.1998 and vide same notificatothé_1pricE. was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to T13.82 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-à-vis the previous i.e.

12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5% per annum vis-à-vis the previous price of M.82 lakhs/acre to • :1. • the .f ice .:was.. next• enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to T17.584 lakhs/acre which gives. us • an increase of only 2.98% per annum and then the price rose to 53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.5 1% per annum with reference to the base figure of U7.584 Iakhs/acre. and the date 30.8.2005.

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

7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated

22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated

7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000. for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.52001 for village Narela;and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Au, Pur; . and the notification dated 2 7.1.2003: for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all lands 'were of uniform character and it was urgedthat corrective action required by doing.2 things. Firstly, with reference to the' minimum price notified by the Government from time to..time, 11.5%increase perannum and .......increasewas ecess1vewfth reference to the dates of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; requiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annum Ift the TeasLSecondly, the learned Reference Court was not justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C' by the Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of which • categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C', on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.

¶10Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that the learned Reference Court. was not justified in ignoring the 2 sale deeds dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition • Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also Thste:deed dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ T26.75.. lákhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of 732.4 lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 under ExPW-1/3 would be 728.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1t2 the land price would be

63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.20010 16.5.2002,

25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by suitably increasing Or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument,. pertaining to village Narela, it was urged that the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.4pp.No.266/2008 & connected matters and for which the argument was that when in the pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 fthe Làd Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference COUrt had given said benefit to agricuftural lands in village Mamurpur-Narela by giving a. price benefit of 2I-per sqyd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UO/ vs. Dharamb/r & Ors. The said decision would reveal that the price per bigha in sum of 6,650/- determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to 16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to 22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the SuprerneCourt and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored. 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 the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality, required fair market value to be determined with respect to the price at which DSIDC and DDA i e the implementing agencies, * which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Estate and for which learned counsel took me through the evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the • submission urged. Alternative to the second submission, being th.e third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram vs. Union of/nd/a, it was permissible to determine fair market value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bedi Ram's case (supra) as per which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6 0/s per annum with reference to the base price U6,750/- per bighà as of 30.10J963i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharamb/r's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till

31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per. annum till the various datesihèh the 8 notifications under Section 4. of the Land Acquisition .Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with ..whkh I arn.concerned inJh.e prsentappeaIs. So worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market value would come to 56,88,759/- per acre and I may highlight that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned coUnsel urged that on the same principle. market value should be S assessed: for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001 1 1.5.2002 and

23.5.2002.

¶13The fourth argument advanced was, and for which -reference was made by learnedico.unse.l for the parties in the evidence led in LAC No,99/2005, which is subjectmatter of 2 cross appeals i.e. L.A.APP.No.268/2008 filed by the land owners _and LA..APP.No.292/2008 filecL.by Union Df.India, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agricultural produce from his lands he used to earn U lakh per bigha per ñüii i.e. thelair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair market value as of said date should be 720 Iakhs per bigha I 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.No.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008. The 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 fairTharket value ought to have been determined with reference to the notification whtch was cLs_est in point of time where.._under minimum land value was fixed by the Government' and the notification dated

24.1.2008 where under Z53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the • first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where • under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for 5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said * sale deed in the following words: (Refer L'ara 17 of the decision dated 7.1.2010in LAC No.11 7A/2009: "If we add stamp dUty in the sale price T3,69,9061-per big/ia (5,39, 69Q/-+ 70,160 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 b/s wa S) which comes to Z 17,74,1091-per acre or 3,68,9061-per big/ia. further if we give 12% • LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters in crease on said amount for intervening period between the date when the sale deed was executed and the date of nctifithticn u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes to 19,16,0371- (round off 19,16,0401-)Y' The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition i.e. Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land_was put in Category 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra N200 and that page No.56-57 otthe award would evidhar1and comprised in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in Category 'C'. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification ie 27 1 2003 in sum of U5 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 T1.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was 14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another T1.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determined • whereof was T12.3 lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what the .argument was. The argument precisely was that if the market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the samE had to r Category 'C' lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price riaa to be increased by 71.7 Iakhs per acre for each category.

¶16I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above andhence I need not repeat the same. In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I have capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court pertaining to the 8 notifications' issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence tiny journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various sub-paras of para 6 above. But before dealing with the arguments I need to highlight various anomalies which strike the reader at the outset. The same would be:- A. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 wherein lands' were acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for Category 'B' lands, having depressions and pits, deduction effected vis-à-vis the price for Category 'A' lands is Z1.56 lacs per acre and pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 where price has been determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd, said price differential has been worked out at T1.2, 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 is.1.7 lacs per acre, S which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan was determined as of the date 22.8.2001. PertainL,gto the notification dated

27.1.2003 and 'relatable to village Sanoth the price differential' on said count has again been taken at Z1.7 lacs per acre to inter se differentiate the price between Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category"C' lands. mother words, the price differential has varied between T1.2 lacs per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and 71.7 lacs per acre. LA.App.No266/2008 & connected matters B. The learned Land Acquisition Collector 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 intervening period has been given. C:- '' --The'+earned Reference Court has adopted the minimum pric.e notified and 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. Pertaining to village Holambi Kalan..where acquisitions were made pursuant to the notifications dated 7.8.2000 and

23.5.2002 the learned Reference Court has adopted the price determined by this Court in 'Ga/rats case (supra) as of

15.11.1996 and has given appreciation at the rate of. 12% simple per annum for the former notification and at the rate of 12% compounded per annum' for the latter. Whereas for the notification dated 27.1.2003 the learned Reference Court, in some references has determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price notified as. of 1.4.2001 and has given appreciation, in some cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale deeddated'205.2002. . . , .. Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Collector has classified lands in Category 'A', 'B' and 'C' reasons thereof have 'eengiven iThe award but the learned Reference Court, while WrdiM Uif "b'pensation, has given nbrëohs as to why' it was treating all lands to be of sarrie.character_and,,quality.

¶19Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and8 notifications issued. under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, Ithink it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant S iacts, Wthch woUld be thy data for further analysis Put in a tabular form the data wo•d•• be as under:-

'Village Date of LAC compensation 1 ADJ cómpensatio Section 4 (in lakhs/acre) with (in lakhs/acre) with ____ Notification reasons reasons Pooth

7.8.2000 Cat; 'A' I3.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd Cat. 'B' 12.26 fl4.3728. Minimum price as—Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi

7.8.2000 U3.82 Z14.12995. Kalan Minimum price as Price as in Ga!rai's of 1.4.2000 case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increasep.a. Holambi

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' 15.7 Cat. Uniform. Kalan Cat. 'B' 14 T16.43811. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi

23.5.2002

15.7 T22.14239. Kalan Minimum price as Price:as in Ga/rats of 1.4.2001 case as of

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

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' 13.82 No enhancement .Cat. 'B' 12.62 given.. Minimum, price as of 1.4.2000 Khera •

11.92000 Cat. 'A' fl3.82 Cat. Uniform. Khurd . Cat. 'B' 12.62.

14.40157. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. Narela 2 5 2001 Cat'A'U5 7 Cat Uniform Cat. 'B'14 Z15.857. Minimum price as Minimum, price as of 1.4.2001 . of 1.4.2001 with. LA.App.No .266/2008 & connected matters o S 12% increase p.a. AH Pur

22.8.2001 Cat.'A' U5.7 T16.43811. • Cat. 'B' 14 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with • . of 1.4.2 001 12% increase p.a. Ali Pur .23.5.2002

15.7 fl7.8524 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Holanibi

22.8.2001 T15.7 T16.43811 Khurd Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur

22.8.2001 T15.7 fl6.43811 Kalan Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 Minimum price as - ............. . of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur

27.1.2003 Cat. 'A'Zlt.7 fl9.13765 for Kalan Cat. 'B' 14 . Uniform category. Cat. 'C' fl2.3 Minimum price as, Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.. in some cases. fl9.1604 for Uniform category based on sate deed dated.

25.5.2002 with 12% increase p.a. Sanoth

7.12.2001 T15.7 Z16.99042. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001. with 12% increase p.a. anoth

2.7.1.2003 • Cat. 'A' 15.7 fl9.13765 .. for Cat. 'B' fl4. Uniform category • Cat. 'C' T12.3 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with I . of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a. Shahpur •Garhi

16.5.2001 Cat. 'A' 715.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 T17J53ü9.. Minimum price as of. 1.42001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. Shahpur

23.5.2002 Cat. 'A' Z15.7 Z17.79781. Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.42001 of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. I now propose to deal with the 6 submission urged by learned counsel for the land owners and the 2 submission's . urged by the . Union as noted in para's 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of India). The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to T26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ T .63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the 'villages in I ' q'uestion on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale dee,d in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that.thorgan1zation ha to -pay-the--price-for the said piece of land as it was the only plot of therequisfte size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) 5CC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. /sti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 f1ohd. RaUfuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.AAct 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may bespecial circumstances which have led the buyer, to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an • equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the 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 Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. 17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes to 763.478 Iakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and .28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1I2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and e-fat edstroyeatftottier:

23.Thus, apartirom the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 aio_w_quJbe_addi&na1 reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subject lands can be determined and more so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sate deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 1912.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.193/2 006 Prataø Singh (since deceased) thru LR5 Vs. 1JOT& Ors. It was highlighted thäfthe sale déédfherein by 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 Ab, 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-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the 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 sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, but ThU11d that if the price therein was reduced by 113rd, the price arrived at would be the same as would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of 1,37,000/- per big ha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the land gave the price 3 ,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come to 231,800/- which was near about the price of 2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3rd would be deducted from the sum of fl,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 16.111995 and the Court determined fair market value as I of the said dates at the same sUm arrived at as aforesaid. i.e; 2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. ' would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the lend price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutuallV destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair, market' value. ' Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale . deeds as indicative of the fair 'market value of the land, pertaining to village-Narela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land price should be suitably enhanced would be dealt with by me at the.end when I determine the fair market value of lands for the viflages in question; The second argument, contours whereof are to be found in para II of my decision herein above, I need to note the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the. issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UQI. But .before that I must highlight' that the decision in La! Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for residential housing scheme and the argument was being considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housing Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are situated within the'V' formed by NH-i and NH-lU i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing the same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts, in paras ii to 27, the Supreme. Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence'

¶11The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an invitation seeking applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: 5l.No. Plot size Category Rate(per square metre) 26sqm 32sqm 48sqrn 60sqm 9Osqm Economically Weaker sections

(EWS)' Low income group (LIG) Low income group (LIG) Middle income group (MIG) Middle income group (MIG) Rs 100 Rs125 Rs 150 Rs200 Rs200 LA.App.No .266/2008 & connected matters h o The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre which is the average of the said provisional rates, should be taken as indicative of the ruling market price.

¶12On careful consideration, we are of the view that such, allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several, reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determin.ed'wj.th reference to 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 developed layout falling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not I .. . depend upon the economic status of the land• loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold land -whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upOn ' the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first Is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout .is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc. ' The , development authority will also . incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout,.which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . underground drainage and sewage er lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as.7.5% of the cost of the developed plot. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of "deduction for development" may be far less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial .plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development • (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot . may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots. . If 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.) . Therefore 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 undeve!oped land, will be far more than the deduction 1) LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . • with reference to the price of a small plot in, an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is as-weW-known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard-to higher overheads and expenditure. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout--whether it is residential, residential- -c-um-commerc4a-I--or-i-ndustria-I-; and even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ, having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community ----facil+ties, parks and playgrounds_provided. Some of. 'the layouts formed by the statutory d-ete1opment auth,ortties may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the' range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%. Second factor.

DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon the economic status of the allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically, weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots may be earmarked for persons belonging to economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs 100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be,Rs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons • belo'n'i'ng to high income groUps. 24; The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying, factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take • the average of the allotment rates, as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the applicants for allotment. Third factor I Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DOA allot piols onleasehold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership)I rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the 'market value of the property. However, in view of the difficulties 'referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." 28 The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting from LAC Reference No.117A/2009. The argument advanced before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court with reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads:- "Ld. Counsel ftthe_petitiDnersJ1as further submitted thatDDA & DStDC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate He has relied upon allotment letter dated '04.01.2000 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the pie-determined rate of 3028/- which he has proved as Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of plot no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring 70 Sq metres in which rate was fixed as T3,989 per sq. metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter' dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by 'DSIDC i.e. "'1 plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela industrial Cornpex at the rate of Z650 sq. metres which is Ex. PW3/1 and another allotment letter dated

25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at 3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW9 Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PW11/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent • that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost of development per bigha would be 1794400000 = 248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme © 3208 would be 2531408/- per bigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized for roads, park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the price of per bigha would come to (2531408 - 759422 = 17719866 per bigha). And after deducting development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e. 1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only 3,27,083/- per bga Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits • earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW7 R.D.Sharma,Asstt.Manager,_DSIDC who has produced documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e. • 1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is 2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under: Total area under plots =

112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq. yards. Price per sq. metre in the year 2000 at = which DSIDC sold plot

3000/- per sq. yards Total earning T4083750000 Total expenditure T72052001 Total profit T3363223099 i.e. Profit comes to 247ffpër sq. yardThrT2470000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and théLAC has paid compensation © T327083 per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSID.0 has earned a profit of Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued • that LAC has awarded compensation @ T327083 .per S bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the - said price Is cpnsiderecL n account of land, the figure comes to T654166. If the amount is deducted from sale • • - ricp.er bigh. i.e. T24700000, the figure comes to fl8 15834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." 29 Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Nàrela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, wedo not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in La! Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases. It is no doubt true, as held even by --the-4eamed-- Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in h/ Chancis case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. The third submission in the alternative was based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bed! Ram's case (supra), and the submission is as noted In para 12 here;in above. The land owners require the price determined in Dharamb/ts case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No .266/2008 & connected matters t1 to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly. by 6% per annum, then by 10% per annum and lastly by 12% per annum for different 'periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question. It be highlighted that in Bed! Ram's case (supra), with reference to the base date as, of the year 1959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied the progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years. However, in La! Chancis case (supra), the Supreme Court categorically opined as under:- "Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-10-1961 is relevant?

¶47The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present' acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for. the 1961 acquisition by providing an appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This. Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In 0NGc Ltd. v. Rameshbha/jivanbha/ Pate/3& this Court held: (5CC p. 751, para 15) u15 Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of • determining the market value by providing appropriate 'calation ovevtprnvedmarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as —evd-e-n-ced_by s-ale transactions or a-cq-uis+tFons'), • • where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions •.qr acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably -sate where the - felied-on sai transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four 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 and unrellable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." (emphasis supplied) • .48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50 0/6 from the 2007. rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition.."

¶35It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bed! Rm's—ca-se--supra) runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lal Chands case (supfa)-- which decision follows—an—earlier decision of the - Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai /ivanbhai Pate!. Page 44 of. 74 4?

¶36ln1±re_ ifl5tdnt case there is another good rea riOt to follow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's case (supra) for the reason I find that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) SaraswatiDev/ & Anr. Vs. UO/ & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambits case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ 2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ 1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's prindple was applied the price wouldhave come to approximately 50,000/- • per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at 33,000/- per higha.

¶37That apart, as would 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.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, MahenderS/ncih vs.. UOI & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I 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 Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as.of • . 15.11.19 -96 was determined@ 1,99,904.68 bigha which equals to 9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which prce for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the Government was T1.0 iakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price :. •. Page 45.of 74 determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum price notified by the Government. If I were to take the p rfce —as--of---15-. ii :1996 9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein above, I would be holistically discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notifications in question. The; fourth argument, which was advanced only by I ShS.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the family they were earning 1 lakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave noproof in support of his oral testimony. 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, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3 rd week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is _S7D sown around the first week or the second week of November eachyear ........ But 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 Municipal Corporation of Delhi till 313.1996 i.e. was not a tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a.pension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning Z1 Iakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure '18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annualincemewould be 19lakhs and one.. fcIs .jt strange that not a:...penny was....iwested in a bank or a • security wherefrom interest or. dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom the produce, was sold has not been examined.. No proo.f of number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tube-well, if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if the pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields were irrigated by.canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing, the same, to determine the fair market value of S lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly rejected.

If there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT1997 (1) SC 444 State of Gu/arat& Ors. Vs, Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to the yield from agricultural land, only then it would' be safe to determine 'fair market value by applying the principle of capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, the capitalizing being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 times as was sought to be projected.

¶44The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean .average principle be adopted with reference to .the notification dated 24.1.2008. • 45. In para .7above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000,11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001,

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

1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005.. Thus, there would be no : need to factor in the minimum price notified under t h e notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 • years away from the last year with which I am concerned .. the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would be do-sest—to---the--point f whkh the mean average has to be determined.

¶46I am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in para 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification dated

27.1.2003 determined the fair marketvalue in some References with respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and • has determined that based thereon the price as of said date - - —works acre a ndfncres-t- for 8 months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price would be 19,16,037/- per acre rounded off to 19,16,040/- per acre.

¶47With reference to the Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004..05 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C' land. The sale deed in question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflect fair market value of Category 'C' land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collector, Z1.7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum Of 71.7 S in Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category 'B' land were less vis-à-vis Category 'C' land. In other words, with reference to Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C' land would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-à-vis Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' land would be required to be increased suitably.

¶48I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the reasoning adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court, I pose the question: What should be the fair market value of the subject lands as of 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002,

25.5.2002 and 271.2003 i.e. the dates on which the notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; 49 I have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on N

11.5.2006, Mahender Sin ih vs. 1JO/& Ors. wherein pertaining to -----_------village Blawana, fair marktet vaeftle determined as of 15.11.1996 is1,99,904.68 per bigha which equals to 9,59,542.46 per acre. The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i.e. the lands with which the Division Bench' was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural Delhi were identified for providing major health fadlities, sthools, markets and rural • industry, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted that G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to • village Bawana and that the Master Plan forDelhi notified in the -- year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed in the future to industrial and commercial, but had also - observed that notwithstandThthi; for the reason no zonaTri was notified as contemplated by Section hA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used for agricultural -purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to • the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same.was the case ndted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being known to all as being required in the future for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capable of being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so expressly stating, would be a propOitioritht there is a difference between the undeveloped land having building potentiality , in presenti vis-à-vis .a land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was 9,59,542.46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. the notification dated

25.7..19 7 .where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was 710 lakhs per • acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Ga/rat Sinqh vs. UOI & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was I acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996, fair market value, determined for Category 'A' lands was 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was 9,51,121/- per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to be highlighted that whHe, determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development, work carried out in the, surrounding lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same 'V' i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, ,i.e. village Singhola determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 © fl,30,523/- per bigha i.e. 6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is ,.reportecLa....2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chandervs. £10/and the -.same-DMsion-Eench, as per the decision-•r-eported--aslll (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Sing/i vs. UO/, pertaining_toanotificaon dated

14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ 1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. 6,73,104/- per acre. aforeäid udgrnents oted-in the - preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in. para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the. year 1990. As of 274.1990 minimum price was T4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to f1O lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is T5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and • the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 yearsandll.5% for the next year i.e. as.of1.4.2001.lt shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ga/rats case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above.

¶51I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Ga/rats case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to • fair market value of agriculturalland in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, • in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was 95,000/- for multiple cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at 9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices_of comparable lands in the surrounding are-as including pot-errtFa-Hty --Fn para 19 onwards the • Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices • in adjOining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and sedbnsi instances found that based on the said sale instances and would come to 10,03,364/- per acre (Referpara 31). The Court then considered the-prices-notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of 9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and 9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f.

1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at f1O lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was 10,03,364/- per acre.

¶52. The decision in Iviahender Sing/i's case, pertaining to viliage.Bawana, referred to. by me in para 49 above, .highlihts with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential, commercial and industrial • . future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had taken place in village Bawanaand Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth and what the market actually grows. The decisions in Ga/rats case and Mahender Sincih's case highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality betwen 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about .16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that __pnsuaaLtaMa ste r Plan for Del hL19 afairIyJargaarea came to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated. The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the • sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisftion Collector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the learned Reference Court has held that as per the rsaid sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be i9,16,040/- per acre as of 2 7.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 big ha and 13 blswa of land which was sold for 5,39,690/- and 70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that 6,09,850/- (5,39,690/- + 70,160/-) were spent would yield the price .17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002. Thus, the best which could be said as the most favourable situation for the land owners would be that with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C' lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would be 17,74,109/- per acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land the price would have to be suitably enhanced and here we find another area of dispute for the reason, as noted by me hereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LAAppNo.266/2008 & connected matters sometimes T1.2 lakhs per acre, sometimes T1.56 Iakhs per acre and sometimes t1.7 lakhs per acre from the price of Category - 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C' as weflthe price has been deducted further by Z1.7 lakhs per acre. Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the • cate rizat+nsas-een1y on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths same to be leveled and this would_require money to bespent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that T1.2 lakhs per acre would be • spent and in some that t1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that t1.7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There is just no clue. In Ga/rat Singh's case (supra), the price differential worked out was 25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Ga/rat Singh's case pertained to the date

15.11.1996. In Ga/rat Singh's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was 9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the • .pric.eofCategory'A'land. I thus hold that Gajra/ 5/ngh's case should be my guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as well and thus I hold that wherever Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C' have to be differentiated on price, the differential should be 2.5%. . Thus, if fl7,74,1091-, rounded off to f17.75 lakhs per • • • ac woubeth? priceior C egory 'C' landiwviilage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 • LA.App.No.266/2008. & connected matters admittedly pertains to a Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land would be T18.20 lakhs per acre and for Category 'A' land would be T18.655 lakhs per acre.

¶59Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was f13.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was 15.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at T18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately

16.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at f15.7 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is 70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date is normally not held good evidencetO mork bUfTad price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is. the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market vat ue of land as on said date, would be a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account while determining the market value of land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000;

2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001. The argument that village Narela had always been treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of • Narela was in existence since long and this was recognized when, pursuant to a nOtification issued in the year 1963, vis-à-vis the adjoining villages t2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambits 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 urbanization took place in Delhi and more and more areas came under plotted development which included areas in North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with which I am concerned today, the price differential faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent. I thus hold that, pertaining to the notifications dated

7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.122001 the land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by the Government as also with • reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 for the reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates could be deterniTñëRJ. Pertainingto the notifications

16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003,the land price needs tote determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 rCJ • '.case with ___ land price as of said date comes to, more than if determined with respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was t15.7 lakhs per acre with effect from

1.4.2001. With respect to the price differential for Category 'A' and Category 'B' lands, noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur ('pertaining to the . notification dated 22.8.2001) I hold that vis-à-vis the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine the price for Category 'B'. land. Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few' cases and substantially in the other, a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value at 22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, btrt'1mee'd tohigthght -thatpertai —nmnq-tov the same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned -_ Reference Court has determined-' the' -fair market value at 17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village - '- Raja-pur--Kalan and Sanoth, pertainttothe notification dated

27.1.2003 thefair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is 19,16,040/- in some cases and fl9,13,760/- in a few, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • meaning thereby that much lesser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-à-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi kàlan paning to the notification dated

23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Ga/rats case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. Village Pooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000 With . reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is 13.82 iakhs and requiring said price to be suitably . updated to reach the.date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Catégdr'C lands, land price per acre comes to.!17,74,109/-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Cateory 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to f14.75 lakhs ' per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, . it comes . to 14,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 14,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager fl,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. V.

. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the UniOn of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LAApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed. AII Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village P00th Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of T14.75 Iakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 14,37,280/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 1)0/ 2001 (93) DLI 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to prOportionate cost. Village Holambj Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000 For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the nQtification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the compensation to T14.75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that as per the award and even as per the reference all subject lands were of uniform category. Needless to state appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are allowed by enhancing the compensation to T14.75 lakhs per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as • _ explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. (10/2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing --- appeal or cross objection, for whIch period of delay, no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate • cost. Village Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2000 Pertaining tovillage.. relating to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Refe.rencé Court h.,not enhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for CategoryA'1ds is fixed at T14.75 lakhs pe á&ë' and for Category 'B' lands at 14,38,125/- per acre and noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and needless to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. (101 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest, • on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants' would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000 With reference to the notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effectfrorn 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is T13.82 lakhs' per acre and requiring said price to. be suitably • updated to reach , the date of the notification i.e.

11.9.2000 and with reference.to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to • ... 17,.74,109j.,....Lo1.und.ed..off t17,75,000/- .per acre, and for • Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to l4,83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by .

2.5%, it comes to fl4,46,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. • 71. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by the land owners and cross-objections fiJed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum of • 14,83,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and fl4,46,4131-peracre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertaining to this notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal,. for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001

¶72With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.7 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25;5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes. to 17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,000/-per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes •iil to T18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 186S G0f-per--aere--fr ry 'A' -Iands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average, price for Category 'A' lands in village Narela comes to 16,16,500/-per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to 15,76,087-per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away. with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 15,85,570/-per acre and since for Category 'B' lands the price worked out by me is less by 9,000/-per acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category 'B.' lands the price determined would be as per the reference but for Category 'A' lands the price stands enhaiicecLtnfl 6,16.. 5f10/-

¶73All 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 compensation 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 filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such appeals S 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

-'compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there isa delay in'filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These apellants to proportionate cost. would be entitled --Vi1Iaae Holambi Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001 With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 -whern-wfth-effect-fmm--t4-20OI -minimum price notified per acre is t15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for 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 thesame by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to I8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said •prices by 11% 1to reffeet-the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 228.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in _village Holambi Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.. Noting that 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. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.200 1 in sum of 16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the' judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93) DLI 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for • which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village All Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001 With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date' of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for 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 T18.2 lakh.s per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices' comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category .,.ALi,ahds in village All Pur comes to 16,74,500/- per ac're and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to fl6,32,637.50 per acre for. Category 'B' lands. 'Noting' that thelearned Rëfërce Court has,without any reasons1 done vay, 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. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union ofHdia---------------- in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Village Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2001 With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is fl5.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

22.8.2.001 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 t18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22:8.2001; the mean averaericecategory 'A' comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it cOmes to 16,32,637.50per acre for Category 'B' lands. NtTht the 1ëãrned Reference Court has, without any reasons doiie_away withcateg Lland 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—amoinaarded by-the learned Reference Court. The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect whereof grid has ' been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court, There shall be no order as to costs.. Village Rafapur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001 . With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is fl5.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be . suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for 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 Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that 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 rn. comes to a meager 9,0001- .p.er..a..creand thu.s qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the apiais -fiIedby -taridowneis -h-rrespectwherepf grid has been - prepared and labeled as 'GRID-i' hereinabove are dismissed..

¶86All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed bydecreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of 16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at U6,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. .

¶87Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. 1)0/ 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellahts or crossobjectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001

¶88With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said, ,price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to

17.74,109/-,__Lolinded . Ao. €17,75.QQ.0I-per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2 Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices - comes-to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to •. 17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notification dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of 17,29,500f-. .

¶89All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-K' hereinabove are dismissed. . 90. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of 17,29,500/.- and needless to state on the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2002

¶91. Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by me hereinabove the land price, would have to be determined with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at 18,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a difference of 4 days between the date of sale and the notification I maintain that fOr the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500i-LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . peracre and I highlight.that as per the award arffierfei -ericé all lands are in the same category. Appeals and_cross objections filed by the land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowed and needless to state on. the enhanced compensation the land owners would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is delay, no interest would be paid for the period of, delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross objections 'filed by Union of India are dismissed. Viflage Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 23.5.2002 Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days I hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reportedas Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by land owners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed. Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 23.5.2002 As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated

23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awardecL compensation in sum of, 22,14.,239/- per acre which I have found to be , excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have held that fair market value would be 18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' are dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation payable to 18,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state, with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the award, the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained. Nocosts. . . . Village Ali Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002 . Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine • ' fair market value payable at 18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India as per • 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to 18,65,500/- per acre on which statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment' reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT. 569' shall be paid save and except in such appeals or cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid fo$ the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Village Saoth Notification dated 27.1.2003 Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as per "GRlD-P' 'pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village SanOth, I note LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • 15 - that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has placed the lands in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation.

¶96On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the same with 'reference—to the sate de dated 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to 19,43,500/- per acre and for Category T. land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68per acre. I find that the learned .fl Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at. 19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar wOuld be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of 19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced. S compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, .1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLI 569 shall be paid ....save.... and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by müdify i-ng--th e-re 1atable---deefee--i-R the Reference Order by reducing the ' compensation for Category 'B' land to -j 6 ___ l8,94,912.50 peracre andforCategory'c' land to - 18,47,539.68 per acre. Village RajaDur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2003

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

27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that the learned Reference Court has in some cases A wrr1cri compensation in sum of 19,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at 19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform category. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the notification issued by the 'Government as also by - increasing the same with. refer.ence to the sale deed dated

20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' land9 -the per ac -- r Category 'B' land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per 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 dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India S pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of 19,43,500/- per acre andneedtestostateon —the.... ènhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOf 2001-- 9 -)LT-569—s-haIl -be paid sd .except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costas well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by reducing thc compensation -for — B Category. '' land to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' land to 18,47,539.68 per acre. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (S AUGUST23, 2011 mm/dk

) I $".'42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 561/2011 ASHOK KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. with Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav, Adv. for R-1/UOI/LAC. Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI