Ashok Kumar v. UOI & Ors

ORDER %

23.08.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.266/2008. i . tl-11~ 1

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. AUGUST 23, 2011 • AK Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. * 11^ THE HIGH COyRT OF DELHI AT HEW DELHI % ^ judgmentReservedOn: ll^^Auomt.?on judgment Delivered On: 23''^ Auoust 2011 •f LA.APP. 266/2008 .y* jAI SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Mr.Deepak Khosia," Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.M.C.Vernna, Nr.V.P.Rana, Nr.Raj Singh, Mr.Uday Ram, Mr.D.R.Tomar, MrJ.S.Dahiya, Mr.N.S.Daial, f^r.S.jVl.Bhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta, IVfr.S.K.Rout, Mr.S.S.Rana, Nr.Sunil Dalai, Mr.p.S.Khatri and Mr.T.P.SXang, Advocates Vs. UOI & ANR. ... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and ivis.K.Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1. Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Advocate for DSIDC. . .. Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan Mathur, Ms.Shobhna Taklar, Mr.Arun Birbai, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi and . Ms.Beenashaw Soni Advocates for DDA;. AND CGiliP»A) -f LA.APP. 259/2008,. LA.APP., 254/2008, LA.APP. 265/2008, LA.APP. 267/2008, LA.APP. 258/2008, LA.APP. 270/200B. LA.APP. 271/2008, LA.APP. 272/2008, lAAPP. 273/2008, U.APP. 278/2008 SrCFTAPPL. • LA.App.No.266/2008 8cconriected metiers 280/2008™^- tBiecmnsj; "CS^SPP-.--2Slf2O08T 286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008. LA.APP. LA.APP. 293/2008, LA^APP7-294/2e08 & CM APPL. Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP. 299/2008, LA.APP. 301/2008, LArAPPr-304/2008, LA.APPr 339/2008, LA.APP. 401/2008, LA.APP. 472/2008, LA.APP. 487/2008, LA.APP. 495/2008, LA.APP. 527/2008, LA.APP. 541/2008, LA.APP. 548/2008, LA.APP. 566/2008, LA.APP. 627/2008, LA.APP. 648/2008, LA.APP. 724/2008 756/2008, 861/2008, LA.APP. 880/2008, LA.APP. 895/2008, LA.APP. 907/2008, LA.APP. 925/2008, LA.APP. 931/2008, LA.APP. 934/2008, LA.APP. 941/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. -LAtAPFt-2B472trOS7 289/2008, 292/2008, 296/^008, 303/2Oe&r 3^n72trG8, LA.APP. 337/2008, 357/2008, "tA.APP. 394/2008, 413/2008, LA.APP. 443/2008, LA:Af^. 484/2008; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 4^3/2008, 492/2008, 496/2008, 535/2008, 545/2008, 554/2008, 621/2008, 628/2008, 649/2008, 493/2008, 526/2008, 537/2008, 546/2008. 563/2008, 623/2008, 635/2008, 662/2008, & CM APPL 5353/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008. 946/2008, 999/2008 & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), 1014/2008, LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP. 1023/2008, 1026/2008;- LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA.APP. 1071/2008, 1244/2008. LA.APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, 1268/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008, CM APPL. 2377/2009, (Cross Objections) LA.APP. 86/2009. LA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 97/2009, LA.APP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP. 111/200%, LA.APP. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, LA.APJ». 251/2009, LA.APP.. .252/2009, U.APP. 265/2009, LA.APP. _2-66/20a9_&-GM-Ai°PL-f^o.5366/2010 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 267/2009, -270/2ijOQ^ LA.APP. 875/2008, 888/2008. 905/2008, 910/2008, 926/2008, 932/2008, 936/2008, 942/2008, 955/2008. 268/2009. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ^.APP. 273/2009, LA.APP. 300/2009, LA.APP. 454/2009, LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 532/2009, LA.APP. 535/2009 St CM APPL Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009- & CM-APPL. 12917/2011 (Cross "OBj^ons), LA.APR. -543/200^7—tA.-APP. -&44/2BB5, • 879/2008, 894/2008, 906/2008, 911/2008, 927/2008, 933/2008, 939/2008, 944/2008, 958/2008, 269/2009, LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APPr 306/2009, LA.APP. 521/2009, LA.APP. 12886/2011 (Cross (Cross tA.APP. tA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. -LAtt^PPt LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. luWPP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP, U.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA;App.No.266/2008& connected matters 589/2nnQ ™APPL13873/2011,LA APpf 393m!09T XA APR 594/2009, LA APP ^35/2009, LA.APP. 636/2009, LA.APP 637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 & CM APPL.13878/2G11. LA.APP. 1/2010, U.APP. 29/2010 UAPP 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP. 107/2010 ' 109/2010, LA.APP. 168/2010, LA.APP, 169/2010, LA.APP, 170/2010, LA.APP. 171/2010, 'LA.APP, 220/2010, LA.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, LA.APp! 430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APF" 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. 531/2010, LA.APP. 532/2010 & CM APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections),LA.APP. 533/2010 & CM APPL. 12898/2011 (Cross Objections),LA.APP. 534/20107iAAtPP. 535/2010 & CM APPL 12867/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 & CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 537/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010 Se CM APPL 12972/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPL. 12900/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP. 541/2010, LA.APP. 542/2010 & CM APPL. 19857/2010 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. 12903/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL. 12888/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010, LA.APP. 566/2010, LA.APP. 581/2010, LA.APP. 592/2010 & CM APPL. 227/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 593/2010 & CM APPL 12969/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 594/2010. LA.APP. 595/2010 & CM APPL. 226/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 596/2010, LA.APP. 597/2010 & CM APPL 228/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP; 598/2010 & CM APPL 487/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 600/2010 & CM APPL 12897/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APF. 601/2010. LA.APP. 602/2010. LA.APP. 603/2010 & CM APPL 12881/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP. 663/20TG & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 666/2010 & CM APPL 6748/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 675/2010CM APPL. 9988/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 761/2010, LA.APP. 792/2010 & CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 793/2010 & CM APPL 12899/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. 795/2010, LA.APP. 40/2011. LA.APP. 195/2011 & CM APPL. 12892/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 215/2011. LA.APP. 228/2011. LA.APP. 229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011. LA.APP. 231/2011, U.APP. 232/2011. U.APP. 233/2011. U.APP. 389/2011. U.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page3 of74 392/2011, LA.APP. 420/20117^ 1^^ 425/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

07.08.2000 & Award No.19/2002-03, Village-Pooth Khurd) AND CGi^lD-B) + LA.APP. 972/2008 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1122/2008 St CM 2099/2009 (Cross Objections), I^.APP. 1150/2008 & Cl\^ 12216/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. & CM 2345/2009 (Cross Objections), & CM 2102/2009 (Cross Objections), & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1187/2008, LA.APP. 1188/2008, LA.APP. 1218/2008, LA.APP. 15/2009, LA.APP. 100/2009, LA.APP. 102/2009, 1151/2008 1152/2008 115372008 1154/2008, 1189/2008, 82/2009, 113/2009, 214/2011. U.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No. 11/2001-02, Vlllage-Hoiambi Kaian) AND CGRID-CI + LA.APP. 359/2007, LA.APP. 202/2007, LA.APP. 382/2007, LA.APP. 383/2007, LA.APP. 269/2008, LA.APP. 811/2008, LA.APP. 928/2008, LA.APP-. 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/2009, LA.APP. 969/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

07.08.2000 & Award No, 08/2001-02, Village-Bawana) AND . CGHID-OI -I-LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2011 & CM-12911/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Mottfrcatfoii u/s 4~dH^ted ir."O9..200e-^-A\^i^-fd-20/2002-03, Vitiage-Khera Khurd) ^T-Af\!D (GRIDtE) + LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009, i:A:APF7-Me/20097-t:A:APF7-91/20i07-l:ATAPPr-93/201^^ 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA-APP." 191/2010 & CM Ho. 22402/2010 {Cross Objections), LA.APP. 192/2010, 193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, 196/2010, LA.APP. .197/2010,. LA.APP. 297/2010, 299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, 309/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 & 3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 373/2010, 493/2010, LA.APP. 494/2010, 496/2010, LA.APP. 497/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 & Objections), LA.APP. 503/2010, 506/2010, 509/2010, 512/2010, 515/2010, 505/2010, 508/2010, 511/2010, 514/2010, 517/2010 518/2010, 611/2010, 618/2010, 621/2010, 628/2010, Objections), LA.APP. .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ! CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. CM Ho. LA.APP. CM No. CM No. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA..APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 7702/2011 (Cross Objections), 519/2010, 612/2010, 619/2010, 622/2010, 647/2010 & LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. CM No. 610/2010, 613/2010, 620/2010, 623/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. CM fslo. LA.APP. 495/2010, LA.APP. 22728/2010 (Cross 499/2010, LA.APP. 23186/2010 (Cross 10382/2011, (Cross 504/2010, LA.APP. 507/2010, 510/2010, 513/2010, 516/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP; LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 3847/2011 (Cross 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM No. 3560/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 652/2010, LA.APP. 841/2010, LA.APP. 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM No. -i:03fB/201-l—(Crubb~Qbjecttons), tA-A^p—855/2010, LA.APP. 856/2010 & CM No. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), LA^APP. 857/2010, LATaPP. 920/2010 & CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross Objections),""LArAPP'.-"i0^8/2010-&-CM-NO'.—§966/2011(Cross -0b|ECtfUTT5)7-n^.OT^:"lOnCT LA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP. •i:A;APP7-:83/-z-dli:;.'LA.APP7-84?'20t±7H=ATAFP.85/2011, LA.APP. 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011. LA.APP. 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/20il, iAAPP. 324/2011 &CM APPL.15110/2011,LA.APP. 385/2011. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters (TleTating to MdtiTic^n u/s 4 dated 02.05:2001& Award Mo. 24/2003-04, ViHage-IMarela) AMD . CGRiD-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,yiliage-Holambi Kalan) AMD CGRID-G) -F LA.APP. 777/2,010 & CM APPL.3808/2011. LA.APP. 778/2010 & CM 2686/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 779/2010 & CM 12966/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 213/2011, LA.APP. 261/2011, LA.APP. 326/2011, LA.APP. 327/2011, LA.APP. 328/2011. LA.APP. 330/2011. LA.APP.

331./2011, LA.APP. 332/2011, LA.APP. 333/2011, LA.APP. 334/2011, LA.APP. 335/2011, LA.APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, LA.APP. 341/2011, LA.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP. 350/2011, LA.APP. 351/2011, LA.APP. 365/2011, LA.APP.377/2011, LA.APP.388/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 33/2003-04, Vfiiage-Holambi Kalan) AMD . CGRID-I^) LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, LA.APP. 409/2011. "(Retatrng to Notification u/s 4 dated

22.08.2001 & Award No. 15/2003-04, Viliage-Aii Pur) AND LA..APP. 481/2010 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedniatters VagsSof74. rT tR^TI^tD-WStmrStfUTTl]/^^ IsjQ 9/2003-04, Viliage-Holambi Khurd) AND • , • . " {GI^ID-J) + LA.APP. 780/2010 &CM No.2661/2011(Cross Objections) LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM No.3833/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 900/2010 & CM No.3541/2011 (Cross Objections) LA.APP. 970/2010, LA.APP. 971/2010 &CM No.3805/2011(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM No:2667/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM N6.3703/2011 (Crbss Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 & CM No.l4333/2011(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 977/2010, LA.APP. 978/2010, LA.APP. 979/2010 & CM No.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), i_A.APP. 984/ZOTD^ & CM ¥o.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2010 St 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 0bjections)011, LA.APP. 1024/2010 & CM No.5771/2011 (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 8l CM No.6766/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 73/2011 & CM No.12922/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM .No.6775/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.APP. 110/2011, LA.APP. 111/2011, LA.APP. 112/2011 & CM No.10050/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2G11, 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 CGHIC? ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & coimecled matters + LA.APP. 488/2&0^7~tA:APFr^W2tr08r"I-A.APP.491/2008;,7^ LA.APP. 549/2008, U.APP. 755/20"08;TAOT'. 8€B72mJ8 & GM No.10393/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 896/2008 & CM (Relating to Notification u/s No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth) LA.APP 1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009,' LA.APP. 591/2009.' LA.APP. 34/2010 & CM No.7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 488/2010, LA.APP. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011, LA.APP. 421/2011 dated

07.12.2001 & Award AND COHi.O-L) + LA.APP. 341/2008, U.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, LA.APP.352/2008, LA.APP. 364/2008, LA..APP. 38S/2008, LA.APP. 387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP. 464/2008& CM No.11333/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP. 468/2008& CM No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP. 470/2008, LA.APP. 471/2008, LA.APP. 560/2008, 561/2008, LA.APP. 611/2008, LA.APP. 663/2008, LA.APP. 678/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 682/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 731/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 825/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 850/2008, LA..APP. LA.APP. 903/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 935/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 940/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 956/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1001/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1065/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 106/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 374/2009, LA.APP. LA.APF. 468/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 547/2009, LA.APP. U.APP. 628/2009, LA.APP. 23/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010, LA.APP. 35/2010, LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010. 676/2008, 681/2008,' 722/2008, 786/2008, 842/2008, 883/2008, 924/2008, 938/2008, 945/2008, 998/2008, 1007/2008, 1079/2008, 309/2009, 465/2009, 546/2009, 624/2009, 679/2008, 683/2008, 754/2008, 826/2008, 853/2008, 904/2008, 937/2008, 943/2008, 957/2008, 1004/2008, 1077/2008, 172/2009, 464/2009, 539/2009, 565/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. §30/2009, U.APF. (ReJatiog to.. Motif.icaii0n u/s 4 dated 16.05.2002 Award No. 29/2003-04, Vtliage-Shaiipiir Garhi) LA.App.Nb.266/2008 & connected matters AND CGRiD-i^l + 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 Wo.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008 (Cross Objections), 680/2008, 720/2008, 760/2008, 823/2008, 908/2008, 1022/2008, 1063/2008, 308/2009, 385/2009, 540/2009, LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 723/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 767/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 824/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 909/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 1024/2008, LA.APP. LA.APP. 173/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 311/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 463/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 542/2009, LA.APP. 562/2008. 716/2008, 757/2008, 793/2008, 837/2008, 952/2008, 1025/2008, 307/2009, 384/2009, 467/2009, 548/2009, LA.APP. LA.APP. 'la.app: LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. 'LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/2010. (Relating to Notification u/s dated No.22/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi)

23.05.2002 & Award AND -F LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CH 13228/2008 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 304/2009 & C^^ 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 12/2011 • , (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.05.2002 & Award No. 16/2003-04, Viliage-Hoiambi Kalan) AND CGRID-O) 4-LA.APP.379/200B, LA.APP. 381/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/'200e. LA.APP. 499/2008, LA.APP. 530/208, LA.APP. 836/2008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cross Obiections),-LA.APP. 310/2009 & CM 16027/2009 .(CrossObjections), LA..APP. 782/2010, LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters A --za3/-2-#mr la^.ap^. 9/2011 & cm 9960/2011 14r8W2Ml^^OTSSi=Ol^mi^'s LA.APP. '29W201-3r—Sr--GM- " 14852/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 381/2011. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

23.05.2002 & Award Mo. 17/2004-05, Village-A!i Pur) . ; ••—AMD-- - CGRiD-P) + LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM Mo.2357/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 555/2008. LA.APP. 674/2008 & CIV| fSlo.7818/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, LA.APP. 706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 & CM No. 7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008, LA.APP. 882/2008,- LA.APP. 885/2008, LA.APP. 891/2008, LA.APP. 898/2008 & CM KSo.2355/2Q09 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. LA.APP. 922/2008, LA.APP. 923/2008, LA.APP. Si CM No.2351/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. & CM No.78.21/2009 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 (Cross LA.APP. 981/2008 & CM No.1261/2009 (Cross .LA,APP.. 9B2/2008, LA.APP. 983/200S" & CM No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 & CM No.839/2010 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 985/200.8, LA.APP. 997/2008. LA.APP. 1002/2008. LA.APP. 1005/2008, LA.APP. 1027/2008, LA.APP. 1078/2008 & CM No.2247/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. 1127/2008 & CM Nb.2111/2009 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP. 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 & CM No.7791/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 13/2009 & CM No.2151/20q9 (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. No.i432i/2009 (Cross objections), 902/2008, 929/2008 930/2008 960/2008, Objections), Obiectjons}^ 122/2009 123/2009, 1-74/2-009, ^MZOnK-293/2009, 302/2009. & CM LA.APP. LA.APP. I A. APR LA.APP. LA.APP. 124/2009, 250/2009, _25Z72009, 299/2009, 303/2009. LA.App.Nd.266/2008 & connected matters LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 128/2009, 250/2009. ^4/2009,. 301/2009, 365/2009, 433/2009. LA.APP. 449/2009, LA.APP. 461/2009. 47y2009, LA.APP. 487/2009, LA.APP. 501/2009, '5I872T)"09,-'-LA.APP. 527,/2009, LA'.APP. 530/2009, 531/2009, LA.APP. 533/2009, LA..APP. 537/2009. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. JAAPK. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 538/2009. 555/2009, 588/2009, 626/2009, 483/2010, 486/2010, 606/2010 607/2010, 614/2010, 695/2010, 785/2010 786/2010 787/2010, 790/2010, Objections). 916/2010 & LA.APP. 545/2009, LA.APP. 554/20"097 LA.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP. 485/2010, . LA.APP. 604/2010, & CM No.19878/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 608/2010, LA.APP. 609/2010. LA.APP. 615/2010, LA.APP. 671/2010, LA.APP. 705/2010, LA.APP. 734/2010, & Cfwl No.12968/2011 (Cross Objections), & CM No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. 789/2010, LA.APP. 820/2010 & CM No.12880/2011 (Cross i:A-APP. .821/2010, LA.APP. 915/2010, LA.APP: CM No.6773/2011 (Cross Objections), /r U.APP. LA APP LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP. 625/2009' LA APP ^29/2009, LA.APP. 549/2009,' LA APP 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 LAAPP' 227/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010, lX.APP. 3o172010 ^ ^-APP. 410/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010, LAAPP 479/2010, LA.APP. 480/2010, 484/2010, 487/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. U.APP. U.APP. U.APP. _ U.APP. 14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 26/2011 & CM No.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), U,APP. 55/2011 & CM No.12894/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 59/2011, LA.APP. 63/2011, LA.APP. 69/2011, U.APP. 70/2011, U.APP. 72/2011 &CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 76/2011 & CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 114/2011 & CM No.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 135/2011, U.APP. 136/2011 & CM No.12971/2 (Cross 0bjections)011, U.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.l2902/20il (Cross Objections), U.APP. 143/2011, LA.APP. 153/2011, U.APP. 203/2011 & CM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 273/2011 & CM No.13289/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 338/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

27.01.2003 & Award No.11/2004-05, Viliage-Sanoth) • • AND CGRID-QI + U.APP. 336/2010 • & CM APPL.14845/2011, U.APP. 624/2010,. LA..APP. 625/2010, U.APP. 626/2010, • LA.APP. 627/201Q Sc-CM. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections), U.APP. 629/2010, U.APP. 630/2010. U.APP. 642/2010, U.APP. 643/2010, U.APP. 644/2010, U.APP. 645/2010 &. C.M LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Pkge 11 of 74 No.3587/2011 (Cross UDjections), LA.APP. 64672010. LA.APP /Z 664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. 667/2^^ KAPP 668/2010, LA.APP. 659/2010 & CM. No.6769/2011 fCrosg " —LArAPP7--fe^^o/20TGF=^~X:M7n^jra8lB72tn:T (Cross Objections)> LA.APP. 672/2010, LA.APP. 673/2010 & G.M. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, LA.APP 701/2010 & CM. 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. 733/2010 & C M No.12878/2011 (Cross__ObiecJ:iansJ,_..X^^^^ .736/2010, LA.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP. 739/2010 & .C.M. No.3569/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 740/2010 & CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 800/2010 & C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP. 802/2010, LA.APP. 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010, LA.APP 809/2010, LA.APP. 810/2010, LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP. 812/2010, LA.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010, LA.APP. 815/2010, LA.APP. 816/2010 Si C.i^. No.3862/2011 (Criss Objections), LA.APP. 817/2010, LA.APP. 83B/2Q1(), LA.APP. 839/2010 & G.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), LAAPP. 975/2010 & C.M. Nb.2664/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M. Wo.3547/2011 (Cross Objections). LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP. 56/2011 & C.M. No.9939/2011 (Cross Objections), i_A.APP. 74/2011, LA.APP. 95/2011, LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP. 98/2011, LA.APP. 99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011, LA.APP. 104/2011, LA.APP. 105/2011, LA.APP. 106/2011, LA.APP. .107/2011, LA.APP. 108/2011, LA.APP. 109/2011, LA.APP. 113/2011, LA.APP. 165/2011, LA.APP.329/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

27.01.2003 & Award No.10/2004-05, Viilage-Rajapur Kaian) CORAIVi:. HOi»l"BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAMORAJOG

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be aliov^ed to see the judgment?

¶2To'be referred to Reporter ornot?

¶3Whether the Judgment shouid be reported In the Digest? LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters w

¶110 villages; namely. Pooth Khurd, HolambI Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, All Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue District (iSlorth-West)and if we see the map of the city of Delhi —w€-wmild-fmd-thaMI=^esevillages Ile4frthe^^0f^^ part of Delhi. They lie within an area between the 'V' formed by Rohtak Road i.e. ISIH-10 and G.T.Karnai Road i.e. NH-l. The Delhi-Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-1. Whereas villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway line and the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line. Narela and Shahpur Garhi are towards the east of the railway Hne. 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 Bawana industrial Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid.'V'. Historically, except for village Narela, all villages have been treated as equivalent with respect to their location.

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

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001>

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003. Needless to state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time^ on ^^aWSSW^QSWs under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1W47 vast tr^s in said Iff vmages were and 5^vp and pyr.Rpt lands in .the Revenue Estate of vi!!aqe.Mare!a •where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential•••and,.- partly ipsdustrial, in the other villages, acquisitionwas'for the purpose of establishingan industrial;estate or laying down a LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters ^ "Tmd~iy!^eig:ht''.'cgmplex'. Tli'^rT^aswr'-why:. sycn.-'jaiQe' lands were needed'was to set up an industrial estate pursupnt- •. to a deciston taken to shift all, industries operating' i'n non-conforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas,

¶3I must highlight that arguments by teamed counsel for the land -owners were the, .same.in. a.lLappe.^s_,.f|led-'.bythem^as also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and except pertaining to village Narela, where an additional argument was advanced; being that, the township of Narela had • • • ........ i . existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Narela had a better value,an.d 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 f2/- per sq.yd. vis-a-yls price determined for lands in village ' Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight that learned counsel conceded that village SMarela and Mamurpur comprised • the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Handi being in village f^arela and the village abadi being in Mamurpur,- ,4., The position of the awards made from time to time and •• 'the relatable notification under Section 4 of the L'a.nd Acquisition' -• •Act 1894'have been detailed by me while noting the various Land Acquisition Appeals a.nd the Cross "Objections as .per the index hereinabove and thus ! need not repeat the same. ,.5. _ A perusal of all the awards announced from time, to iimei^eaid-'rES¥eaMiia±-±fee-leai:n^-J_and... Acquisition •Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of HCJ Delhi from "•ilme-fo'"ttme-'-notifying the minimum rates for agricoitura!'lands' in Delhi and \¥herever it was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in'p'its havi'ng depths between.. LA.App.No.266/2008(& connectedmatters • . Page14 of74 ^ tne land value has been appropriatelydepressedarid this is to be found In a few awsms^wfterelandslisv^^ 2 or 3 categories 'A', Category 'B' and Category 'C. •

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

7.8.2000 issued wider SectiOR 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 ?13,82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands and ?12.26 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the policy for minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. fl3.82 lacs per acre and has granted increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000 till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fair market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre andiias ignored that there was Category 'B' land for which he. had to make necessary adjustment. B. Pertaining to the same notification dated

7.8.2000 pursuant whereto -211.14 btgha land was acquired io 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 tl3.82 lacs LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters PageIS of74 per acre which has been enharrcecHDy^itre^teaTneciReferer^ Court to f14,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decisIblT~ora -^wi^ttm-Bencfr-oH±ris-^cn1rTe^^ Gairai Vs. W/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 annuTrr^pTerratronTora-p^^^^^^^ 3 years; 8 monthsand 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been determined. C. Pertaining to the same notification dated

7.8.2000 pursLiant whereto agricyltura! 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 fl2.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. The-learned Reference Court maintained the same. D. • 'Pertaining to notification dated

11.9..2000 pursuant vi/hereto agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd were acquired for shifting industrial units, Land Acquisition Collector ha^, for Category 'N lands determined fair market value, with reference to the policy effective from 1.4.2000 in sum of ?13.82 lacs per acre and for Category *B' lands has fixed the same at ?12.62 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted policy wherein minimum price fixed as of

1.4.2000 was ?13.82 lacs per acre and for 128 days i.e. the number of days.'betv^een,1.4.2000 till 11.9.2000/appreciating• same by 12% has determined fair market value at ?14,40,157/- and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands. '.'. E. ^Pertairiing to the odtification dated 2.5.2001 pursuant whereto 1140.5.8 bigha land was acquired in Narela for development of sectors 1 to 4, Phase i, Marela, with respect to policy of minimum price with effect from

1.4.2001 LA.App.Hb.266/2008& connectedmatters ^ learned Land AcquisitionCollectordetermined fair market value in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category lands determined the same at n4 lacs per-isrcre; The learned Rieference 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 ±and-ia[cqmsitiun-Act dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced compensation to ^15,85,700/- per acre which has uniformly "awarded. __ F. Pertaining to notification dated

22.8.2001 whereunder

512.16 bigha land in village Hoiambi Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on minimum price notified as of 1.4.2,001 i.e. ?15.7 lacs per acre which has been held to be the fair market value for Category 'A' lands and for Category *B' lands the same has been determined at ?14 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. ^15.7 lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum, for 143 days an^ the price so fixed is tl6,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded. G. Pertaining to same notification dated 22,8.20(}1 pursuant whereto 512.16 bigha land was acquired in village Alipur, on the same reasoning which ^has been adopted for village Hoiambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same compensation as determined for village Hoiambi Kalan has been worked out by the learned Land AcquisitionCollectoras also by learned Reference Court who has done away with •categofkati^r- - — — -- H. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuantwhereto 192.15 bigha of land was acquired in village LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page17of74 Holambi Khurd, the reasoning of the LAC and learned Reference Court and the price determined is the same as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that: in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in the same uniform category.

¶1Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Rajapur Kalan were acquired reasoning and fair market value determined by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd and Alipur save and except in this village the acquired land was of uniform category. J. , Pertaining to notification dated

7.12.2001 pursuant whereto

222.05 bigha land was acquired in village Sanpth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township, learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed compensation uniformly in sum of fl5.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per the policy for minimum price w.e.f.

1.4.2001 and the learned Reference Court has adopted the same price and given appreciation for 250 days at the rate of 12% per annum to reach the figure of ?16,99,042/- per acre. K. Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has determined compensation in smm of T15:T-tac:s~per 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 find that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page of74 7^ fl7,75,36^9.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as "X^OUl and the base price at f15.7" lacs, fer~l~y^'ahd days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned Additional Sessions judge. L Pertaining to notification dated

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

16.5.2002 and I find that since there is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision of the Reference Court comes to ?17,J9JS1.78 per acre. • pursuant whereto

445.81 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan was acquired, the learned LAC has determined fair market value in sum of ?15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopted the same reasoning as was adopted while deternnining the fair market value of lands in village Holambi Kalan which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the decision in Gairai's case (supra) and appreciating the same by 12% compounded per"annum-the price determined-is f22,14,239/- per acre, fsl. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.5.2002 pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Alipuf were acquired the ^learned Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensationat the rate of ?15.7 lacs per acre based-on the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which price has been adopted as the. base by the-learned ReferenceCourt and after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page19of7v Or Pertaining to notification dated

27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha land in village Sanoth and -2iB-8:^3H5ifhr-^aftd-irrviiiage-RajapurKaIan were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the mininaum price notified as of i A2001 "fixed the same value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages i.e. ?15.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of ?14 lacs per acre and for Category 'C lands in sum of f 12.3 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different reasoning in some Impugned decision and different in a few. In some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted iTiinimumprice in sum of ?15J lacs per acre^-©f^4;5O0t^aM appreciating the same by 12% per annum for a period of 555 days has fixed fair market value at ?19,13,765/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for f539,690/-. .•••;•

¶7Since the learned Lan^ Acquisition Collector as also the learned Reference-Court have relied upon notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi,fixing minimum price for agricuiturartands in Delhi, let me therefore note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertainingto agricuiturallands in Delhi since the same would be relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:-LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page20 of74 --Effe€tl¥e-D0te-Pf4€e— •• • ••% .. increase per annum Notification of the price (In -• fakhs/acre) 1-

3.5.1990

27.4.1990 . 4.65

¶2- •• - — —

25.7.1997

1.4.1997

10.0 .

11.5 "

3.

24.9 1998

1.4.1998

11.2

11..2-.

4.

21.11.-2000 - •12.32

5.

9.8.2001

1.4.1999

1.4.2000

12.16, ..

13.82 '• .

6.

9.8.2001

1.4.2001

15.7

11.5.

7.

30.8.2005

30.8.2005 •

17.584

2.98 ,

8.

24.1.2008

18.12.2007

89.51

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

27.4.1990 in sum of f4.55 lakhs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to flO 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 i^as enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of ?11.2 lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was enhanced to fl2.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was issued price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.1999 to ?12.15 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11% pej laonuiP with reference to the price determined as of same notlflcaMQ::."lti^Z.|20ce...,. was v'" • retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.

1.4.2000 to fl3.82 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum ^vis-a-vis previous i.e. fl2.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose 'by, 11.5% per annum vis-i-vis the previous price of ?13.82 !akhs/acre-to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters enhancedw.e.f. 30.8.2005to n7.584lakhs/acrewhT^ oiv^^ ' -^irmcreaseTjfTJnly^98% per annum and then the price rose to ^53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 I.e. increased 89.51% per annum w.ich referenceto the base figure of ?17.584 lakhs/acre and the date 30,8.2005. —S.—refiecf upon by the land ownersand Union of India beforethe learnedReferenceCourt, it would be beneficialfor the reader of the presentdecision,as I feel, that argunnentsadvancedon eitherside may be noted. I would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument was In the alternativeand it was urged that they would be entitled to price determination as per the first argument, failing which as per the second argument, faili|g which as per the third argumentand so on. From the side of Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by the leamed 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

7.8.2000ror villageBawana;the notificationdated 11.9.2000for village Khera Khurd; the notificationdated 2.5;20Q1 for village Marela; and the notificationdated 22.8.2001for village All Pur; and the notificationdated 27.1.2003for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanothtreatsas if all lands were of uniformcharacterand it j^iirg^ thatxQrrect!ve_e(:;tioni^ by doing 2 things. Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Governmentfrom time to tinne, 11.5% increase per annum and mcrease^^BS excessive "with reference to the ..dates,of the notificationsufiderSectlonAofthe Land Acquisition•- ' Act 1894;YequTfihgthe same to'be reduced to 10% perannum. in tf)e least. Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not • justifiedin treatingall lands as of the' same characterand thus^ LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page22 of74 requiringfurther correctionby suitablydepressing the price for such lands which were put in Category'B' and Category'C by Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to show that such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C, on account of pits and depressions of various depths, as per the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was incorrect.

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

25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as also the~5ateilee"d dated

25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-l/B, 33 bigha and 12 biswa agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ ?26.75 lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of ?32.4 lakhs and adding on the stamp duty paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as of 25.3.2000 tinder Ex.PW-1/3 would be ?28.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2; the land price would be ?63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002,

25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by suitablyincreasingordecreasingthe price. As an extendedlimb of this argument,pertainingto village Marela, it was-urgedthat the price needs to be suitablyenhancedand for which learned counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page23 of74 and for which the argument was that whenVm the ^^ast,-'. pertainingto a notificationissued on 30.10.1963 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894, the Reference Court had given said benefit to agricultural lands in village l^^amurpur-Narefa by giving a. price benefit of f2/- per sq.yd. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8,1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997UO! vs. Dharambir& 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 f16,750/- per,bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to f22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored.

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

¶12Ait^native to the. second siibmissioR, being the third '• submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this ^ Court In the judgment reported as 2001 (.93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters . Page24 of 74 . of India, it was permissibleto determine fair market vafue of acquired lands with referenceto the'fairmarket value deLermined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving suitableincreasein the marketvalueof the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya,learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with referenceto the decisionIn Bed!RBm'^case (supra)as per which price increaseper annum till 30.3.1965had to be @6% per annum with referenceto the base price ?16,750/-per bigha as of 30.10.1953 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dharambir'scase (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum til!

31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various "dates when the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with which L-am.concerned, inlhe present.appeals. So worked out, learned counse! 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 counse! 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 counse! urged that on the same principle market value should be assessed for preceding notifications dated

7.8.2000,

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

165.2002 and

23.5.2002. • .

¶13The fourth argument advanced was, and for which -refe-r-spce was made by learoed-eqw^l for the ,parties in the evidence led in LAC IMo.99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals Le. LA.APP.Mo.26B/2008 filed by the land owners .and LA^PP.No.292/2008 filedJDy UniorLoiindia, that fair market value should have been assessed on. yield basts by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was-the LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page25of74 test-lmgRy of Ram K-tstefr t-e tfie effect that by selling aqncultural 4)j33ditce-fmgLl:Ms4aftds-to earn fl lakh per biqha per ^yoi i.e. theTair 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 val.ue as of said date should-i3e-^20 lakhs 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.Mo.268/2008 and the respondents in LA.APP.No.292/20G8.

¶14The fifth argument .advanced was by Sh.T.P-.S.Kang, Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that, for each of the notification in question the fair market value ought to have been determined with reference to notification _which was closest in point of time \«here under minimum, land value was fixed by the Government-and the notification dated •'

24.1.2008 where under f53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument.-

¶15The last argument, which was in the alternative ta-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 btswa of land com-prised in Khasra Mo.200 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for f5,3§,6#0/-,, determined the fair market value as per the-said,. sale deedlnThe follow!ng'words: (Refer,para 17 of the decision we add stamp the saie price 13.69.906/- per bigha ^5,.39,69(Mi^±.70,169 - 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes to f 17.74,109/- per acre or t3;68,906/- per 'bigha. ' Further if we give 12% LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters' Page2fiof74 — . 5/; increase on said amount for intervening period between the date when the sale deed, executed-^m the date of rmtificationu/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comestoX19,16,037/-(roundofft19,16,040/-)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatabieto the said acquisition i.e. Award No.l0/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 iand.wasput in Cat^ory 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category 'C. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the land being comprised in Khasra Wo.200 and that page No.56-57 or tne-award would evidence tnatna in Khasra No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in Category 'C. Whereas Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair market value as of the date of the notification i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of ?15.7 lakhs per acre based upon the notification dated

9.8.2001 where under said price had been fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had depressed the same by ?1.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was fl4 iakhs per acre and further depress the same by another tl.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'C lands, fair market value determined whereof was ?12.3 iakhs 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 be for Category 'C lands and for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price haa to be increased by fl.7 lakhs per acre for each category.

¶16• ! have already noted hereinabove the arg'uments which were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Pcddar, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in para 9 above and hence t need not repeat the same. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page27 of74 — ^^^

¶17In various sub-paras of para b hereinabove. f have capsuledthe reasoningof the learnedLand AcquisitionGoHectef^ -^nd-Ehe4eam€d-Ref-e-Fe«ce-€0tift pertainingto"the8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 and relatableto the 10 villagesand thus IconnmenceFny journeyto deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collectorand the learned ReferenceCourt as per various sub-paras of para 6 above.

¶18But 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-^-vis the price for Category 'A' lands is ?1.56 lacs per acre and pertaining to the notificationdated 11.9.2000 where price has been determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd, said:price differential has been worked out at ?1.2 lacs per acre and while determining fair market value for agricultural lands in village Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 2.5.2001 the deduction' effected ls.fl.7. facs per acre, which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan was determined as of date

22.8.2001. Pertaining to notification dated" 27,1.2003 and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential on said count has again been taken at fl.7 lacs per acre to Inter se differentiate the-price between Category 'A','Category 'B' and Category-'C lands. .In-other words, the price differential has-varied between fl.2 lacs-per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and fl.7 iacs per acre. LA.App.No,266/2008 & connected matters . • 55 B. The learned Land AcquisitionCollectorhas adopted the minimum price notifiedclosest in pointoftime to the date when Section 4 notificationwas issued without appreciatingthe land price with referenceto the date of the Section4 notificationi.e. no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has been given. £____ The-learned Reference Court has adopted ttie minimum price 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. D. 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 Gairats 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. E. Whereas for notification dated

27.1.2003 learned Reference Court, in some references has determined fair marteet value with reference to the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001, and has given appreciation, in some cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale deed dated ,20.5.2002. F. . Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Collector has classified lands in Category 'A', 'B' and 'C reasons thereof have "been given in the award but the learned Reference Court, while "awarding uniform compensation, has given rio reasons as to why it was treating all landsto be ofsarriexharacter and_Guality. 19, Since I am dealing v^ith acquisitions in 10 villages and 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters ^ Page29 of74 5 u iBCtS,..! .be"my data for f^l^r^alysis. Put in a tabular form the data would. be as unden-Village • Date . •of Section Notification LAC connpensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons ADJ compensation (in lakhs/acre) with reasons Pooth Khurd

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' f 13.82 Cat. 'B' fl2.26 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 Cat. Uniform. ?14.3728. Minimum price as of

1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a; Hofambi Kalan

7.8.2000 fi3.e2 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 ?14.12995. Price as in Ga/raf s case as of

15.11.1996 with 12% increase" p.a. Holambi Kalan

22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Cat. 'B' ?14 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. ?16.43811. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Holannbl Kalan

23.5.2002 ?15.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001. f22.14239. Price as in Gairafs case as of

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

7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' f 13.82 Cat. 'B'a2.62 Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 No enhancement given. Khera Khurd;

11.9.2000 Cat. 'A' n3.82 Cat. 'B'n2.62 Minimum price as '0X1.4.20011 •. Cat. Uniform. fl4.40157. Minimum price as of

1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a. '— — . Narela

2.5.2.001 Cat. 'A' fl5.7 Cat. 'B' fl4 , Mirsimum price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. Uniform. . 1^5.857.^ > Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with. LA>App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page30 of 74 All Pur Ali Pur Holambi Khurd Rajapur KaiarT Rajapur Kalan Sanoth

22.8.2001

23.5.2002

22.8.2001

22.8.2001

27.1.2003

7.12.2001

27.1.20Q3 Cat. 'A' n5.7 Cat.'B'?14 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as nsj Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 as.7 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 a5.7 as price as of 1.4.2001 Cat. 'A' fl5.7 Cat. 'B' fl4 Cat. 'C fl2.3 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 fl5.7 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 Cat. ''A' fl5.7 Cat. f ^ Cat. 'C ?12.3 Minimum price of 1.4.2001 as as LA.App.No.266/2008Sc connectedmatters 12% increase p.a. fl6.43811. Ninimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. ?17.8524 Minimum price as or l:?:2"00l with 12% increase p.a. ?16.43811 Minirrium price as of

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

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a.

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

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

¶2a9.1604 for Uniform category-based on' sale deed dated

25.5.2002 with 12% increase p.a. n6.99042. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. fl9.13765 . .for Unifcrm categery. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Page31 of 74 ShalipuF

16.5.2CK)1- - ....... Mimrritirn-pncH-^asr -otl 4 2001 Minimum price as -Bf —with" x • k a ^ W W -lU I ' . ^ m w* W ^ y w 1 b I compound interest @ 11.5% p.a. SJmh^jur Garhi

233.2002 Cat.'A'n5.7 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 f17.79781. Minimum price as of

1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5% p.^a.

¶201 now propose to deal with the 5 submissions urged by learned couhse! for the land owners and the 2 submissions urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the iand owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to Union of india).

¶21The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3-which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market vaiue for the former comes to ^26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter (§> ?63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultuFal lands, for all the villages in question 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 Sura] Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC Mo.58/2005 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.PvV-1/2 has likewise been held not to be reisabSe evidence to determine fair market value of agrlcuituraS . lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Mon Government • Organization"ChristianOrganization"and as per the testimony LA.App.No.266/200§& connectedmatters of PW-7 Sfster Annie, the secretary of the organizationstkted ha44e--^av-^the^-0ffee-ff>rt-hp qairi piece of land as it was the only plot of the requisitesize suitablefor the requirementof the organizationand is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

¶22As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 LandAcquisitionOfficerBuru &Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini&Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009

(14) SCC 369 Mohd. 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.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special, circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would: be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had .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 leaser price i.e. ?17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes to ?53.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex,PW-l/3, LA.App,No.266/2008&connectedmatters . Page33 of7^.. ^^ themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price

¶23Thus/ apart from reasoning of learned Reference Couit, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefronn fair 4aaa^k@t-valueIol-subiecLlaads_carL-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 sal^ deeds having intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated

19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.lSlo.193/2005Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs l/s. UPfSi Ofs. It was highlighted tnM~the sale deed therein 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 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 instantcases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PV^-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argumentignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not acceptthe value in the sale deed on its own logicas indicative of the market value, bur fouM that if the price therein was reduced by l/S'^ the price arrived at would be the same as LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page34of74 would be price arrivedat with referenceto the average rate of the saledeeds producedby the Union of India i.e. the safe deeds produced by the Governmentwere giving a price of ?1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed underwhich L&T had purchasedthe land gave the.price?3,26,600/-per bigha and the averagewoyid was" near about price of f2,15,160/- per bigha, if would be deducted from the sum * of f3,26,500/-, it may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. f2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench Is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. would highlight once again, that 1 have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutua% destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value.

¶24• Thus, tlie first argument as noted in para 10 above' is rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of argument that after accepting said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to village- ^ view of the decision in Dharambir's case (supra), land"p?Tc¥shGu be suitably enhaWc'ed'^uld be dealt wii-h hy mp at thp pnri whpn 1determine the fair market value of lands for the villages in question.

¶25The second argument,, contours whereof are-- to' be found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the LA.App.No,266/200S&corm^^ctedTnatters Page35 of74 IfV Court on the issue as per the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UOI.

¶26But before that I must highlight that the decision in Lai Chand'sjcase (supra) predicated a claim on a OOA brochure whereunder, on iease-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-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnai Road and Rohtak Rpad. 27, Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring agricultural lands, developing same and transferring perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevarst to iodiistrial layouts, in" paras 11 to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- "Whether the DDA brochisra.Js 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 allotnrient of plots on leasehold basis: SL No^Plotsize Category Rate (per square metre)

¶126 sq m Economically weaker sections Rs 100 ims)

¶232 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125 d.R sq m Low inrnme group (UG) Rs 15.0— ~47~ 60,sq m Middle income group {M\G) Rs 200 5, 90 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters • Page36 of74 150 per square metrp hA f-au the-sHTCi pTwI^ionairates, should be taken as mdicatjveof tl^e ruling marketprice. Inch consideration,we are of the view that such aHotnaent rates of plots adopted by develoDment authoritieslike DDA cannot form the basis for awaS of compensation-for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several-reasons. Firstly, market value has to be deternnmedwith referenceto large tracts of undeveloped rai-p^^nrn ^ whereas the allotment cmffi °L authorities are with reference to small pots ma developedlayoutfalling within urban area. f ^ statutory authorities adopt differentratesror plots mthesame area with referenceto the ^ononiiccapacityof the buyer, making it difficultto ascertain the real market value, whereas market value aeterniinationfor acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. concerned with market value of freehold mm, whereas the allotment"rates" in the DDA brochure referto the initial premium payableon allotmentof plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors. First factor .13. The percentageof "deductionfor development"to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development),with reference to the sale price of small developedplots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developedplots, the percentagedepending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated.

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

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

¶16On the other hand, if the residentialplot is in an unauthorisedprivateresidentiallayout,the percentageof "•dedticti&n-^for-devete^ent'—may be far less. This is lui because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgroundsand communityfacilities. Even ifany land is set apart, it is likeiyto 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 deductionon accountof the two factors in respectof plots In unauthorisedlayouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% In all 40% as against 75% in regard to DOA plots, '

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

¶18^ The positionwith referenceto industriallayoutswii! be different. As the industrial plots will be large {say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the si2e of residentialplots measuring100 sq m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.

¶19If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. [Note. The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proofto the contran/.) •20. Therefore the-dedyctioo. for the "development factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction LA.App.No,266/2008&connectedmatters Page38of74 ^5 with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is als€-'#elf-knovm that the developmentcost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers/having regaf4-t& higher overheads and expenditure.

¶21Even 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, residentiai- --Gym-€©mmeFc4a{-0f4R^ustr4 an4^vefvamong residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community -fseilittes, parks and playgrounds provided.

¶22Sonie of. the layouts formed by t^^^^ statutory develepmsnt authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is 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 fBctor •

¶23DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon economic status of the allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots naay 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 beldngihgto high incomegroups. '

¶24The 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 a^i^lits formallotment. • Third factor LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page39 of74 .. 7S Some development authorities aMot Plot| freehold basis, thatjs, lesserpremium,and more substantialannualrent. annual^'rertarvalufS ^ n^flthods'for long, the rent premium rate (anotm^t"pricl)chargedby DDA, as being equal to the marketvalueof the proper^. referred to

¶27However, in view °f ^ rL upon the above, it is not. safe or^_ regardto the plotsformed allotmentrates/auction determiningthe market by DDA in a developedlayout, ndeterminny vLe of the adjoiningundev^ DDA brochureprice has thereiore w uc , not relevant."

2.^ Theevidenceon the subjecthas been discussedby ihe learnedReferenceCourtand1reproducethe same by extracting from LAC Reference No.ll7A/2009. The argumentadvance before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was :rcrd beforeme, has been noted by-l.r.~ courtwith referenceto the evidencereliedupon. 1-r^^^^ ..W. counsel that DDA &DSIDC allotted pote m rate. Area and Narela .gy-er dated 04.01.2000 He has relied Pkt 03, Sector A-5, issued by DDA of chander at the Nareia which f which he has proved as ..pre-determmed 25 05.2003 of ploi Ix. mm. Aliotment letter dated 70 Sq. no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-OS 3 - metres in ''~^=,7hoththis and allotmen S'ifofg'of'ilstrialpiot allottedby DS.DC i.e. ^ Page40of74 LA.App.No.266./2008&connectedmatters • plot no^270, measuring 350 sq. yards at iMarela _ Sndustriai Complex at the rate of t650 so. metrpg whirh is Ex. PW3/1 and another allotment letter dated

25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at f3000 per sq. metres. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW9 Kanwa! Singh & document Ex. PWll/1, which1s detail of land acquired, St is apparent ^that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost -o^-d€V€iopmeR^er bigha wmild-be-d-7§44dOOOO = T248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling al-ternateplot in IMarela 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 = 17719856 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 f3,27,083/- per "fetgtraT""-^— ^^ ^ 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 (Coliy). Ld. Counsel has argued that totai expenditure incurred on development of fSlarela 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 year 2000 at which DSIDC sold plot ?3000/- per sq. yards Total earning == ?4083750000 Total expenditure — ^720525901 Total profit = ^3363223099 •?2470' per-sqrTS^" "Ot'"?247"0000 per bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of ..?2M2ai.7..per bigha ^ . Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded compensation @ ?327083 per LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page41 of 7'* % bigha for the land in question if 2Q0% appreciation of the comes to ^§§4166. if the amount is deducted from galp • _ Mce._per bigha i.e. ?24700000, figure comes to f1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same." evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference tp the Bawana Industrial Estate 4@v€lop€4 by DSiDC and f^arela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we,do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in Lai Chand's case (supra), which render this evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in the subject cases.

¶30It is no doubt true, as held even—fey^-the—learned-Reference Court, that with developiment of Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Marela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value to v/hich the building potentiality would translate itself.

¶311hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Laf Chands 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.

52." The third submission in the alternative was based upon the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Sedl Ram's -case-tsupsd), disu the bubmission is db noted m para 12 hsrejn above. The land owners require the price determined in Dharambifs case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page 42 of74 . . . u; Mamurpur to be treatedas the basis and progressivelyIncreased,firstly by 6% per annum, then by 10% perannum and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby ^etermirte the fair market value for the 8 notificationsin question.

¶33It be highlightedthat in case (supra), with reference to the base date as: of the year 1959, for the year 1975 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied the progressive increase method by firstly enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for ^ the remaining3years.

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

¶47The appellants contend that some lands in Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs 7000 per bigha. Their contention is that as the present 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 cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONCC Ltd. V. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai PatellQ. this Court held: (SCC p. 751, para 15) "15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining market value by providing — -appropriate escalation overthe~pn5wd~rnarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as e¥td€ft€€d-by-s-ale transaetmns or seqttlstttons), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions qr acquisitions of comparable lands in neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page43of74 - where -—~ sate tFaRsaetbns/aequfsitiofis precede subject acquisitionby oniy a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neigtibouringland. Whatmay be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining^the market value of a land "th^ ahnoBl 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 'i"ate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of : increase." (emphasis supplied)

¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy 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 vaiue, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports discJose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing price with reference to old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any use for determining market value for a 1981 acquisition."

¶35ft is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi /?a^^s-€ase-4su^) runs in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case -|sti^fa)r which decision foHcjws-wr-earlier decision of the Su^eme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. '/5. Rameshbhai Hvanbhai Patel. LA.App.No.266/2008&.connectedmatters k'l

36.- gooci reason not to follow the law laid down In Bedi Rsm'^ case (supra) for the reason I find that a Co-ordinateDivision Bench of this Court, in the decisionreported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) SaraswstiPmn &Ann Vs. UP! &Ors., pertainingto agriculturailands in village Namurpur-Narela, did not apply the progressivepercentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambir'z case (supra) as of the year 1953, which would have resulted in the land price being determined in villageNamurpur-Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ f2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the increase @ ?1000/- per bigha. if Bedi Ram's principle was applied the price would have come to approximately ?50,000/- per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at ?33,0Q0y-per bigha.

¶37That apart, as wouid be noted herein after by me, while discussing on the issue of the fair market, value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.Mo.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Sinah vs. UP! & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one village with whixh 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 biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of

15.11.1§§6 was determined @ n,99,904.58 bigha which equals to ?9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant ¥/ou!d it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the Government was ?I0 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.Nb.266/2008&connectedmatters Page45.of74 determined by the Division Bencii wouid equal the minimum price notified by the Government. ' —-^M-^^^^^efe-t-d-take-^he-prrce-as—@ ' ?9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximatelythe same as determined by the learned Reference Court if 1give 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 holisticaliydiscussingthe subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8 notifications in question.

¶39The .fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh-S.Chaturvedl, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan and others, the appellants in LA.APP.IMo.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APP.ISIo.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 fl jakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce.

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

¶41The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on

4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging to the family were not toeing put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallacious no doubt, for the reason it Is matter of common knowledge that by the 3'"^ week of September, rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grovwn, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page46of 74 s) sown"afmitTd"the first week or the second week of s^dvember ....ea.ch;year.

¶42But the other reasoningofthere being no evidenceled in the form of docunnentsIs relevant. [Mow, as perthe testimony of Ram Kishan he was working as an AdministrativeOfficer in the Nunicipai Corporationof Delhi tlH 31.3.1996I.e. was not a tiller himselftill said period and thereafter earned a pension. If the family, as claimed by him, was earning?i lakh per bigha,for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annuaHf^eome-wotfld be fI9 lakhs and one fimis ft strange that not-a peony was Ifwested 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 other\A/ise. The trader to whom the produce was sold has not been examined. No proof of number of workers employed., diese! purchased to run the tube-well; if any, to Irrigate the fields or electricity biils paid if the pump was eiectricaily 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 Sands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of.the yield and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has,been rightly • •rejected. / • • ' 4^. - -ff tlT€f€ is Fellabie evidence of an independerit expert or -there is other-wis-e—r-eliable evideneeT—as—was—found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as jT'1997

(1) SC 444 State of Guiarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors.. pertaining to'the .yield from agriculturai larsd, only then it would be safe to • determine fair market value by applying principle of LA..App.No,266/2008&, connectedmatters Page47 of 74 being 10trmesthe annoat-yteWand not 20 times as was sought to be projected. The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted herein above in para 14. by Sh.T.P.S.Kang.Advocate was that the mean average principie be adopted with refe^^ to the notification dated 24.1.2008.

¶45In para .7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time to time. ! highlight that the notifications with which ! am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001,; 22.8.2001,

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

1.4.2000, 1,4.2001 and 30.8;2005. Thus, there vypuld be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under notification dated

24.1.2008 which is w.e.f.

8.12.2007 i.e. is 4 years away from, the last year with which I am concerned i.e. the year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given valiies, requires the 2 end, points to be the' ones which would toe cio^sest^to-^he-^oint for the mean average has to be determined. 1 am left-to deal with the last submission, as noted in -para 15 hereirratnjve,"aimforwhidi t highlight that the learned Reference Court has, pertaining to notification date^i

27.1.2003 determined the fair market value 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 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters has determinedthat based thereon the price as of said toe months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003the price would be ?19,16,037/.per acre rounded off to n9,16,040/-per ^ acre.. ^

¶47With referenceto the Award No.l0/DC{l\}W)/2004-05It is apparentthat land comprisedin Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category'C land. The sale deed in questionpertainsto the same land and indeedthere is logicthat if said sale deed had to be accepted,itwould reflectfair market value of Category'C land. As per the learned Land Acquisition Collector?l.7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressionsfor land in Category *B' and further sum of ?1.7 JakbSJOeiL^rrP whulri ha «ll Category'C land, meaningtherebydepressionsin Category'B' land were Jess vis-^-visCategory;G' land. In other words, with referenceto Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C land would have to be reducedand vice-versa,vis-a-visCategory'C land, the price for Category -B' land and for Category 'A' land wouldbe requiredto be increasedsuitably.

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

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001,

7.12.2001,

16.5.2002, i.e. dates on which notificationswere issued under Section4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act 1894.

¶49i have, in para 37 above, noted a decisionof a Di\|ision Bench of this Court in LA.APP.!Slo.866/2005 decided on LA.App.No.266/2008 8cconnected matters Page 49 of 74.

11.5.2006, Mahender Siiwh -wlfage-SawamT-fetf-fn^micet^sTattje^ cfetermi as of 15.11.1996 is n,99,904.68per hiaha whicji_eq,u_alsto ?9,59,542.46peracf^ The said decisionwould be relevanton 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 acquireda potentialityinasmuchas. as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based On population growth, 5 villages in rural De4hi were identified for providing major health factHtresy schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted that G.T.KarnalRoad and RohtakRoad were providinggood access to village Bawana and. that the Master Plan for Delhi notified in the year 1990 had indicatedthe land use in the area to be changed in the future to industrial and commercial, but had also -utjservedthat notwitHsTsri^mgTlTis;for the reason no zonal plarT was notified as contemplated by Section llA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, lands continued to be used for agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision. To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being known to ail 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 buiit upon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so expressly stating, would be a propo^tlon'Th^ there is a difference between undeveloped land having building LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters PageSO of 74 ^ potentiality in present! vIs-^-vIs a land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was ?9,59,542.46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. notification dated 25,7_.l_991_where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was ?10 lakhs per « acre. Interestingly, the same Division B^nch had pronounced another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gairai Sinoh vs. UP! & Ann, where pertaining to agricultural lands in IP village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated

15.11.1996, fair market value determined for Category 'A' lands was ?9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was ?9,51,121/- per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands In village Bawana. It needs to be highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with referenceto developmentwork carried out in the,surrounding lands was considered. 1 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 valu^ as of 19.3.1993 (@ n.30,523/- per bigha i.e.t6,26.510.40 per acre. The decisionis r-eporteclas20a4 (4) AD (Delhi)20 Ram Chandervs. 6^0/andthe as perthe decision-T^orted^lll (2004) DLI 95 Hukum Sinoh vs. UOl pertaining to a notificationdated

14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ n,40,230/-per bigha i.e. f6,73,104/-per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page51 of74 : "Tfie -afgf:esaIg~7udgments-^-QQtedlin preceding paragraphs as also the varioiis 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 t# determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was t4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to flO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i,e. the increase is ?5.35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as, of 1.4.2001. Jt 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 Gaira/s case (supra), which 1 have discussed in para 49 above.

¶51\ need to elaborate a little more with respect to the decision in Gairafs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed 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 capitalizedthe land price at ?9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussingthe second method of land prices of comparable lands in the —stm=©tjndmg-si=easirjcludmgprotentfaitty7^ 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjoiningvlliageBhorgarhwhere FC! Godownshad come up and — t5asecr~on sate instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.No.266/20p8&connectedmatters Page52 of74 5-?- would come to ?10,03,364/-per acre (Referpara 31). The Court then consideredthe prices.Botified by the Governmentas per policy dated 1.4.1997and thus worked out the mean average figure of ?9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and f9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlightsthat the poteotiafityhad b@^o-W€ll-faGt0redin when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f.

1.4.1997,evidenced by the fact that even with respectto sale transactionsthe Courtfound that as againstthe minimum price notifiedas of 1.4.1997 atflO lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlightingthat the pricewas fl0,03,364/- per acre.

¶52. The decision in MahenderSinah'z.case, pertaining to viliageBawam,referredto by me in para 49 above, highlights 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 industriai future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality/ had noted that notwithstanding the Master Pian 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, virtualiy no development had . taken place in village Bawana-and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there Is a gap between what would be expected 'to be the-market growth and what the market actually grows. ~Th"e~~dec1slons in Gairafs case and" 'Watrender Smalis case -highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality betwe'en 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum.and thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the • LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters PageS3 of74 requisite momentum and the acceleration fei! to between 10% to be developed, both residential,commercialand industrialand probably there was enough availabilityof developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

¶53The empiricalevidence i^n 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 hereinabovefor 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 AcquisitionCollector pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan teamed Reference Court has held that as per the •said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the'date of the sale le. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultura! lands would be fl9j6,040/= per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for f5,39,690/- and f70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that ?6,09,850/- (f5,39,690/- + ?70.160/-) were spent-would yield the price ,f17,74,109/- per-" acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.

¶54• Thus, best which could be said as most' favourable situation for the land owners-would be that with •reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.20,02 for Category 'C - lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would be f17,74,109/- per acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land -th^-pfics woyld—h-svsi-o be s-yita-bly^RTranced srsd here we find another area of dispute for the reason, as noted bf me hereinabove in sub-para

(a)-of. para 18 the learned Land-Act|Ufsition -Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App,No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page54of 74 sometimesfl.2 lai<hs per acre, sometimesfl.56 lakhsper^re and sometimes?1.7 iakhs--peracm fromMm-^iice-^f^Category 'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C as wett the price has been deducted further by fl.7 lakhs per acre.

¶55Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the 4aMs-aRd4-Rete#}at categofizatton is feas-ed-^nlyon the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths ~fBqtftnn§-thesame to be leveled and this would require money to be spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition Collector held, in some awards that ?1.2 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that ?1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that fl.7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There is just no clue.

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

15.11.1996. In Gairai Sinah's case the price for Category/ 'A' land determined was f9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price determined was ^9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about

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

¶57I thus hold that Gairai Sinofi's case should be my guiding star for pric^ 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 differentia! should be 2.5%.

¶58Thus, if ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7.75 lakhs per •aCTe wcRTi^^'th'B'prlce^wa'Xrategmy 'CTan^lrr^Ha'ge Rajapur Kafan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 LA.App;No.266/2008.&connectedmatters Page55 of74 admittedly pertains to a Categjory:^^' land., price for Category 'B' land would be ?18.20 lakhs per acre and—f Xm:egDTy^W-laTTd^oi3td"&eTlB:e5S 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 fl3.82 lakhs -af}d-a5-^^-74r-200i-the-sarRe was f 15.7-fakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If I treat Category 'A' land price at ?18.655 iakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately fl6.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at tlb.l 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 evidence tcTv^fk ouT^lalTd price on a date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page56 of74 !.8.20<)1 and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small Inasmuch as the sale deed in questionis dated 25.5.2002and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be. a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into account while determining 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.

¶60The 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-a vis the adjoining villages ?2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambii's 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 concernecftoday, the price differentialfaded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.

¶61I thus hold that pertaining to the notifications dated

7.8.2000:.

11.9.2000,

2.5.2001,

22.8.2001 and

7.12.2001 land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum price notified by 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 determined! Pertaining "to the notifications dated

16.5.2002,

23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to be determined with respect to the sale deed dated

25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page$7 of74 toecay r^^€fke to-the -satd ssie price land price as of said date comes to more than ifdetermined with respect to the notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified was ?15.7 lakhs per acre with effect from

1.4.2001.

¶62With respect to the price differential for Category 'A' and Category 'B' lands, noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in village Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only). Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated

22.8.2001) I hold that v/is-^-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.

¶63Before I work out the compensation and since it would be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantially in the other, a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated

23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined fair market value at ?22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, iDtft hieed to~higtitight that pertaimng to tHe same notification dated

23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur learned Reference Court has det^imiiTed-the fair market value at ?17,85,240/- per acre and ! find that pertaining to village Rajapor-Kalan and Sanoth, pertaiTfmg~to~the notification dated

27.^2^3 the fair 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&connectedmatters Page58of74 m mesrmw^rsb?that rnUS, lesser corr^SSsatoTl^bee.^^"^ worked out in the year 2003 vis-^-visthe compensationworker out for Hoiambi. kalan pertaining to the^ notification dated

23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said notificationthe land pricedeterminedin Ga/ra/scase (supra)as of 15.11.1996has been taken and increasedat the rate of 12% per annum compounded. - Villaqe'Pooth Khurd i^otificatlQndated

¶54With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notificationI.e. 7.8.2000and with reference'to the safe deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Categoiy'C lands, land price per acre comes to fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7J5,000/- per acre, and for Category'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5%'theprice comes to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2,5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/-per acre for Category'A' lands; a.nd decreasingthe said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands In village Pooth Khurd comes to ?14.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing same by 2.5%, it comes to ?14,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the iearned 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-fi,000/- per acT-e-arsdthus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference -• Court. . • •

¶65Ay Land,Acquisition Appeals fiied by the Union of India and cross objections wherever fiied by Union of India in the LA.A-pp.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page59 of 74 appeals fHed by land ownemjBjsspecUtmemotw^^^ Ail Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appealsfiled by iinion of India are allowed by decreeingcompensationpayable for Category 'A' lands In village Pooth Khurd pertainingto the notificationdated 1.4.2000in sum of fuTlS lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at fl4,37,280/-per acre is'maintainedand thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed. i

¶67Pertalmhg-tb such appeal where the compensation stands enhancedstatutorybenefitsas per the Land Acquisition explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. IJO/2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted,exceptfor the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection,for which periodof delay no intereston the enhancedcompensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. VtliaaeHolambIKaian Motificationdated 7.8.2QQQ-

¶68For the reasoninggiven in paras 64 to 67 heretnabove pertainingto the notification(same) dated 7.8.2000 relatingto village HolambI Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and, cross objections stand disposed of enhancing' the compensationto ?14.75 lakhs per acre and I highlightthat as per the award and even as per the referenceall subject lands •were of unlforrocMmQf-^--Me-edless..fco-.stateappealsfiled "by^he Union of India and cross objectionswhereverfiled are dismissed. Appealsand cross objectionsfifed by land ownersare allowed,by •• —enhancingthe-compensatlonto fl4.75 Fakhs per acre together •with statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page60 of74 explained in tlie judgment reported as Sunder \/s. uni. DLT 569, exceptfor tjie--perio4where fel^€i^-4s-a-4efaymfiling appea! or cross objection, for wfiich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These appellantsor cross objectorswould be entitledto proportionate cost. ViiSaae Bawana Motification dated 7.R.7nnfi .._j69^ Pertaining to village Baw.ana___relatingto the same notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court enhancedthe compensation,for parityof reasoning,fair marketvalue for Category"^'lands is fixed at f14.75 lakhs per Category 'B' lands at fl4,3^ per acre and noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objection,appeals as per 'GRID-C hereinaboveare allowed by fixing compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and needless to state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be erstitiedto statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. i^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. Viliaqe Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.20QQ

¶70VVith reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect fi-om 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per acre is ?13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to .-.fl7J4,IQS/-,..._.x£!,unded.-..off tO-X17,75,000/- .per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page61 of 74 to fl8.2 iakhs per acre and further ir^creasing-by 2.-prices comes to ?18,55,500/- per acre for Category 'A' iandsT^^gnd decreasing the said prices ByXl% 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 f14,83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by -2T5%7it:e©mes-"t6^-474674^3/- pef~a€fe-for Category-'B' lands.

¶71All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable 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 ?14,46,413/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. ! 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. £/0/2QQl

(93) DLT 559 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay m filing the appeal, i for which period of delay no interest on enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Vlilaae Narala Notification dated 2.5.2001

¶72With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.7 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated

25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes, to fl7,74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page62 of74 , • . to fie.2 lakhs peracre and furthermcreasingby 2.5% the prices •decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect,the. price with reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean average price for Category'A' lands in village Kiarela comes to ?16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it —per acre f©f~Gate§0F^-'-B'lands. Moting. thatthe learnedReferenceCourthas, withoutany reasons,done away-with Category 'B' lands .and .uniform price-awarded is. f15,85,570/-per acre and since for Category'B' lands the price workedout by me is less by ?9,000/-per acre which is a meager ' amount, I hold that for Category'B' lands the price'determined would be as per the'reference but for Category.'A'lands the _ price stand^ej

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

2.5.2001 in sum of fl6,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order for Category 'B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objectionsfiled by Union of India as also such appeals which relate to Category 'B' lands filed by land owners are dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced -cpmireTi-satlon•statotorrbenefits'as'per the.Land AcquisitionAct "•1B94 as expialn^'lh the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569-shall be gra.oted, except for the-period where there is a delay in•filing the appeal, for which period of delay no LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 63 o'f74 interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These wouiQ Be entitled te propt^tfoTO —

¶74With reference to the notification dated

9.8.2001 -wherem-^mMr-effeCifiurn 1.4:2^1 "minimum price notified per acre is fl5.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date.^f the notification i.e.

22.8.2001and with referenceto the sale deed dated 25,5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to a7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7.75,000/- per acre, and for Category'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and further increasingby 2.5% the prices comes to f18,65,500/- 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 Holambi Xaian comes to fl6,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to fl6,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands., Moting 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 f9,0C)0/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount a-warded by the iearned Reference Court.

¶75AH 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 "prepaT€d and labeled as 'GRID-P & ^GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed.

¶75Ail Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by LA.App.No.266/200§ 8c connected matters Union of India are allowed by decreeingconnpensationp^ble for Category'A' landsinvillageHofarntotKaIdn pertaiTrrtrgto the notificationdated 22.8.2001in sum of n6,74,500/-per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at ?16,43,811/-per acre is maintainedand thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶77Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhancedstatutorybenefitsas per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explainedin the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted,exceptfor the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or crossobjection,for which periodof delayno intereston the enhancedcompensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost ViHaoe All Pur NotificatiQn dated 22.8.2QQ1

¶78With reference to notification dated

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

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to f17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices connes 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'.AM^ndsin village Aii Pur comes to ?16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' iands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters Page65 of 74 theteametf Reference Court away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarpTecns *««;43;8il7t-percrcTe,the price differentialworked out by me comes to a meager?9,000/-per acre and thus qua Category'3' lands Imaintainthe amountawarded by the learned Reference Court. in respectwhereofgrid has been preparedand labeledas 'GRID-H; hereinaboveare dismissed. \ note that land owners have not filed any appealchallengingthe decisionofthe ReferenceCourt.

¶80There shall be no order as to costs. Villaoe Holambl KSiurd Motificationdated 22.8.?nni

¶81With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be syltably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.

22.8.2001and with referenceto the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to fl7,74.109/-. rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and furtherincreasingby 2.5% the prices . comes to ?18,65,500/- 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 _BV£f:ag£_4M:ice--foi:-Categ^'A' lands-4fv-¥Ulag«HH©lafnbH^^r comes to ?16,74,500/-per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to fl6,32,637.504)er.acre,lorCategory'B' lands. "1^^ifsg~tnaTTT^T^hed Reference Court has, without any reasans^ dnzie_aMaywith-Categ@p/-S^-iands-aRduniform price awarded is fl6,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager f9,000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/20b8&connectedmatters Page66 of74 Category—B lands !—cnaintain-th€—arnotmt—awardedby the learned Reference Court.

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

¶83There shall be no order ;as to costs. ViHaoe Rai'apur Kalan Motlfication dated 22.8.20Q1

¶84With reference to notification dated

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

22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre Comes to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to ?18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price®for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to f16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by

2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is f16,43.811/- per acre, the price differential worked out .by me comes to a meager f9,OQOir_pfir-acra_arLdthus qua Category 'B' lands 1 maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.

¶85All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters . Page67 of74 - ^. TP-appeai^-fHedby iand ownersin Tespect whereef-i^d-^jas-^beeB prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J'hereinabove are dismissed.

¶85All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the land owners and cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by.decreeingcompensationpayable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notificationdated 22.8.2001in sum of?16,7^500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands compensation awarded, at fl6,43,811'/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.

¶87Pertaining to such appeal where compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UQl 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. Vinaae Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001

¶88With reference to notification dated

9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is fl5.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saic^l price to be suitably updated to reach date of the notification i.e.

7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ?17.74.1Q9/-- rounded off to fl7,75JlQ0/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2,5% the price comes to fl8.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to fl8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with LAApp.No.266/2008 & connectedmatters Page68 of 74 reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean average price for Category^A';lands in villageSanoth comes to fl7.29,500/-per acre. Moting that all lands in villageSanothas per the award and as per the ReferenceCourtare ofsame value i hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the •. notLficatim.,dat£d7.12.?OQl the 'lai5d-DW{i-ef^#oul4--bentitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of fl7,29,500/-.

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

¶90Ail Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in. appeals fifed by Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of •f17,29,500/- 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. UP! 2001 (93) DLT ^69 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.~

¶91Pertaining, to village Shahpor Garhi, as held by. me 'hereinabove the land price.m^ould have to be determined with reference to,the saie 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 jost a .differen€e-Bf--4 days between, the date of sale and the notificatio.-n'I maintain-that for the notification in question dated-16.5.20'02 the land, owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of fl8,65,500/- LA.App.No.266/2008&coimectedmatters Page69 of74 amfl highjignt that as pertfTe^wgrd"gttf^mg^er^ ail iands are in the same category. Appealsand crossobjections 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. UOI 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. Viiiaci© Shahg^yr GbvM dated 23,5.20Q2 •

¶92Pertaining to notification dated

23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differentia! 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 fl8,55,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. UP! 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-!^' stand allowed as aforesaid and ail appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are dismissed.

¶93As, noted by me pertaining to the notification dated

23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all iands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition LA.App.No.266/2008ffe connectedmatters . Page 70 of74 Coliector and learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awarded. CQCQpeasation m sum Qi_ ?22,14,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have heltf that fair market value would be ?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. No costs. Village AH Pur Motiflcation dated 23.5.2002

¶94Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine fair market value payable at fl8.65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India as per 'GRID-0'are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancingthe compensation payable to fl8,65,500/- per acre on which statutorybenefitsas per Land AcquisitionAct as interpretedin the Judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT,559 shall be paid save and except in such appeals or crosi objectionswherethere is a delay, interestwould not be paid for the periodof delay. Proportionatecostsas well. village Sanoth Motlfjcatton'dated

27.1.2003

¶95Pertainingto the appeals and cross objectionsby the land ownersand Union of India as per 'GRID-P' pertainingto the notificationdated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sahoth, 1 note LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page71 of7# that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has p|a€€€i-4he4aiid-s—— irn3-xategoftes-ancH-frnd-^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 iRC£@asmg-tb^-4id£e.-as--af-a.4-,2 reference to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing -san=re-vdth-^refer^nce-to sale deed dated

20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comes to fl§,43,5Q0/- per acre and for Category land the price comes to f18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ?18,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at ^9,13,765/- 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. Appealsand Cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of fl9,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced compensationstatutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as interpretedin the judgmentreportedas Sunder Vs. UOi 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be jDaid sWe and except in such appeals and cross objectionswhere there is a delay. Interest would hot be paid for the periodof delay. Proportionatecostsas well. The appealsand cross objectionsfiled by Union of India pertainingto Category'B' and Category'C lands are allowed by -d€efe€-4n Reference Order Dy reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C iand to fl8,47,539.68 per acre. VillaqeRasapurKagan Motiflcationdated ?7.1.200,^

¶97For parityof reasoning/asper para 96 above pertaining to village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to notification dated

27.1.2003relatingto villageRajapurKalan and where Ifind that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of ^9.13,765/- per acre and in some cases at fl9,16,040/- 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 reference to the sale deed dated

20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands! the pHee-comes^to-^i97437506/=-peracre-^and-forCategory 'B' land the pricecomesto ?18,94,912.50per acre and for Category 'C lands the price comes to ?18,47,539.68 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 Jhdia 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 fl9,43,500/- per acre and needless"to state-orrthB eTihanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2Opi:-(95h-0tT—569-shaH -i3€-patd-save—and except in such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest LA.App.No,266/2008& connectedmatters Pags73of74 _wou|d not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertainingto Category'B' and Category'C lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by -F8di^em§—the—-fef—Category 'B' land to fl8,94,912,50 per acre and for Category 'C land to ?18,47,539.58 per acre. AUGUST 23, 2011 mm/dk (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters Page74 of74

$-397 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 928/2008 ASHOK KU MAR Appellant Through: None 4. versus UOI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, • CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG