LA.APP./2/2011 of BRAHM PRAKASH SAINI Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

$-90*IN THEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

LA.APP.2/2011& CM 6752/2011(Cross Objections)

BRAHM PRAKASHSAIN!AppellantThrough: None

versus

UOI & ANR.

RespondentsThrough:Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocatewith Mr.SachinNawani andMr.SiddharthPanda, Advocates

Ms.ShivaniChopra, Advocate for•DA

CORAM:HON'BLE MRJUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

ORDER23.08.2011

For orders, see LA.App.No.266/2008.

AUGUST 23, 2011mm

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AMULYACertify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing.

AIMDCGI^iP-A)

+LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP.'-'264/2008,LA.APP. 265/2008, 259/2008, LA.APP.'-'264/2008,LA.APP. 265/2008, LA.APP.'-'264/2008,LA.APP. 265/2008,LA.APP. 265/2008, 265/2008,LA.APP. 267/2008,LA.APP. 268/2008,LA..APP. 270/2-008,LA.APP.271/2008,- LA.APP.- 272/2008,LA.APP.273/2008,." LA.APP.278/2008^Xir^PPL.tj«FP.

LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP.'-'264/2008,LA.APP. 265/2008, 259/2008, LA.APP.'-'264/2008,LA.APP. 265/2008, LA.APP.'-'264/2008,LA.APP. 265/2008,LA.APP. 265/2008, 265/2008,

(RelatingtoNotificationu/s4dated07.08.2000& AwardNo.19/2002-03,Viilage-PoothKhurd)

AND

(GmD-B)

+LA.APP. 972/2008& CM 2349/2009(Cross Objections),LA.APP. 1122/2008& CM 2099/2009(Cross Objections),lAAPP.1150/2008&CM12216/2011(CrossObjections),LA.APP.1151/2008&CM2345/2009(CrossObjections),LA.APP.1152/2008SiCM2102/2009(CrossObjections),LA.APP.1153/2008&CM2338/2009(CrossObjections),LA.APP.1154/2008,LA.APP, 1187/2008,LA.APP.1188/2008,LA.APP.1189/2008,LA.APP.1218/2008,LA.APP.15/2009,LA.APP.82/2009,LA.APP.100/2009,LA.APP.102/2009,LA.APP.113/2009,U.APP.571/2009,LA.APP.622/2009,LA.APP.214/2011.

(Relatingto Notificationu/s 4 dated07.08.2000AwardNo.11/2001-02,Village-HoiambiKaian)

ANDCGRID-C)

+LA.APP. 359/2007,LA.APP. 202/2007,LA.APP. 382/2007,U.APP. 383/2007,LA.APP. 269/2008,LA.APP. 811/2008,LA.APP.928/2008,LA.APP.134/2009,LA.APP.182/2009,LA.APP.969/2010,

(Relatingto Notificationu/s 4 dated07.08.2000& Av^/ard No.08/2001-02,ViHage-Bawana)AND. .•. CGS^iD-0|•• -

-fLA.APP.144/2011,LA.APP. 145/2011CM'--12911/2011(Cross, Oy_ections), LA.APP. 146/2011. Se CM 12957/2011 (CrossObjections],

•MDliffcatron'n3/5-"4nfeted11'."09..20§^-&- A^va-fd-20/2002-03,Vilfage-Khera-Khurd).

(deratingto Mbtlfication24/2003-04,Vi!!age-I\!arela)

u/s 4 dated02.05.2001&AwardNo.

+LA.APP. 497/2008,(Cross Objections).

AND

. iGRlD'f}-

LA.APP. 141/2009& CM 5302/2010

(Relatingto Notificationy/s 4 dated22.08.2001& AwardNo.18/2003-04,Viilage-HolambiKafan)

ANDCGRiD-G|

+LA.APP. 777/2D10 777/2D10& CM 2686/2011 2686/201112966/2009(Cross

+LA.APP. 777/2D10 777/2D10& CM APPL.3808/2011,LA.APP. 778/2010& CM 2686/2011 2686/2011(CrossObjections),LA.APP. 779/2010& Cl^12966/2009(CrossObjections),LA.APP., 213/2011,LA.APP.261/2011,LA.APP.326/2011,LA.APP.327/2011,LA.APP.328/2011,LA.APP.330/2011,LA.APP.331/2011,LA.APP.332/2011,-LA.APP.333/2011,LA.APP.334/2011,LA.APP.335/2011,LA.APP.339/2011,LA.APP.340/2011,LA.APP.341/2011,LA.APP.342/2011,LA.APP.343/2011,LA.APP.350/2011,LA.APP.351/2011,LA.APP.365/2011,

LA.APP.377/2011,

LA.APP.388/2011.

(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated22.08.2001& Award No.33/2003-04,Viilage-HolambiKalan)

AND

+LA.APP. 391/2011,LA.APP. 404/2011,LA.APP. 409/2011.tRetatrng to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.15/2003-04,Viliage-AH Pur)

AND(QMB-

-f• LA.APP. 481/2010

+LA.APP. 488/2008,LAtAPP. 490/200S7^.APP.491/2008LA.APP. 549/2008,U.APP.755/20"0"8;~LA:^P. 8€872aOB & GMNO.10393/2P09(CrossObjections),LA.APP. 896/2008& CfV].. -LAtAP^Pv 8^20a&,LA.APP.1003/2008,LA.APP. 587/2009,LA.APP.591/2009,LA.APP.34/2010SiCMNo.7072/2010 (Cross Objections),LA.APP488/2010,LA.APP.605/2010,LA.APP.516/2010,LA.APP.62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011LA.APP. 421/2011

(RelatingtoNotificationu/s4dated07.12.2001&AwardNo.17/2003-04,Viilage-Sanoth)

ANDCGRi,D-L|

(Relating to mmcaimnu/s 4 dated 16.05.200229/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garlii)

Award No.

ANDCGRID-M)

(RelatingtoMotificationu/s4dated23.05.2002& AwardNo.22/2003-04,Village-ShahpurGarhi)

ANDCGRID-U)

+LA.APP. 485/2008,LA.APP.498/2008& CM 13228/2008(CrossObjections),LA.APP.1149/2008,LA.APP. 263/2009,LA.APP. 304/2009& CH 13915/2009(Cross Objections),LA.APP.12/2011,

.(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated23.05.2002&-Award No.16/2003-04,Viliage-HoiambiKalan)16/2003-04,Viliage-HoiambiKalan)

ANDCGRID-OI

-F.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 & m5300/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 310/2009& CM 16027/2009 .(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 782/2010, LA.APP.

4A.APP.2&Q/2Q1-3^--GH14852/2011(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 381/2011.

{Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.05.2002 & Award No.17/2004-05, Village- All Pur).;

-ANO-

CGR8D-PI

jsUu.

1.10villages;namely,PoothKhurd,HolambiKalan,Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, All Pur, RajapurKalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are connprised in the RevenueDistrict (Morth-West) and if we see the nnap of the city of Delhi—villageslieift^te^ofth^A/esternpart'ofDelhi. They iie within an area between the 'V formed by RohtakRoadi.e.NH-IOandG.T.KarnalRoadi.e.iSlH-1.TheDelhi-Ambalarailway line runs somewhatparallelto MH-1. WhereasvillagesfSlarela and Shahpur Garhi are in betweenthe railwayline and IS!H-i, the other villages are on the opposite side of therailway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line.Narela andShahpurGarhi are towardsthe east of the railwayline.Theurbanizedcity of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has ipeendevelopedon the agriculturallands acquiredpost 1961 and issituatedIn the iand within the aforesaid'V,BawanamdustriaiEstate came up on lands which were acquiredpost 1996 andsaid IndustrialEstate is also on the land within the aforesaid,'V.Historically,exceptfor villageMarela,all villageshavebeentreated as equivalent-with respect to their location.2.The instant decision decides the issue as to what shouldbe the fair market value of agricuiturallands in the said villagesasof thedates7.8.2000,11.9.2000,2.5.2001,22.8.20Q1,7 12.2001,16.5.2002..23.5.2002and 27.1,2003.Meedlesstostate,pursuantto notificationsissued,from time to timei on'^^a"fore^a"fti~d'atesunderSection4 of theLandAcquisitionActI8Wr vast'tractsofTand in said •10"'vlTFal''es'Were'acqu^and•Sav/g .gnd gxcept lands in the Revenue Estate of village .^apelawhere the purpose of acquisition was partly residential andpartly industrial, in the other villages, acquisition was^for the.-purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down

••- —.-roa.d Of freigM^•camplex:'TH^ Ti§gg?T~:tehv'^"iy^.•-la^e'"'trigg^'lands were needed was to set yp an industrialestate pursuantto decision taken to shift all in non- industries operatingconforrning areas within Delhi to conforming areas.3.I must highlight,thatargumentsby learned counsel forthe land owners were the same in all appeals filed by them asalso cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the positionwith respect to the stand taken by the Union of India.Save andexceptpertainingtovillageNarela,whereanadditional,argument was advanced;being that, the township.of Narela hadexisted since pre-partitiondays and thus lands in village Marelahad better value and for which it was urged that way back inthe year 1953 when lands in the revenue estate of village Narelaand adjoiningvillagesBhorgarhand Mamurpurwere acquired,lands in village Narela were given price advantageof ?2A persq.yd.vis-a-visthepricedeterminedforlands'invillageBhorgarhand Namurpur.1 must furtherhighlight that learnedcounselconceded that villageNarela and Mamurpur comprisedthe same revenueestate;with the marketi.e. Mandi beinginvillage Narela and the village abadi being in Mamurpur,-.4..The position of the awards made from time to time and •the relatablenotificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 'have been detailedby me while noting the variousLand AcquisitionAppealsand the Cross Objectionsas per theindex hereinaboveand thus I need not repeat the same.5. -A perusalof all the awardsannouncedfrom time toiime=:wa!ild-:^€¥eaiiihaii_Ji^^ieamedJ-andAcquisition •Collectorhasdeterminedcompensationpayablewithreferencetonotifications/ordersissued by the Governmentof NCT Delhi from-ttme-® 'time-notifyingthe minimism rates for agricultural'landsin Delhiandwhereverit was foundthatdue to landownershaving excavatedearth resultingin'pits having depths between..LA,App.No.266/20088c connectedmatters•Page14 of 74

_4' to b\ the lana value has been appropriately depressed aridthis is to be found in few awrd^tierelsndFnavebeen put in2 or 3 categories i:e. Category 'A', Category 'B' and Category'C.

6.A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by theReference Court in various Land Acquisition References nnade,would show that the learned Reference Court has determinedfair market value on different principles and for purpps^ ofclarityI maynotethebasisonwhichthelearnedLandAcquisitionCollectorand thelearnedReferenceCourthavedeterminedthe compensationpayable.The same would be asunder:-A.Pertainingto the notificationdated7.8.20G0issuedwder -SeetieR 4 of theLandAcquisitionAct 1894pursuantwhereto1372.00.10bighaland was acquiredin villagePoothKhurd,for the purposeof shiftingindustrialunits,as against?13,82 lacs per acre for Category'A' iands and fl2.26lacs peracreforCategory'B'landsawardedby thelearnedLandAcquisitionCollector (by adopting the price as per the policy forminimum rates as of 1.4.2000),the learned ReferenceCourt hasadopted the same rate i.e. ?13.B2 lacs per acre and has grantedIncrement at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000till 7.8.2000 I.e. the date of the notificationissued under Section4 of the Land Acquisition Act1894 and thus determiniedfairmarket value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/-peracre and tias ignored that there was Category 'B' land for whichhe had to make necessary adjustment.

B.Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.20G0pursuant whereto -211.14 bigha land was acquired in villageHojambi Kalan/theLand Acquisition Collector treated the landas of same characterand determinedfair marketvaluewithreference to the policy for minimum rates in sum of f13.82 lacsLA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmattersPage15of74

•'—"' ~--^3per acre which has been enhaTTcetH>y-the-ieaTned ReferenceCourt to ?14,12,995/- per acre by relying upon dedsI^"ofa"'Gairai Vs. 6/C?/whereinfor the date 15.11.1996 fair market valuedetermined was ?9.76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands andtreating the said date and the said price as the base, giving 12%per annunrg^TgqBtiwfbraperioU^^^^^^^^^^8 months and 23days, to reach the date 7.8.2000,fair market value has beendetermined.C.Pertainingto the samenotificationdated7.8.2000pursuantwheretoagrlculturaflandsin villageBawanawereacquired,the land AcquisitionGoilector determinedfair marketvaiue far Gategory'A' lands,with referenceto the policy andfixed the same at ?13.82 lacs per acre for Category 'A' lands andf 12.62!acsper acreforCategory'B'lands.ThelearnedReferenceCourt maintainedthe same.D.Pertainingtothenotificationdated11.9.2000pursuant whereto agriculturallands in village Khera Khurd wereacquiredforshiftingindustrialunits,theLandAcquisitionCollectorhas,for Category'A' landsdeterminedfair marketvalue,with referenceto the policy effectivefrom 1.4.2000insum of ?13.82 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands has fixedthe same at ?12.52 lacs per acre.The learned ReferenceCourthasadoptedthepolicywhereinminimumpricefixedasof1.4.2000was ?13.82lacs per acre and for 128 days i.e/thenumber of days between1.4.2000till 11.9.2000,appreciatingthesameby12%hasdeterminedfairmarketvalueat?14,40,157/-and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands.E.Pertainingto the notificationdated 2.5.2001 pursuantwhereto1140.5.8bighalandwasacquirediniMarela fordevelopmentof sectors1 to 4, Phase I, Narela,with respect tothepolicyof minimumpricewith effectfrom1.4.2001theLA.App.Hd.266/2008sfe connectedmattersPage16 of 74

learned Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market valuein sum of ri5.7 lacs the same per acre for Category 'A' lands i.e.price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category 'B' landsdeterminedthe same at fl4lacs per"Hcre:The learnedReference Court adopted the minimum price notified by theGovernment as of 1.4.2001 and gave appreciation for periodof 1 month for the reason the notification under Section 4 of thei3rrdrAcqmsTtkHrAct 3^9^dated 2.5.200! and enhanced thecompensationto ?15,85,700/- per acre which has uniformly"awarded.

f,Pertainingtothenotificationdated22.8.2001whereunder512.16 werebigha land in village HolambI Kalanacquiredfor constructionof 100 meter wide road, the learnedLandAcquisitionCollectorhasrestedhisdecisionontheminimumprice notifiedas of 1.4.2001i.e. ?15.7 lacs per acrewhich has been held to be the fair market value for Categoiy 'A'lands and for Category 'B' lands the same has been determinedat 514lacsperacre.ThelearnedReferenceCourt,withreference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001i.e. T15.7lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% p^r annum, for143 days an^ the price so fixed is tl6,43,811/-per acre whichhas been uniformly awarded.G.Pertainingtosamenotificationdated22,8.2001pursuantwhereto512.16bighalandwas acquiredin villageAlipur, on the same reasoning which ,has been adopted forvillageHolambI Kalan, for the two categoriesof land samecompensationas determinedfor village Holambi Kalan has beenworked out by the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also bythelearnedReferenceCourtwhohasdoneawaywithca-tegoftzattenr---——:H.Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001pursuant whereto 192.15 bigha of land was -acquired in villageLA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmattersPage17 of74HolambiKhurd,thereasoningof theLAC andthelearnedReferenceCourt and the price determinedis the same as hasbeen determinedfor village Holambi Kalan save and except that,in this village even the LAC has treatedall lands in the sameuniform category.I.Pertainingto the same notificationdated22.8.2001pursuantwheretoagriculturallandsin villageRajapurKalanwereacquiredthereasoningandthefairmarketvaluedeterminedby the learned LAC and the learned Reference Courtis the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurdand Alipur save and- except in this village the acquired land wasof uniform category.J.Pertainingtothenotificationdated7.12.2001pursuantwhereto222.05 bigha land was acquiredin villageSanoth for laying 80 meter approach road to Narela township,thelearnedLandAcquisitionCollectorhasassessedcompensationuniformly in sum of fl5.7 !acs per acre which isthe same as the per policy for minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001and the learnedReferenceCourt has adoptedthe same priceand given appreciation for 250 days at the rate of 12% perannum to reach the figure of ?15,99,042/-per acre,K.Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002pursuantwheretoagriculturallandsin villageShahpurGarhi wereacquired, the learned Land AcquisitionCollector has determinedcompensationin sum of T15TT~tac^peracre which is theminimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4;2001. ThelearnedReference Court has simply held that the land ownerswould be entitled to enhance compensation at the rate of 11.5% annum I that the learnedper compounded, may highlightReference Court has not worked out the compensationand hasleft it to the Executing Court to do so, however 1find that theenhancedcompensationwhich would work outwould beLA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmattersPage^ of74

fl7;75,3^9.44per acre for the reason treating the base date asand the b^'ps^ atf 15.7 lacs, for~l~y^ahd45days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciationwould be at theasrate of 11.5% per annum compounded per the learnedAdditional Sessions-judge.L.Pertainingtothenotificationdated23.5.2002pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhiwere acquired the learnedLAC and the learned ReferenceCourthave determinedsame compensation as per the reasoningpertainingtothesamevillageforthenotificationdated16.5.2002 andJ find that since^there is the gap of 7 days intwo notifications,the compensationpayable as per the decisionof the Reference Court comes to tl7,79,781.78per acre.Peftmnmg^^-thesame nottff€at!on-dated-23.5.20Q2pursuantwhereto445.81bigha land in villageHoiambiKalanwas acquired, the learnedLAC has determinedfair market valuein surn of ?15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per minimumprice w.e.f. 1.4.2001.The learned ReferenceCourt has adoptedthe same reasoningas was adoptedwhile deternniningthe fairmarketvalueof landsin villageHoiambiKaianwhichwereacquired pursuant to the notificationdated 7.8.2000I.e. adoptedthe price determinedas of 15.11.1996in the decision in Gairai's, case (supra)and appreciatingthe same by 12% compoundedper annum the price determinedIs ?22,14,239/-per acre.M.Pertainingto the same notificationdated23.5.2002pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agriculturalland in village AlipiirwereacquiredthelearnedLandAcquisitionCollectorhas. awarded compensationat the rate of ?15.7 lacs per acre basedon the minimumprice as of 1.4.2001,which price has beenadopted as the base by the learned Reference Court and aftergrantingappreciationat therateof 12% per annumw.e.f.

OrPertainingtothenotificationdated27.1.2003pursuantwhereto3092.04bighalandin villageSanothand-218^T03-fetgha-4arrcHiT^wiiage-RajapurKalan'were acquired, thelearned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on theminimum price notified as of 1.4.200rTixedthe same value asthe compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in both villagesi.e. ?15.7 lacs per acre and for Category 'B' lands in sum of ?14lacs acre 'C lands in sum per and for Category of 12.3 lacs peracre.ThelearnedReferenceCourthasadopteddifferentreasoningin some impugned decision and differentin few.Insome decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted theminimum price in sum of ?15 J lacs per acre-as-©f^4.5O01-^aMI•appreciatingthe same by 12% per annum for period of 665days has fixed fair market value at ?19,13.755/-per acre whichhas been uniformly awarded and in some referencespertainingto the villageRajapurKaian, the learnedReferenceCourt hasdeterminedthe fair market value with referenceto sale deed'Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002and whereunder1 bigha and13 biswa of agriculturalland comprisedin Khasra [sio.200 in therevenueestateof villageRajapurKalan waspurchasedforf539,690/-.7.Since the learned Lancl AcquisitionCollector as also thelearnedReference-Courthaverelieduponthenotificationsissued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixingminimumprice for agricuiturar lands in Delhi,let me thereforenote the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to timepertainingto agriculturallands in Delhi since the same woul^berelevant for the present decision.The same would be as under:-

8.From the tabulationhereinabovenotedit would beapparentthatafterminimumpricewaslastfixedw.e.f.27.4.1990, in sum of ?4.55 lakhs/acre it was increased afternearly 7 years to ?10 lakhs/acre and the annual increase comesto 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of fll.2lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the was priceenhancedto?12.32lakhs/acre,whichnotificationwassuperseded,inasmuchas when the notificationdated 9.8.2001wasissuedthepricewasretrospectivelyenhancedw.e.f.1.4.1999 to ?12.15 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increasedby 11%^ P§r annym with reference to theprice determinedas of_0.1998andvide,samenotificationthepricewasretrospectivelyenhancedw.e.f.1.4.2000to fl3.82lakhs/acrei.e. increasedby 11% per annumvis-a-visthepreviousi.e.?12.15 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by, 11.5%per annum vis-a-vis the previousprice of n3.82lakhs/acretothe, ffgwe .of..was"enhancedw.e.f. 30.8.2005to ?i7.584lakhs/acrewmcf. givesik '3n iii^-ease-oronly2.yB%-^nnumand then the price rose to?53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% perannum with referenceto the base figure of ?17.584 iaichs/acreand the date 30.8.2005.4:te-8v[^^by the landownersand Union of India beforethe learnedReferenceCourt, itwould be beneficial the reader of theas I,for presentdecision,feel, that argunnentsadvancedon eitherside may be noted. !would that from the side of the land each highlight owners,argument was in the alternativeand it was urged that theywould be entitled to price determination as per the first which as the secondargument, failing per argument, faili|gwhich as the thirdand so on. From the side of per argumentUnion of India it was urged that the land price fixed by theReference Court pertaining to the notification dated7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated22.8.2001 for village Hoiambi Kaian; the notification dated7.8.2000for villageBawana;the notificationdated 11.9.2000forvillage Khera Khurd; the notificationdated 2.5;2Q01 for villageMarela;'andthe notificationdated 22.8.2001for village All Pur;and the notificationdated 27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Kalanand Sanothtreatsas if all lands were of uniformcharacterand it-ms 2 uTQM tjTat_mrrective_.a_ctionl&j:e_qiiir.edby doing things.Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by theGovernmentfrom time to time, 11.5% increaseper annum and-ir^per-BTTmimiTicrease^^^^exces^ive-wfthreferenceto the••...M^,otthenotificationsunderSection4ofLand AcquisitionAct 1894; requifihgthe same to be reduced to 10% per annumInleast. Secondly, the learned Reference Court was notJustified in treatingail lands as of the same characterand thusLA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmattersPage22 of74

requiring further correctionby suitably depressingthe price forsuch lands which were put in Category'B' and Category 'C bytheLandAcquisitionCollectorandinrespectofwhichcategorizationItwasurgedthatneitherlandownerhadchallengedthe same by leading evidence to the contrary I.e. toshowthatsuchlandswhichwereputin Category'B' andCategory'C, on accountof pits and depressionsof variousdepths,asper theawardspassedby theLandAcquisitionCollector was incorrect10.Learnedcounselfor the land owners firstlyurged thatthe learnedReferenceCourt was not justifiedin ignoring the 2saledeedsdated25.3.2000,Ex.PW-1/3,inLandAcquisitionReferencewhichis subjectmatterof LA.APP.No.780/2010asalso"deex!dated25.4.2001,Ex.PW-1/2,in the sameLA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswaagriculturallandin village Mamurpur wassold@ ?26.75!akhs/acre and as the sale deed per Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19biswa of land was sold in the revenueestateof villageKheraKhurd for sum of ?32.4 lakhs and adding on the stamp duty aspaid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land priceof 25.3.2000smder Ex.PW-1/3 would be ^28.89 lakhs/acreandpertaining to the sale deed Ex.PV^-1/2 the land price would be?53.478 lakhs/acre.It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deedsv\fou!d be good evidence to determine the fair market value ofagriculturallands 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 notificationswere issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct1894 bysuitablyincreasingor decreasingthe price. As an extendedlimbof this argument,pertainingto village Narela, it was-urgedthatthe price needs to be suitablyenhancedand for which learnedcounsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% moreLA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters23 of74andfor which theargumentwas thatwheninpast,pertainingto notificationissued on 30.10.1963under Section4 of the Land Acquisition Act~l894.the ReferenceCourt hadgiven said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur-Narela by giving a. price benefit of f2/- per sq.yd.This wasupheld by the Supreme Court in its decisiondated 5.8.1987inC.A.No.4405/1997UP! i^s. Dharambir & Ors.The said decisionwould revealthattheprice perbighain sumof ?6,650/-determinedby the Land Acquisition Collector was enhancedto?16,750/-per, bigha by the ReferenceCourt which was enhancedto ?22,000/-per bighaby this Court and the decisionof thisCourt was reversed by the Supreme Court and the one renderedby the ReferenceCourt was restored.11.• Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, inthe alternativeto the first, that the learnedReferenceCourt,having acceptedthat due to BawanaIndustrialEstate,NarelaResidentialSchemeand Rohini ResidentialSchemehavingresulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized anddevelopedinto residentialand industrial estates,had resulted inthesubjectlandshavingacquiredabuildingpotentiality,required fair market value to be determinedwith respect to theprice at which DSIDC and DDA i.e. the implementing agencies,which acted as the Nodal Agencies for developmentof RohiniResidential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developedlandin theRohiniResidentialSchemeandBawanaIndustrialEstateandfor whichlearnedcounseltookme throughtheevidenceled and as notedby the learnedReferenceCourt,which ! wouldbe notinghereunderwhile dealingwith the"submission; urged...12=Alternativeto the second siLhmisslo.n, being the thirdsubmission, it was urged that as held by Division Bench of thisCourt In the judgment reported as 2001 (.93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram.LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters.Page24 of 74

^i/sr-Unmn of India, it was permissibleto determinefair marketvalue of acquired lands mth reference to the fair market valuedetermined by Coirrts at an earlier point of time by givingsuitable Increasein the marketvalue ofthe land by percentages annum for differentranging between 6% per annum to 12% perperiods.Sh.l.S.Dahiya,learnedcounselfor some of the landowners handed over chart, worked upon by learned counsei,with reference to the decision in Bed!Ram's case (supra) as perwhich price increase per annum tili 30.3.1965 had to be @ annum with reference to the baseper price f16,750/-per bighaas of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court inDharambir's case (supra) and thereafter@ 10% per annum till31.3.1973and thereafter@ 12% per annumtill the variousdateswfTen the8notificationsunderSection4 of theLandAcquisitionAct 1894 were issuedfrom time to time,and withwhich i.am.concernedin.lhe pcesent.appe.als.So worked out,learned counsel highlightedthat as of 27.1.2003 the fair marketvalue would come to ?56,88,759/-per acre and I may highlightthat learnedcounseihad worked out as aforesaidfor the reasonhe was appearingin such appeals where the price fixation has tobe as of the notificationdated 27.1.2003.Other learned counselurgedthaton thesameprinciplemarketvalueshould,beassessedfortheprecedingnotificationsdated7.8.2000,11.9.2000,2.5.2001,22.8.2001,7.12.2001,16=5.2002and23.5.2002.• r.13.The fourth argumentadvancedwas, and for which4:efe-re4^Ge was made by learoed-cojiflselfor the parties in theevidenceled in LAC IMo,99/2005, which is subjectmatter of 2cross appealsi.e. LA.APP.NoT2"68/2008filed by the land ownersand LA.APP.NO.292./200Bfiled_J3y UnioD_citJndia, that fair marketvalue should have been assessedon. yield basis by annualizingthe yield for period of 20 years and the evidencewas- theLA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmattersPage25 of74test-ffnoRy of Ram K-isfrafit-Q' the effect that by selling aqrlcuitural4)rcHjijjce-JKHrubis4aQds-4^e 4j-sed to earn X\ lakh per bigha perannum i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000I.e. the date ofthe notification issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishanand otherswereacquired.It was thusurgedthat the fairmarket value as of said dat€ should i3e^20 lakhs per bigha.Imay highlight that the fourth argumentwas only projectedbySh.S.Chaturvedi,learned counsel who appearedfor Ram Kishanand othersi.e. the appellantsin LA.APP.Mo.258/2008and therespondentsin LA.APP.Mo.292/2008.14.The fifth argumentadvancedwasby Sh.T.P.S.Kang,Advocatewho appearedin few mattersand urged that foreach of the notificationin question the fair market value oughttohavebeendeterminedwithreferenceto thenotificationwhich was closestin ooint of time where under minimumlandvalue was fixedby the Governmentand the notificationdated24.1.2008whereunder ?53 lakhs per acre was the minimumprice fixed as of 18,12.2007;the mean averageprincipleto beadopted was the precise argument,15.The last argument,which was in the alternativeto thefirst5, pertainedto the notificationdated27.1.2003,dealingwithwhich,in some Referencesthe learnedReferenceCourthad,withreferencetoa satedeeddated20.5.2002,whereunder 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprisedin Khasra IMo.200(1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold forf5,3§,6#0jf-,determinedthe fair market value as per tlie-saidsale deed ln~the following words: (Refer oara 17 of the decision_dateiiJJ^20W-ia-LAC-M&MM/2009);"!f we add stamp duty in-the sale price 13.69.906/-per bigha (k5.39.690/-' -f 7'0J60 =6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes to tl7,74/109/-per acre or 13,68,906/-per'bigha.Further if we give 12%LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters'Page2S of74

=:"2^increaseon said amount for interveningperiod betweenthe"datewhenthesafedeedexeajted-^^ndthe dateofratificationu/S 4 (20.05.2002to 27.01.2003}i.e. 8 months itcomes to^l9,16,037/-(round offX19,16,040/-)."The argumentwas that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisitioni.e.AwardNo.l0/DC(NW)/2004-05,it wouldrevealthattheaward pertainedto 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922bigha and 18 biswa land was put ln_C^^ory 'A', 45 bigha and 2biswa in Category 'B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswain Category'C.The subject sale deed clearlyreferredto theland being comprisedin Khasra i^.200 and that page No.56-57of"the awardwould evidencethaTHandcpKhasraNo.200ad-measuring1 bighaand13biswawasplacedinCategory'C.WhereastheLandAcquisitionCollectorhaddeterminedfair market value as of the date of the notificationi.e. 27.1.2003in sum of ^15.7lakhs per acre basedupon thenotificationdated9.8.2001whereunder saidpricehad beenfixed as the minimumprice as of 1.4.2001,and thereafterhaddepressedthe sameby tl.7lakhsper acre for Category'B'lands, fair market value determinedwhereof was fl4 lakhs peracre and furtherdepressthe same by another tl.7lakhs peracreforCategory'Clands,fairmarketvaluedeterminedwhereof was 12.3 lakhs per acre.It would be apparentwhatthe argumentwas.The argumentprecisely was that if themarket valuehad to be determinedwithrespectto the saledeed in question, the same had to be for Category 'C lands and ,for Category 'B' and Category 'A' lands the price had to beincreasedby ^1.7 iakhs per acre for each category.16. .I have already noted hereinabove the arguments whichwere advanced by Sh.Saniay Poddar, learned senior counsel whoappeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in the same.para 9 above and hence I need not repeatLA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters.•^17.In varioussub-parasof parafa li^inabove.I havecapsuled the reasoning of the learned Land AcquisitionGollectof^-—and-tbe4eamed-RefeFeB€e-€etiftpertaining to~the8 notificationsissued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 andrelatableto the 10 villagesand thus IcommencePnyJourneytodeal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the factsnoted as also the reasoning of the learned Land AcquisitionCollector and the learned Reference Court as per various sub-paras,of para 6 above.

18.But before dealing with the argumentsI need tohighlightvariousanomalieswhich strikethereaderat theoutset.The same would be:-A.Pertainingto the notification dated7.8.2000whereinlands were acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for Category 'B'lands, having depressions and pits, deduction effected vis^^-visthe price for Category 'A' lands is ?1.56 lacs per acre andpertaining to the notificationdated 11.9.2000 where price hasbeen determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd,said:price differential has been worked out at ?1.2 lacs per acreand while determining fair market value for agricultural lands invillage Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notificationdated 2.5.2001 the deduction effected is fl.7 lacs per acre,which is the same figure adoptedwhen fair market value ofagriculturalland in village Holambi Kalan was determinedas ofthedate22.8.2001.Pertainingtothenotificationdated27.1.2003 and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential at ?1.7 lacs acre to interon said count has again been taken perse differentiate the price between Category 'A', Category 'B' andCategory 'C lands.In other words, the price differential hasvaried between ?1.2 lacs fl.7 per acre, 1.55 lacs per acre andlacs per acre.

B.The learned Land Acquisition Collector has adopted theminimum price notified closest in point of time to the date whenSection 4 notification was issued without appreciating the landprice with reference to the date of the Section 4 notification i.e.no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has beengiven.

TheiearnedReference Court has adopted the minimumprice notified andhas given appreciationrangingbetween11.5% per annum and 12% per annum and in some cases hascompoundedthe same and in some given said benefit at thesimple rate.

D.Pertaining to village Holambf Kalan .where acquisitionswere madepursuantto thenotificationsdated7.8.2000and23.5.2002the learnedReference Court has adoptedthe pricedeterminedbythisCourtinGairafscase(supra)asof15.11.1996andhasgivenappreciationat therateof 12%simple per ,annum for the former notificationand at the rate of12% compoundedper annum for the latter.

E.Whereasforthenotificationdated27.1.2003thelearnedReferenceCourt,in somereferenceshas determinedthefairmarltstvaluewithreferenceto theminimumpricenotifiedas of 1.4.2001andhas givenappreciation,in somecases has determinedthe fair market valuebased on the saledeed dated ,20.5.2002.F.Whereverthe learnedLand AcquisitionCollectorhasclassified lands in Category 'A', 'B' and 'C reasons thereof havebeen given m the award but the learned Reference Court, whileaWar^ng un[form compensation, has given ho reasp ris as to whyit was treating all lands to be of same character and_auarity.•19.Since \ am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8notificationsissued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act1894, I think it advisable to put in tabular form the relevantLA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmattersPage29 of74learnedReferenceCourt,in somereferenceshas determinedthefairmarltstvaluewithreferenceto theminimumpricenotifiedas of 1.4.2001andhas givenappreciation,in somecases has determinedthe fair market valuebased on the saledeed dated ,20.5.2002.F.Whereverthe learnedLand AcquisitionCollectorhasclassified lands in Category 'A', 'B' and 'C reasons thereof havebeen given m the award but the learned Reference Court, whileaWar^ng un[form compensation, has given ho reasp ris as to whyit was treating all lands to be of same character and_auarity.•19.Since \ am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8notificationsissued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act1894, I think it advisable to put in tabular form the relevantLA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmattersPage29 of74

taisular form the data would.be as under:-

20.! now propose to deal with the 6 submissionsurged byteamedcounselfor thelandownersand'the2submissions.'urgedby the Union as notedin paras 10 to 15 hereinabove(pertainingto the land owners) and para 8 above (pertainingtoUnlQa of India) .

21.The first argumentis predicatedon the 2 sale deeds,Ex.PW-1/3whichis dated 25.3.2000,and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 whichis dated 25.4.2001..As per the former,fair marketvalue for the former comes to f26.75lakhs per acre and thelatter @ ?63.478iakhs per acre.The learnedReferenceCourthas rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determinefair marketvalueof agricultuFallands,for all the villagesinquestionon the reasoningthat the sale deedEx.PW-1/3 waspurchasedby religioustrustby the name of 'RadhaSwamiSatsang'and Suraj Bhan PW-5 who had tenderedthe sale deedin evidence,while deposingin Court in LAC IMo.68/2005 hadstatedthattohisknowledgethelandwaspurchasedforreligious "purposeand was BeTng used for religiouspurposerThesaledeedEx.PVV-1/2haslikewisebeenheidnot to bereliableevidence- to determinefair market value of agriculturallands .on the .reasoningit was purchasedby Non GovernmentOrganization"ChristianOrganization"and as per the testimonyUPof PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretaryof the organizationstatedha^-to-aav-^-wee-forthe said piece ofland as it was the only plot of the requisitesize suitable for therequirementof the organizationand is being used for destitutewomen i.e. there was specialcircumstance,personalto thevendee.22.As held in the decisionsreportedas 1995 (1) SCC 717Land AcquisitionOfficer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Isti Rohini & Anr.(Referpara6)and2009(14)SCC369l^ohd.RaUfuddinVs. LandAcquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactionsevidencedina sale deed which are tenderedin evidenceby virtue of Section51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as anexemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in anarea for the reason there may be specialcircumstanceswhichhave led the buyer to pay higher price.The true test is thepricewhichawellinformedwillingbuyerwouldpay toanequallywell informedsellerwithoutbeinginfluencedby anyspecialcircumstancesor the fancy to buy particularpiece ofland.An informedbuyer wouldbe one who has studiedthemarket and has apprised himself of all available land in the area;hasunderstoodthe topologyof the areaand theprevailingprices.If buyer has fancy for particularpiece of land, hemay pay much higherprice and this would not be goodindex of fair market value of the landsin the area.I would befailing if i do not highlight that the Union of India had relied uponthe sale deeddated20.5.2002,whichwas acceptedby thelearnedReferenceCourt pertainingto the notificationdated:27.1.2003 where-underagricultural landin village Rajapur Kalanwas sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for much lesser acreprice i.e. ?17,74,109/- per as against the price which comes"to f63.478lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and t28.89 lakhs peracre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3,LA.App,No.266/2008&connectedmattersPage33 of7^:

themselvesare having intrinsic evidejice_ofthe fanciful priceVa\

Ttfus7~~apsrtfrom—thereasoningofthelearnedReferenceCourt,with whichI concur,afore-notedreasonsinpara 71 ahnvp wnulrihf:* ariditinnalreasonsto hold that the 2sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fairba determinedand more so4P.ai:fc@t-vai4ie-4>f-sub^ecL^for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when theis would make all the more aacquisition ofsuch large an area, Itreasontobe circumspecton sal^ deedshaving intrinsicevidence of the transaction being the result of fancy of thebuyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decisioncited by learned counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiyabeing the decisiondated19.12.2008 disposing of batch of appeals, lead matter beingLA.App.Wo.193/2006Pratao Sinah (since deceased) thru LRs l/s.~UUr& Ors.It was hiqhilgnted tn^thesale dee^thereinbywhich L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agriculturalland for expansionof its factory which had been ignored by thelearned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had fancy forthe said land and hence the price reflected therein could not betreated as good .evidence of value of land in the area, wasrejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitablededuction on account of the parcel of land being large, wasaccepted by the Court and thus even in the instantcases the 2sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PVV-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should betreatedas the basis to determine fair market value.Theargumentignores the reasoning in the decision of the DivisionBench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did notacceptthe value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicativeof the market value, but founcT that if the price therein wasreduced by 1/3'^ the price arrived at would be the same asLA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmattersPage34of74would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate ofthe.sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the safe deedsproduced by the Government were giving price of fl.37.000/-per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased theland the the gave price f3,26,600/- per bigha and average woyldwhichwa5~nBar""about"^epriceoff2,15.160/-per bigha, if 1/3'^'^ would be deductedfrom the sumof f3,26,600/-.It may furtherbe highlightedthat in the saidjudgmentthe year of the sale was 1993 and the notificationunder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995and 16.11.1995and the Court determinedfair market value asof the said dates at the same sum arrivedat as aforesaidi.e.f2.15,160/-.In other words, the reasoningof the Division Benchis not to be read pedanticallybut meaningfully.It is not that theCourt treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it wasso, the appreciationfor 2 yearshad. requiredto be given.• I.wouldhighlightonce again,thatI havehereinbeforealreadynoted the inherent contradictionin the value of the land price asperthe2saledeedsandthisitselfisintrinsicmutuallydestructiveevidenceof the 2 sale deeds reflectingfair marketvalue.24.Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above isrejectedand I immediatelyhighlight that the extendedlimb oftheargumentthatafteracceptingthesaidsaledeedsasindicativeof the fair marketvalueof the land,pertainingtovillage ^arela,in viewof thedecisionin Dharambir'scase^•""""lsupra)J^d~"^Tc¥s]i'oiild be suitably enhancedwould be dealtwit-h hy mp at- fhgawhpn 1determine the fair m.arket value' oflands for the villages in question.25.The second argument, contours whereof are^ to' befound in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the

iatest -pmrtQoncementof-the''''SiiprCotirt' on the.Issue as per•the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 La! Chand vs. UOl.26.But before that 1 must highlight that the decisioh In LaiChaad's case (supra) predicated claim on DDA broGhurewhereunder,on lease-holdbasis, residentialplots were allottedfor residentialhousingschemeand the-acgumentwas beingconsideredfor fixationof fair market value of agriculturallandsin village Rithala, where furtherlands were acquiredfor thesameresidentialschemei.e.'RohiniResidentialHousingScheme'.I highlight that agricultural lands In village Rithala aresituated within the 'V formed by ISIH-1 and NH-IO i.e. G.T.KarnalRoad and Rohtak Road.27.Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiringagriculturallands,developingthesameandtransferringperpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally berelevantto industriallayouts,in" paras 11 to 27, the SupremeCourt observedand held as under:-

11. The DDA brochure(Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981is aninvitation seeking applications from members of thepublic for allotment of plots on lease basis under theRohini"Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated •that the plots were in layout formed/tobe formed inRithala' and the surroundingvillages. The brochuregives 'the following provisionalrates for allotmentof plots onleaseholdbasis:

The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metrebehp takenSiras indicativeofof the-sairf the rulingpywsionai marketprice.rates, shouldsuch3.?;^ allotment ratesconsideration, of plots adoptedwe are of by the development view thatauthoritieslike DDA cannot form the basis for award ofcompensationfor acquisition of undeveloped lands forseveral reasons. Firstly, market value has tobe"^^evelopedagriculturallands in rural area, whereas the allotmentrates of developn^entauthorities are with reference tosmall in within urban area. plots developedlayoutfallingSecondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adoptdifferentratesfor plots in the same area with referencetothe ^onorniccapacityof the buyer, making it difficulttoascertain the real market value, whereas market valuedeterminationfor acquisitions is uniform and does notdepend upon the economic status of the land loserconcernedwith market value of freeholdiandr whereasthe allotment"rates" in the DDA brochurereferto the initial premium payableon allotmentof plotson leasehold basis. We elaborate on these three mayfactors.

First factor

-13.The percentageof "deductionfor development"tobe made to arrive at the market value of large tracts ofundeveloped agricultural land(withpotential fordevelopment),with reference to the sale price of smalldevelopedplots, varies between 20% to 75% of the priceof such developedplots, the percentagedepending uponthe nature of development of the layout in which theexemplar plots are situated.

14.The "deduction for development" consists of twocomponents.ThefirstJswithreferencetothearearequired to be utilised for developmental works and thesecoadis thecost of thedevelopmentworks. For if DDA orexample, residential layout is formed bysimilar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% ofthe land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks,playgrounds and civic amenities (community-facilities),etc.' ,•15. • Thedevelopfnentauthoritywillalso .incur

15. • Thedevelopfnentauthoritywillalso .incurconsiderableexpenditurefordevelopmentofundeveloped land rnto developed layout,,which includesthe cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads,

undergrounddrainage and sewage faci 1ities,Taviriqwaterlines,electricitylines anddevelopingparksand cMLI- -•W^X \JIWB iVW4 I UWti wlines,electricitylines anddevelopingparksand cMLI- -•W^X \JIWB iVW4 I UWti wdevelopedplot The two factors taken together would bethe "deductionfor development"and can account for asmuch as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.16.On the other hand, if the residential plot is in anunauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of'^4e4u€ti^n for development"-maybe far less. This isbecause in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will beset apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities.Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. Theroads and drains will also be narrower, Just adequate formovement of vehicles. The amount spent on developmentwork would also be comparativelyless and minimal. Thusthe deduction on account of the two factors in respect ofplots in unauthorised layouts, woiild be only about 20%plus 20% In all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDAplots.17.The "deduction for development" development"with reference tothe "deductionfor development"and can account for asmuch as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.16.On the other hand, if the residential plot is in anunauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of'^4e4u€ti^n for development"-maybe far less. This isbecause in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will beset apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities.Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. Theroads and drains will also be narrower, Just adequate formovement of vehicles. The amount spent on developmentwork would also be comparativelyless and minimal. Thusthe deduction on account of the two factors in respect ofplots in unauthorised layouts, woiild be only about 20%plus 20% In all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDAplots.17.The "deduction for development" development"with reference to, prices of plots In authorisedprivateresidentiallayoutsbetween thebetween themay range50% to 65% dependinguponstandards and quality of the layout,18. ^ The positionwith referenceto industriallayoutswillbe different. As the industrial plots will be large (say ofthe size of one or two acres or more as contrastedwiththe si2e of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sqm), and as there will be very limited civic amenities andno playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development(for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will befar less; and the cost to be Incurred for development willalso be marginallyless, with the result the deductiontobe made from the cost of an industrial plot may rangeonly between 45% to 55% as contrastedfrom 65% to 75%for residentialplots.19.If the acquired land is in semi-developed urbanarea,andnotanundevelopedruralarea,thenthededuction for developmentmay be as much less, that is,as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructurewillalready be available. {Note: The percentagesmentionedabove are tentative standards and subject to proofto thecontrary.)standards and quality of the layout,18. ^ The positionwith referenceto industriallayoutswillbe different. As the industrial plots will be large (say ofthe size of one or two acres or more as contrastedwiththe si2e of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sqm), and as there will be very limited civic amenities andno playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development(for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will befar less; and the cost to be Incurred for development willalso be marginallyless, with the result the deductiontobe made from the cost of an industrial plot may rangeonly between 45% to 55% as contrastedfrom 65% to 75%for residentialplots.19.If the acquired land is in semi-developed urbanarea,andnotanundevelopedruralarea,thenthededuction for developmentmay be as much less, that is,as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructurewillalready be available. {Note: The percentagesmentionedabove are tentative standards and subject to proofto thecontrary.)

•20.Therefore the-deduction,for the"developmentfactor" to be made with reference to the price of smallplot In developedlayout, to arrive at the cost ofundevelopedland,will be far more than the deduction

withreferencetothepriceof asnnal! plot in anunauthorisedprivate layout or an industrial layoutIt isknown that the development cost incurred bystatutoryagenciesis much higher than the cost incurredby private developers,having rega^^tohigher ov€rheadsand expenditure.

21.Even amongthelayoutsformedbyDDA, thepercentageof landutilisedforroads,civic amenities,parks and playgroundsmay vary with referenceto thenatureof layout—whetheritisresidential,residential-mnfv-€©nRmefc4al-0f4f=i^ystnaf;af=^-evefvamong residentiallayouts,the percentagewill differ having regard to thesize of the plots, width of the roads, extent of communityfaculties,parks and playgroundsprovided.22.Sorrie of thelayouts formedby "the statutoryetevelepmentauthorlttesmay have farge areas earmarkedfor water/sewagetreatmentplants, water tanks, electricalsubstations,etc. in additionto the usual areas earmarkedfor roads, drains,parks, playgroundsand community/civicamenities.The purpose of the aforesaidexamplesis onlyto show that the "deductionfor development"factor is avariablepercentageand the rangeof percentageitselfbeing very wide from 20% to 75%.Second factor23.DDA and other statutorydevelopmentauthoritiesadopt differentrates for allotmentof plots in the samelayout,dependingupontheeconomicstatusof theallottees,classifyingthem as high income group,middleincomegroup,lowincomegroup,andeconomicallyweaker sections.As consequence,in the same layout,plots nffay be earmarked for persons belonging toeconomicallyweaker sectionsat price/premiumof Rs100 sq m, whereas the price/premiumcharged may be Rs150 per square metre for membersof low income group,Rs 200 per square metre for persons belongingto middleincome group and Rs 250 per square metre for personsbefdhgihgto high incomegroups.'

24.The ratio of sites in layout reserved for HIG, MIG,LIG andEWS may also vary.All thesevaryingfactorsreflect in the rates for allotment.It will be illogical to takethe average of the allotment rates, as the "market value"of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred byDDA statutoryauthority, but'upon the paying capacity of"the'a^ri^'ntsTorallotment..Third factor

annual rental^gj^Q standard methods forfreehold P^P®^' ' g®of freehold (ownership):rights withthe value or rreenu vdeterminingreferenceto the ann^l ren^^^^regular^^1^3leases,^But it is very "^5'®fZrence to the premium for afreehold property with refere,5leaseholdplot allottedthere is along, the rentequatethe lease premium'rItetanotment'prfcl)'chargedby DDA, as being equal tothe marketvalueOf the property^ difficulties referred to27.However, in vievv of.^.^jy ypon the.above, it is "^ ^•allotmentrates/auctonm 9nnarket. • gbv DDA in developedlayout, ndeter^^value of thebe excludedas beingPDA brochure has thererore1.0 ucpricenot relevant."

The evidenceon the subjecthas beendiscussedby the

EarnedReferenceCourtand1reproducethesame by extractingfrom LAC Reference NO.U7A/2009. Theadvanced argument; fore^L learned Reference Court, being the same as waS^ncldbefore has been noted thecourtwith referenceme,to theevidencerelied by l.r ad^upon,

-Ud. counselthat DDA &DSIDC allottedoK in Narela^Res^^ pArea and Narela '"^",f"^.^[®,gtterdated 04.01.2000He has relied upon allotmentf ^=3 gector A-5,rr. ar.s,—»r.s ?o'sr.Sd'iiir.Kimetres,which is Ex PW5/2 both this an^dated 09.07.90of industrialplot alioneo uyPage40 of74

LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters

measuring350sq.yardsatNareiaIndustrialComplexat the rate oft65Q sq. metrp.g whirhisEx.PW3/1 andanotherallotmentletterdated25.04.2000 of industrial plot which- is Ex. PW3/2, whichwas sold at f30G0 per sq. metres.Further Ld. Counsel has submittedthat from thestatementofPW9 Kanwal Singh & documentEx.PWll/1, which1s detail of land acquired. It is apparentthat total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost=d€¥slopR^efit—per bigha wotild—be~^^7944i[)0000f248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDAby sellingal-ternateplot in IMarela ResidentialScheme@?3208 would be ?2531408/- per bigha.And if 30% of the total area utilized for roads,park, drain etc. total area comes for sale Is 70% so theprice of per bigha would .come to (2531408 - 759422 =17719856Andafterperbigha).deductingdevelopment charges from sale price of one bigha i.e.?1771986 - 248911 -1523075 per bigha,' where aspetitioner has been given rate only ?3,27,0S3/- per"btgtraT—^^^^^^

Similariy he has tried to demonstratethe profitsearned by DSfDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW7R.D. Sharma, Asstt. Manager, DSIDC who has produceddocuments Ex. PV\/7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has arguedthattotal expenditureincurred on developmentofMarela Projectby DSIDC was 720525901till 2001 andtotal area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectarei.e.1361250 sq. yard.Therefore, total earning of DSiDC is^2142917 per bigha, calculationis as under:

t^v--J3f^F-e©m€s--tof2470^2470000 per-aqT-yafd-'or perbigha (i.e. 3363223099divided by 1361250sq. yards)-SR44ne4AC-na-s-^aidcompensation@ f3-2-7083 per bighaonly, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned profit of..?2M2MI..perbigha^

Ld. Counsel for the petitionershas furtherarg,ued.thatLAC hasawardedcompensation@ ?327083per

bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciationof theis deductedfrom saleMce _per bigha i.e. ?24700000,the figure comesto?1815834 per bigha & petitioneris entitled for the same."

-29^—:—M0w7-w€—d0-f^©t-hsveevidenceas to what was theextent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference tp :the Bawana Industrial Estate d^velope^ by DSIDC and NareiaResidentialSchemedevelopedby DDA. Whetherit was 20% or75%, we do not know.The inchoateevidencehas resultedinthe same factors; being 3 in number which were noted by the case-Supreme Court in La/ Chand's '(supra), which render thisevidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land inthe subject cases.,30.It is no doubt true, as held everh-^-the—[earned-ReferenceCourt,thatwiththedevelopmentofBawanaindustrialArea,-RohlniResidentialSchemeandNarela •Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired- buildingpotentiality,but the questionwould be what would be the valueto which the building potentiality would translate itself.31.I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in viewthe observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in LafChandscase(supra)has rightly rejectedsaid evidenceasreliable.On the issue of potentialityrelating itself to the value, Ipromise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while Ishall be discussingas to what should be the fair market value ofthe lands.

3Z.The third submission in the alternativewas_ based uponthe observationsof DivisionBench of this Court in Bedi Ram's-ease (supra)/andIhe suljrnission is as noted in para 12- hereinabove.ThelandownersrequirethepricedeterminedinDharambif'scase(supra)relatingto thenotificationdatedLA.App.No.266/2008 connectedmattersPage 42of 74 42of 74

-31Ll£lJSfi3ja-sum_om-6^750A--per^Namurpurto be treatedas the basis and progressivelyincreased,firstly by6% per annum, then by iO% perannum and lastly by 12% perannum for different periods and thereby 4et-ermme the fairmarket value for the 8 notifications in question.

Namurpur

33.It be highlightedthat in BediRam's case (supra), withreferenceto the base date as: of the year 1959, for the year1976 i.e. period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of thisCourt applied the progressive.increase method by firstlyenhancing the price per annum by 5% till the year 1965 andthen by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for•the remaining3 years.

34.However, in Lai Chancfs case (supra), the SupremeCourt categoricallyopined as under:-

"Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-^10-1961 is relevant?

47.TheappellantscontendthatsomelandsinRithala were acquiredunder Section4(1) Notificationdated 24-10-1961 for the planned developmentof Delhiand compensationwas'awardedat the rate of Rs 7000perbigha.Theircontentionis thatas thepresentacquisitionis in the year 1981, the market value of theacquiredland shouldbe determinedwith referencetothe market value determinedfor the 1961 acquisitionbyprovidinganappropriateIncreaseatthecumulative/compoundedrate of 12% per annum. ThisCourt had occasionto examinethis issue recently.InONGC Ltd. V. Rameshbhai Jivanbha! Patella this Courtheld: (SCC p. 751, para 15)_'!iA_Norrnally,recourseis taken to the mode ofdeterminingthemarketvaluebyproviding-appropriateescalationover-thB~prowd~marketvalueofnearbylandsinpreviousyears(aswherethereisnoevidenceofanycontemporaneoussaletransactionsqracquisitionsofcomparablelandsintheneighbourhood.The saidmethodis reasonably

48.Even if the relied upon transaction is only two tothree years prior to the acquisition, the court should,beforeadoptinga standard escalation, satisfy itselfthatthere were no adverse circumstances.For example, ifthe acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not bepossible to determinethe market value, based on the2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or15% per year, as the newspaper reports discJose thatthe price of immovable properties in most areas of thecountry came down by more than 40% to 50% from the2007 rates. Caution Is therefore necessary beforeincreasingthepricewithreferencetotheoldtransactions. Be that as it may. It Is clear that the awardmade in regard to 1961 acquisitionwill not be of anyusefordeterminingthemarketvaluefora1981acquisition."

35.ft is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by theDivision Bench in Bedi /?a^s-Gasfi-4-sofira)runs in the teeth ofthe law declared by the Supreme Court m Lai Chands, case(sti^FaV which decision foHe^-aft—earlierdecision of theSu^eme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. 1/5.Rameshbhai iivanbhai Patpl.

36.hTirheinstantxase-ltiere is anoffler good reason not tofollow the law laid down in Bed! Ram'^ case (supra) for thereason 1find that Co-ordinateDivision Bench of this Court, inthe decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Dpw&Ann Vs. UP! &Ors,, pertainingto agriculturallands in village-Mamurpur Narela, did not apply the progressivepercentageincreasewith referenceto the price deternninedin DharamMscase (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in- determined in Narela asthe land price being villageMamurpur annumof 14.3.1980 @ ?2010/- per per bigha and gave the flOOO/-If Bedi Ram's wasincrease @ per bigha. principleapplied the price would have come to approximately t50,000f-per bigha but the learnedDivision Bench determinedthe sameat ?33,0-00/-perlaigha.37.That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, whilediscussing on the issue of the fair market value of subject lands,in the unreporteddecisionof Division Bench of this Court inLA.APP.No.866/2005decidedon 11.5.2006,Mahender Sinah vs.UP! & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to and that oneagriculturallands in village Bawana, I highlightvillage with which 1am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to anotificationdated 15.11.1996issued under Section 4 of the LandAcquisitionActwhere-under3604bighaand18biswaofagriculturalland in village Bawana was acquired for an industrialestate i.e. Bawana IndustrialEstate, the fair market value as of15.11.1§§6was determined@ n,99,904.68bigha which equalsto ?9,59,542.46per acre and relevantwouldit be for me tohighlight that if the notificationdated 25.7.1997by which pricefor agriculturalland being the minimum, price determinedby theGovernmentwas flO lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997,the price

determinedby the Division Bench would equal the minimumprice notified by the Government.

———If—j—were—to—take—th€—pnce—as—of—i5.ii.i§§^6@?9,59,542.46per acre, pertainingto the notificationswith whichI am concerned, the price would be approximately the same asdetermined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit ofprogressiveincreaseby 10% per annum.But, I leave it at thatfor the moment for the reason,-as assured by me herein above, 1would be while hoiisticaliydiscussingthe subject opining uponthe fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8notificationsin question.

39.The fourth argument, which was advanced only bySh.S.Chaturvedl, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishanand others, the appellantsin LA.APP.No.268/2008and who arethe respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e.LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as notedin para13 above i.e. thetestimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belongingto the family they were earning fl jakh per bigha by sale ofagriculturalproduce.

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

41.The reasoning of the Cpurt that there was no cropstandingon the land when its possessionwas taken over on4,10.2000wouldrequirean inferenceto be drawnthat theacquired lands belonging to the family v^ere not being put toagricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallaciousno doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledgethatby theweek of September, rice is harvestedin Delhi and if arevegetables grown, even they are harvested and the land isleft fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is

sown around the first week or the second week of November...each; year,.

42.But the other reasoning of there being no evidence ledin the form of documentsis relevant. Now, as perthe testimonyof Ram Kishan he was working as an AdministrativeOfficer inthe Municipal Corporation of Delhi til! 313.1996 i.e. was not atiller himselftill said period and thereafter earned pension. Iftheas claimed him. wasn lakhforfamily,by eaTning per bigha,the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bighaand 18 biswa, the annualbe fl9 lakhs and onefind^ it strange that not ~a penny w^as tiwestedin bank or asecuritywherefrominterestor dividendcouldbeearned.Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales beingeffectedin the local Mandi or othenA'ise.The trader to whomthe produce was sold has not been examined.No proof ofnumber of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tube-well/ if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity biils paid if thepump was electricallydriven has been furnishedand if the fieldswere irrigated by canal water, no proof of any payment made tothe irrigation departmenthas been furnished.Thus, the learnedTrial judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, bycapitalizing the same,to determinethe .fair marketvalue oflands.There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yieldand the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has. been rightly•rejected.

43".-. |f there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or-feh^re—is—Bt-henvi-se—feliable evtdenc-er-as—was—foundin thedecision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 {1) SC 444Stats of Guiarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors.. pertainingto theyield from agriculturalland, only thenit would be safe todeterminefairmarketvaluebyapplyingtheprincipleof

capitiaiizing"

10 trmesthe annoat^reltland not 20 times as wasbeing soughtto be.projected.

44.The fifth argument which was advanced, as notedherein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang,Advocate was thatthe mean average principle b^_aj^_opted with reference to thenotificationdated 24.1.2008.45.In para 7 above, I have put in tabular form, theminimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from timeto time.I highlight that the notifications with which I amconcerned are dated 7.8.2000,11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001,7.12.2001, 16.5.2002,25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the yearsare 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.From the table in para 7above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005.Thus, there would be noneed to factorIn theminimum price notified under thenotification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007i.e. is 4years away from the last year with which I am concerned ;.c. theyear 2003. I highlightthat reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. thefirst year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7years away. The law of statistics which governs mean averageas one of the recognized modes to determinea value, inbetween 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be theones which would be cl^sest-to-the-^intthe meanaverage has to be determined.i am left to deal with the last submission,as noted in-p^fa~3:5-fweTTral30V'e,~aTrd"'rorwhicht tilghilghtthat the learnedReferenceCourthas,pertainingtothenotificationdated27.1.2003 determinedthe fair market value In some Referenceswith respectto sale deed dated 20.5.2002where under 1 and 13 biswa of land was sold in Kalan andbigha villageRajapur

. •has determinedthat based thereon the price as of said date-wofksout to ^17J47l09^-pefB€fe-Bft€hifrcreasmttthesar^ Smonths 12% for the date 27.1.2003 the by per annum, pricewould be n9,16,037/-per acre rounded off to ^9,16,040/-per• acre.•47.With referenceto the Award IMo.l0/DC(IMW)/2004-05itis apparentthat land comprisedin Khasra No.200 admeasuring •1 bigha and 13 biswa was Category'C land. The sale deed inquestionpertainsto the same land and indeedthere is logicthatif said sale deed had to be accepted,it would reflectfair marketvalue of'C land. As the learned Land Category per AcquisitionCollectom.7lakhs acre would be to fill the per required updepressions for land in Category 'B' and further sum of ?1.7Category'C land, meaningtherebydepressionsin Category'B'j^nd were less vis-^-yisCategory'C' land. In other words, withreferenceto Category 'A' land, the price of Category 'C landwould have to be reduced and vice-versa,vis-^-visCategory'C'land, the price for Category 'B' land and for Category 'A' landwouldbe requiredto be increasedsuitably.48.I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view ofthe evidence herein above noted and the reflecting uponreasoning adopted by the learned Land AcquisitionCollectorandtheJearned ReferenceCourt, I pose the question: What shouldbe the fair market value of the subjectglands as of 7.8.2000,11.9.2000,2.5.2001,22.8.2001,7.12.2001,16.5.2002,i e-thedatesonwhichthenotifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct 1894.49.}have, in para 37 above, noted decision of DivisionBenchofthisCourtinLA.APP.Mo.866/2005 decidedonLA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmattersPage49 of74,

11.5.2005, Mahender Sinah vSr-IJQi-Sr-Grs.wherein pettaming to-village-^^wamT-^atf-iTiafke^vattTe^Q'eterniinedas of 15.11.1996]s^l.99.9Q4.68per biqha which equals to ?9,59,542.46per acre.The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality.an issue which I have promisedto discuss.The decisionnotesthat the subjectlandsi.e. the landswithwhichtheDivisionBench was concerned,had acquired potentialityinasmuch as,as discussedin paras 25 to 28 of the decision,rural areas in theUnion Territory of Delhi was attractingmigrants.Based onpopulationgrowth,5 villagesin ruralDe4hi were identifiedforprovidingmajorhealthfacrHtfesrschools,marketsandruralindustry,one of which was vHlage Bawana.It was noted thatG.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access tovillage Bawana and that the Master Plan for Delhi notifiedin the 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to beyear changedinthefuturetoindustrialandcommercial,buthadalso-utfserved that notwittetsiTd^mgTiTis;for the reason no zonal plan"was nettedas contemplatedby SectionllA of theDelhiDevelopmentAct 1957,thelandscontinuedto be usedforagriculturalpurposesand therewas no evidencethat till theyear 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put tothe use contemplatedby the MasterPlan.As in the instantcase,whereallsubjectlandswerecontinuouslyputtoagriculturaluse. same was the case noted in the said decision.To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to apotentialland value with referenceto the area being known toall asIn thewas being required future for building purposes,found not resulting in the potential being valued with referenceto the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capableof being built upon.To put it differently, the decision, thoughnot so expresslystating,would be propo^lcTriThatthere isdifferencebetweentheundevelopedlandhavingbuildingLA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmattersPageSO of 74potentialityin present!vis-a-visalandhavingabuildingpotentiality,in futuro.As already noted by me in para 36 above,as of the date 15.11.1996,fair marketvalue determinedwas?9,59,542.46per acre and which I highlightonce again is thesame as would be determinedwith referenceto the notificationbeingclosestinpointoftimeI.e.thenotificationdated25,7,19„91_where-underfor agriculturallands in Delhi minimumprice fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was 10 lakhs peracre.Interestingly,the same Division B6nch had pronouncedanotherjudgmentreportedas 2006IV AD (Delhi)13 GairaiSinahvs. UP! & Ann wherepertainingto agriculturallandsinvillageHoiambiKalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswaland wasacquiredpursuantto the same notificationdated15.11.1996,fairmarketvaluedeterminedforCategory'A'landswasf9,76,121/-per acre and for Category'B' lands was ?9,51,121/-per acre i.e. near approximateto the fair market value of landsIn village• Bawana.'It needstobehighlighted'that, while,determiningthe fair market value as of 15.11.1996in villageHoiambiKalan, evidencedfrom the observationsof the Court inpara 19 and 20 of the decision,locationand potentialitywithreference to development work carried out in the, surroundinglands was considered.I would highlight that another DivisionBench of this Court, in another adjoiningvillage in the same 'Vi.e.betweenG.T.KarnalRoadandRohtakRoad,i.e.villageSinghola determinedfair market vaiu^ as of 19.3.1993@fl,30,523/-per bigha i.e. f6,26,510.40per acre.The decision is^ reported-as 2004 (4) AD (Delhi)20 Ram Chander vs. UO!and thesame DMsion-BenGh, as per the decision-Feported-as111 (2004)DLT 95 Hukum Sinah vs. UOl pertaining to notification dated14.1.1994 for village Singhola determinedfair market value @f1,40,230/-perbigha i.e. ?6,73,104/-peracre.

rr "TfieamresaI5~7^dgments-^-QQted-In theprecedingparagraphsas also the various notifieationsissued from time totime by the Governmentof MCT Delhi notifyingminimumpricefor agriculturallands In Delhi as tabulatedby imp in para 7above bring out two very important facts relevant tl determinethe growth/risein the prices of agriculturalland in Delhi over theyearscommencingfromtheyear1990.As of 27.4.1990minimum price was t4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to ?10 lakhsper acre as of 1.4.1997i.e. the increaseis ?5.35 lakhs spreadover 7 years which gives us 115.054% increase in 7 years andthe averageprice increasewould be 16.436%.The price riseover the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafterby 11% for thenext 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.20D1.Itshows that due to urbanization,betweenthe year 1990 and1997pricesgrowsfairlysharplyandgoodcorroborativeevidence for this would be the decisionof the DivisionBench ofthis Court in Ga/rafscase (supra),which 1 have discussedinpara 49 above.

51.I need to elaboratea little more with respectto thedecisionin Gairafs case.Discussing the evidencepertainingtofair market value as of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalanof 15.11.1996,in paras9 to 17 theCourtdiscussedthevaluationon the basis of agriculturalyield and found that thegross return per acre per annum was f95,000/- for multiplecropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thuscapitalized the land price at f9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussingthesecondmethodof land pricesof comparablelandsin the—stHTmiftfHftg-afeastficludmgpot^ii^fcfaiTt^^ para 19 onwards theCourt_discussedthe matter with reference to land prices inadjoining village Bhorgarhwhere FCI Godowns had come up and~t5'ased~onsa^^^ Instancesfoundthatbasedon thesaidsale

mstances and yivniy wcucritx—oi-nnfraTjsxrrmtzstiwrtiie-taTKfiJrtce^would come to fl0,03,364/- per acre (Referpara 31). The Courtthen consideredthe-prices-notifiedby the Governmentas per dated 1.4.1997and thus worked out the meanpolicy averagefigure of f9,76,121/- per acre for Category 'A' lands and?9,51.121/- per acre for Category 'B' lands.The decisionhighlights that the iiotentiality had beeo-ivall-factored in whenthe Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f.1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with' respect to saletransactions the Courtfound that as against the minimumprice'notified as of 1.4.1997 atflO lakhs per acre, sale instances were -highlightingthat the price was f10,03,364/- per acre.52.. The decision in Mahender Sinah'z case, pertaining to me invillageBawaoa, referred to by para 49 above, highlightswith referenceto para 28 to 31 of the decision that the MasterPlan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court. whichwasprojectingresidential,commercialandindustrialfuture exploitationof agriculturalland in Delhi and on the issueof potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Naster Planso projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring potentiality,the same had not translatedinto reality evidencedby the factthat til! the.year 1996 i.e. the date of the notificationwith whichthe Division Bench was concerned, virtually no developmenthad .taken place in village Bawana-andHolambi Kalan'andnobodyhad exploitedthe potential.As I have alreadyhighlightedinpara 49 above there is gap between what "would be expected•'-to 'be the'marketgrowth and what the market actuallygrows.""Th^B^ifedslmsIll' 'Gairafscaseand' "MwhericterSinaiiscase•highlightthat potentiafitvtranslateditself into reality between1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum.andthereafterthe extendedpotentialitydid not translatewith the-requisite momentumand the accelerationfeif to betv^/een 10%•ilTEIfflv-to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial andprobably there was enough availabilityof developed land andthe hunger of the market got saturated.53.The empiricalevidence in the instant case, apart fromthe 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respectwhereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasonsnot to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons inparas 21 and 22 hereinabovefor not relying upon, being fancifulsale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us thesale deed relied upon by the learned Land AcquisitionCollectorpursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalanthe-leamed Reference Court has held that as per the-said saledeed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale- le: 20.5.2002the fairmarket value of agricultural lands VA/ould be f19,16,040/- peracre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 blswaof land which was sold for f5,39,590/- and f70,160/- was paid asstampdutywouldmeanthatf6,09,850/-{?5,39,690/- +f70,160/-} were spent would yield the price.f17,74,109/- per-acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.54.' Thus,thebestwhich couldbesaidasthemostfavourablesltoationfor the land owners-wouldbe that with-reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.20:02 for Category 'C -lands the price Le. fair market value of lands in the area wouldbe fl7,74,109/- per acre. For Category/'B' and Category 'A' landand here we findanother area of dispute for the reason, as noted bf mehereinabovem sub-para{a) of para 18, the learned Land-Actfursition -Collectorindifferentawardshasdeducted

LA,App,No.266/20.08&connectedmatters

PageS4 of74

sometimes fl.2 iakhs per acre, sometimes fl,56 lakhs per acreand sometimesfl.7 iakbs_peraa® from^^ths-pwce-^^Category'A' lands to determine the price for Category 'B' lands andwherever lands were in Category 'C as we^r t4ie price has beendeducted further by ?1.7 lakhs per acre.

55.Now, neither side has brought any evidence on recordas to what would be the money required to be spent to level thelaT5^s-aPrd-l-fTOte-tJ^atcategoftz^ton Is feased-oftiyon the basis ofcertain lands having pits and depressions of various depthsFeqtmw^-the^ameto be leveled and this would require moneyto be spent.But on what basis has the Land AcquisitionCollector held, in some awards that fl.2 lakhs per acre would bespent and in some that fl.56 lakhs per acre would be spent andin some that fl.7 lakhs per acre would be spent?There is justno clue.

56.In Gairai Singh'scase(supra),thepricedifferentialworked out was ?25,000/-per acre.I have noted hereinabovethat the acquisitionin Gairai Singh's case pertainedto the date15.11.1996.In Gairai Singh'scase the price for Category'A'land determinedwas f9,76,121/-per acre and for Category 'B'land the price determinedwas ?9,51,121/-per acre and thepricedifferentialcomesto about2.5%withreferenceto theprice of Category 'A' land.

57.I thusholdthatGairaiSingh'scaseshouldbemyguiding star for pricfe differentialin the instant cases as well andthusI holdthatwhereverCategory'A',Category'B'andCategory'C have to be differentiatedon price, the differentialshould be 2.5%.58.Thus,if ?17,74,109/-,roundedoff to fl7.75lakhs peracre woumj^theprice^tor Categ^ 'C^teTTd-trrvlflage RajapurKalan as of 20.5.2002and highlightingthat the sale deed Ex.R-2

LA.App.No.266/2008& connectedmatters

Page55 of 74

admittedlypertainstoaCatpgnry'Cianri,th.e pricefor1.^Category'B'landwouldbe ?18.20lakhsper acreand—for-Xategory'A' laTTdnroT!td"b^r8T&5'5lakhs per acre.59.Taking the logical reasoninga little furtherit assumesimportancethatas per theminimumpricenotifiedby theGovernmentas of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was ?13.82 lakhs-aBd-a5-©f-^r^-20Oi-the-same-was-fl§r7lakhs-peracre i.e. thepercentageincrease between the year was 11.5% per annum,ifI treat Category'A' land price at f18.655lakhs as of 20.5.2002based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deductingthe price by 11% perannum, the price as of 1.4.2001would come to approximately?16.40lakhsperacreandthiswouldhighlightthatwhencontrastedwith the minimumprice notifiedby the Governmentat fl5.7lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001,the price differentialisf70.000/-per acre i.e. 4.46%.Since exactnesscan never beachieved while determiningfair market value of large chunk ofland with referenceto few sale deeds where small parcels ofland are sold for the reason even within colony, the size, thelocation, the frontage etc. of piece of land would vary the priceby plus or minus 5%.What I wish to highlightis that even thesale deed in questionyields to us fair index as per which theminimumprice notifiedby the Governmenthas an elementofrationalityand acceptability.It needs to be highlightedthatthough under normal circumstancesa sale on particulardateis normally not held good evidence t6~woTk oijT"a~lan~dprice on adate prior theretobut may be used as evidenceto determinelandpriceon subsequentdates,for the reasona priceon aparticular date is the result of variousmarket forces/conditionshaving already impacted the land price and it would be difficultto fathomtheexistenceof marketforces/conditionswalkingbackwards.But,in the instantcase,withreferenceto the5

—potmcations-^dated7.8.2000,li^SL^^OOOr-^T^T^OOiT-22.8.2OO1and 7.12.2001,the differentialperiod is small inasmuchas thesale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiarfacts of the instant case, the sale deed in question,which itselfhas beenprojectedby the Union of India as an evidenceofmarket value of land as on said date, would be.a relevant pieceof evidence to be taken into account while determiningthemarketvaluelandas on the dates7.8.2000,11.9.2000/2.5.2001,22.8.2001and 7.12.2001.^

60.The argumentthatvillageNarelahadalwaysbeentreated locationaliy advantageousfor the reason the township ofMarela was in existencesincelong and this was recognizedwhen, pursuant to notificationissued in the year 1963, vis-avis the adjoiningvillages f2 per squareyard price advantagewas given to lands in village Narela in Dharambifscase, loosessightof the fact that thepricedifferentialdue to locationaladvantagewas keepingin view the realitiesin the year 1963.Over the period of time, as urbanizationtook place in Delhi andmore and more areas came under plotteddevelopmentwhichincludedareasin North-Westof Delhii.e. the area with whichIam concernea^today,the price differentialfaded and by the year2000 and onward,it has become non-existent.

61.I thushold thatpertainingto the notificationsdated7.8.2000,11.9.2000,2.5.2001,22.8.2001and7.12.2001theland priceswould have to be determinedon the basis of theminimumpricenotifiedbytheGovernmentasalsowith•'referenceto the sale deed dated 25.5.2002for the reasonI findno other cogent evidence wherefromland price as on said datescouldbe determined.Pertaining'lo^henotifications "dated16.5.2002,23.5.2002and 27.1.2003,the land price needs to bedeterminedwithrespectto thesaledeeddated25.5.2002

. ref^ence-s-atd_. Ijeicaus^ witli t©-#}€s@le pnce it4s-sppsFefst#}at-land price as of said date comes to more than if determinedwithrespectto thenotificationdated9.8.2001whereinminimumland price notified was ?15.7 lakhs per acre with effect from1.4.2001.62.With respect to the price differentia! for Category 'A'and Category'B' lands,noting thatpertaining to the saidnotifications categorization has been done only pertaining to thelandacquiredin villagePoothKhurd andHolambiKalan{pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), VillageBawana,Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertainingto thenotificationdated22.8.2001)I holdthatvis-^-visthesaidnotifications, after increasing the price for the date differential,fixing the same for Category'A' lands,deductionhas to be sameeffected by decreasing the by 2.5% to determine the pricefor Category'B'land.

?63.Before I work out the compensation and since it wouldbe evidencedthat pertaining to Category 'A' lands, the landpriceswouldmarginallyincreaseinafewcasesandsubstantiallyin the other, striking note of discordantwouldemerge with respect to the land price determinedpertaining tothe notificationdated23.5.2002pertainingto village HolambiKalan wherein the learnedReferenceCourt has determinedthefair market value at f22,14,23,900/-per acre as of 23.5.2002,HDtrthieed to~higtrrrght that pertaiTTmgTothe same notificationdated23.5.2002inrelationtovillageAlipur thelearnedReferenceCourthasdetertnmed-the fairmarketvalueat^17,85,240/-peracreandi find thatpertainingtovillage-RajapOT-Kalan and Sanoth,pertaiiTmg~tD~tlie notificationdated27.^2003 the fair market value assessed for Category 'A' landsis fl9,16,040/-in somecasesandfl9,13,760/-inafew,

nTewTm^tieTetJythat much lesser compensatiorThas be^n'"'worked out in the year 2003 vis-a-visthe compensationworkedout for Holambi Kafan pertaining to the^ notification dated23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in saidnotificationthe land determinedincaseas price Gajrafs (supra)of 15.11.1996has been taken and increasedat the rate of 12%per annum compounded.7

Viflaqe Pooth Khurd Motificatioo dated 7.8.?onn

64.With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified peracre is fl3.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitablyupdated to reach the date of the notificationI.e. 7.8.2000 andwith reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein forCategory 'C lands, land price per acre comes to ,?17,74,l09/-,rounded off to ?17,75,000/-per acre, and for Category'B' landsincreasingthe same by 2.5% the price comes to fl8.2 lakhs peracre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to?18,55,500/-per acre for Category'A' lands; and decreasingthesaid prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the saledeed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price forCategory'A' lands In village Pooth Khurd comes to ?14.75 lakhsper acre and decreasing the; same by 2.5%, it comes ,to .fl4,38,125/- per acre for Category 'B' lands.KSoting that thelearned ReferenceCourt has, withoufany reasons, done awaywith Category 'B'lands anduniform price awarded is^14,31,280/-per acre, th.e price^differentialworked out by mexomes±o-ajiiea^i:^l,000/-per ac-r^-aM^hys-qya..Category'B'lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference ••Court.

65.All Land AcquisitionAppealsfiled by the Union of India •and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the

appealsffled by fand owners Tn

66.All Land filed the land owners AcquisitionAppeals byand cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in apjjeaisfiled byUnkm of India are allowed by decreeingcompensatfonpayablefor Category 'A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertainingto thenotificationdated 1.4.2000in sum of fiXvs lakhs acre and perforCategory 'B'lands theconnpensation awarded at acre is maintainedand thus such orn4,37,280/-per appealscross references which to 'B' lands are pertain Categorydismissed...-

i57.PeftaTriing-tosuch appeal where the compensation appeal where the compensation where the compensation the compensation compensationistands enhancedbenefitsas the Landstatutory per AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained in the judgmentreported as Sunder Vs.UOI2001 (93) DLT 559 shail be granted,exceptfor the periodwhere there is delay in filing the appeal or cross objection,forwhich periodof delay no intereston the enhancedcompensationshail be paid. These appellantsor cross objectors would beentitled to proportionatecost.

PeftaTriing-tosuch appeal where the compensation appeal where the compensation where the compensation the compensation compensationi

-ViliaoeHolambiKalan ^otifigationdated 7.8.2000

68.For the in 54 to 67 hereinabove reasoninggiven paraspertainingto the notification(same) dated 7.8.2000 relating tovillage Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per 'GR!D-B' hereinaboveand. cross objections stand disposed of enhancing' theto ?14.75 lakhs acre and Ithat ascompensation per highlight the award and even as the referencealllandsper per subjectwere of uniformcMe^oiv._Meediess-.to-Stateappealsfifed byTheUnion of India and crossobjectionswhereverfiled are dismissed.•and crossfifed land ownersareAppealsobjections by allowed.byto ?14.75 Fakfisacre-__enhancmgthe-compensatfon per. together•with statutorybenefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as '

, . Page60 of74

—teexpfainedin the judgmentreportedas Sunder\/s. um 7nm (93)DLT 569, except for the .period where thefe-fs-a-delayfn filing^the- 0f cross for which of no appeal objection, period delayinterest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. Theseappellantsor cross objectorswould be entitledto proportionatecost.Village Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2QQQPertaining to viliage Bawana^relating to the samenotification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court_Ms.aot enhs_ncedthe compensation,for parityof reasoning,fairmarket value forat f14.75 lakhs Category~V\'l^n"dsIslixed peracre and for 'B' lands at ^ and Categoryper acrenoting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or crossobjection,appeals as per 'GRID-C hereinaboveare allowed byfixingthecompensationashereinbeforementionedandneedless to. state on the enhanced compensation the appellantsshall be efititled to statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs.UOl 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is adelay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no intereston the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellantswould be entitled'toproportionatecost.

Village Khera Khura Notificationdated 11.9.2000

70.Withreferencetothenotificationdated9.8.2001wherein v/ith effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified peracre is fl3.82lakhs acre to be per and requiringsaid pricesuitablyupdatedtoreachthedateof thenotificationi.e.11.9.2000and with referenceto.the sale deed dated 25.5.2002wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to^?17J4,Iua/-,.._..ro.unded....o.ff ta-XlJJ5,000/r..peracre,andforCategory 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes

LA.App.No.266/20b8&connectedmatters

Page61 of74

to fl8.2 iakhs per acre and further Incpeasmg-byp^ricescomesto f18,55,500/-per acrefor Category'A'iands;-and'decreasingthe saidpricesby Tl% to reflecttheprice withreferenceto the sale deedfor the date 11.9.2000;the meanKhera Khurdaverageprice for Category'A' lands in villagecomes to fl4,83,500/-per acre and decreasingthe same by-2T5%7ir:e0mes^e-f4-474€74-l-3/--per-aeFe-for-Category'B' lands.71.All Land Acquisition Appeals as per 'GRID-D' filed by theland ownersand cross-objectionsfiled by the land ownersinappealsfiled by Union of India areallowedby decreeingcompensationpayable for Category'A' lands in village KheraKhurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum offl4,83,500/-per acre for Category'A' lands and fl4,46,413/-per acre for Category 'B' lands.I note that pertaining to thisnotification and the village, the Union of India has not filed anyappeal.On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits asper the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgmentreported as Sunder Vs. UOI2Q01 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted,except for the period where there is delay in filing the appeal,ifor whichperiodof delaynointerestontheenhancedcompensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitledto proportionatecost.

Villaae Narela Notificationdated 2.5.20Q1

72.Withreferencetothenotificationdated9.8.2001whereinwith effect from 1.4.2001minimumpricenotifiedperacreis ?15.7lakhs per acre andrequiringsaidprice to besuitablyupdatedto reachthedateof thenotification i.e.2.5.2001and with referenceto the sale deed dated 25.5.2002whereinfor Category'C lands,land price per acre comes to^7,74,109/-,roundedoff to f17,75,000/-per acre,andforCategory 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes

LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters

^18.2 lakhs acre and further 2.5% the permcreasingby prices-€Gm^s-fe^-fl8^50W--#eF-aefe-^decreasing the said prices by lio/^ to reflect the price withreference to the sale deed for the date the mean 2.5.2001;average,price for Category'A' lands In village Marela comes to acre and the same itfl6,16,500/- per decreasing by 2.5%, acrelands.„cmnes_tQ-515a6^.-per fof-GategoFy- Notingthatthe learnedReferenceCourthas, withoutany reasons,doneaway with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded isfl5,85,570/-per acre and since for Category'B' lands the priceworked out by me is less by f9,000/-per acre which is meageramount, i hold that for Category'B' lands the price determinedwould be as the reference but for 'A' lands the per Category—Pngg-Standsenhanced t-n/^nn/- por prr^73.All Land AcquisitionAppealsas per 'GRID-E'filed by theland owners andfiled the land owners in cross-objections byappeals fifed by Union of India are allowed by decreeingcompensationpayable for Category 'A- lands In village Narelapertaining to the notification dated2.5.2001 in sum of?16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order forCategory'B' lands. Thus, appealsfiled by the Union of India asalso cross objectionsfiled by Union of India as also such appealswhich relate to 'B' lands filed land owners are Category bydismissed and the ones i.e. the and cross appeals objectionsfiled the land ov»/ners to 'A' lands are by pertaining Categoryallowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhancedcoTTiireTisationstatutory-ljenefiKas per the Land AcquisitionActas explam^Hh the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UO!2001 (93) DLT 569 shsil be grantfidrPXTPptfnr thp-ppTinriwherethere is in thefor which of no delay filing appeal, period delayinterest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid. These'••-dppg-ilBfi-trS-w^c^i^beentiWiBd^t'O-pfc^poftfongte'Xust. —'r-"""""-"

74.With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001rfynr-Mr^&Olrnininriuni price notified peracre is fl5.70 lakhs acre and said to be per requiring pricesuitably updated to reach the date.^f the notification Le.22.8.2001and with referenceto the sale deed dated 25.5.2002wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes tofl7.74,109/-, rounded off to ?17,75,000/- per acre, and forCategory'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comesto ?18.2 lakhs acre and further 2.5% the perincreasingby pricescomes to ?r8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; anddecreasing the said prices by 11% to reffeet—the price withreference to the safe deed for the date 22:8.2001; the mean^rage price for Category 'A' lands in -viliage Holambi Kalan •comes to fl6,74,500/-per acre and decreasing the same by2.5%, it comes to f16,32,637.50per acre for Category'B' lands.Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without anyreasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform priceawarded is ?15,43,811/-per acre, the price differentialworked• out by me comes to meager?9,G00/- per acre.,and thus quaCategory 'B' lands rmaintain the amount awarded by thelearned Reference Court.

75.All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union of Indiaand cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the-a-p^^ea4sfiled by land owners in respect whereofgrid has bem—prepBTSd and iat3eledas 'GRID-P &;griD-G' hereinabovearedismissed.

76. ^Ail Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by th^Jand ownersand cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners In appealsfiled by

•LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters

Union of India are allowed by decreeingconapensatlonpayabl^^

for'A' lands inffofarnbtKaIanto the Category vtifage perts^lTTiTTgnotificationdated 22.8.2001in sum of?16,74,500/-per acre andforCategory 'B'landsthecompensation awardedat?16,43,811/-per acre is maintained and thus such appeals orcross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands aredismissed.

77.Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation to such appeal where the compensation such appeal where the compensation appeal where the compensation where the compensation the compensation compensationstands enhanced statutory benefitsas per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s.UQl 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the periodwhere there is delay in filing the appeal or cross objection,forwhichof no interest on perioddelay the enhanced compensationshall be paid.These appellants or cross objectors would beentitled to proportionatecost.

Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation to such appeal where the compensation such appeal where the compensation appeal where the compensation where the compensation the compensation compensation

Village All Pur Notlfscation dated 22.8.2Q01

78.Withreferencetothenotificationdated9.8.2001wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified peracre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to besuitablyupdatedtoreachthedateof thenotificationi,e.22.8.2001and with referenceto the saie deed dated 25.5.2002wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes tofl7,74,109/-,roundedoff to n7,75,000/-per acre,andforCategory 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comesto fl8.2 lakhs the per acre and further increasing by 2.5% prices - —comesto fl8,65,500/-per acre for Category'A' lands;anddecreasingthe said prices by 11% to reflect the price withreferenceto the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001;the meanaverage price for Category .A4i-lands in village Ali Pur comes to?16,74,500/-per acre and decreasingthe same by 2.5%, itcomes to ^15,32,537.50per acre for Category 'B' lands.Noting

LA.App.No.266/2008& conncctedmatters

itielearnedR^fence Coujlaway with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded isthe dPfferentialworked out me-?ie74378tt/n3'e7-a-cre, price bycomes to meagerf9,000/-per acre and thus qua Category'B'lands I maintainthe amountawarded by the learned ReferenceCourt.

_za—-^lU.a«d^<^€quisitiBfl~Appealsfiled-bytin respect whereofgrid has been preparedand labeledas 'GRID-H; hereinaboveare dismissed. I note that land owners have notfiled any appeal challengingthe decisionofthe ReferenceCourt.80.There shall be no order as to costs.

Vjllaae Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2QQ1

81.With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified peracre is fl5.70 lakhs acre and said to be per requiring price notification i.e.:suitably updated to reach the date of the22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes to^7,74,109/-, rounded off to fl7,75,000/- per acre, and forCategory'B' lands increasingthe same by 2.5% the price comesto ?18.2 lakhs acre and further 2.5% the . perincreasingby pricescomes to fl8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; anddecreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price withreference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the meanavei:ag-e-4mce.-foii--Cat-egory'A' isB4s4f$^-¥Hja§e-H0tembH<htird—-comes to ne,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by2.5%, it comes to fl5,32,637.50_per.acrelorCategory'B' lands.iWrn^tnaT the T^nedReference Court has, without anyreasoas_^uniform priceawarded is fl6,43,811/- per acre, the price differentia!workedout by me comes to meagerf9,000/- per acre and thus qua

LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters

Category'R'lands\ p^iaintamby-thelearned ReferenceCourt.82.Theappealfiledby theUnionof Indiain respectwhereofgridhasbeenpreparedandlabeledas'GRID-I'hereinaboveis dismissed.I note that land owners have not filedany appeal challengingthe decision of the ReferenceCourt.

83.There shall be no order as to costs.

Viilaae Ratapur Kalan Notificationdated 22.8.2001

84.Withreferencetothenotificationdated9.8.2001whereinwith effect from 1.4.2001minimumprice notifiedperacre is ?15.70lakhsper acre andrequiringsajdprice to besuitablyupdatedtoreachthedateof thenotificationi.e.22.8.2001and with referenceto the sale deed dated 25.5.2002whereinfor Category'C lands,landprice per acre comes ton7.74,109/-,roundedoff to n?,75,000/-per acre,andfor the the comesCategory 'B' lands increasing sanae by 2.5% priceto fl8.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the pricescomes to ?18,65,500/-per acre for Category'A' lands; anddecreasingthe said prices by 11% to reflect the price withreferenceto the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001;the meanaverage price®for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalancomes to fl6,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by2.5%, it comes to ?16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands.Noting thatthelearnedReferenceCourt has, without anyreasons, done away with Category 'B' la'nds and uniform priceawarded is f16.43,811/- per acre, the price differeintialworkedout by me comes to meager?9,0Q0i-per-acra-aodthus quaCategory 'B' lands 1 maintain the amount awarded by thelearned ReferenceCourt.

85.Ail Land AcquisitionAppealsfiled by the Union of Indiaand cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the

.. Page67 of74

appeai^^edbyiand ownersirrTespectwhereef-fffd-has^^eeiv-prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J'hereinabove are dismissed..86.All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land ownersand cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners in appeals filed byUnion of India are allowedby.decreeingcompensationpayablefor Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to thenotificationdated 22.8.2001in sum of ?16,74,500/-per acre andforCategory'B'landsthecompensationawardedat?16,43,8117- per acre is maintainedand thus such appeals orcrossreferenceswhichpertaintoCategory'B'landsaredismissed.

87.Pertainingto suchappealwherethecompensationstands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs.UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the periodwhere there the or is delay in filing appeal cross objection, forwhich period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensationshall be paid.These appellants or cross objectors would beentitled to proportionatecost.

Village Sanoth Notificationdated 7.12.2001

88.Withreferencetothenotificationdated9.8.2001whereinwith effect from 1.4.2001minimumprice notified peracre is ?15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring saic^ price to besuitably updatedto reach the dateof thenotification i.e.7.12.2001and with referenceto the sale deed dated 25.5.2002wherein for Category 'C lands, land price per acre comes tofl7.74.1Q9/-..roundedoff to fl7.75J100/-per acre,and forCategory 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comesto ?18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the pricescomes-to fl8,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; anddecreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with

reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the meanaverage price for Category 'A' lands in villageSanoth comes tofl7,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in villageSanoth asper the award and as per the Reference Court are of same valueI hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for thenQtj.fi.cation_dated7.12.2001 the iand-ojiAq^eFS-JAtoul4^entitledto the enhanced compensation in sum of fl7,29,500/-.

«89.All Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the Union of Indiaand cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in theappeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has beenprepared and iabeled as 'GRID-K'hereinaboveare dismissed.

All Land Land Acquisition filed by the land owners owners land owners owners AcquisitionAppeals filed by the land owners owners by the land owners owners

90.All Land Land AcquisitionAppeals filed by the land owners ownersand cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners In appeals filed byUnion of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of?17,29,500/-andneedlesstostateontheenhancedcompensation statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder l/s. UP!2001 (93) DLT 569 shail be granted, except for the period wherethere is delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for whichperiod of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shallbe paid. These appellantsor cross objectorswould be entitledto proportionatecost.

Village Shahpur Garhi Notificationdated 16.5.2Q02

91.Pertainingto village ShahpurGarhi, as held by .mehereinabovethe land price would have to be determinedwithreferenceto the sale deed dated 20.5.2002and for which landprice for Category ''A' lands has been determinedby me atfl8,65,500/-per acre and since^iereis just .d8ffefen-£e-0f-4days betweenthe date of sale and the nQtificatio:n'Imaintainthat for the notification in questiondated- 16.5.2002the landowners are entitled to compensationat the rate of ^18,65,500/-

:^=p^^ef^aii<rrfitffTI1gM'tliataspertfTe^wirtf^^TOfiWfef^ are in the sameaij lands categol^AppealsandTross objectionsfiledby tbe land ownersas per the 'GR!D-L' are allowedandneedlessto stateon, theenhancedconnpensationthelandownerswouldbe entitledto all statutorybenefitsas per theLandAcquisitionAct 1894asinterpr^edin thejudgmentreportedas Sunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that insuch appealsor crossobjectionsfiled by land ownerswherethere is delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay.Proportionatecostsstandawarded.Appealsandcrossobjectionsfifed by Union of India are dismissed.Viiiacge SlialiourGariii f^Qtifigationdated 23.5.20Q2

92.Pertainingtothenotificationdated23.5.2002pertainingto village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of thesale deed and the notificationhas differentialof only 3 days Ihold that pertainingto this notification/sinceland is of samecategory,the land owners would be entitled to compensationatthe rate of ?I8,55,500/-with statutorybenefits as per the LandAcquisition Act 1894 as interpretedin the decision .reportedasSunder Vs. UP! 2001 (93) DLT 569 exceptin such appealsorcross objectionsfiled by land owners where there is delay, nointerestwould be paid for the period of delay.Proportionatecosts stand awarded.All such appeals and cross objectionsbyland owners as per 'GRID-!^' stand allowed as aforesaidand allappealsandcrossobjectionsfiledbyUnionofIndiaare.. dismissed.

93.As notedby me pertainingto the notificationdated23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have beentreatedin the same categoryby the learnedLand Acquisition

•nSCollectorandthelearnedReferenceCourt.ThelearnedReferenceCourthasawarded.CDiripeiisatkiDinsumoi^?22,14,239/-peracrewhich! havefoundtobeexcessiveinasmuchas for the date 23.5.2002I have heiti that fair marketvalue would be ?18,65,500/-per acre and thus all appealsandcross objectionsfiled by the land owners as per 'GRID-N' aredismissedand appealsand cross objectionsfiledby Union ofIndia are allowedby modifyingthe impugneddecree passedbythe learnedReferenceCourt andreducingthe compensationpayableto fl8,55,500/-per acre on which,needlessto state,withreferenceto the enhancedpricewithreferenceto theaward the statutorybenefits already granted stand maintained.No costs.

Viilaoe Aii Pur i^otlficationdated 23.5.2002

94.Pertainingto the notificationdated 23.5.2002relating Ali the said notificationto village Pur, for parity of reasons quarelating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determinefair market value payable at fl8,55,500/-per acre and thus allappealsand cross objections filed by Union of India as per'GRID-0' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filedby land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing theacreon whichcompensationpayable to ^8,65,500/-perstatutory benefits as per Land AcquisitionAct as interpreted inthe judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOl 2001 (93) DLT 559shall bepaid saveand exceptin suchappealsor crosSobjections where there is delay, interest would not be paid forthe periodofdelay. Proportionatecosts as well.Village Sanoth Motificationdated 27/1.2003

95. ,Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the-land owners and Union of India 'GRID-P' the as per pertaining tonotification dated27.1.2003relating to village Sanoth, 1 note

LA.App.No.266/2008&connectedmatters

that the learnedLand AcquisitionColiector has p{a€€^h€4afi4sin 3 categones-and-timd-itr^the learnedReferenceCourt haswithoutany discussionheld the lands as of uniformcategorywhile awarding compefisation.-

96.On the mean average basis which I have been following-t>y_4TO:easiRg-J:he-pite~^referenceto thenotificationissued by the Governmentas also by increasingthe-saiTre-iwth-"fefeferrce-tothesaledeextdated20.5.2002andtaking the mean average, for Category 'A' lands the price comesto fl§,43.500/- per acre and for Category 'i' land the pricecomes to ?18,94,912.50per acre and for Category 'C lands theprice comes to fl8,47,539.68per acre.I find that the learnedReferenceCourt has uniformlydeterminedfair market value atn9,13,765/-and thus such appealsor cross objectionswhichhave been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissedin so far they pertain to Category 'B' and Category 'C lands andsimilar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed byUnion of India pertaining to Category 'A' lands. The said appealsand cross as 'GRID-P' are dismissed. objections perAppeals andcross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A'lands are allowed by decreeing compensationpayable in sum of?19,43,500/-per acre and needless to state on the enhancedcompensation statutory benefits as per the Land AcquisitionAct1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UP!2001 (93) DLT 559 shall be paid save and except in suchappeals and cross objections where there is delay, interestwould hot be the as paid for period of delay. Proportionate costswell.The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of Indiapertainingto Category'B' and Category'C lands are allowed bym©dlfyffvg---the--relata^!e-deefee—m the R^erence Order byreducingthecompensation forCategory'B'landto

?18,94,912.50 per acre andforCategory 'Ciandto

f18,47,539.68per acre.

VilfaqeRalapur KaSan Notification dated 27.1.2QQ3

97.Forofas 96 above parity reasoning per para pertainingto village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be requiredpertaining to lands acquired pursuant to notification dated27.1.2003relatingto villageRajapurKalan and where Ifind thatthe learned Reference Court hasin some cases awardedin in somecompensation sum of ?19,13,765/- per acre andcases at ?19,16,040/- per acre by treatingall lands of uniform;category.On themeanaveragebasiswhich [ havebeenfollowing by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with referenceto the notification issued by the Government as also byincreasingthe samewith referenceto the sale deeddated20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category 'A' landsth€ pft€e-€om€S^-to-f3:9743,500/-per acre-and-for Category 'B'land the price comes to ?18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category'C lands the price comes to ri8,47,539.68per acre.Thus suchappeals or cross objections which have been filed by landowners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain toCategory 'I' and Category 'C lands and similar would be thefateof appealsand cross objectionsfiled by Union of Indiapertainingto Category'A' lands.The said appealsand crossobjectionsas per 'GRID-Q' are dismissed.Appealsand cross!objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category 'A' landsare allowedby decreeingcompensationpayablein sumoffl9,43,500/-per acre and needless" to state-arrtheenhancedcompensationstatutorybenefits as per the Land Acquisition Act1894 as interpretedin the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOf2001 -(93i-BLT--5§9-sha^l-be-p^td—save—and exceptin suchappealsand cross objectionswhere thereis delay,interest

jwould not be paid for the period of delay.ProportionatecosS asweli.The appeals and cross objectionsfiled by Union of Indiapertainingto Category 'B' and Category 'C lands are allowed bymodifyingtherelatabledecreein theReferenceOrderby-Fedw€ifJ§——e©mpei=isatt©iT—for—Category'B'landto?18,94,912,50peracreandforCategory'Clandtofl8,47,539.68per acre.

eSU .((PEADEEP NANDRAJOG)JUDGE

AUGUST 23, 2011mm/dk