- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 9 November 2011
- Bench
- Sunil Gaur, Pradeep Nandrajog
- Case no.
- LA.APP. 693/2011
Judgment
ORDER %
09.11.2011 C.M.No. 20329/2011 (Condonation of delay)
¶1There is a delay of 86 days in preferring the appeal.
¶2Notice. '-.\
¶3For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned.
¶4C.M. stands disposed of. LA.App. No.693/2011
¶1It is not in dispute that the decision rendered on
23.8.2011 in LA.App. No.266/2008 titled as }ai Singh vs. UOI, would govern the fate of this appeal as this appeal also arises out of same Notification whereby a compensation of Rs.16, 74,500/- per acre has been granted for 'A' category of lands. LA.App. No.693/2011 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. ' .. •• •
¶2It is submitted by counsel for appellant that as per statement under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land in question falls in 'A' category and to support his submission, he has placed copy of the certified copy of the statement under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is taken on record.
¶3Counsel for respondents do not dispute that the appellant's land falls in 'A' category.
¶4Since for the acquired land of Village Alipur, in Jai Singh (supra) compensation awarded is of Rs.16, 74,500/- per acre, therefore this appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
¶5The appellant shall be entitled to statutory benefits and proportionate costs of this appeal. NOVEMBER 09, 2011 pkb LA.App. No.693/2011 .2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On: 12thug, 2011 Judgment Delivered On: 23rd August. 2011 + LA.APP. 266/2008 '. . .................. JAI SNGH Appeflant Through: . Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.M.C.Verma, Mr.V.P.Rana, Mr.Raj Singh, Mr.Uday Ram, MrD.R..Tomar, Mri.S.Dahiya, Mr.N.S.Dalaf, • . Mr.S.M.Bhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta. Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.S.S.Rana, Mr.Suni Dalal, • Mr.D.S.Khatri and • • . Mr.T.P.S.Kang, Advocates Vs. UOI & ANR. . . . ..... . Respondents Through: . Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K.Kaornudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1. Ms.Anusuya Saiwan, Advocate, for DSDC. Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan MathUr, Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun BirbaL Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi and . Ms.Beenashaw Soni Advocatesior DDA. AND__ (GRID-A) . 711A.App.No266/2008 & connected matcrs Pageiof74 • . c _ jv 280t 1/20 (Cross LA.APP. • 286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP. 28.9/20'OB, .LAAPP: 290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP..• 292/2008, LA.APP. • 293/2008, L cPP.294/29&8& CM APPL 121&t2OTh1 - eross --- Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP: 296/2008, LA.APP. 299/2008, LA.APP. 301/2008, 3G3/2008 MAPP. 304/2008, ..APP.'3fl7Z00S, LA.APP 337/2008, . LAAPP. 339/2008, LA.APP. 35712008, 'tA.APP 39412008, LA.APP'. 401/2008, LA.APP. 413/2008, LA,.APP 44312008, LA.APP. 472/2008 A.APP 483/2008, LkAPP-..... 487/2008, LA.APR. 492/2008, LA.APP 493/2008, LAAPP. 495/2008, LA.APP. 496/2008, LA.APP 526/2008, LA AP P 527/2008, LA.APP. • 535/2008, LA.APP 537/2008, LA.APP. 541/2008, LAAPP. 545/2008, r LA.APP 546/2008, LA.APP' 548/2008, LA.APP; 554/2008, LA.APP 563/2008, LA.APP. 566/2008, LA.APP. 621/2008, LA.APP. 623/2008, LA.APP. 627/2008, LA.APP. 628/2008, LA.APP. r 635/2008, LA.APP. 648/2008, LAAPP. 649/2008, LA.APP . 662/2008, LA.APP. • 7,241200.8. & CM APPL. 535.3/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 756/2008, LA.APP. 846/2008,LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP. 861/2008, LA.'APP. 875/2008, LA.APP; 879/2008, LA.APP. • 880/2008, LA.APP. 888/2008, LA.APP.. 894/2008, . IAPP. 895/2008, ' LA.APP.. 905/2008, LA.APP..' 906/2008, LA.APP. 907/2008, LAAPP. 910/2008 1 LA.APP. 911/2008, LA.APP. 925/2008, LA.APP. 926/2008, LA.APP. 927/2008, LA.APP. • 931/2008, LA.APP. 932/2008,LAAPP. :933/2008, LA.APP. 934/2008, LA.APP. 936/2008, LA.APP. 939/20.08, ' LA.APP. 941/2008, LA.APP. 942/2008, LA.APP. 944/2008, LA.APP•. • • • 946/2008, LA.APP. 955/2008, LAAPP. 958/2008, LA.APP 999/2008 & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.' • • 1014/2008, LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP. :1023/2008, LA.APP. 1026/2008; LA.APP. 1064/2008, 'LA.APP. 1071/2008, LA.APP. .1244/2008, LA.APP. • 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, L.APP. • • 1268/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008, CM APPL. 2377/2009, (Cross • • • • • Objections) LA.'APP. 86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 9712009, • • LA.APP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP. • 111/2009 LA.APP.. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, LA.APP. • 25112009, LA..AFP..... •252/20.09, : LA.APP. 265/2009, 'LA.APP. 266/2009-&CM-AppL' No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), '1kAPP. • 267/2009, •LA.APP.' 268/2009,. 'LA.APP. 269/2009, LA.APP. • 27012009, LA..APP. 2-71/2009T-LA.APP. 272/2009, LAAPP 273/2009, LA.APP. 300/2009, LA.APP.' . 306/2009, LA.APP., • • 454/2009, 'LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 521/2009, LA.APP. • • 532/2009, LA.APP. 535/200.9' & CM APPL. 12886/2011 (Cross • . Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009' & CM APPL. 129 17/2011 (Cross Objtions), LA APP --54-3/2009-----LA APP 54412 - LAAPP LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • 566/2009., LA..APP. 570/2009 & CM APPL1873/2011,ApFI. 589/2009, ............ 94/2009, ... .LA.A 634/2.O0c., LA.APP.. 635/20.09, LA.A•PP. 636/2009, LA.APP................ 637/2009 LA.APP. 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 & CM APPL.13878/2011 1 LA.APP; 112010, LA.APP. 29/2010, LA.APP.. 104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP, 107/2010 . LA.APP. 108/2010, LA.APP. :109/2010, . LA.APP. 168/2010, LA.APP. 169/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LAAPP. 171/2010, LAAPP. 20/2010, .LA.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, LA.APP. '430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/201.1 (Cross Objections), LA.APP ............ 520/2010 CM APPL.13968/2011, LAAPP. 521/2010, CM APPL 9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 522/2010, LA.APP.
52.3/2010, 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. 527/201.0, 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. 534/2 107' .*PP. 535/2010 &.CM APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross .... Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 & CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 53.7/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010& CM APPL. 1297212011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPL. 1290012011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP. 541/2010,. LA.APP. 542/2010 & CM AP:PL.
1.9857/2010 (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. 22,7/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 593/2010 & CM APPL. 12969/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 594/2010, LAAPP. 595/2010 & CM APPL. 226/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
5.96/2010, LA.APP'.. 597/2010 & CM APPL.. 228/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 598/2010 & CM APPL. 487/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
600/2010 & 'CM APPL. 12897/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 601/2010, LA.APP. 602/2010, LA.APP. 603/2010 & CM APPL. 12881/2011 .(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP. 663/2010 & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections, LA.APP..: 666/2010 & CM' APPL. 6748/2011 (Cross Objections'), LA'.APP. 675/2010'& CM A.PPL. 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. 19512011 & CM APPL. 12892/2011 (Cross, Objections), LA.APP. 215/2011, LA.APP. 22812011, LA.APP. 229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011, LA.APP. 231/2011, LA.APP. 232/2011, LA.APP. 233/2011, ' LA.APP. 389/2011, . LA.APP. LA.App.No.266/2008'& connected matters 392/2011, LA.APP. 420/2011 - 425/2011 : (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated
07.08.2000 & Award No.. 19/2002-03, VilIage-Pooth Khurd) AND • ______ ____ ____ (GrnD-B) + 'LA.APP. 972/2008 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 1122/2008 & CM 2099/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1150/2008 & CM 12216/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1151/2008 & CM 2345/2009, (Cross Objections), LA.APP. .1 152/2008 &. CM 2102/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP 1153/2008 & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1154/2008, LAAPP. .1187/2008, LA.APP.. 1188/2008, LA.APP. 1189/2008, LA.APP. 121812008,, LA.APP. 15/2009, LA.APP. 82/2009, LA.APP. • 113/2009, 100/2009, LA,APP'. 102/2009•, .LA.APP. LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP, 622/2009, LA.APP. • 214/2011.
'(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No. 11/2001-02, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND
(GRDC) + 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.J 928/2008, LA.APP, 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/2009, LA.APP. 99/2010, . . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No. 08/2001-02, Viflage-Bawana) AND (GRD-D) + ' LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2011 & CM 12911/2011 (CrossObjethons), LA.APP; 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross Objections), .............' ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters AND (G RID-E) + LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA APP. 621/2009, LA.APP. 646/2009, 94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2-010, LA.APP. 191/2010 & CM No. 22402/2010 (Cross Objections), 'LA.APP. 192/2010, LA.APP.. 193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, LA.APP. 196/2010, LA;APP. : 197/2010 s LA.APP 297/2010,. LkAPP. 299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, LA.APP 309/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 &. CM No 3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 37312010, LA.APP., S. 493/2010, ' LA,APP. '494/2010, LA.APP. 495/2010, LA.APP. 496/2010, LA.APP. 497/2010 & CM No. 22728/2010'. (Cross. Objections), 'LA.APP. 498/2010, LA.APP. 499/2010, LA.'APP. 500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& CM No. 23186/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 .& CM No. 10382/2011. (Cross Objections) LA.APP. . 503/2010, LA.APP. 504/2010, LA.APP 505/2010, LA APP. 506/2010, LA.APP 507/2010, LA.APPII 508/2010, .LA.APP 509/2010, LA.APP. 51012010, . LAAPP. 511/20 .10,, LA.APP. 512/2010, •.LA.APP. 513/2010, LA.APP'. 514/2010, LA.APP. 515/2010, LA.APP. ' 516/2010,. LA.APP. 517/2010 & CM No. '7702/2011. (Cross. Objections), •LA.APP•. 518/2010, . LA.APP. 519/2010, LA.APP. 610/2010, LA.APP. .611/2010, LA.APP. 612/2010, LA.APP. 613/2010, L.A.APP. 61812010, LA.APP. 619/2010, LA.APP. 620/2010, . LA.APP. 621/2010b LA.APP. 622/2010, ' LA.APP. 623/2010, LA.APP'. 628/2010, LA.APP. 647/2010 & CM No. 3847/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM No. 3560/2011 (Cross Objections), 'LA.APP. 652/2010, ' LA.APP. • 841/20.10, LA.APP 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 '(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM No. 103?&t2ttetssUbiections), ' APP 855/2010, LA.APP. 856/2010 & .M No. 961012011(çross Objections), LAAPP. 857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010. & CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross jection's, LA:APP.....10OW .-/2011 (Cross IA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP. 79/2011, APP8O/2O1LtA;APP 82: LA.APP 21PP. 81/2011, LA;APP. 82/2011, 8512011, LA.APP. 86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/201.1k LA-APP. 324/2011 & CM APPL.15110/2011, LA.APP. 38512011.' LAAppNo.266/2008 & connected matters ' Page 5 of . 74 . AND (GR!D-F) + LkAPP. 497/2008, LA.APP. 141/2009 & CM 5302/2010 (Cross Objections). (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No... 18/200304, Village-Holambi Kalan) AND (GRD-G) + LA.APP. 777/2.010 & CM APPL.3808/2011, LA.APP. 778/2010 • &• CM •2686/201 I (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. L&APP. 331/2011, LA.APP: 332/2011, L&APP, 333/2011, LA.APP. 33412011, LA.APP. 335/2011, LA.APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, LA.APP. 341/2011, LA.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP. 350/2011, . LA.APP. 351/2011, LA.APP. 365/2011, LA.APP.377/2011, LA.APP.388/2011. . . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No. 33/2003-04., Village-Holambi Kalan) • AND
(GRDH). + LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011. LA.APP. 409/2011. -.......................... . (Retattngto Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No. 15/2003-04, Village-All Pur) ± LA.APP. 481/2010 AND (GRD-fl LA ,App.No.266'2008 & conrecc• ffTs Li No. AND • (GRD-J) + LA.APP. 780/2010 & CM No.2661/2011 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM N0.3833/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 900/2010 & CM N0.3541/2011 (Cross: Objections), LA.APP. 970/2010, LA.APP. 97112010 &CM No.3805/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.AP. 972/2010 & CM No2667/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Crbss. Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 & CM No.14333/2011(Cross • Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011, (Cross Objections), LA.APP.• 977/2010, LA.APP. 978/2010, LA.APP. 979/2010.. & CM No.9990/2.011, LA.APP. 980/2.010 & CM N0.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP.. 982/2010 .& CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections)?' LA!APP. g8472UITh&". CM' Jo.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 986/2010, •LA.APP. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/201.1 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP, 990/201.0, L.A.APP. 991/2010 & CM No.99.84/2011, (Cross Objections), LA.A'PP. 1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/20 10 & CM No.9970/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1018/2010, LA.APP. 1020/20101 & CM No.12939/2 . (Cross Objections)011, LA.APP 1024/2010 & CM No.6771/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1/2011 ' & CM No.12964/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 2/2011 & CM No6752/20i1 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 25/2011, L.APP. 28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, LA.APP. 53/2011 & CM No.6766/2011: (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 73/2011 & CM NO.12922/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM No.6775/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.APP. 110/2011, LA.'APP. 111/2011, 1 LA.APP. 112/2011 &. CM. No.10050/2011 ('Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP... 235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011' (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.20/2003-04, ViUage-Rajapur Kalan) ' • AND (GRfl LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected niattets S + LA.APP. 488f208tAAPP 49Dj70U8tA.APP.. 491/2008, LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 75512008 LA.APP. 8872008& CM No.10393/2009 (cross ObjectiOns), LA.APP 896/2M & CM &97/00&, L&APP. 1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP.: • 34/2010 & CM No.7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LAAPP. 488/2010, LA.APP. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP. 62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 2361201 .1, • LA.APP. 421/2011 (Relating t(5 Notification u/s 4 dated 07.12.2001 & Award No.17/2003-04, ViDage-Sanoth) AND (GRD-L) .. + •.APP 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008, LA.APP... 352/2.00.8., LA.APP. 364/2008, LA.APP. 385/2008, LA.APP. • •. • 387/200.8, LA.APP. . 445/2008, LA.APP. . 454/2008,. LA.APP: 464/2008& CM No.11333/2008 (Cross. Objections), LA.APP. 465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, . LA.APP.. 468/2008& CM No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP 470/2008,, LA.APP. 471/2008, LA.APP. 560/2008, LA.APP .561/2008, LA.APP: 611/2008, LA.APP. 663/2008, • LA.APP. 676/2008.1 LA.APP. 678/2008, LA.APP. 679/2008, A.APP. 681/2008,' LA.APP. 682/2008, LA.APP. 683/2008, LA.APP. 722/2008, LA.APP. 731/2008, LA.APP. . 754/2008, LA.APP. 786/2008, LA.APP; 825/2008, LA.APP. 826/2008, . LA.APP. 842/2008, LA.APP.. 850/2008, LA.APP. 853/20081 .LA.APP. .883/2008, LA.APP. 903/2008, LA.APP. 904/2008,, LA.APP. .924/2008, LA.APP. 935/2008 LA.APP. 937/2008, LA.APP. • 938/2008, •LA.APP. '940/2008, LA.APP. 943/2008, LA.APP. 945/2008, LA.APP. 956/2008, LA.APP. 957/2008, LA.APP. 99812008, LA.APP. • 1001/2008, LA.APP. 1004/2008, LA.APP. 1007/2008, LA.APP 1065/2008, 'LA.APP.. 1077/2008, LA.AP. • 1079/2008, • LA.APP.. 106/2009, LA.APP. 172/2009, LA.APP. • . 309/2009, LA.APP. 374/2009, LA.APP. 464/2009, LA.AP.P 465/2009, LA.APP. 468/2009, LA.APP. . 539/2009 LA.APP. • 546/2009, LA.APP. • 547/2009, LA.APP. • 565/2008, LA.APP. • . 624/2009, LA.APP. 628/2009, .LA.A•PP. 630/2.009; LA..AP'P.. • • 23/2010, LA.APP 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010, .LA.APP. 35/2010, • LA.AP'P. 37/2010, LA.APP 41/2010. . • • •' (Rel3tin-g to ttotiftcation u/s 4 dated 16052002 '& Award NO. 9/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi) • •. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' AND (GRID-M) • + LA.APP. 338/2008, LA.APP. 343/2008, LAAPP356/20O8 •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, LAAPP.. 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.AP 456/2008& CM No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP. 467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. 562/2008, LA.APP. 680/2008, LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. 716/2008, LA.APP. 720/2008, LA.APP. 723/2008, . LA.APP. 757/2008, LA.APP. 760/2008 LA.APP. 767/2008, LA.APP. 793/2008, LA.APP. 823/2008, LA.APP. 824/2008, LA.APP. 837/2008, LA.APP. • 908/2008, LA.AP.P. 909/2.008, LA.APP. 952/2008, LA..APP. .1022/2008, LA.APP. 1024/2008, LA.APP. 1025/2008, LAAPP. .1063/2008, LA.APP. 173/2009, LA.APP. 307/2009,. LA.APP. 308/2009 LA.APP. 311/2009, LA.APP. 384/2009, U.APP., 385/2009, LA.APP. 463/2009, LA.APP. 467/2009, LA.APP. 540/2009, LA.APP. 542/2009, LA.APP. . 548/2009, LA.APP 627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/20 10, LA.APP.• 30/20.10. (•Reating to Notification u/s 4 dated. 23.05.200.2 & Award . No.22/2003-04, Viflage-Shahpur Garhi) AND (GRID-N) • + LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2008 • (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009, LA.APP. 3.04/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. S • . 12/2011 • • . .(R&ating to Notification U/S 4 dated 23.052002 & Award No. • 16/2003-04, ViUage-Hoambi K&an) -.-- .......................................••••......
AND.............................-•--•-•.,
(GRDO)
+ LA.APP.379/2008, LA.APP. 381/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008, LA.APP. 494/2008, LA.APP. 499/2008, LA.APP. 530/208, LA.APP. • 836/2008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 310/2009 & CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 782/2010, LA.APP. & LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters
¶1S (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated. 23.05.2002 & Award No. - 17/2004-05, Village-All P.ur) . . (GRID-P) + .. LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP. 674/2008 & CM No.7818/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, . LA.APP. 706/2008, .LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 & CM No. 7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008, . LA.APP. 882/2008, LAAPP. 885/2008, LA.APP. 891/2008 LA.APP. 898/2008 & CM No.2355/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 902/2008, LA.APP. 922/2008, LA.APP. 923/2008, . LA.APP. 929/2008 & çNo.2351/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 930/2008 &CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 960/2008, LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2008 &' CM No.1261/2009 (Cross Objections, LA APP 982/2008, LA PP 98312008 & CN No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 & CM No.839/2010 " (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2008, LA.APP.: 997/2008 0 .LA.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008, LA.APP.' 1027/2008, LA.APP; 1078/2008 & ' CM No.2 24712009 (Cross Objections),. LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. 1127/2008 & CM No.2111/2009 (CrossObjections), LA.APP. 1196/2008, 'LA.APP. 1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1257/2008, LA.APP 1258/2008 & 'CM No;7791/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 13/2009 & CM No.2151/2009 ,(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 22/2009, LA.APP. 83/2009, LA.APP. 99/2009, :L.A.App.. 103/2009, LA.APP. 104/2009, LA.APP. 107/2009, LA.APP. 11512009 & CM No.6482/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 122/2009 & CM No.14321/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, LA.APP. 174/2-00-9, ••LA.APP. 250/2009, ' LA.APP. 260/2009, LA.APP' 26iJ20QL IA.APP 262720O9, 1JAAPP -264/2 009 LA APP 293/2009, LA.APP. . 299/2009, LA.APP.' 301/2009, LA.APP. 302/2009, LA.APP. 303/2009, LA.APP 365/2009. ..APP._______ 43312009, LA APP -, 449/2009, LA APP 461/2009, LA APP 471/2009, LA.APP. 487/2009, LA.APP. 501/2009, LA.APP'. 517009, "LA.APP. 527/2009, L&APP. 530/2009, U. APP. 531/2009, LA.APP. 533/2009, LA'.APP. 537/2009, LA.APP. LA.App.NO.266/2008 & connected matters .. . .. a 5 3 APP. 4 5/2 O Og, APP. 555/2009, LA.APP. 588/2009, LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP.,. 625/2009, LA.APP; 626/2009, LA APP 629/2009, LA APP 649/2009, LA APP 38/2010, LA.APP. 43/2010, LA.APP 131/2010, LA.APP. 202/2.010, LA.APP.. 203/2010, LA.APP. 204t2010, LAAPp.225/2O1O.. LA.APP: 227/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010,. LA.APP. 303/2010, LA.APP. 372/2010, .LA.APP. 410/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010, LA.APP. 479/2010, LA.APP. 480/2010, . LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP.•. 483/20 10, LA.APP. 484/2010, . LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP. 486/2010, LA.APP. 487/201.0, LA.APP. 604/2010, LA.APP. 606/2010 & CM No.19878/2010 (Cross Objections), .LA.APP. 607/2.010, LA.APP.. 608/2010, LA.AP.P 609/2.01.0, LA.APP.. 614/2010, LAAPP 615/2010, LAAPP 671/2010, LAAPP 695/2010 LA.APP. 705/2010, LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.APP. 785/2010 . & CM No.12968/20 11 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 786/2010 & CM No.12967/20 11 (Cross Objections), LA.AP. 787/2010, LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. .789/2010, LA.AP. 790/2010 ; LA.APP. 820/2010 & CM No.12880/2011 (Crós.s ,ctions)LA APP. 821/2010, LA.APP 915/2010, LA.APP 916/2010 & CM No.6773/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. .26/2011 :& CM No.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 55/2011 & CM No.12894/2.011 (Cross Objections), LA.A.P.P. 59/2011, L&APP. 6312011, LA.APP, 69/2011, LA.APP. 70/2O1L. .LA.APP. 72/20.11.& CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP... 76/2011 . & CM No:12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 114/2011 & CM No.12869/2011. (Cross Objections)., LA.APP. 135/2011,.. LA.APP. 136/2011 & CM No.12971/2 (Cross Objections)011, LA.APP.. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 143/2011;. LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APP. 203/2011 & . cM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections), . LA.APP. 273/2011. & CM No.13289/2011 (Cross ObjecUôns), LA.APP.' 338/2011 . . . . . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003. & Aárd No.11/2004-05, Viflage-Sanoth) . AND
(GRD-Q) . . . + LkAPP. 336/2010 & CM APPL.14845/2011, LAPP. 624/2010,. LA..APP. 625/2010', LA.APP. 626/2010, LA..APP. 627/2010 & . C.M. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections), L.A.PP.. 629/2010, ' L.APP'. . 630/2010, LA.APP. 642/2010, LA.APP. 643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA.APP. 645/2010 & C.M. • No 3587/2011 (Cross Objections), LA APP 646/2010, LA APP 664/2010, LAAPP 665/2010, LAAPP 667/2010, LAAPP V 668/2010, LA APP 669/2010 & C M No 6769J201]. (Cross (Cross Objections), LA.APP. '672/2010, LA'APP. 673/2010 & C.M. No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, LA.APP. 701/2010 & G.M. No.3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 702/2010, LA.APP. 703/2010 & C.M No.9941/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 & •C.M. No.12878/2011 L (CrOss 0 . Qn LAPp. 735/2010, LkAPF. .736/2010, L&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. 8091 010, LA.APP. 810/2010, LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP. 812/2010, LA.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010,. LA.APP.. • 815/010, 'LA APP . 16/2010 & C.M. 'No.3862/2011 (Crbss Objections), LAAPP 817/2010, LAAPP 838/2010, LAAPP . . 839/2010 &. C.M. No.10335/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.. 870/2010 &. C.M No.9946/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.' • 917/2010, LA.APP 922/2010, LA.APP. 923/2010, LA.APP 924/2010, LA.APP. 925/2010, LA.APP. 945/20.10 .& C.M. No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. .975/2.010 &. C.M. No2664/201 .1 (CrOss Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP 56/20 11 & C.M. No.9939/2011. (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 74/2011, LA.APP. 96/201]., LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP. 98/2011, LA.APP. '99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011,LA.APP. 104/2011, 1 LA.APP. 105/2011, LA.APP. 106/2011, LA.APP. .107/2011, LA.APP. 108/2011, LA.APP. 109/20.11, LA.AP. 113/2011, LA.APP. 165/2011', LA.APP.329/201]. . . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003 & Award N6.10/2004-05, Viflage-Rajapur Kälan) • • . •• • CORAM:. . . • •. V HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG .• . 'Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . . • . . .................................. To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? . . . PRADEEP NAN DRAIOGI I. 10 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 (North-West) and if we seethe map of the city of Delhi —we-wou4d--find-that-these vifiages he-m-the-NorthWestern part of Delhi. They lie within an area between the 'V' formed by Rohtak. Road i.e. NH-10 and GJ.Karnal Road i.e. NH-i. The Delhi-. Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-i. Whereas villages Narela and ShahpurGarhL are in between therallway line and NH-I, the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line. Narela and Shahpur Gärhi :are, towards the east of the railway Iine. The urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has been developedon the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is situated in the land within the aforesaid VZ. Bawana industri.ai 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 viflage Narela, all villages have been treated as equivalent with respect to their location. The instant decision decides the issue as to what should • be the fair market value of agricultural lands in the said viRages as of the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2003 7:12.2001, 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003.. Needless to • . . state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time 1 on resa Under Section 4 of the ... Land Acquisition Act : t• t?áäS dfTänd in said 10ViiiW acquired and save d except landsjn the Revenue Estate of vitiaqe..Nareia where the purpose of acquisitio.n was partly residential and,. partv ndustnai, n trte other 'fflages, acqwston was for the purpose of estabiishing an industrial estate or laying down a • L.A ,N .Appo266/7MO8 & connected matters • FOàd or freight campex The reasw wny such large tracts ôf - - • lands were needed was to set up an industrial estate pursuant • to a decision taken to shift aH industries operating in non-conforming areas within Delhi to confo.rmin.g.arè.as . . .• . 3 J must highlfght.,that arguments by learned counsel for the land owners were the same in as also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position with respect to the stand taken by the Union oflndia. Save and except pertaining, to village Narela, where an additional argument was advanced; being that, the township.ofNarela had existed since pre-partition days and thus !ands in viflage Narela S . had abetter value.and for which it was urged that way back in the year 1963when lands in the revenue estate of village Narel.a and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired, lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of 2I-per sq.yd. vis-à-vis the price determined for lands in vU!age Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight that learned. counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurpur comprised the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in village Narela and the village abadi being in Mamurpur; . . . .4. The position of the awards made from time to time and the relatable notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition • ' Act 1894 have been detailed by me while noting the various Land Acquisition_Appeals and the Cross Objections as per the index hereinabove and thus I need not repeat the same.
¶5A perusal of all the awards announced from time to ti Acquisition Collector has determined compensation payable with reference to notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from .......... time tb time notifying the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi and wherever ft was found that due to land owners having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 14 of 74. S q to.o, tne tana va'ue has this is to be found in a few awa dswherei nhv .e been put in 2 or 3 categories ............Ca..tegory 'A', Category IBM: and Category e. 'C'.
¶6A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by, the Reference Court in:various Land Acquisition References made, would show that the learned Reference Court has deterrrined fair market value on different principles and for purposes of clarity 1 may note the basis on which the learned L a n d Acquisition Collector and the learned. Reference Court have:.. determined the conpensation payable. The same would be as Under:- . .... . . . Pertainingto the notification dated 7.8.2000 isued tnder5eeti&n 4of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 puruant whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village P00th Khurd, for the' purpose of shifting industrial units,: as against 13,.82 lacs per acre, for CategOry 'A'. lands and 71226 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands awarded by the learned ILand. Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the. potiy.for minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has adopted the same rate i.e. T13.82 lacs. per acre and"has granted increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000 till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Sctio.n '4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fair. market value of land in village Pooth. Khurd at 14,37,280/- per acre and has ignored that there was Category 'B' land for whch he had to makenecessary adjustment. ... . . Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000 pursuant whereto 211.14 bigha land was aquired in villge. 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 fl3.82 lacs: LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . Page 15 o74 per acre which has been enhanced by the team-ed Reference Court to U4,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a declslon...Qf a GaLrai Vs. UOI 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%. ....8 months and 23 days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been determined Pertaining to the same notification dated 7 8 2000 pursuant whereto agncultural lands in village Bawana were acquired, the Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value for Category 'A' lands, with reference to the poUcy and d . fixed the same atfl3.82 lacs per acre for Category'A' lands and
12.62 lacs per acre for Category 'B' lands. 'The learned Reference Court maintained the same Pertaining, to the notifIcation dated 11.9.2000 pursuant wheretoagricultural lands in village Khéra KhUrd were acquired for shifting industrial units, the Land Acquisition Collector has, for Category 'A' lands determined fair market value, with reference to the. policy effective from 1.4.2000 in sum of M.82 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands hasfixed the same at fl2 62 lacs per acre The learned Reference Court has adopted the policy wherein minimum price fixed as of
1.4.2000. was T13.82 lacs per acre and for 128.days i.e, the number of days..between .1.4.2000 till. 11.9.2000,appreciatiflg the same by 12% has determined fair market value at fl4,40,157/- and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands... Pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 pursuant whereto, 1140.5.8 bigha land was acquired in Narela for development of sectors ito 4, Phase I, Naréla, with respect to the policy of minimum price with effect. from 1.4.2001 the LA.App.Nb266/2008 & connected matters ... a.. . .. learned Land Acquisition Collector determihed fair market value -- in sum of Z15.7 lács per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e. the same price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category 'B' lands. determined the same at 14 lacs peratre The learned Reference .Court adopted the minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001 and gave appreciation for a period • . of I month for the reason the notification under Section 4 of the dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced the compensation to 715,85,700/- per acre which has. uniformly • ... . awrdd;. . . . Pertaining to the notification dated 22 8 2001 whereunder 512.16 bigha land in village Hoiambt Kalan were acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned,. Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on the minimum price notified as of 1.4.2.001 i.e. .15.7 lacs per acr,e which has been held to be the fair market valu.e for Category 'A' lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determine.d • . at fl4 lacs per acre.. The learned Reference Court, with reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e.. 715.7 , lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum... for 143 days anç the price so fixed is T16,43,811/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded. . . Pertaining to same notification dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto 512.16 bigha land was acquired in village. Alipur, onthe same re..fling which has been adopted for village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same compensation as determined for village Holambi Kalan has been worked out by the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also by the learned !Reference Court who has done away with categor+zatiOft-- • Pertaining to the same notification dated 2.8.2001 pursuant whereto .192.15 bigha of land was acquired in village LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Holambi Khurd, the reasoning of the LAC and the learned Reference Court and the price determined is thesame as has been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in the same uniform category. Pertaining to the same notification, dated 22.8.2001 pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Rajapur. Kalan Were acquired the reasoning. and the fair market value determined; by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan; Holambi Khurd and Aiipur save and except in this villagethe acquired land was. of untform category. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.12.2001 pursuant whereto 222.05 bigha land was acquired in village Sanoth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has , assessed compensation uniformly in sum of 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 t h e rate. of 12% per annum to reach the figure of 16,99,042/- per acre, ' Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant whereto agricultural' lands in village Shahpur Garhi were • acquired the learned Land, Acquisition Collector has determined compensation in sum of I5itacsper, 'acre'"whch is the. 'minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.42001. The learhed Reference Court has simply held that the land owners would be entitled to enhance compensation at the rate of 115% 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 fi.n.d that the enhanced compensation which would work out would be LA.App.No.2.66/2008 & connected matters , ' . . Page 1$ of 74 . • • : 17;75,359.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as 420 U1 adteapjceat
15.71äTôfTyear ahd 45 days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the • rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned Additional Sessions judge •Peainingto the hoficationdated.
23.5.2002. pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpr Garhi were acquired the learned. LAC and the learned Reference CoUrt have determined same compensation as per the reasoning pertaining to the same village for the notification dated.
16.5.2002 andi find that sincethere is a gap of 7 days in the two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision of the Reference Court comes to fl7,79,781.78 per acre. . Pettaining--to-the same notification -&ated--23.5.2002 pursuant whereto 445.81 bigha land in village Holañibi Kalan was acquired, the learned_LAC has_determined_fair market value in sum of.fl5.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per minimum price w.eJ. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopted the same reasoning as was adopted while determining the fair market value of lands in village Holambi Kalan which were acquired pursuantto the notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the.dedsio.n in Ga/rat's case (supra) and ap,preciatingthe same by 12% compounded: • per annum the price determined is 22,14,239/- per acre. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.52002 rt whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village.Alipr ....were acquired...the.. learned Lana.... AcsIU. ..n....collector has awarded compensation at the rate of fl5.7 lacs per acre based on the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which price has been adopted as the. base by the learned Reference Court and after granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. Page LA.App.No.26612008 & connected matters 1,9 of 7 840/pe re. . . . Pertaining to the notification dated . 27.1.2003 pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha . land in village Sanoth and -?188.03 bigha-fand--in village Rajapur Kalan.were acquired,the learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the mihimum price.notified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the same value as the compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villages i.e. T15.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of14 lacs per acre and for Category 'C' lands in sum of f12.3 lacs per . . acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different • ,. reasoning in some impugned decision and different in a few. In some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted the minimum price in sum of 15 7 lacs per acre-as-of--1-4 01--a-nct appreciating the same by 12% per annum fOr a period of 666 days has fixed fair market value at 719,13,765/- per acre which has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Courthas determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed 'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunderl bigha and
¶13biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the revenue estate of viila9e Rajapur Kalan was purchased for 5,39,69O/-. . ... . . .
¶7Since the learned. Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned Reference TCourt have relied upon the notifications: • . . issued from time to time by the Government of NT.Delhi, fixing minimum pnce for agncultural lands in Delhi, let me therefore n.ote thedates and the minimum rates notified from time to time pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same woüTdbe . .....réevant fOr the present decision. The same would beas under:- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters '.f• . . .' SLNoLDte (in lakhs/acre - Notificaljon ffeEtJve Date ' °' lincrease per annum of the price
3.5.1990
27.4.1990
4.65
25.7.1997 L4.1997
10.0
11.5
3..
24.91998
1.4.1998
11.2 - 11.2
21.I1.-2000 -
12.32
9.8.2001
1.4.1999
1.4.2000
12.16
13.82
9.8.2001
1.4.2001
15.7
11.5
30.8.2005
30.8:2005
17.584
2.98
8...124.1.2008 J18J2.2007
89.51 From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be apparent that after minimum price was last fixed w.e.f.
27.4.1990 in sum of 4.65 Iakhs/acre it was increased after nearly 7 years to 710 lakhs/acre and the 'annual increase comes to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998. the price was enhanced by 1.1.2% to reach the figure of 11.2 lakhs/acre and thereafter .w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price tas enhanced to. f12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001 was . issued the price was retrospectively, enhanced w.e.f.
1.4.1999 to fl2.16 .iakhs/acre i.e.. the price increased by 11% per annum with reference to the price determined as of .4.1998.and.vide same was. retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to U382 lakhs/acre i.e. increased by 11% per annum vi.s-à-vis the previous i.e. !1216 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by 1 11.5'%. per annum vis-à-vis the previous price of fl182 lakhs/acre to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters , . . . enhanced w e f 30 8 2005 to 17 584 lakhs/acre whith gives us n-rntreasff-f-o-fl1y 2 98% per annum and then the pnce rose to 53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per annum with .reference to the base figure of, 717.584 Iakhs/acre and the date 30 82005 Iaid • owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court it would be beneficial for the reader of the present decision, as • feel, that arguments advanced Ton either side may be noted. I would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each argument was in the alternative and it was urged: that they • would be entftled to price detèrmjnation as per the first S •. argument, failing which as per the second argument, failing which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of Union of India it was urged that the' land price fixed by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated • 7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated • 22.8.2001 for , village Holambi Kalan; 'the notification dated • 7.8.2000 for village Bawaha; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.52001 for village • Narela; and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village AU Pur; and the notification dated 27.1.2003:for village Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth treats as if all Iands'were ofuniform characterandjt ' was urg,1 that_correctjvctjon isiequired by doing 2 things. • Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time, 11.5% increase per annum and t2 p&'annum-'fncrea --was e*ceivewjth reference to the' dates of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition • Act 1894; requiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annum In thè'Téaft Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not • justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus • requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for such lands which were put in Category 'B' and Category 'C' by the Land Acquisition Collector, and in respect of which categorization it was urged that neither land owner had challenged the samebyleading 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 • . sate 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 Thseeed dated 25.4.2001; Ex.PW-1/2, in the same LA.Appeal. 'Vide. sate deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biwa agricultural land In village Mamurpur was sold @ lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 big ha and 19 biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera Khurd for a sum of fl2.4 lakhs and adding on the stamp dity paid and cd?poration tax it was urged that per acre land price,as of 25.3.2000 mnder Ex.PW-1/3 would be T28.89 lakhs/acre and pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be 63478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10' villages as of 7.8.2000,
11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002
25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications. were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 by suitably increasing Or decreasing the price. As an extended limb of this argument, pertaining to ifflage Na.re!a, it was urged that the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learned cOunsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% morc LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' and for which the argument was that when In the past
1...:/. pertaining to a notification issued on 30.101963 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the ReferenceCourthad given said benefit to agricultural lands in . village Mamurpur-Narela by, giving a. price benefit of 2/- per sqyd:. . This Was upheld by 'the. Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in C.A.No.4405/1997 UO/ vs. D/iaramb/r & Org. The said decision would reveal that the price per big ha' in sum of 6,650/- determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to '16,750/-. per, bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced to 22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this ......oiirt'was reversed by'the SupremeCourt and the one rendered by the Reference Court was restored Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court, having accepted that due. to Bawana Industrial Estate, Nareta "Residenti& Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in the subject, lands havin.g acquired a building potentiality, . required fair market value to be determined with respect to the pnce at which DSIDC and DDA J.e. the implementrng agencies, which acted as the Nod& Agencies for development of Rohini • Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana. Industrial Estate and for which learned, counsel took me through . the evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court, 'which I would, be noting hereunder while dealing with the 'submission urged. . . Alternative to the second submission, being the third submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bed! Ram. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters -u's- -Union of India, it was perm'ssib!e to deterrnne fair market • value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving • • suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different periods. Sh.l.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel, with reference to the decision in Bed/Ram's case (supra) as per • which price increase perannum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 60/q • per annum with reference to the base price U6,750/- per bighth • as of 30.10.1963. i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Cdurt in • Dharamb/r's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum tilt
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 l.am..cc...ncerned..i.rithe pres •ap.peaIs.. So:worked out, learned counsel highlighted that as Of 27.1.2003 the fair market • value would come to 56,88,759/- per acre and I may highlight • that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned coUnsel urged that on the same principle market value should. be assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2.000, S 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 and
23.5.2002. . . .
¶13The fourth argument advanced was, and for which refere-nce was made by learned—counseJ...........he parties in the evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which is subject matter of 2 cross appeals i.e. .APP.Nb268/2008 filed by the land owners . and .APP.No.292/2008 filedby Unionf.1ndia, that fair market value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . . .. testimony of Ram Kishan-t-o the effect that by selling agricultüraii'' -- .produce from hisiands_h used to earn, fl lakh per bigha per Lé. th&fair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition - Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan and others were acquired. It was thus. .urged that the fair market value as of said date shoui be420 takhs 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 LAAPP.No.268/2008 and the • respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kañg, • Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged -that for • each of the notification in question the fair Tharket'vàlue ought to , have been determined with reference to the notification which was cLosest in poiht of time where under minimum.. land value was fixed by the Government and the notification dated:
24.1.2008 where under T53 lakhs per acre was the minimum price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be adopted was the precise argument. .' . . The last argument, which was in the alternative to the first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing with which, in some References the learned Reference Court had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where • u.nder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.2.00 (1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for .5,39,6901-.,. determined the fair market value as per the.saId......... sale ded"1thi'foHowing' words: ,'Refer,Dara 17 of the decision dated 7.L2010 /n-LAC-N-o-11--7-A/2009); "If we addstampd1ityin -------- the safe price U,69,9061.,per,_4zigha 539,.90E±. 70,160 6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes tb T 17,74;1091-per acre or 3,68,9061-per bighà. Further if we give 12% • ' LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters [1 in crease on said amount for intervening period between th& date when the sale deed. was. .exerjjtedand....the. date of --- 'iotfffcat/on u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it comes to 19,16,0371- (round off 19,16,0401-)." The argument was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition. i.e Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the award pertained to 2188 .bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922 bigha and 18 biswa land;was put in Category 'A', 45 bigha and 2 biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa in Category'C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred tothe land being comprised in Khasra N0200 and that pag.e No.56-57 ........................ttheward would evine .... thtid:omprised. in Khasra.. S . No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in Category. 'C'.. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had determined fair, market value as of the date of the notification i e 27 1 2003 in sum of Z15.7 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 thereaften had depressed the same by T1.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'B' lands, fair market value determined whereof was T14 lakhs per acre and further depress the same by another fl.7 lakhs per acre for Category 'C' lands, fair market value determined whereof was fl2.3 takhs per acre. it would be apparent vihát the argument was. The argument preciseiy was that if'the • . market value had to be determined with respect to the sale deed in question, the sane had to be for Category 'C' lands nd for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price had to .; be. increased by TI.7.lakhs per acre for each category. .
16.. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments wtich were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel w, ho appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected.in para 9 above and hence I need not repeat the same. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters
¶17In various sub-paras of para 6 héinàbove, I have • capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acqthsitioncouectpr.... and the le ed-Reference Court pertaining tthe 8 notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.. 1894 and relatable to the 10 vifiages and thus I commence my journey to deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land.. Acquisition Collector, and the learned Reference Court as per various sub-. parasofpara'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-à-vis the price, for Category 'A' lands is fl.56 Ia'cs per acre and pertaining to the notification dated 11.92000 where price has been determined for agricuftural lands in village Khera Khurd, said price differential has been 'worked out at T1.2. lacs per acre and while determining fair market valu.e for agricultural lands in village Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notificatiOn dated 2.5.2001 the deduction effected is . 71.7 lacs per acre, which is the same figure adopted when 'fair market value of agricultural land invillage Holambi Kalan was determined as of • the date 2.2.8.2001. Pertainjjg to the notification dated'
27.1.2003 and 'r&atable 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. mother words, the price differential has varied between T1.2 lacs 'per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and .71.7 lacs per acre. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . B. The learned Land Acquisition Collector has adopted the minimum price notified closest in point of time to the date when Section 4 notification was issued without appreciating the land price with reference to the date of the Section 4 tTti i.e. no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has been given. " - ' -- eearned Reference Courth s'adoped the minimUm pric.e notified and has given appreciation ranging between
11.5% per, annum and 12% per annum and in some cases has compounded the same and in some given said benefit at the simple rate.: . Pertaining to village Holambi Kalan..where acquisitions were made pursuant to the notf,cat,ons dated 7 8 2000and
23.5.2002. the learned Reference Court has adopted the pric: determined by this Court in çjrafs cásé (supra) as of .15.11.1996 and has given appreciation, at the rate, of. '12 0/. simple per annum for the former notification and at the rate of 12% compounded per annum for the Iatter. , Whereas for the notification dated 27.1.2003 th learned Reference Court, in . some réferencés has determined' the fair markt value with reference to the minimumprice notified as of 1.4.2001 and has given appreciation, in sorne cases has determined the fair market 'value based on the sále S deed dated205.2002. ' ....Wherever the learned Land Acquisition CoHetor has classified lands in Category 'A', 'B.' and 'C' re.asons thereof have een given in The' award but the learned Reference Court, while UThfOfm ..b"ensation has qiiVeh ndrehas to why' itwatreatiiig all lands to be of samhara.cte.r_and.quality.
¶19Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and8 I 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 & conneôted matters ' . lacts, Which would be ñy data for further analysis_Put in a - tabular form the data wOld be as under:- . . Village Date of LAC compensation ADJ compensation Section 4 (in Iakhs/acre) with (in Iakhs/acre) with Notification reasons reasons Pooth
7.8.2000 Cat: 'A' T13.82 Cat. Uniform. I Khurd . . Cat. 'B'12.26 f14.3728. Minimurn price..as--Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 of 1.4.2000 with 12% increase p.a Holambi
7.82000 . T13.82 ..
14.12995. Kalan . . . Minimum price as Price as in Ga/rats of 1.4.2000 . case• as of
15.111996 with increase p.a. Holambi
22.8.2001 Cat. 'A' 15..7 Cat. Unifprm. Kalan Cat. 'B' T14 •fl6.43811. Minimum price as Minimum price .as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Holambi
23.5.2002 T15.7 . U2.14239. Kalan . Minimum price as Price:.as in Ga/rats of 1.4.2001 case.. . as of
15.11.1996 with 12% increase p.a. (compounded) Bawana
7.8.2000 Cat. 'A' fl3.82 No enhancement Cat. 'B' fl2.62 given.. Minimum price as of 1.4.2000 . Khera 1192000 Cat. 'A' fl3.82 Cat Uniform. Khurd•. Cat. 'B' 12.62 Z14.40157. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 142000 with 12% increasep.a. Narela 2 5 2001 Cat 'A' 15 7 Cat Uniform Cat. 'B' fl4 . I5.857. . Minimum price as Mnimum price as jofl.4.2001 . jof 1.4.2001 with LA,App.No.266/2008 & connected matters S . F 12% increase .p.a. Ali Pur
22.8.2001 Cat.'A' T15.7 T16.43811. Cat. 'B' fl4 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with 1 12% of 1.4.2001 increase p.a. AU Pur .23.5.2002
715.7
717.8524 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 Minimum price as otL42DO1 with 12% increase p.a. HoIanbi
22.8.2001 T15.7
16.43811 Khurd Minimum price as Minimum, price as of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur
22.8.2001 . T15.7 . . .
16.43811 Kalan Minimum price as Minimum price as ...... of 1.4.2001 of. 1.4.2001 with 12% increase p.a. Rajapur
27.1.2003 Cat. 'A'1.7 fl9.13765 for Ka{an Cat. 'B' fl4 Uniform category. Cat. 'C' fl2.3 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.'a. in some cases.
719.1604 for, Uniform category based on saie deed .. dated.
25.5.2
10.. 02 with 12% increase p.a. Sanoth
7.12.2001 fl5.7 .
716.99042. Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 . of. 1.4.2001 with T .. 12% increase p.a. Sanoth
2.7.1.2003 Cat. 'A' fl5.7 !19.13765 . for Cat. 'B'14 categocy Cat. 'C' fl2.3 Minimum price as Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with I of 1.4.2001 . 12% increase p.a. LAApp.No.266/2008 & connected matters . Page3lof74.. Shahpur
16.5.•201•CatA15.7• :Gt ' 'Minimuin —prices ofL4.ZffO1 'Minimum price as 142001 of. wi-th " .1 compound interest @11.5%p.a.' Shahjur . Ga.rhi
23.52002 . . . Cat. 'A' •15.7 Minimum price as of 1.42001 Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with compound interest @ 11.5/ p.a. . 1 now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by learned counsel for the land owners and the 2. submissions.: urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove (pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to U.nior..o.f....ndia)...................... . . . . The first argument is predicated on the • 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sate deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to U6.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ T63.478 iakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court. has rejected the 2 sate deeds, as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural 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 Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious' purp eandwsbëin used fOr a religious puroe .... The sale deed Ex.PW-112 has likewise been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Govenment Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization statedf- •the organ •ha heifos_the.sa.id piece of land as it was the only plot of the.requisfte size suitable for the. requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.
¶22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 . (1) scc 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. 1st/Rob/ni & An, -. ( Refer. para6) and 2009 (14) 5CC 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.AAct 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land .i 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 payto an .. equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the. area and the. prevailing prices. if a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in. the area. I would. be • failing if I do.not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon. the sale deed dated 205.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining_to the notification dated1.
27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist fora much leEser price i.e. fl7,74,109/- peracre as against the price which comes to T63.478 Iakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and .28.89 {akhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex,PW-1/3, LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . . . Page 33 of V. themselves are having intrinsic e',,.ideiice_of the fanciful price
23.Th_ pfm the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in para '21 ab e_wou1d_beadditio.na! reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fai.r narketvatue_oLsubjactJands...can.be..determi.ned..arid.. m..ore so for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a reason to be circumspect on...sate 'deeds having intrinsic evidence of thetransaction being the result of a fancy of the . buyer; I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned counsel Sh.LS.Dahiya beingthe_decision dated
19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appealsjead matter being. LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratav Sing/i (since 'deceased) 'thru LRs Vs. UOT& Ors It was highughtedthifthe sale dèedtherein 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 S accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW4/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the, Division Bench in"paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, 'did' not accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative of the market value, bUtfbUM that if the price therein . WaS reduced by 113rd, the price arrived at would be the same, as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sate deeds prodUced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds produced by the Government were giving a price of 1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had pUrchased 'the land gave the.price ?3,26,600/- per bigha and theaverage would wasnar'abur'me price of 2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3 w would be deducted from the sum of 3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and•the Court determined fair market valueas of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as àforesaid.Le. 2,15,160/-., In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not tobe read. pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the sale deed in questiOn as the basis for if it was so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually
destructive evidence of the 2 sale.deeds reflecting fair, market value. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 aboves • rejected and i immediately highlight that the extended limb of the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to ViiIa:INar&a, in view of the decision in Dhäramb/r's cae be suitably enhanced would be de'aft with by me at the end whenI determine the fair market value of lands for the villages in question. I The second argument, contours whereof arez to be found in para 11 of my dedsion herein above, I need to note the LA.ArpJ'Jo.266/2008 & connected matters Page 35 of.74
¶26But before that I must highlight that the decision in Lai chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure • whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted for resIdential housing scheme and the_argument was being • considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands, in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the same residential scheme i.e. 'Rohini Residential Housin.g • . . . Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are • situated within the "I' formed by NH-i and NH-iO i.e. G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road. . • 27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring açricülturàl lands, dévéloping the same and transferring. • . perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be relevant to industrial layouts, in paras Ii to 27, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:- . . "Whether the DDA brochure. is relevant evidence?
¶11The DDA brochure (Ext. X-i) dated 9-24981 is an invitation, seeking applications from members of the public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brbchure stated that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in Rithàla and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on leasehold basis: SLNo Plot size Category Rate (per square metre)
26 sq rn 32 sq m 48 sq O.sq rn 9Osqm Economically weaker sections Low income group (LIG) Low income gup (LIG) Middle income group (MIG) Middle income group (MIG) Rs].00 Rs 125 Rs 15Th,......... Rs200 Rs200 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . [I: fl The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square• metre which is the average of be taken as indicative of•the ruling market price.
¶12On carefUl Consideration we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities like DDA canhot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several, reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determin.edwjth reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricuftural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area. Secondly, ODA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market valu determination for acquisitions is uniform and does no depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold fa-rtdT whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots, on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on
factors. these three First factor .. . . . The percentage of "deduction for development" to, be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of. undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale pric.e of smaH developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first Is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community •facflities), etc. . . The development authority will also . incur considerable . expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land; cost. of .providing roads, . LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying wãtë7 fines, electricity lines and developing parks . and civil rne n ities, developed, plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.
¶16On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthori,sed private residential layout, the percentage of -d4i4foc--development"ffIay....be....far less. This is because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities.. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles.. The amount spent on development .wo.rk would also be corn.parati.ve.l.y less and minimal. Thus.. the deduction on .account of the two factors in respect of plots in 'una'uthorised layouts, Would be only about 20% plus . 20% . all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. . . . . . .
17.. The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the stand.ard.s and qua Ifty of the layout. . .
¶18. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq.mto 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,' the.n the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little. as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure.wiIt . already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.) .
¶20Therefore the . deduction, for the "development. :. factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small •. plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be fa.r more than the deduction LA.App.No.266/2008 & eonnectei matters , with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. it is a4swe1+•known that the development cost Incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard-to. higher overheads and expenditure. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout—whether it is residential, residential- •_-. cumcommecc4aI-ec4nd-ustr-iaJ-; aRd--even-among res.identaI • layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community . ........facilities, parks and playgrounds_provided. Some 'of. 'the layouts formed by the statutory . development authorIties may have large areas earmarked S for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for, roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and corn.munity/civ.ic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is ony 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%. . , , 'I Second factor
DDA and other statutory development authoritis adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same layout, depending upon the economic .,status of the. allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and, economically weaker Jections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots may be earmarked' for 'persons belonging •o economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs .100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may beRs 150 per square metre for members of low income group, Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons. belonging to high fr ome groUps. 24; The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates', as the "market value" of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by ODA statutory authorfty, but. upon the paying capadty of thE'ä1tföiiRótment. • "" Third factor • , , , LA.App.NO.266/2008 & connected matters • . . Some development authorities allot plots on / freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some - development authorities like ODA aHotplOtSOm101 basis. Some have premium which is almost equa' to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others. have lesser premium1 and more substantial annual rent. There are standard methods for etermifling the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold propertY. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownerShiP) rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very diffiCUlt to arrive at the, market value of a freehOld property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a tendency among the public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the market vatue'of the propertY. f the difficulties referred to However, in view o . advisable to. rely upon the above, it is not. safe or allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a.develoPed layout, in determining the market 'value of the adjoining undeveloPed freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant." The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by xtrctiflg - . _.. from LAC Reference No.117A/2009. The argumr1t ouv" before the teamed Reference Court, being the, same as was advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference Court with reference to the evidence relied upon. it reads:-. "Ld. Counsel f L,th_Petit1 ers..haS: further..Subtt thatDDA & OSIOC allotted plots in Narela Residential Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate. He has relied UpOfl allotment letter dated '04.01.200 0 issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5, Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the .predetermifled rate of 3028I-which he has proved as Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of plot no.55 pocket 03, Sector-05 area measUring 70 Sq. metres in which rate was fixed' as T3,989 per sq. metres, which is EX.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e. LA.App.N0 .266/2008 & connected matters Page 40 01 II . TotaF area under plots =[ 112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq.'l . _yards. Price per sq. metre in the year 2000 at = which DSIDC sold plot
.3000/- per sq. yards Total earning . = T4083750000 Total expenditure T720526501 . tTotal profit . = 3363223099
~A plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela lndistnal Complex at the rate of metres which is Ex PW3J1 and another allotment letter dated
25.04.2000,of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which was sold at T3000 per sq. metres.. Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the statement of PW9 Kanwal Singh & document Ex. PWI1/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent that total .land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost -—deoenper big ha 0000 = 248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA by selling afternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @ 3208 wouldbe2531408/*perbigha. And if 30% of the total area utilized, for roads, L park, drain etc; total area comes for sale is 70% so.the • price of per bigha would come. to (2531408 - 759422 = 17719866 per bigha). And . after 'deducting S . . development charges from sale price of one .bigha i.e. " 1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as petitioner has been given rate only fl,27,083/- per Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW7 . . ,
R.D. Sharma, Asstt. Managgr C SI DC who has produced I. documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued that total expenditure incurred on development of Nareta 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: . c-oms.... o T2470 e F"27OOOO pe -or bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards) and theLAC has paid compensatin --32-7O&3-per bigha only, meaning thereby that DSID.0 has earned, a profit of 2 142917..perbigha...... ..•.. ............ . . .. I Ld. Counset for the petitioners has further argued that LAC has awarded. compensation @ fl.27083 per LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected.matters Page 41 of7. . a... . .. . .. big ha for the land in question if .00% appreciation of the . said price IS Co ns-de red come-s to 654166.If the --- amount is deducted frQm_sáEe - price per bigha ie 24700000, the figure comes to 1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same:' • . -2-9 .—Now1---we–donMve evidence as to....what Was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reférénce to the Bawana Industrial Estate .de.ve!ope4by DSIDC and Nar&a Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was .20% or • 75%, wedo not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same factors; being 3 in nUmber which were noted by the Supreme Court in Lal C7,and's case (supra), Which render this . evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in thesubject cases. . . . . . It is no doubt true, as held •even 1—by—the--leaFned-Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana. Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residentiai Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a . building. potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value • to which the building potentiality would translate itself. 1 hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view. the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Ll chands case (supra) ha rightly rejected said evidence as reliabIe On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, 1. • promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while 1 shall be discussing .as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. . . . .. . . . . 32: The third submission in the alternative was based upon •. the observaons of a Division Bench of this Court in Bed/Ram's casesupua), CHIU the submission is as noted in para 12 hrein above. The land owners require the ce determined in Dha ramblEs case (supra) relating to the notification dated LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • ___ - cc QL-ge Ma mu rp u II .. to be treated as the basis and Progressively increased, firstly by • 6% per annum, then by 10% per.annurn and lastly by 12% per annum for different periods and thereby determine the fair market value for the 8 notifications in question • 33. It be highlighted that in Bed! Rain's case (supra), with .referjne to the base date as, of the year 1959, for the year 1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this Court applied. the progressive increase method by firstly • enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and • then by' 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for the remaining 3 years. O 34. However, in Lal C'hancfs case :(supra), the Suprme Courtcategorically opined as under:- . I • . . "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 presen.t acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the acquired. land should be determined with reference to the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition by , providing an . appropriate increase at the cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This. Court had occasion to examine' this issue recently. In OfvGc Ltd. v. Rameshbha/ Jivanbhai PateiJ& this Court. • • held: (SCC p. 751, para 15)
•"15.Normally, recourse is.taken to the mode of VIP etermining the market value , by Øroviding • . . , . --'-'-- .... overhpvemarket value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by-s-ale transactiofls—o-r--ac-qttis+tions), • . . . • where, there ' is , no evidence of ' any contemporaneous sale transactions ' •.qr. acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method' is reasonably LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' ' , Page 43 of 74 transactions/acquisitions precede the subject-------- acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four • to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable, standard if the gap is of only a few • years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970. or 1980. may have many pitfalls. This is • . . because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of • annual increase may itself undergo "drastic c'hange 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 value, based on the 2007' or 2008 prices, by providing anincreaseof 12% or 15% ,per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the. country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the 2007. rates. Caution is .,therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award 'made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition.."
¶35' It is apparent that the ratiQ of law laid down by the Division Bench in Bedi Ram-s-ca-se-4supca.) runs in the teeth,of the law' declared by the Suprerrie Court in Lal Oiancfs case •(supa) 7-which decision follows' -an---earlier decisiOn of the Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) 5CC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai livanbhai Patel. LA.App.No.266/2008 &. connected matters Page 44 of,'74 1rrthe instant case there Is another good reasonOt.to iI follow the law laid down in Bedi Pam's case (supra) for the reason I find that aCo-crdinate Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLI 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage increase with reference to the price determined in Dharamb/i's case (supra) as of the year 1963, whih would have resulted in • the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as of 14.3.1980 @ 2010/- per annum per bigha and.gavethe increase @ fl000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was • appfled the price wouldhave come to approximately 50,000/ • per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same at 3300.0/- per bigha.
¶37That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while' discussing on the issue Of the fair market value of subject lands, in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, MahenderSincjh vs.. UOI& Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one, • village with wh4ch 1 am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a'. notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where-under 3604. bigha and 18 biswa of agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial estate i.e. Bawana IndustrIal Estate, the fair market value as,of'
15.11.196 was determined @ fl,99,904.68 bigha which equals to 9,59,542.46 .peracre and relevant would it be for me to highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which price for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the Government was no lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . Page 45.of 74 determined by the Division Bench would equal the minifflum price notified by the Government. ---&--—wee—to—ake—the---prce--as—of-- 5.1
9,59542.46 per acre, pertainingto the notifications with which I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as determined by the learned Reference Court if, I give benefit, of • progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein :ab0ei I. would be hol.istically discussing the subject while opining upon the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8' notificatiOns in question. The fourth argument, which was advanced only by Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appearedfor Ram Kishan and others, the appeflants in LkAPP.No.268/2008 and who are the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e. LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the testimony of..Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging to the.family they were earning fl iakh per bigha by sale of agricultural produce;
The learned Reference Court has not accepted the testimony of Ram Kishan béca use he gave no.proof. in support of hisoral testimony.
• 41. . The reasoning of the Court that there was no: crop standing on the land when its possession was taken over on
4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the acquired lands belonging, to the family were not 'being put to agricultural use and growing 3 to 4. crops per year., is faIlacous no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that by the 3 week of September. rice is harvested in Delhi and if vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land is left fallow' for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters ' . . Page' 46 of 74 ... . . • . sown Undthé first week or the second week of November each year.............
1.
¶42But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimo l
of Ram Kishan he.. Was working as an Administrative Officer I in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi tifl3L3.1996 i.e. was no. a tiller himself tifi said periodand thereafter earned a. pension. the family, as claimed by him, was earning T1iakh per bigha, for the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha and 18 biswa, the annualTREome-..wuçJ be 19 iakhs and finds i-t strange that not wpennywas4vted in a bank or 1 a security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned. Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being' effected in the local Mandi or otherwise'. The trader to whom the produce was.sold has not.been examined.. No proo.f.pf . number of workers employed., dieseF purchased to. run the. tub well; if any, to irrigate thefields or electricity bills paid 'if tile pump was etectricafly driven has been furnished and if the fiels were. irrigated by.canal water, no proof of any payment made to the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the iearnei Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value of • lands. 'There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yie!d and the self serving deposftion of Ram Kishan has been rightly rejected. . . ' ....... . . ' ' . . '.' . ................ if tre is reliable evidence of an independet expert or thece--is---other-wise--reljabte evidence 1—as--was--found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (1)SC 444 State of Giiiarat & Ors. Vs, Rama Rana & Ors.., pertaining to the yield from agricultural land, only then it would be safe tO determine fair market value by applying the principle of . . ... ttaiizg-. uthe yi 4&a-that-too, tticapftatizJn -g-being 10ti'mes the annuatyreld and not 20 timeiiwas sought to be, projected. . . . . .. . " • 44. The fifth argument which was advanced, as no • ,. herein.. .above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that the mean average principle béadopted with reference to the notification dated 24.1.2008. . .
¶45In para ,7above, I have put in a tabular form, the minimum prices notified, for agricultural land in Deihifrom time'. to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, • H 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 pará 7.' we find that minimumprices have been notified as of
1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.82005. Thus, there would be no need to factor in the minimum price notified under the notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is4 years awayfrcrn the last year with which I 'am concerne . the year 2003. I. highlight that.reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the.' first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7 years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the ones which would •be dGsest.-to-ehe--peint forwhkh the mean average has to be determined.
................I m left..to deal with the last submission, as noted in —p-ar-a heinaboveandforwhith -l'highIight thatthe learned Reference Court has, pertaininq to the notification dated
27.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References with respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under'? bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village .Rajapur Kalan and LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . W has determined that based thereon th nrir c rc -- -. - - . "S .OIU Udt-aere-ari-d mreasn, for 8 months by .12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price would be 19,16,037/- per acre rounded off to fl9,16,0401.. per acre. ..
¶47With reference to the Award No. 1 0/DC(NW)/200405 it is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring 1 bgha and 13 biswa was a Category 'C' land The sale deed in question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that if said sale deed had to be accepted it would reflect fair market value of Category 'C' land As per the learned Land Acquisition Collector, fl.7 làkhs per acre wouid. be required to fill up the depressions for land in category 'B' and further sum of 1.7 low ePressions in Category 'C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category'B' land were less vis-à-vis Category C' land In other words, with reference to Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C' lnd would have•:to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-à-vis Category 'C' land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A land would be required.tobe increased suitably; . . . . 48. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the reasoning adopted bythe learned Land Acquisition Collector, and the..iearned Reference Court, I pose the question: What should • be the fair market value of the subject lands as of 7.8.2000,
11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, . 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25 5 2002 and 27 1 2003 i e the dates on which the notifications were issued under. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894; . . . -- - 49 I have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a DiVisiqn Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided q.n LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 49 of 74, S 11.5 .2006, Mahender S/na/ivs. UO/&-Ors. wherein pert-ainingto --_---v+Hage--Bawaria, fair market -value determined as of 15 111996 - is 1.99A904.68 per bighwhichuais to T9,59,542.46 pacre. The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I have promised, i,o discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i e the lands with which the Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants Based on population growth, 5 villages in rural De4hi were identified for providing major health facffittes 'schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was village Bawana It was noted that G T Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to • village Bawana and, that the Master Plan for Delhi notified in the year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed in the future to industrial and commercial, but had also —ubservea that notwithstaithng this, for the reason no zonal plah was notified as contemplated by Section hA of the Delhi Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used fr ' 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 decisioi. • To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being know.n to all as being' required in the future' for building purposes, was found not resulting in the potential being valued :wTh reference to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capable of,being built upon. To put it differently, the. decision, though not so expressly stating, would be a propô'itTôh__ that' there'is' a difference between the undeveloped land having building S potentiality in. presenti vis-à-vis a land having .a building - . potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above, as of the date .15.11.1996, fair market value determined was 9,59,542.46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference to the notification being closest in point of . time i.e. the notification dated
25.7.1997.....where-under for agricultural lands in..D.elhi minimum price fixed.by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was flO lakhs pr acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced another judgment reported . as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Galra/ Sing/i vs. UOI & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lan.ds in S 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 9,51,1211-per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands in village Bawana. It needs to be .highllghted that, while. determining the fair market value as of.15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in •para19 and 20 ofthe decision, location and potentiality with reference to ØeveIopment. work carried out in the surrounding lands was c.onsidered I would highlight that another.Division . Bench of this Court, inanother adjoining village in the same i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singhola determined fair market vaIu as of 19.3.1993 @ fl,30,523/- per bigha i.e. 6;26,5 10.40 per acre. The decision is
......repmted.as..2.00.4 (4) AD(DelhD 20 Ram chander vs1 (JO/and th ............same.Di4sench, as per the'decisio'porte.....111 (2004' DLT 95 Hukum5inqh vs. UO/, pertaining_toa notification dated
14.1.1994 for vilIageSinghola• determined fair market value 1,40.230/- per bigha i.e. 6,73,104/- per acre. -- 50 - n e
...a ori.ãw udgments_noted in the _ preceding paragraphs as also the various notifications issued frOm time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in. para 7 above bring out two very important facts relevant tO determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. . As of 27.4.1990 • minimum price was T4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to f1O lak.h.s per acre as of 1.4.1997 i fe.. 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. It.. shows that due to urbanization, between the year. 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ga/rats case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above. . . . .
¶51I need to elabOrate a little more with respect to the decision in Ga/rats case. Discussinthe evidence pertaining to fair market value of agriculturalland in vi!lage Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras .9 to 17 the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre per annum was 95,000/- for multiple cropped land_and having goodqibnfacflities and thus capitalized the land price at 9.5 Iakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land . prices_of comparable lands in the ----s g-afeasinctud+ng - potentFaHtyiirr para 19 onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in adjOining vUlageBhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and sen ... instances found that based on the said sale LA.App.N.o.266/2008 & connected matters n stances and g1 g—beneftt f— _-1,,- V would come to 10,03,364/- per acre (Referpara 31). The Court then considered the prices-notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of '9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and 9,51,121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. The decision highlights,, that the potentiality had benA,e4 4actored in when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f,
1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum pricer notified as of 1.4.1997 at T10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were highlighting that the price was 10,03,364/- per acre.
¶52The decision in Mahender Singh's case, pertaining to vitlage.Bawana1 referred to. by me in para 49 above, highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by. the Court which was projectina residential, commercial and indUstrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that tUl the.year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Division Bench was concerned, virtuaUy no development had • taken place in viDage Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential.. As 1 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'd isluns.... in Ga/mis case and Matiender S/na/Is case j9flijqflt that potentiality translated itself into a aiity . betwen 1990 and 1997when prices rose by about .16.5% per annum and thereafter the extended potenti&ity did not translate with the LA.App.No.2661'2008 & connected matters .
. . .. . . requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10% to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough avaabiIity of developed land and the hunger of the, market got saturated. . The empirical evidence in the instant case; apart from • the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect • whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have.given further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the • sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant whereto in some references in viUage Rajapur Kalan the.. learned . Reference Court has held that as per the said sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair market value of agricultural lands would be 19,16,040/ per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that I bigha and 13 bswa of land which was sold for 539690/- and 70160/- was paid as stamp duty would mean that. 6,09,850/- (5,39,690/- + 70,i60/-) were spent would yield the price 17,74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sate i.e. 20.5.2002. Thus, the best which could be said as the most • favourable situation for the land owners would be that with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category 'C; lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would • • be U.7,74 ,109/- pe.r acre. For Category 'B' and Category 'A' land woul and here we find another area of dispute for the reason, as noted by me • hereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned Land Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted LA,App.No.266f2008 & connected matters • . sometimes fl.2 lakhs per acr, sometimes 1.56 lakhs per acre •• :
and sometimes T1.7 !akhser ace. frohcef.Category 'A' lands to dtermine the price for Category 'B' lands and wherever lands were in Category 'C' as price, ha-s been deducted further by T1.7 lakhs per acre. . . . . : Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the . on the basis of certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths to be leveled and this wbuld_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 T1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and in some that fl.7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There isjust no clue. . '.
¶56In Ga/rat Sing/i's case (supra), the price .differntial worked out was 25,0001-per acre. I have noted hereinabove that the acquisition in Ga/ral S/nab's case pertained to the date
15.11.1996. In Ga/ral Sing/i's case the price for Category 'A' land determined was 9,76,121/- per acre and for Category 'B'. land the price determined was 9,51,121/- per acre and the price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the price of Category 'A' land. .. . . •
¶57I thus hold that Ga/ra/ .5/nab's case should be my. guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as well and thus I hold that wherever Category 'A', 'Category 'B' ard. Category 'C' have to be differentiated on price, the differential . . should be 2.5%.
¶58Thus, if 17,74,1091-, rounded off to T17.75 Iakhs per acre...woutd-bTh priceio'ra .tategory 'C'tand Invi1lage Rajapur Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2 .LA.App.No.26612008. & connected matters admittedly pertains to a Category,±C' land, the price. for,- Category 'B' land would be T18.20 lakhs per acre and --for -------- 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 pricewas T13.82 Iakhs and as cf l.42001 the sarne-was5..;'7'iakhs'per acre i.e.-the percentageincrease between the year was 11.5% per annum: If I treat Category 'A' land price at T18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11%'pr annum, the price as.of 1.4.2001 would come to approxirnatey . ?16.40 !akhs per acre and this would highlight . that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Governmer?t at f15.7 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is •70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels Of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the pric 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 tht though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular dat is normally not held goodevidence:tO wdr .k 'OUfid ..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 particular date is the result of various market forces/conditio.n 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 & connected matters and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the • sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself • has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of market value of land as on said date, would be. a relevant piece H of evidence to be taken into account while detèrmining the market value of land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000,
2.5.200122.8.2001 and 7.12.2001. The argument that village Narela had always been treated locationally advantageous for the reason the townshipf Narela was in existence since long and this was recognizd when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, vis-à-vis the adjoining villages 2 per square yard price advantage was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambh-'s case, !ooss sight of the fact that the price, differential due to locationl • . 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'l am concernec?today, the price differential faded and by the year 2000 and onward, it has become non-existent. ' I thus hol.d that, pertaining to the hotifications datei
7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001 the land prices would have to be determi'nd on the basis of 'th minimum price notified by .. the Government as also witl!1 reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 for the reason I find no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said date could be determined' Pertaining to Thè notif'icatñdate
16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to'b' determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page .7 of 74 .:becausawith 'èfè'rence t&" - It pparet-th at land price as of said date comes to more than if determined, with respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum land price notified . was f15.7 lakhs per acre with effect from
1.4.2001.
With respect to the price differential for Category 'A' and Category 'B' lands., noting that pertaining to the said notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the land acquired in viflage Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalan (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001) 1 hold that vis-à-vis the said notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential, fixing the same for Category. 'A' lands, deduction has to be effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine theprice for Category 'B', land. , Before I work out the compensation and since it .woud be evidenced that pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the land prices would marginally increase in a few cases and substantially in the oth.er,.a striking note of discordant would emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi. • Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the fair market value at 22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002, -butt --need tohihti'ghtThatperta1ngt:the same notification dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned Reference Court has determinedH the.... -fair market value at 17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village RjuKalan and Sanoth, pertai e notification dated
27.1.2003 thefair market value assessed for Category 'A' lands is 19,16,040/- in some cases and 19,13,760/- in a few, LA.App.No.266f2008 & connected matters ' . S .-.. -._-., meaT1Trrth-ereby fiat much lesser compensation has been worked out in the year 2003 vis-à-vis the compensation worked out for Holambi Katan to the, notification dated
23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said notification the land price determined in Ga/rats case (supra) as of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12% per annum compounded. . ViflagePooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000 With . reference to the notification dated 982001 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 notification i.e. 7.8.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Catègör7'C''tands, iand price per acre comes to,17,74,109/-,' rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 23% the price comes to T18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 25% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the 'date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd, comes to T14.75 lakhs per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to • ' 14,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court 'has, wfthout 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 per ac-r d-th-us-qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.
AU Land Acquisition Appe&s filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of india in the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters eals filed by land owtri'1rcnprf pcepaf _and_labeIed_as_t RtAIhereTnabove.are4sm4ssed__
¶66AU Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable • for Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertaining to the • notification dated 1.4.2000 in sun of tf4J5 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 14,37,280/- per 'acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are • . dismissed.. . . .' . Pert&hing -to such appeal where the compensation • stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition • ,. •,Act1894as expi a med . inth judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/2001 (93) DLI 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. , These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to prOportionate cost.
VillaQe Holambi Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000 , For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove pertaining to the' notification (same) da'ted 7.8.2000 relating to ' village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GRID-B' hereinabove and cross objections stand disposed of enhandng the compensation to ?14.75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that as per the award and even as per the reference all subject lands were of uniform cateot. Needless thate appea!s filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are aVowed by enhancLng thecompensation to T14.75 Iakhs per acre together with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters iz • - TI— ___ explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOi 200]. (93) DLI 569, except for the period where thece4s-a--d&a-y in filing -----peaior cross obje.cfion, for which periOd of delay.no
interest.on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. The appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. . . • . VillaQe Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2000
¶69Peaining to_vil!ae...,B awan.a.rang to the sam notification dated .7.8.2000 where the learned Refe.rence Court . ha,aot enhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair market value for Category ' lands is fixed at 14.75 Iakhs per A' acre and for Category 'B' lands at 14,38,125/-per. acre and • noting, that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross objection, appeals as per 'GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and needless to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellants shall be entitled tostatutory benefits as per the.Land Acquis 'ition. Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the. period where therei is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest. on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellnts' 7' would be entitled to proportionate cost. . Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000 • •70. With reference to the . notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1 4 2000 minimum price notified per acre is •13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price tO.H be suitably •. updated to reach the date of the notification I.e.
11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2602 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to munded off ti17,75,000/..per acre, and i for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . , , to T18.2 lakhs per acre and further inc-ceasing-by. 2..3-%_t-he.-prices" comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A lands; dnd decreasinUthe said pricë byTI% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 11.92000; the mean average price for, Category 'A' lands in village Khera Khurd comes to .14,83,500/ per acre and decreasing. the same by,
2.5%, itcomes-te 144674-3Fperacfé4oFCategory '8' lands. • •• 71 All 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 14,46,4131-peracre for Category 'B' lands. I note that pertaining.to this notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sundet Vs. U012001
(93) DLT 569 shall be granted, •except for the perio.d where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001 • 72. With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 rnrnum pnce notified per acre is T15.7 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.
2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 253.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre cornes.to ?17,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,0001-per acre, and fOr Category 'B'Iands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters to 18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices ...........LAdS; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect. the price with - - - rererence to tne sale deed for. the date 2.5.2001; the mean average, price for Category 'A' lands j village Narela comes to 16,16,500/- per acre and decre.asing the same' by 2.5% it comes to fl516081-per acre fec--Category- -B' lands.. Noting. that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category. 'B' lands .and uniform price awarded is 15,85,570/- per acre and since for Category 'B' lands, the price worked out by me is:less by 9,0O0/- per acre which is a meager amount, I hold that for Category 'B' lands the price determined would be' as per the reference but for Category. 'A' iands the pricestandse±ihancedto16,16,5flQIr
73.. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-E' filed by the land owners and crQss-objections filed by the land owners In appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Narela. pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 . in sum of 16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order, for Category "B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross objections filed by Union of india as also such appeals 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' land$ are allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced compEnsation statutorybenefitss per the Land Acquisition Act ................the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569.shafl be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in'filing the appeal, for which period of delay no . LA.App.No.266!2008 & ccrinected matters ' Page 63 df 74. interest on the enhanced compensation shaD be paid. These WU•Tbe en.. . . Notification dated 22.8.2001
¶74With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 — wheeeffect-from--142001....minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 iakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date_of the notification i.e.
22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5..2002 wherein for Category. 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 17,7I4,109/-, rounded off to 17,75.,000/- per acre, and fr. Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to T18.2 Iakhs per acre. and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to fl865.500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; an • decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect—the price with re.fe rence to the Sate deed for the .date 22M.2001; the mean avrag.e price for Category 'AHands invUlage Holambi Kalai1 comes to I6,745001 1-per acre and decreasing the same by
2.5%, it comes to fl6,32,637.50 per acre for CategOry 'B' Lands.. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without an reasons,. done away with Category'B' lands and uniform price awarded is 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worke out by me comes to a meager 9,000/ per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. . . 75 AU Land Acquisition Appeals fUed by the Union of India and cross objections whereverfiled by Union of India in th appeals filed by iad owners. in respect whereof grid has b.e.n..................... prarEdand1beled..... 'GRID-F & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed.
¶76AU Land Acquisition Appeals filedby .the Ia..nd 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 vifi-age 1-lotambi Kalan pertainmg to the notification dated 22.8.2001:.jn sum of 16,74,500/. peracre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at 16,43,811/-. per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B'. lands are dismissed , . . . . • 77; . Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection,' for which period of deiay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellantsor cross objectors would' be entitled to proportionate cost.
Village All Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001 •
¶78With 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 suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. • .
22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C, lands, land price per acre comes to • 17,74 1 109/-, rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price cones. to T18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices........ comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category A' lands; nd 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 Catego.ry..A-I-ands in.viflage Ati Pur come's:.to• - • 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5% 01 it comes to 16,32,637.50 per acre for. Category 'B' lands. Noting LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Ah - that Tharned rce Court has,wrthoutanyçe done - away, with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is l6,43,8fl/- per acre, the pricdFfférentiaj worked out by me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and.thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference • Court. . . . All Land Acguisit4ow Appeals'....fifed....by-the... in respect whereof grid hasbeén prepared and labeled as H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any 'appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court. • 80. ',. here shall be no order as to costs. . . . . . Vifiape Holambi Khurd Notficatgon dated 22 8 2001
¶81With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 • wherein, with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 iakhs per acre and requiring said price to be ................suitably .. updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. ...22..8.2001 and.with reference to the sale deed .dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre 'comes to 17,74,109/-, 'rounded off to 17,75,000/- per acre, and for" Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the pricecomes tol8.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands;' and, decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with • reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean avericCate.j 'A' comes to 16,74,5O0/.. per acre and decreasing the same by.
2.5%, it comes to l6132,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Notr'itht théTéáined Reference Court has, without any reasons dnne_away with Category'' d uniform price•' awarded is f16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked OUtby me comes to a meager 9,000/- per acre and thus qua LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . Category W. lands I maintainthe_amuntawarj.by... the learned Reference Court. 82 The appeal filed by. the Union of India in respect whereof grid has ' been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-I' hereinabove is dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference .Court. 83: . There shall be no order as to costs.. Village RafaDur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001
¶84With reference to the notification ..dated. 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is t15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be • suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i e
22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 17,74,1091-, rounded. off to U7,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to ?18.2 Iakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' . lands; and decreasing the said . prices by 11% to reflect the price . with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average pricefor Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to 16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same, by
2.5%, it comes to 16,32,637.50 per.acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' IndS and uniform price 1 ,43,811/- per acre, the price duffe.rential worked out by me...co.mes to a meager 9,00.0L per.crand..thus,.qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court. 85 AU Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of tndia in the LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters -. .:a1s: -fHed gribeen. prepared and labeled as 'GRID-i' hereinabove are dismissed..
¶86All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands In village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the. notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of 16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded: at • 16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category :Bv lands are dismissed. • 87. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs, UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation: shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost. Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001
¶88With reference to the notification dated 9.82001 , wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is T15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saiçl price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.
7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 • wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to 171410_9i_thüédiff.to. 175750_Q0/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to t18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes-to 18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and • decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters H, . . ..... . . .. . . . ...... . reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean• ........... average price for Category 'A' lands in village Sanoth comes to 17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the notific.atindated1...122Oo1 the tand_ownrswouJ4.be entitled to the enhanced compensation in sum of 17,29,500/-. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of lndia 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 aredismissed. AU Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owner and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed b' Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of 17,29,500/- and needless to state on . the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Ack 1894 as explained in the judgment 'reported as Sunder Vs. UQI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appeDants or cross objectors would be entitIei to proportionate cost. Village Shahour Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2002 Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as hid by me 'hereinabove the 'land price would have to be determined with reference to.the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land price for Category 'A' lands has been determined by me at fl8,65,500fr-pe'r---acre and since_there is just-a--d+ffereftCeOf'4 days between the date of sale and the notification i mainta9i that for the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . per-acre and I highlightthat as perth awthdind -The
- all lands are in the same categoryAppeals and_cross objections fUed by the land owners as per the 'GRID-L' are allowe.d 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) DLI 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. -. . VUq Shahpur Gàrh Notfflcaton dated 2332002 Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days i hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of 18,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as Sunder Vs. UO! 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or cross objections flied 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 landowners as per 'GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid andall appeals and cross objections filed by Union of india. are . dismssed. VWae Hni;%mhi Kaan Notffkation dated 2332002— ..........._____ As. noted by me pertaining to the notification dated
23.5.2002 relating to vlllage Hotambi Kalan all lands have been treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court has awarded compensation in cum of. 22,14.,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 1 have he1dthat fair market value wo.ul.d be ?18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeats 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 compensatin payable to 18,65,500I-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. L. No costs. ViilageAli Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002
¶94Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notificatiOn relating to village Hotambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determiie • fair market value payable at 18,65,500/- per acre .and thus all appeals and., cross objections filed by Union of 'India as per • 'GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the • compensation payable to 18,65,500/- per . acre on which . 'statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT. 569 shall be paid save and, except in such appeals or. crss • objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well. Village Sagth Notification dated 27'1.2003
¶95Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the land owners and Union of India as per 'GRID-P'pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to' village SanOth, I npte LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • C -that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has paced-the.-Ind-s--_ .__-in 3 categories and I find -that the learned Reference Court has without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category while awarding compensation. -
¶96. On the mean average basis which I have been following by increasng—tbe-prLce....as....LL420.0.......with....reference. .to the notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the the sale deed thted 20.5.2002 and taking the mean average., for Category 'A' lands the price comes to 19,43,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Cateo 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68 per acre. l.find that the learned Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at 19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands and , similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-P' are dismissed. . Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of.
19,43,500R per acre and needless to state on the enhanced . . . . compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act .1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO/ 2001 (93)..DLT 569 5hll: be pa ...dve and except in such appeals and cross objectiOns where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as welt. The appeals and cross objectiOns filed by Union. of India pertaining to Category 'B' and Category 'C' lands are alloied by m 4fy+ g--the----r-eIatabledeefee the Reference. Order by reducing the compensation for Category 'B' land to LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters • r.. •18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' land to 18,47,539.68 per acre. Village RalaDur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2003
¶97For parity of reasoning asper para 96 above pertaining to village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required pertaining to lands acquired pursuant• to notification dated
27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded compensation in sum of I9,13,765/- per acre and in some cases at 19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform: category. On the mean average basis. which F havé. been followin.g by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with refrence to the notification issued bythe Government as alo by increasing the same with.. reference to the sale deed dated
20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A': lands theprice ac Category 'B' land the price comes to 18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category 'C' lands the price comes to 18,47,539.68 per.acre. Thu 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 '' and Category 'C' lands and similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of 1 India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. . The said appeals and cross objections as per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners pertainIng to Category 'A'lands are allowed by •decreeing compensation payable in sum of 19,43,500f-per acre a.ndneedlesstostate—on--the .... ènhàhced compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. IIQI 2OOi-- 93) DLT-569—shafl -be---pa4d—s-ave---and except inF such appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest. LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters . Pag? 73 of /4 • . . wouki not be paid for the period Of delay. Proportionate costàs well. The appeals .and cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to Category'B' and Category 'C' lands are allowed by modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by Te4g the compensation -for-- Category 'B'. land to 18,94,912.50 • per acre and for Category 'C' • land to 18,47,539.68 per acre. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE AUGUST23, 2011 mm/dk LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters.
Case details
Parties and counsel
( $-13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 693/2011 SURAJBALI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr.Mohitrao jadhav, Advocates for UOI/LAC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.