Delhi High Court
Jai Sngh vs Uoi & Anr. on 23 August, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved On: 12th August, 2011
Judgment Delivered On: 23rd August, 2011
+ LA.APP. 266/2008
JAI SINGH ... Appellant
Through: Mr.S.Chaturvedi, Mr.Deepak Khosla,
Mr.S.K.Yadav, Mr.M.C.Verma,
Mr.V.P.Rana, Mr.Raj Singh,
Mr.Uday Ram, Mr.D.R.Tomar,
Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Mr.N.S.Dalal,
Mr.S.M.Bhardwaj, Mr.B.P.Gupta,
Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.S.S.Rana, Mr.Sunil
Dalal, Mr.D.S.Khatri and
Mr.T.P.S.Kang, Advocates
Vs.
UOI & ANR. ... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Mr.Sachin Nawani, Mr.Siddharth
Panda and Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran,
Advocates for R-1.
Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Advocate for
DSIDC.
Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Pawan Mathur,
Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Mr.Arun Birbal,
Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Mr.Sumer
Sethi and Ms.Beenashaw Soni
Advocates for DDA.
AND
(GRID-A)
+ LA.APP. 259/2008, LA.APP. 264/2008, LA.APP. 265/2008,
LA.APP. 267/2008, LA.APP. 268/2008, LA.APP. 270/2008, LA.APP.
271/2008, LA.APP. 272/2008, LA.APP. 273/2008, LA.APP.
278/2008 & CM APPL. 5338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 1 of 74
279/2008, LA.APP. 280/2008 & CM APPL. 5261/2009 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 281/2008, LA.APP. 284/2008, LA.APP.
286/2008, LA.APP. 287/2008, LA.APP. 289/2008, LA.APP.
290/2008, LA.APP. 291/2008, LA.APP. 292/2008, LA.APP.
293/2008, LA.APP. 294/2008 & CM APPL. 12918/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 295/2008, LA.APP. 296/2008, LA.APP.
299/2008, LA.APP. 301/2008, LA.APP. 303/2008, LA.APP.
304/2008, LA.APP. 311/2008, LA.APP. 337/2008, LA.APP.
339/2008, LA.APP. 357/2008, LA.APP. 394/2008, LA.APP.
401/2008, LA.APP. 413/2008, LA.APP. 443/2008, LA.APP.
472/2008, LA.APP. 483/2008, LA.APP. 484/2008, LA.APP.
487/2008, LA.APP. 492/2008, LA.APP. 493/2008, LA.APP.
495/2008, LA.APP. 496/2008, LA.APP. 526/2008, LA.APP.
527/2008, LA.APP. 535/2008, LA.APP. 537/2008, LA.APP.
541/2008, LA.APP. 545/2008, LA.APP. 546/2008, LA.APP.
548/2008, LA.APP. 554/2008, LA.APP. 563/2008, LA.APP.
566/2008, LA.APP. 621/2008, LA.APP. 623/2008, LA.APP.
627/2008, LA.APP. 628/2008, LA.APP. 635/2008, LA.APP.
648/2008, LA.APP. 649/2008, LA.APP. 662/2008, LA.APP.
724/2008 & CM APPL. 5353/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
756/2008, LA.APP. 846/2008, LA.APP. 847/2008, LA.APP.
861/2008, LA.APP. 875/2008, LA.APP. 879/2008, LA.APP.
880/2008, LA.APP. 888/2008, LA.APP. 894/2008, LA.APP.
895/2008, LA.APP. 905/2008, LA.APP. 906/2008, LA.APP.
907/2008, LA.APP. 910/2008, LA.APP. 911/2008, LA.APP.
925/2008, LA.APP. 926/2008, LA.APP. 927/2008, LA.APP.
931/2008, LA.APP. 932/2008, LA.APP. 933/2008, LA.APP.
934/2008, LA.APP. 936/2008, LA.APP. 939/2008, LA.APP.
941/2008, LA.APP. 942/2008, LA.APP. 944/2008, LA.APP.
946/2008, LA.APP. 955/2008, LA.APP. 958/2008, LA.APP.
999/2008 & CM APPL. 5360/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
1014/2008, LA.APP. 1019/2008, LA.APP. 1023/2008, LA.APP.
1026/2008, LA.APP. 1064/2008, LA.APP. 1071/2008, LA.APP.
1244/2008, LA.APP. 1245/2008, LA.APP. 1256/2008, LA.APP.
1268/2008, LA.APP. 1273/2008, CM APPL. 2377/2009, (Cross
Objections) LA.APP. 86/2009, LA.APP. 96/2009, LA.APP. 97/2009,
LA.APP. 98/2009, LA.APP. 101/2009, LA.APP. 110/2009, LA.APP.
111/2009, LA.APP. 114/2009, LA.APP. 120/2009, LA.APP.
251/2009, LA.APP. 252/2009, LA.APP. 265/2009, LA.APP.
266/2009 & CM APPL. No.5366/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
267/2009, LA.APP. 268/2009, LA.APP. 269/2009, LA.APP.
270/2009, LA.APP. 271/2009, LA.APP. 272/2009, LA.APP.
273/2009, LA.APP. 300/2009, LA.APP. 306/2009, LA.APP.
454/2009, LA.APP. 455/2009, LA.APP. 521/2009, LA.APP.
532/2009, LA.APP. 535/2009 & CM APPL. 12886/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 536/2009 & CM APPL. 12917/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 543/2009, LA.APP. 544/2009, LA.APP.
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 2 of 74
566/2009, LA.APP. 570/2009 & CM APPL.13873/2011, LA.APP.
589/2009, LA.APP. 593/2009, LA.APP. 594/2009, LA.APP.
634/2009, LA.APP. 635/2009, LA.APP. 636/2009, LA.APP.
637/2009, LA.APP. 638/2009, LA.APP. 643/2009 & CM
APPL.13878/2011, LA.APP. 1/2010, LA.APP. 29/2010, LA.APP.
104/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP. 107/2010, LA.APP.
108/2010, LA.APP. 109/2010, LA.APP. 168/2010, LA.APP.
169/2010, LA.APP. 170/2010, LA.APP. 171/2010, LA.APP.
220/2010, LA.APP. 276/2010, LA.APP. 426/2010, LA.APP.
430/2010, CM APPL. 9994/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
520/2010 CM APPL.13968/2011, LA.APP. 521/2010, CM APPL.
9564/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 522/2010, LA.APP.
523/2010, LA.APP. 524/2010 & CM APPL. 12914/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 525/2010 & CM APPL. 192/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 526/2010, LA.APP. 527/2010, LA.APP.
528/2010, LA.APP. 529/2010, LA.APP. 530/2010 & CM APPL.
229/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 531/2010, LA.APP.
532/2010 & CM APPL. 12890/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
533/2010 & CM APPL. 12898/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
534/2010, LA.APP. 535/2010 & CM APPL. 12867/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 536/2010 & CM APPL. 12887/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 537/2010, LA.APP. 538/2010 & CM APPL.
12972/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 539/2010 & CM APPL.
12900/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 540/2010, LA.APP.
541/2010, LA.APP. 542/2010 & CM APPL. 19857/2010 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 543/2010 & CM APPL. 12903/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 544/2010, CM APPL. 12888/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 545/2010, LA.APP. 566/2010, LA.APP.
581/2010, LA.APP. 592/2010 & CM APPL. 227/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 593/2010 & CM APPL. 12969/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 594/2010, LA.APP. 595/2010 & CM APPL.
226/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 596/2010, LA.APP.
597/2010 & CM APPL. 228/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
598/2010 & CM APPL. 487/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
600/2010 & CM APPL. 12897/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
601/2010, LA.APP. 602/2010, LA.APP. 603/2010 & CM APPL.
12881/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 617/2010, LA.APP.
663/2010 & CM APPL. 12916/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
666/2010 & CM APPL. 6748/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
675/2010 & CM APPL. 9988/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
761/2010, LA.APP. 792/2010 & CM APPL. 12889/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 793/2010 & CM APPL. 12899/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 794/2010, LA.APP. 795/2010, LA.APP.
40/2011, LA.APP. 195/2011 & CM APPL. 12892/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 215/2011, LA.APP. 228/2011, LA.APP.
229/2011, LA.APP. 230/2011, LA.APP. 231/2011, LA.APP.
232/2011, LA.APP. 233/2011, LA.APP. 389/2011, LA.APP.
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 3 of 74
392/2011, LA.APP. 420/2011, LA.APP. 424/2011, LA.APP.
425/2011
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award
No.19/2002-03, Village-Pooth Khurd)
AND
(GRID-B)
+ LA.APP. 972/2008 & CM 2349/2009 (Cross Objections),
LA.APP. 1122/2008 & CM 2099/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
1150/2008 & CM 12216/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
1151/2008 & CM 2345/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
1152/2008 & CM 2102/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
1153/2008 & CM 2338/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
1154/2008, 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, LA.APP. 571/2009, LA.APP. 622/2009, LA.APP.
214/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No.
11/2001-02, Village-Holambi Kalan)
AND
(GRID-C)
+ LA.APP. 359/2007, LA.APP. 202/2007, LA.APP. 382/2007,
LA.APP. 383/2007, LA.APP. 269/2008, LA.APP. 811/2008, LA.APP.
928/2008, LA.APP. 134/2009, LA.APP. 182/2009, LA.APP.
969/2010,
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.08.2000 & Award No.
08/2001-02, Village-Bawana)
AND
(GRID-D)
+ LA.APP. 144/2011, LA.APP. 145/2011 & CM 12911/2011
(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 146/2011 & CM 12957/2011 (Cross
Objections),
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 4 of 74
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 11.09.2000 & Award No.
20/2002-03, Village-Khera Khurd)
AND
(GRID-E)
+ LA.APP. 586/2009, LA.APP. 620/2009, LA.APP. 621/2009,
LA.APP. 646/2009, LA.APP. 91/2010, LA.APP. 93/2010, LA.APP.
94/2010, LA.APP. 190/2010, LA.APP. 191/2010 & CM No.
22402/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 192/2010, LA.APP.
193/2010, LA.APP. 194/2010, LA.APP. 195/2010, LA.APP.
196/2010, LA.APP. 197/2010, LA.APP. 297/2010, LA.APP.
299/2010, LA.APP. 300/2010, LA.APP. 308/2010, LA.APP.
309/2010, LA.APP. 338/2010, LA.APP. 370/2010 & CM No.
3555/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 373/2010, LA.APP.
493/2010, LA.APP. 494/2010, LA.APP. 495/2010, LA.APP.
496/2010, LA.APP. 497/2010 & CM No. 22728/2010 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 498/2010, LA.APP. 499/2010, LA.APP.
500/2010, LA.APP. 501/2010& CM No. 23186/2010 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 502/2010 & CM No. 10382/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 503/2010, LA.APP. 504/2010, LA.APP.
505/2010, LA.APP. 506/2010, LA.APP. 507/2010, LA.APP.
508/2010, LA.APP. 509/2010, LA.APP. 510/2010, LA.APP.
511/2010, LA.APP. 512/2010, LA.APP. 513/2010, LA.APP.
514/2010, LA.APP. 515/2010, LA.APP. 516/2010, LA.APP.
517/2010 & CM No. 7702/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
518/2010, LA.APP. 519/2010, LA.APP. 610/2010, LA.APP.
611/2010, LA.APP. 612/2010, LA.APP. 613/2010, LA.APP.
618/2010, LA.APP. 619/2010, LA.APP. 620/2010, LA.APP.
621/2010, LA.APP. 622/2010, LA.APP. 623/2010, LA.APP.
628/2010, LA.APP. 647/2010 & CM No. 3847/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 650/2010, LA.APP. 651/2010 & CM No.
3560/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 652/2010, LA.APP.
841/2010, LA.APP. 845/2010 & CM No. 3563/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 853/2010, LA.APP. 854/2010 & CM No.
10378/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 855/2010, LA.APP.
856/2010 & CM No. 9610/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
857/2010, LA.APP. 920/2010 & CM No. 3829/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 1008/2010 & CM No. 9966/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 1021/2010, LA.APP. 78/2011, LA.APP.
79/2011, LA.APP. 80/2011, LA.APP. 81/2011, LA.APP. 82/2011,
LA.APP. 83/2011, LA.APP. 84/2011, LA.APP. 85/2011, LA.APP.
86/2011, LA.APP. 87/2011, LA.APP. 300/2011, LA.APP. 322/2011,
LA.APP. 324/2011 & CM APPL.15110/2011, LA.APP. 385/2011.
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 5 of 74
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 02.05.2001& Award No.
24/2003-04, Village-Narela)
AND
(GRID-F)
+ LA.APP. 497/2008, LA.APP. 141/2009 & CM 5302/2010
(Cross Objections).
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.
18/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan)
AND
(GRID-G)
+ LA.APP. 777/2010 & CM APPL.3808/2011, LA.APP. 778/2010
& CM 2686/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 779/2010 & CM
12966/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 213/2011, LA.APP.
261/2011, LA.APP. 326/2011, LA.APP. 327/2011, LA.APP.
328/2011, LA.APP. 330/2011, LA.APP. 331/2011, LA.APP.
332/2011, LA.APP. 333/2011, LA.APP. 334/2011, LA.APP.
335/2011, LA.APP. 339/2011, LA.APP. 340/2011, LA.APP.
341/2011, LA.APP. 342/2011, LA.APP. 343/2011, LA.APP.
350/2011, LA.APP. 351/2011, LA.APP. 365/2011,
LA.APP.377/2011, LA.APP.388/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.
33/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan)
AND
(GRID-H)
+ LA.APP. 391/2011, LA.APP. 404/2011, LA.APP. 409/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.
15/2003-04, Village-Ali Pur)
AND
(GRID-I)
+ LA.APP. 481/2010
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 6 of 74
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award No.
9/2003-04, Village-Holambi Khurd)
AND
(GRID-J)
+ LA.APP. 780/2010 & CM No.2661/2011 (Cross Objections),
LA.APP. 899/2010 & CM No.3833/2011 (Cross Objections),
LA.APP. 900/2010 & CM No.3541/2011 (Cross Objections),
LA.APP. 970/2010, LA.APP. 971/2010 & CM No.3805/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 972/2010 & CM No.2667/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 973/2010 & CM No.3703/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP.974/2010 & CM No.14333/2011(Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 976/2010 & CM No.9992/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 977/2010, LA.APP. 978/2010, LA.APP.
979/2010 & CM No.9990/2011, LA.APP. 980/2010 & CM
No.3551/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 981/2010, LA.APP.
982/2010 & CM No.6742/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
983/2010 & CM No.6759/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
984/2010 & CM No.6746/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
985/2010 & CM No.9980/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
986/2010, LA.APP. 988/2010 & CM No.3836/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 989/2010, LA.APP. 990/2010, LA.APP.
991/2010 & CM No.9984/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
1000/2010, LA.APP. 1005/2010 & CM No.9970/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 1018/2010, LA.APP. 1020/2010 & CM
No.12939/2 (Cross Objections)011, LA.APP. 1024/2010 & CM
No.6771/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1/2011 & CM
No.12964/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 2/2011 & CM
No.6752/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 25/2011, LA.APP.
28/2011, LA.APP. 52/2011, LA.APP. 53/2011 & CM No.6766/2011
(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 73/2011 & CM No.12922/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 75/2011 & CM No.6775/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 101/2011, LA.APP. 102/2011, LA.APP.
110/2011, LA.APP. 111/2011, LA.APP. 112/2011 & CM
No.10050/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 191/2011, LA.APP.
235/2011, LA.APP. 239/2011, LA.APP. 252/2011
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 22.08.2001 & Award
No.20/2003-04, Village-Rajapur Kalan)
AND
(GRID-K)
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 7 of 74
+ LA.APP. 488/2008, LA.APP. 490/2008, LA.APP. 491/2008,
LA.APP. 549/2008, LA.APP. 755/2008, LA.APP. 868/2008 & CM
No.10393/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 896/2008 & CM
No.5364/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 897/2008, LA.APP.
1003/2008, LA.APP. 587/2009, LA.APP. 591/2009, LA.APP.
34/2010 & CM No.7072/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
488/2010, LA.APP. 605/2010, LA.APP. 616/2010, LA.APP.
62/2011, LA.APP. 66/2011, LA.APP. 68/2011, LA.APP. 236/2011,
LA.APP. 421/2011
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 07.12.2001 & Award
No.17/2003-04, Village-Sanoth)
AND
(GRID-L)
+ LA.APP. 341/2008, LA.APP. 342/2008, LA.APP. 344/2008,
LA.APP. 352/2008, LA.APP. 364/2008, LA.APP. 385/2008, LA.APP.
387/2008, LA.APP. 445/2008, LA.APP. 454/2008, LA.APP.
464/2008& CM No.11333/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
465/2008, LA.APP. 466/2008, LA.APP. 468/2008& CM
No.11334/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 469/2008, LA.APP.
470/2008, LA.APP. 471/2008, LA.APP. 560/2008, LA.APP.
561/2008, LA.APP. 611/2008, LA.APP. 663/2008, LA.APP.
676/2008, LA.APP. 678/2008, LA.APP. 679/2008, LA.APP.
681/2008, LA.APP. 682/2008, LA.APP. 683/2008, LA.APP.
722/2008, LA.APP. 731/2008, LA.APP. 754/2008, LA.APP.
786/2008, LA.APP. 825/2008, LA.APP. 826/2008, LA.APP.
842/2008, LA.APP. 850/2008, LA.APP. 853/2008, LA.APP.
883/2008, LA.APP. 903/2008, LA.APP. 904/2008, LA.APP.
924/2008, LA.APP. 935/2008, LA.APP. 937/2008, LA.APP.
938/2008, LA.APP. 940/2008, LA.APP. 943/2008, LA.APP.
945/2008, LA.APP. 956/2008, LA.APP. 957/2008, LA.APP.
998/2008, LA.APP. 1001/2008, LA.APP. 1004/2008, LA.APP.
1007/2008, LA.APP. 1065/2008, LA.APP. 1077/2008, LA.APP.
1079/2008, LA.APP. 106/2009, LA.APP. 172/2009, LA.APP.
309/2009, LA.APP. 374/2009, LA.APP. 464/2009, LA.APP.
465/2009, LA.APP. 468/2009, LA.APP. 539/2009, LA.APP.
546/2009, LA.APP. 547/2009, LA.APP. 565/2008, LA.APP.
624/2009, LA.APP. 628/2009, LA.APP. 630/2009, LA.APP.
23/2010, LA.APP. 24/2010, LA.APP. 26/2010, LA.APP. 35/2010,
LA.APP. 37/2010, LA.APP. 41/2010.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 16.05.2002 & Award No.
29/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi)
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 8 of 74
AND
(GRID-M)
+ LA.APP. 338/2008, LA.APP. 343/2008, LA.APP. 356/2008,
LA.APP. 366/2008, LA.APP. 367/2008, LA.APP. 368/2008, LA.APP.
369/2008, LA.APP. 370/2008, LA.APP. 383/2008, LA.APP.
384/2008, LA.APP. 386/2008, LA.APP. 388/2008, LA.APP.
389/2008, LA.APP. 434/2008, LA.APP. 435/2008, LA.APP.
436/2008, LA.APP. 444/2008, LA.APP. 456/2008& CM
No.11332/2008 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 458/2008, LA.APP.
467/2008, LA.APP. 550/2008 & CM No. 16150/2008 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 553/2008, LA.APP. 562/2008, LA.APP.
680/2008, LA.APP. 715/2008, LA.APP. 716/2008, LA.APP.
720/2008, LA.APP. 723/2008, LA.APP. 757/2008, LA.APP.
760/2008, LA.APP. 767/2008, LA.APP. 793/2008, LA.APP.
823/2008, LA.APP. 824/2008, LA.APP. 837/2008, LA.APP.
908/2008, LA.APP. 909/2008, LA.APP. 952/2008, LA.APP.
1022/2008, LA.APP. 1024/2008, LA.APP. 1025/2008, LA.APP.
1063/2008, LA.APP. 173/2009, LA.APP. 307/2009, LA.APP.
308/2009, LA.APP. 311/2009, LA.APP. 384/2009, LA.APP.
385/2009, LA.APP. 463/2009, LA.APP. 467/2009, LA.APP.
540/2009, LA.APP. 542/2009, LA.APP. 548/2009, LA.APP.
627/2009, LA.APP. 631/2009, LA.APP. 22/2010, LA.APP. 30/2010.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.05.2002 & Award
No.22/2003-04, Village-Shahpur Garhi)
AND
(GRID-N)
+ LA.APP. 485/2008, LA.APP. 498/2008 & CM 13228/2008
(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1149/2008, LA.APP. 263/2009,
LA.APP. 304/2009 & CM 13916/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
12/2011
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.05.2002 & Award No.
16/2003-04, Village-Holambi Kalan)
AND
(GRID-O)
+ LA.APP.379/2008, LA.APP. 381/2008, LA.APP. 390/2008,
LA.APP. 494/2008, LA.APP. 499/2008, LA.APP. 530/208, LA.APP.
836/2008 & CM 5300/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 310/2009
& CM 16027/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 782/2010, LA.APP.
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 9 of 74
783/2010, LA.APP. 825/2010, LA.APP. 9/2011 & CM 9960/2011
(Cross Objections), LA.APP. 58/2011, LA.APP. 289/2011 & CM
14850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 290/2011 & CM
14852/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 381/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.05.2002 & Award No.
17/2004-05, Village- Ali Pur)
AND
(GRID-P)
+ LA.APP. 654/2008 & CM No.2357/2009 (Cross Objections),
LA.APP. 655/2008, LA.APP. 674/2008 & CM No.7818/2009 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 677/2008, LA.APP. 705/2008, LA.APP.
706/2008, LA.APP. 807/2008, LA.APP. 808/2008 & CM No.
7837/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 878/2008, LA.APP.
882/2008, LA.APP. 885/2008, LA.APP. 891/2008, LA.APP.
898/2008 & CM No.2355/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
902/2008, LA.APP. 922/2008, LA.APP. 923/2008, LA.APP.
929/2008 & CM No.2351/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
930/2008 & CM No.7821/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
960/2008, LA.APP. 980/2008 & CM No.855/2010 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 981/2008 & CM No.1261/2009 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 982/2008, LA.APP. 983/2008 & CM
No.2347/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 984/2008 & CM
No.839/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 985/2008, LA.APP.
997/2008, LA.APP. 1002/2008, LA.APP. 1006/2008, LA.APP.
1027/2008, LA.APP. 1078/2008 & CM No.2247/2009 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 1123/2008, LA.APP. 1127/2008 & CM
No.2111/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1196/2008, LA.APP.
1246/2008 & CM No.10387/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
1257/2008, LA.APP. 1258/2008 & CM No.7791/2009 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 13/2009 & CM No.2151/2009 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 22/2009, LA.APP. 83/2009, LA.APP. 99/2009,
LA.APP. 103/2009, LA.APP. 104/2009, LA.APP. 107/2009, LA.APP.
115/2009 & CM No.6482/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
122/2009 & CM No.14321/2009 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
123/2009, LA.APP. 124/2009, LA.APP. 128/2009, LA.APP.
174/2009, LA.APP. 250/2009, LA.APP. 260/2009, LA.APP.
261/2009, LA.APP. 262/2009, LA.APP. 264/2009, LA.APP.
293/2009, LA.APP. 299/2009, LA.APP. 301/2009, LA.APP.
302/2009, LA.APP. 303/2009, LA.APP. 365/2009, LA.APP.
433/2009, LA.APP. 449/2009, LA.APP. 461/2009, LA.APP.
471/2009, LA.APP. 487/2009, LA.APP. 501/2009, LA.APP.
518/2009, LA.APP. 527/2009, LA.APP. 530/2009, LA.APP.
531/2009, LA.APP. 533/2009, LA.APP. 537/2009, LA.APP.
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 10 of 74
538/2009, LA.APP. 545/2009, LA.APP. 554/2009, LA.APP.
555/2009, LA.APP. 558/2009, LA.APP. 585/2009, LA.APP.
588/2009, LA.APP. 619/2009, LA.APP. 625/2009, LA.APP.
626/2009, LA.APP. 629/2009, LA.APP. 649/2009, LA.APP.
38/2010, LA.APP. 43/2010, LA.APP. 131/2010, LA.APP. 202/2010,
LA.APP. 203/2010, LA.APP. 204/2010, LA.APP. 225/2010, LA.APP.
227/2010, LA.APP. 269/2010, LA.APP. 303/2010, LA.APP.
372/2010, LA.APP. 410/2010, LA.APP. 418/2010, LA.APP.
479/2010, LA.APP. 480/2010, LA.APP. 482/2010, LA.APP.
483/2010, LA.APP. 484/2010, LA.APP. 485/2010, LA.APP.
486/2010, LA.APP. 487/2010, LA.APP. 604/2010, LA.APP.
606/2010 & CM No.19878/2010 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
607/2010, LA.APP. 608/2010, LA.APP. 609/2010, LA.APP.
614/2010, LA.APP. 615/2010, LA.APP. 671/2010, LA.APP.
695/2010, LA.APP. 705/2010, LA.APP. 734/2010, LA.APP.
785/2010 & CM No.12968/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
786/2010 & CM No.12967/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
787/2010, LA.APP. 788/2010, LA.APP. 789/2010, LA.APP.
790/2010, LA.APP. 820/2010 & CM No.12880/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 821/2010, LA.APP. 915/2010, LA.APP.
916/2010 & CM No.6773/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
14/2011 & CM No.6754/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
26/2011 & CM No.6763/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
55/2011 & CM No.12894/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
59/2011, LA.APP. 63/2011, LA.APP. 69/2011, LA.APP. 70/2011,
LA.APP. 72/2011 & CM No.6777/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
76/2011 & CM No.12974/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
114/2011 & CM No.12869/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
135/2011, LA.APP. 136/2011 & CM No.12971/2 (Cross
Objections)011, LA.APP. 137/2011 & CM No.12902/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 143/2011, LA.APP. 153/2011, LA.APP.
203/2011 & CM No.12913/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
273/2011 & CM No.13289/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
338/2011
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003 & Award
No.11/2004-05, Village-Sanoth)
AND
(GRID-Q)
+ LA.APP. 336/2010 & CM APPL.14845/2011, LA.APP.
624/2010, LA.APP. 625/2010, LA.APP. 626/2010, LA.APP.
627/2010 & C.M. No.3853/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
629/2010, LA.APP. 630/2010, LA.APP. 642/2010, LA.APP.
643/2010, LA.APP. 644/2010, LA.APP. 645/2010 & C.M.
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 11 of 74
No.3587/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 646/2010, LA.APP.
664/2010, LA.APP. 665/2010, LA.APP. 667/2010, LA.APP.
668/2010, LA.APP. 669/2010 & C.M. No.6769/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 670/2010 & C.M. No.3818/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 672/2010, LA.APP. 673/2010 & C.M.
No.3812/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 687/2010, LA.APP.
701/2010 & C.M. No.3850/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
702/2010, LA.APP. 703/2010 & C.M. No.9941/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 721/2010, LA.APP. 733/2010 & C.M.
No.12878/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 735/2010, LA.APP.
736/2010, LA.APP. 737/2010, LA.APP. 738/2010, LA.APP.
739/2010 & C.M. No.3569/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
740/2010 & CM No.14322/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
800/2010 & C.M. No.3217/2011, LA.APP. 801/2010, LA.APP.
802/2010, LA.APP. 803/2010, LA.APP. 808/2010, LA.APP.
809/2010, LA.APP. 810/2010, LA.APP. 811/2010, LA.APP.
812/2010, LA.APP. 813/2010, LA.APP. 814/2010, LA.APP.
815/2010, LA.APP. 816/2010 & C.M. No.3862/2011 (Cross
Objections), LA.APP. 817/2010, LA.APP. 838/2010, LA.APP.
839/2010 & C.M. No.10335/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
870/2010 & C.M. No.9946/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
917/2010, LA.APP. 922/2010, LA.APP. 923/2010, LA.APP.
924/2010, LA.APP. 925/2010, LA.APP. 945/2010 & C.M.
No.3844/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 975/2010 & C.M.
No.2664/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 987/2010& C.M.
No.3547/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1006/2010, LA.APP.
56/2011 & C.M. No.9939/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.
74/2011, LA.APP. 96/2011, LA.APP. 97/2011, LA.APP. 98/2011,
LA.APP. 99/2011, LA.APP. 100/2011, LA.APP. 103/2011, LA.APP.
104/2011, LA.APP. 105/2011, LA.APP. 106/2011, LA.APP.
107/2011, LA.APP. 108/2011, LA.APP. 109/2011, LA.APP.
113/2011, LA.APP. 165/2011, LA.APP.329/2011
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 27.01.2003 & Award
No.10/2004-05, Village-Rajapur Kalan)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
LA.App.No.266/2008 & connected matters Page 12 of 74
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. 10 villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan,
Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, Ali Pur, Rajapur
Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue
District (North-West) and if we see the map of the city of Delhi
we would find that these villages lie in the North-Western part of
Delhi. They lie within an area between the ‗V' formed by Rohtak
Road i.e. NH-10 and G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1. The Delhi-
Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-1. Whereas
villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway
line and NH-1, the other villages are on the opposite side of the
railway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line. Narela and
Shahpur Garhi are towards the east of the railway line. The
urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has been
developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is
situated in the land within the aforesaid ‗V'. Bawana Industrial
Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and
said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid ‗V'.
Historically, except for village Narela, all villages have been
treated as equivalent with respect to their location.
2. The instant decision decides the issue as to what should
be the fair market value of agricultural lands in the said villages
as of the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001,
7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003. Needless to
state, pursuant to notifications issued, from time to time, on
aforesaid dates under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894, vast tracts of land in said 10 villages were acquired and
save and except lands in the Revenue Estate of village Narela
where the purpose of acquisition was partly residential and
partly industrial, in the other villages, acquisition was for the
purpose of establishing an industrial estate or laying down a
road or freight complex. The reason why such large tracts of
lands were needed was to set up an industrial estate pursuant
to a decision taken to shift all industries operating in non-
conforming areas within Delhi to conforming areas.
3. I must highlight that arguments by learned counsel for
the land owners were the same in all appeals filed by them as
also cross-objections wherever filed, and similar is the position
with respect to the stand taken by the Union of India. Save and
except pertaining to village Narela, where an additional
argument was advanced; being that, the township of Narela had
existed since pre-partition days and thus lands in village Narela
had a better value and for which it was urged that way back in
the year 1963 when lands in the revenue estate of village Narela
and adjoining villages Bhorgarh and Mamurpur were acquired,
lands in village Narela were given a price advantage of `2/- per
sq.yd. vis-à-vis the price determined for lands in village
Bhorgarh and Mamurpur. I must further highlight that learned
counsel conceded that village Narela and Mamurpur comprised
the same revenue estate; with the market i.e. Mandi being in
village Narela and the village abadi being in Mamurpur.
4. The position of the awards made from time to time and
the relatable notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act 1894 have been detailed by me while noting the various
Land Acquisition Appeals and the Cross Objections as per the
index hereinabove and thus I need not repeat the same.
5. A perusal of all the awards announced from time to
time would reveal that the learned Land Acquisition Collector
has determined compensation payable with reference to
notifications/orders issued by the Government of NCT Delhi from
time to time notifying the minimum rates for agricultural lands
in Delhi and wherever it was found that due to land owners
having excavated earth resulting in pits having depths between
4' to 6', the land value has been appropriately depressed and
this is to be found in a few awards where lands have been put in
2 or 3 categories i.e. Category ‗A', Category ‗B' and Category
‗C'.
6. A perusal of the various decisions pronounced by the
Reference Court in various Land Acquisition References made,
would show that the learned Reference Court has determined
fair market value on different principles and for purposes of
clarity I may note the basis on which the learned Land
Acquisition Collector and the learned Reference Court have
determined the compensation payable. The same would be as
under:-
A. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pursuant
whereto 1372.00.10 bigha land was acquired in village Pooth
Khurd, for the purpose of shifting industrial units, as against
`13.82 lacs per acre for Category ‗A' lands and `12.26 lacs per
acre for Category ‗B' lands awarded by the learned Land
Acquisition Collector (by adopting the price as per the policy for
minimum rates as of 1.4.2000), the learned Reference Court has
adopted the same rate i.e. `13.82 lacs per acre and has granted
increment at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 1.4.2000
till 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of the notification issued under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and thus determined fair
market value of land in village Pooth Khurd at 14,37,280/- per
acre and has ignored that there was Category ‗B' land for which
he had to make necessary adjustment.
B. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000
pursuant whereto 211.14 bigha land was acquired in village
Holambi Kalan, the Land Acquisition Collector treated the land
as of same character and determined fair market value with
reference to the policy for minimum rates in sum of `13.82 lacs
per acre which has been enhanced by the learned Reference
Court to `14,12,995/- per acre by relying upon a decision of a
Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13
Gajraj Vs. UOI wherein for the date 15.11.1996 fair market value
determined was `9,76,121/- per acre for Category ‗A' lands and
treating the said date and the said price as the base, giving 12%
per annum appreciation for a period of 3 years, 8 months and 23
days, to reach the date 7.8.2000, fair market value has been
determined.
C. Pertaining to the same notification dated 7.8.2000
pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Bawana were
acquired, the Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market
value for Category ‗A' lands, with reference to the policy and
fixed the same at `13.82 lacs per acre for Category ‗A' lands and
`12.62 lacs per acre for Category ‗B' lands. The learned
Reference Court maintained the same.
D. Pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000
pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd were
acquired for shifting industrial units, the Land Acquisition
Collector has, for Category ‗A' lands determined fair market
value, with reference to the policy effective from 1.4.2000 in
sum of `13.82 lacs per acre and for Category ‗B' lands has fixed
the same at `12.62 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court
has adopted the policy wherein minimum price fixed as of
1.4.2000 was `13.82 lacs per acre and for 128 days i.e. the
number of days between 1.4.2000 till 11.9.2000, appreciating
the same by 12% has determined fair market value at
`14,40,157/- and has uniformly awarded the same for all lands.
E. Pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 pursuant
whereto 1140.5.8 bigha land was acquired in Narela for
development of sectors 1 to 4, Phase I, Narela, with respect to
the policy of minimum price with effect from 1.4.2001 the
learned Land Acquisition Collector determined fair market value
in sum of `15.7 lacs per acre for Category ‗A' lands i.e. the same
price notified as of 1.4.2001 and for Category ‗B' lands
determined the same at `14 lacs per acre. The learned
Reference Court adopted the minimum price notified by the
Government as of 1.4.2001 and gave appreciation for a period
of 1 month for the reason the notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act 1894 is dated 2.5.2001 and enhanced the
compensation to `15,85,700/- per acre which has uniformly
awarded.
F. Pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001
whereunder 512.16 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan were
acquired for construction of a 100 meter wide road, the learned
Land Acquisition Collector has rested his decision on the
minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. `15.7 lacs per acre
which has been held to be the fair market value for Category ‗A'
lands and for Category ‗B' lands the same has been determined
at `14 lacs per acre. The learned Reference Court, with
reference to the minimum rates notified as of 1.4.2001 i.e. `15.7
lacs per acre has appreciated the same by 12% per annum for
143 days and the price so fixed is `16,43,811/- per acre which
has been uniformly awarded.
G. Pertaining to same notification dated 22.8.2001
pursuant whereto 512.16 bigha land was acquired in village
Alipur, on the same reasoning which has been adopted for
village Holambi Kalan, for the two categories of land same
compensation as determined for village Holambi Kalan has been
worked out by the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also by
the learned Reference Court who has done away with
categorization.
H. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001
pursuant whereto 192.15 bigha of land was acquired in village
Holambi Khurd, the reasoning of the LAC and the learned
Reference Court and the price determined is the same as has
been determined for village Holambi Kalan save and except that
in this village even the LAC has treated all lands in the same
uniform category.
I. Pertaining to the same notification dated 22.8.2001
pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Rajapur Kalan
were acquired the reasoning and the fair market value
determined by the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court
is the same as adopted for village Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd
and Alipur save and except in this village the acquired land was
of uniform category.
J. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.12.2001
pursuant whereto 222.05 bigha land was acquired in village
Sanoth for laying a 80 meter approach road to Narela township,
the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed
compensation uniformly in sum of `15.7 lacs per acre which is
the same as per the policy for minimum price w.e.f. 1.4.2001
and the learned Reference Court has adopted the same price
and given appreciation for 250 days at the rate of 12% per
annum to reach the figure of `16,99,042/- per acre.
K. Pertaining to the notification dated 16.5.2002 pursuant
whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi were
acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector has determined
compensation in sum of `15.7 lacs per acre which is the
minimum price notified by the Government as of 1.4.2001. The
learned Reference Court has simply held that the land owners
would be entitled to enhance compensation at the rate of 11.5%
per annum compounded. I may highlight that the learned
Reference Court has not worked out the compensation and has
left it to the Executing Court to do so, however I find that the
enhanced compensation which would work out would be
`17,75,369.44 per acre for the reason treating the base date as
1.4.2001 and the base price at `15.7 lacs, for 1 year and 45
days to reach the date 16.5.2001, appreciation would be at the
rate of 11.5% per annum compounded as per the learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
L. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002
pursuant whereto agricultural lands in village Shahpur Garhi
were acquired the learned LAC and the learned Reference Court
have determined same compensation as per the reasoning
pertaining to the same village for the notification dated
16.5.2002 and I find that since there is a gap of 7 days in the
two notifications, the compensation payable as per the decision
of the Reference Court comes to `17,79,781.78 per acre.
M. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.5.2002
pursuant whereto 445.81 bigha land in village Holambi Kalan
was acquired, the learned LAC has determined fair market value
in sum of `15.7 lacs per acre which is the same as per minimum
price w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The learned Reference Court has adopted
the same reasoning as was adopted while determining the fair
market value of lands in village Holambi Kalan which were
acquired pursuant to the notification dated 7.8.2000 i.e. adopted
the price determined as of 15.11.1996 in the decision in Gajraj's
case (supra) and appreciating the same by 12% compounded
per annum the price determined is `22,14,239/- per acre.
N. Pertaining to the same notification dated 23.5.2002
pursuant whereto 814.19 bigha agricultural land in village Alipur
were acquired the learned Land Acquisition Collector has
awarded compensation at the rate of `15.7 lacs per acre based
on the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, which price has been
adopted as the base by the learned Reference Court and after
granting appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f.
1.4.2001 till 23.5.2002, the price determined is `17,85,240/- per
acre.
O. Pertaining to the notification dated 27.1.2003
pursuant whereto 3092.04 bigha land in village Sanoth and
2188.03 bigha land in village Rajapur Kalan were acquired, the
learned Land Acquisition Collector, resting his reasoning on the
minimum price notified as of 1.4.2001 fixed the same value as
the compensation payable for Category ‗A' lands in both villages
i.e. `15.7 lacs per acre and for Category ‗B' lands in sum of `14
lacs per acre and for Category ‗C' lands in sum of `12.3 lacs per
acre. The learned Reference Court has adopted different
reasoning in some impugned decision and different in a few. In
some decisions the learned Reference Court has adopted the
minimum price in sum of `15.7 lacs per acre as of 1.4.2001 and
appreciating the same by 12% per annum for a period of 666
days has fixed fair market value at `19,13,765/- per acre which
has been uniformly awarded and in some references pertaining
to the village Rajapur Kalan, the learned Reference Court has
determined the fair market value with reference to a sale deed
‗Ex.R-2' which is dated 20.5.2002 and whereunder 1 bigha and
13 biswa of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.200 in the
revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was purchased for
`5,39,690/-.
7. Since the learned Land Acquisition Collector as also the
learned Reference Court have relied upon the notifications
issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi, fixing
minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi, let me therefore
note the dates and the minimum rates notified from time to time
pertaining to agricultural lands in Delhi since the same would be
relevant for the present decision. The same would be as under:-
Sl.No. Date of Effective Date Price %
Notification of the price (in increase
lakhs/acre) per
annum
1. 3.5.1990 27.4.1990 4.65
2. 25.7.1997 1.4.1997 10.0 11.5
3. 24.9.1998 1.4.1998 11.2 11.2
4. 21.11.2000 - 12.32
6. 9.8.2001 1.4.2001 15.7 11.5
7. 30.8.2005 30.8.2005 17.584 2.98
8. 24.1.2008 18.12.2007 53 89.51
8. From the tabulation hereinabove noted it would be
apparent that after minimum price was last fixed w.e.f.
27.4.1990 in sum of `4.65 lakhs/acre it was increased after
nearly 7 years to `10 lakhs/acre and the annual increase comes
to 11.5% per annum (simple). The next year i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.1998
the price was enhanced by 11.2% to reach the figure of `11.2
lakhs/acre and thereafter w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the price was
enhanced to `12.32 lakhs/acre, which notification was
superseded, inasmuch as when the notification dated 9.8.2001
was issued the price was retrospectively enhanced w.e.f.
1.4.1999 to `12.16 lakhs/acre i.e. the price increased by 11%
per annum with reference to the price determined as of
1.4.1998 and vide same notification the price was
retrospectively enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to `13.82 lakhs/acre
i.e. increased by 11% per annum vis-à-vis the previous i.e.
`12.16 lakhs/acre and w.e.f. 1.4.2001 the price rose by 11.5%
per annum vis-à-vis the previous price of `13.82 lakhs/acre to
reach the figure of `15.7 lakhs/acre. The price was next
enhanced w.e.f. 30.8.2005 to `17.584 lakhs/acre which gives us
an increase of only 2.98% per annum and then the price rose to
`53 lakhs/acre as of 18.12.2007 i.e. increased 89.51% per
annum with reference to the base figure of `17.584 lakhs/acre
and the date 30.8.2005.
9. Before noting the evidence relied upon by the land
owners and Union of India before the learned Reference Court, it
would be beneficial for the reader of the present decision, as I
feel, that arguments advanced on either side may be noted. I
would highlight that from the side of the land owners, each
argument was in the alternative and it was urged that they
would be entitled to price determination as per the first
argument, failing which as per the second argument, failing
which as per the third argument and so on. From the side of
Union of India it was urged that the land price fixed by the
learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated
7.8.2000 for village Pooth Khurd; the notification dated
22.8.2001 for village Holambi Kalan; the notification dated
7.8.2000 for village Bawana; the notification dated 11.9.2000 for
village Khera Khurd; the notification dated 2.5.2001 for village
Narela; and the notification dated 22.8.2001 for village Ali Pur;
and the notification dated 27.1.2003 for village Rajapur Kalan
and Sanoth treats as if all lands were of uniform character and it
was urged that corrective action is required by doing 2 things.
Firstly, with reference to the minimum price notified by the
Government from time to time, 11.5% increase per annum and
12% per annum increase was excessive with reference to the
dates of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act 1894; requiring the same to be reduced to 10% per annum
in the least. Secondly, the learned Reference Court was not
justified in treating all lands as of the same character and thus
requiring further correction by suitably depressing the price for
such lands which were put in Category ‗B' and Category ‗C' by
the Land Acquisition Collector and in respect of which
categorization it was urged that neither land owner had
challenged the same by leading evidence to the contrary i.e. to
show that such lands which were put in Category ‗B' and
Category ‗C', on account of pits and depressions of various
depths, as per the awards passed by the Land Acquisition
Collector was incorrect.
10. Learned counsel for the land owners firstly urged that
the learned Reference Court was not justified in ignoring the 2
sale deeds dated 25.3.2000, Ex.PW-1/3, in Land Acquisition
Reference which is subject matter of LA.APP.No.780/2010 as
also the sale deed dated 25.4.2001, Ex.PW-1/2, in the same
LA.Appeal. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/3, 33 bigha and 12 biswa
agricultural land in village Mamurpur was sold @ `26.75
lakhs/acre and as per the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2, 2 bigha and 19
biswa of land was sold in the revenue estate of village Khera
Khurd for a sum of `32.4 lakhs and adding on the stamp duty
paid and corporation tax it was urged that per acre land price as
of 25.3.2000 under Ex.PW-1/3 would be `28.89 lakhs/acre and
pertaining to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 the land price would be
`63.478 lakhs/acre. It was thus urged that the said 2 sale deeds
would be good evidence to determine the fair market value of
agricultural lands in the aforesaid 10 villages as of 7.8.2000,
11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002,
25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the 8 dates on which notifications
were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by
suitably increasing or decreasing the price. As an extended limb
of this argument, pertaining to village Narela, it was urged that
the price needs to be suitably enhanced and for which learned
counsel submitted that the same should be at least 10% more
and for which the argument was that when in the past,
pertaining to a notification issued on 30.10.1963 under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Reference Court had
given said benefit to agricultural lands in village Mamurpur-
Narela by giving a price benefit of `2/- per sq.yd. This was
upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 6.8.1987 in
C.A.No.4405/1997 UOI vs. Dharambir & Ors. The said decision
would reveal that the price per bigha in sum of `6,650/-
determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced to
`16,750/- per bigha by the Reference Court which was enhanced
to `22,000/- per bigha by this Court and the decision of this
Court was reversed by the Supreme Court and the one rendered
by the Reference Court was restored.
11. Learned counsel for the land owners secondly urged, in
the alternative to the first, that the learned Reference Court,
having accepted that due to Bawana Industrial Estate, Narela
Residential Scheme and Rohini Residential Scheme having
resulted in areas around the acquired lands being urbanized and
developed into residential and industrial estates, had resulted in
the subject lands having acquired a building potentiality,
required fair market value to be determined with respect to the
price at which DSIDC and DDA i.e. the implementing agencies,
which acted as the Nodal Agencies for development of Rohini
Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, sold developed
land in the Rohini Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial
Estate and for which learned counsel took me through the
evidence led and as noted by the learned Reference Court,
which I would be noting hereunder while dealing with the
submission urged.
12. Alternative to the second submission, being the third
submission, it was urged that as held by a Division Bench of this
Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (93) DLT 150 Bedi Ram
vs. Union of India, it was permissible to determine fair market
value of acquired lands with reference to the fair market value
determined by Courts at an earlier point of time by giving
suitable increase in the market value of the land by percentages
ranging between 6% per annum to 12% per annum for different
periods. Sh.I.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for some of the land
owners handed over a chart, worked upon by learned counsel,
with reference to the decision in Bedi Ram's case (supra) as per
which price increase per annum till 30.3.1965 had to be @ 6%
per annum with reference to the base price `16,750/- per bigha
as of 30.10.1963 i.e. the price affirmed by the Supreme Court in
Dharambir's case (supra) and thereafter @ 10% per annum till
31.3.1973 and thereafter @ 12% per annum till the various
dates when the 8 notifications under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 were issued from time to time, and with
which I am concerned in the present appeals. So worked out,
learned counsel highlighted that as of 27.1.2003 the fair market
value would come to `56,88,759/- per acre and I may highlight
that learned counsel had worked out as aforesaid for the reason
he was appearing in such appeals where the price fixation has to
be as of the notification dated 27.1.2003. Other learned counsel
urged that on the same principle market value should be
assessed for the preceding notifications dated 7.8.2000,
11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002 and
23.5.2002.
13. The fourth argument advanced was, and for which
reference was made by learned counsel for the parties in the
evidence led in LAC No.99/2005, which is subject matter of 2
cross appeals i.e. LA.APP.No.268/2008 filed by the land owners
and LA.APP.No.292/2008 filed by Union of India, that fair market
value should have been assessed on yield basis by annualizing
the yield for a period of 20 years and the evidence was the
testimony of Ram Kishan to the effect that by selling agricultural
produce from his lands he used to earn `1 lakh per bigha per
annum i.e. the fair market value as of 7.8.2000 i.e. the date of
the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act 1894 was issued pursuant whereto the land of Ram Kishan
and others were acquired. It was thus urged that the fair
market value as of said date should be `20 lakhs per bigha. I
may highlight that the fourth argument was only projected by
Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan
and others i.e. the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and the
respondents in LA.APP.No.292/2008.
14. The fifth argument advanced was by Sh.T.P.S.Kang,
Advocate who appeared in a few matters and urged that for
each of the notification in question the fair market value ought
to have been determined with reference to the notification
which was closest in point of time where under minimum land
value was fixed by the Government and the notification dated
24.1.2008 where under `53 lakhs per acre was the minimum
price fixed as of 18.12.2007; the mean average principle to be
adopted was the precise argument.
15. The last argument, which was in the alternative to the
first 5, pertained to the notification dated 27.1.2003, dealing
with which, in some References the learned Reference Court
had, with reference to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002, where
under 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.200
(1-13) in the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan was sold for
`5,39,690/-, determined the fair market value as per the said
sale deed in the following words: (Refer para 17 of the decision
dated 7.1.2010 in LAC No.117A/2009) : ―If we add stamp duty in
the sale price `3,69,906/- per bigha (`5,39,690/- + 70,160 =
6,09,850 for 1 bigha and 13 biswa) which comes to `17,74,109/-
per acre or `3,68,906/- per bigha. Further if we give 12%
increase on said amount for intervening period between the
date when the sale deed was executed and the date of
notification u/S 4 (20.05.2002 to 27.01.2003) i.e. 8 months it
comes to `19,16,037/- (round off `19,16,040/-).‖ The argument
was that if we look at the award relatable to the said acquisition
i.e. Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05, it would reveal that the
award pertained to 2188 bigha and 3 biswa land of which 1922
bigha and 18 biswa land was put in Category ‗A', 45 bigha and 2
biswa in Category ‗B' and the remainder 220 bigha and 3 biswa
in Category ‗C'. The subject sale deed clearly referred to the
land being comprised in Khasra No.200 and that page No.56-57
of the award would evidence that land comprised in Khasra
No.200 ad-measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswa was placed in
Category ‗C'. Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had
determined fair market value as of the date of the notification
i.e. 27.1.2003 in sum of `15.7 lakhs per acre based upon the
notification dated 9.8.2001 where under said price had been
fixed as the minimum price as of 1.4.2001, and thereafter had
depressed the same by `1.7 lakhs per acre for Category ‗B'
lands, fair market value determined whereof was `14 lakhs per
acre and further depress the same by another `1.7 lakhs per
acre for Category ‗C' lands, fair market value determined
whereof was `12.3 lakhs per acre. It would be apparent what
the argument was. The argument precisely was that if the
market value had to be determined with respect to the sale
deed in question, the same had to be for Category ‗C' lands and
for Category ‗B' and Category ‗A' lands the price had to be
increased by `1.7 lakhs per acre for each category.
16. I have already noted hereinabove the arguments which
were advanced by Sh.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel who
appeared for the Union of India and the same are reflected in
para 9 above and hence I need not repeat the same.
17. In various sub-paras of para 6 hereinabove, I have
capsuled the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition Collector
and the learned Reference Court pertaining to the 8 notifications
issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and
relatable to the 10 villages and thus I commence my journey to
deal with the arguments advanced keeping in view the facts
noted as also the reasoning of the learned Land Acquisition
Collector and the learned Reference Court as per various sub-
paras of para 6 above.
18. But before dealing with the arguments I need to
highlight various anomalies which strike the reader at the
outset. The same would be:-
A. Pertaining to the notification dated 7.8.2000 wherein
lands were acquired in village Pooth Khurd, for Category ‗B'
lands, having depressions and pits, deduction effected vis-à-vis
the price for Category ‗A' lands is `1.56 lacs per acre and
pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 where price has
been determined for agricultural lands in village Khera Khurd,
said price differential has been worked out at `1.2 lacs per acre
and while determining fair market value for agricultural lands in
village Narela which were acquired pursuant to the notification
dated 2.5.2001 the deduction effected is `1.7 lacs per acre,
which is the same figure adopted when fair market value of
agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan was determined as of
the date 22.8.2001. Pertaining to the notification dated
27.1.2003 and relatable to village Sanoth the price differential
on said count has again been taken at `1.7 lacs per acre to inter
se differentiate the price between Category ‗A', Category ‗B' and
Category ‗C' lands. In other words, the price differential has
varied between `1.2 lacs per acre, 1.56 lacs per acre and `1.7
lacs per acre.
B. The learned Land Acquisition Collector has adopted the
minimum price notified closest in point of time to the date when
Section 4 notification was issued without appreciating the land
price with reference to the date of the Section 4 notification i.e.
no benefit of price rise for the intervening period has been
given.
C. The learned Reference Court has adopted the minimum
price notified and has given appreciation ranging between
11.5% per annum and 12% per annum and in some cases has
compounded the same and in some given said benefit at the
simple rate.
D. Pertaining to village Holambi Kalan where acquisitions
were made pursuant to the notifications dated 7.8.2000 and
23.5.2002 the learned Reference Court has adopted the price
determined by this Court in Gajraj's case (supra) as of
15.11.1996 and has given appreciation at the rate of 12%
simple per annum for the former notification and at the rate of
12% compounded per annum for the latter.
E. Whereas for the notification dated 27.1.2003 the
learned Reference Court, in some references has determined
the fair market value with reference to the minimum price
notified as of 1.4.2001 and has given appreciation, in some
cases has determined the fair market value based on the sale
deed dated 20.5.2002.
F. Wherever the learned Land Acquisition Collector has
classified lands in Category ‗A', ‗B' and ‗C' reasons thereof have
been given in the award but the learned Reference Court, while
awarding uniform compensation, has given no reasons as to why
it was treating all lands to be of same character and quality.
19. Since I am dealing with acquisitions in 10 villages and 8
notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894, I think it advisable to put in a tabular form the relevant
facts, which would be my data for further analysis. Put in a
tabular form the data would be as under:-
Village Date of LAC compensation ADJ compensation
Section 4 (in lakhs/acre) with (in lakhs/acre) with
Notification reasons reasons
Pooth 7.8.2000 Cat. ‗A' `13.82 Cat. Uniform.
Khurd Cat. ‗B' `12.26 `14.3728.
Minimum price as Minimum price as
of 1.4.2000 of 1.4.2000 with
12% increase p.a.
Holambi 7.8.2000 `13.82 `14.12995.
Kalan Minimum price as Price as in Gajraj's
of 1.4.2000 case as of
15.11.1996 with
12% increase p.a.
Holambi 22.8.2001 Cat. ‗A' `15.7 Cat. Uniform.
Kalan Cat. ‗B' `14 `16.43811.
Minimum price as Minimum price as
of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with
12% increase p.a.
Holambi 23.5.2002 `15.7 `22.14239.
Kalan Minimum price as Price as in Gajraj's
of 1.4.2001 case as of
15.11.1996 with
12% increase p.a.
(compounded)
Bawana 7.8.2000 Cat. ‗A' `13.82 No enhancement
Cat. ‗B' `12.62 given.
Minimum price as
of 1.4.2000
Khera 11.9.2000 Cat. ‗A' `13.82 Cat. Uniform.
Khurd Cat. ‗B' `12.62 `14.40157.
Minimum price as Minimum price as
of 1.4.2000 of 1.4.2000 with
12% increase p.a.
Narela 2.5.2001 Cat. ‗A' `15.7 Cat. Uniform.
Cat. ‗B' `14 `15.857.
Minimum price as Minimum price as
of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with
12% increase p.a.
Ali Pur 22.8.2001 Cat. ‗A' `15.7 `16.43811.
Cat. ‗B' `14 Minimum price as
Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with
of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a.
Ali Pur 23.5.2002 `15.7 `17.8524
Minimum price as Minimum price as
of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with
12% increase p.a.
Holambi 22.8.2001 `15.7 `16.43811
Khurd Minimum price as Minimum price as
of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with
12% increase p.a.
Rajapur 22.8.2001 `15.7 `16.43811
Kalan Minimum price as Minimum price as
of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with
12% increase p.a.
Rajapur 27.1.2003 Cat. ‗A' `15.7 1. `19.13765 for
Kalan Cat. ‗B' `14 Uniform category.
Cat. ‗C' `12.3 Minimum price as
Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with
of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a.
in some cases.
2. `19.1604 for
Uniform category
based on sale
deed dated
25.5.2002 with
12% increase p.a.
Sanoth 7.12.2001 `15.7 `16.99042.
Minimum price as Minimum price as
of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with
12% increase p.a.
Sanoth 27.1.2003 Cat. ‗A' `15.7 `19.13765 for
Cat. ‗B' `14 Uniform category.
Cat. ‗C' `12.3 Minimum price as
Minimum price as of 1.4.2001 with
of 1.4.2001 12% increase p.a.
Shahpur 16.5.2001 Cat. ‗A' `15.7 `17.75369.
Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as
of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with
compound interest
@ 11.5% p.a.
Shahpur 23.5.2002 Cat. ‗A' `15.7 `17.79781.
Garhi Minimum price as Minimum price as
of 1.4.2001 of 1.4.2001 with
compound interest
@ 11.5% p.a.
20. I now propose to deal with the 6 submissions urged by
learned counsel for the land owners and the 2 submissions
urged by the Union as noted in paras 10 to 15 hereinabove
(pertaining to the land owners) and para 8 above (pertaining to
Union of India).
21. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale deeds,
Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-
1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market
value for the former comes to `26.75 lakhs per acre and the
latter @ `63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference Court
has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine
fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the villages in
question on the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was
purchased by a religious trust by the name of ‗Radha Swami
Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed
in evidence, while deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had
stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for
religious purpose and was being used for a religious purpose.
The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise been held not to be
reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural
lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government
Organization ―Christian Organization‖ and as per the testimony
of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated
that the organization had to pay the price for the said piece of
land as it was the only plot of the requisite size suitable for the
requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute
women i.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the
vendee.
22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717
Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Jsti Rohini & Anr. (Refer
para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land
Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in
a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section
51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an
exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an
area for the reason there may be special circumstances which
have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the
price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an
equally well informed seller without being influenced by any
special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of
land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the
market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area;
has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing
prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he
may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good
index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be
failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon
the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the
learned Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated
27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan
was sold by an agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser
price i.e. `17,74,109/- per acre as against the price which comes
to `63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and `28.89 lakhs per
acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3,
themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price
and ex-facie destroy each other.
23. Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned
Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted reasons in
para 21 above would be additional reasons to hold that the 2
sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair
market value of subject lands can be determined and more so
for the reason I find that under various awards nearly between
7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land have been acquired and when the
acquisition is of such large an area, it would make all the more a
reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic
evidence of the transaction being the result of a fancy of the
buyer. I would be failing not to note an unreported decision
cited by learned counsel Sh.I.S.Dahiya being the decision dated
19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being
LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap Singh (since deceased) thru LRs Vs.
UOI & Ors. It was highlighted that the sale deed therein by
which L&T had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural
land for expansion of its factory which had been ignored by the
learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for
the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be
treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area, was
rejected by the Court and the price in question, with suitable
deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was
accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2
sale deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be
treated as the basis to determine fair market value. The
argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division
Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not
accept the value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative
of the market value, but found that if the price therein was
reduced by 1/3rd, the price arrived at would be the same as
would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of
the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds
produced by the Government were giving a price of `1,37,000/-
per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchased the
land gave the price `3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would
come to `2,31,800/- which was near about the price of
`2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3rd would be deducted from the sum
of `3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said
judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995
and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market value as
of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e.
`2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench
is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not that the
Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was
so, the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I
would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already
noted the inherent contradiction in the value of the land price as
per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually
destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market
value.
24. Thus, the first argument as noted in para 10 above is
rejected and I immediately highlight that the extended limb of
the argument that after accepting the said sale deeds as
indicative of the fair market value of the land, pertaining to
village Narela, in view of the decision in Dharambir's case
(supra), land price should be suitably enhanced would be dealt
with by me at the end when I determine the fair market value of
lands for the villages in question.
25. The second argument, contours whereof are to be
found in para 11 of my decision herein above, I need to note the
latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue as per
the decision reported as 2009 (15) SCC 769 Lal Chand vs. UOI.
26. But before that I must highlight that the decision in Lal
Chand's case (supra) predicated a claim on a DDA brochure
whereunder, on lease-hold basis, residential plots were allotted
for residential housing scheme and the argument was being
considered for fixation of fair market value of agricultural lands
in village Rithala, where further lands were acquired for the
same residential scheme i.e. ‗Rohini Residential Housing
Scheme'. I highlight that agricultural lands in village Rithala are
situated within the ‗V' formed by NH-1 and NH-10 i.e. G.T.Karnal
Road and Rohtak Road.
27. Pertaining to the price charged by DDA after acquiring
agricultural lands, developing the same and transferring
perpetual lease-hold rights, which observations would equally be
relevant to industrial layouts, in paras 11 to 27, the Supreme
Court observed and held as under:-
―Whether the DDA brochure is relevant evidence?
11. The DDA brochure (Ext. X-1) dated 9-2-1981 is an
invitation seeking applications from members of the
public for allotment of plots on lease basis under the
Rohini Residential Housing Scheme. The brochure stated
that the plots were in a layout formed/to be formed in
Rithala and the surrounding villages. The brochure gives
the following provisional rates for allotment of plots on
leasehold basis:
Sl. No. Plot size Category Rate (per square metre)
1. 26 sq m Economically weaker sections Rs 100
(EWS)
2. 32 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 125
3. 48 sq m Low income group (LIG) Rs 150
4. 60 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200
5. 90 sq m Middle income group (MIG) Rs 200
The appellants contend that Rs 150 per square metre
which is the average of the said provisional rates, should
be taken as indicative of the ruling market price.
12. On careful consideration, we are of the view that
such allotment rates of plots adopted by development
authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of
compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for
several reasons. Firstly, market value has to be
determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped
agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment
rates of development authorities are with reference to
small plots in a developed layout falling within urban area.
Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt
different rates for plots in the same area with reference to
the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to
ascertain the real market value, whereas market value
determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not
depend upon the economic status of the land loser.
Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of freehold
land, whereas the allotment ―rates‖ in the DDA brochure
refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots
on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three
factors.
First factor
13. The percentage of ―deduction for development‖ to
be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of
undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for
development), with reference to the sale price of small
developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price
of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon
the nature of development of the layout in which the
exemplar plots are situated.
14. The ―deduction for development‖ consists of two
components. The first is with reference to the area
required to be utilised for developmental works and the
second is the cost of the development works. For
example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or
similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of
the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks,
playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities),
etc.
15. The development authority will also incur
considerable expenditure for development of
undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes
the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads,
underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying water
lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil
amenities, which would be about 35% of the value of the
developed plot. The two factors taken together would be
the ―deduction for development‖ and can account for as
much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.
16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an
unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of
―deduction for development‖ may be far less. This is
because in an unauthorised layout, usually no land will be
set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities.
Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The
roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for
movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development
work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus
the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of
plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20%
plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA
plots.
17. The ―deduction for development‖ with reference to
prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts
may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the
standards and quality of the layout.
18. The position with reference to industrial layouts will
be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of
the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with
the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq m to 200 sq
m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and
no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development
(for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be
far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will
also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to
be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range
only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75%
for residential plots.
19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban
area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the
deduction for development may be as much less, that is,
as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will
already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned
above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the
contrary.)
20. Therefore the deduction for the ―development
factor‖ to be made with reference to the price of a small
plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of
undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction
with reference to the price of a small plot in an
unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is
also well known that the development cost incurred by
statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred
by private developers, having regard to higher overheads
and expenditure.
21. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the
percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities,
parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the
nature of layout--whether it is residential, residential-
cum-commercial or industrial; and even among residential
layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the
size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community
facilities, parks and playgrounds provided.
22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory
development authorities may have large areas earmarked
for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical
substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked
for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic
amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only
to show that the ―deduction for development‖ factor is a
variable percentage and the range of percentage itself
being very wide from 20% to 75%.
Second factor
23. DDA and other statutory development authorities
adopt different rates for allotment of plots in the same
layout, depending upon the economic status of the
allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle
income group, low income group, and economically
weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout,
plots may be earmarked for persons belonging to
economically weaker sections at a price/premium of Rs
100 sq m, whereas the price/premium charged may be Rs
150 per square metre for members of low income group,
Rs 200 per square metre for persons belonging to middle
income group and Rs 250 per square metre for persons
belonging to high income groups.
24. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG,
LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors
reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take
the average of the allotment rates, as the ―market value‖
of those plots does not depend upon the cost incurred by
DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of
the applicants for allotment.
Third factor
25. Some development authorities allot plots on
freehold basis, that is, by way of absolute sale. Some
development authorities like DDA allot plots on leasehold
basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale
price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have
lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent.
26. There are standard methods for determining the
annual rental value with reference to the value of a
freehold property. There are also standard methods for
determining the value of freehold (ownership) rights with
reference to the annual rental income in regular leases.
But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a
freehold property with reference to the premium for a
leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is
long, the rent is very nominal, sometimes there is a
tendency among the public to equate the lease premium
rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to
the market value of the property.
27. However, in view of the difficulties referred to
above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the
allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed
by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market
value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The
DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being
not relevant.‖
28. The evidence on the subject has been discussed by the
learned Reference Court and I reproduce the same by extracting
from LAC Reference No.117A/2009. The argument advanced
before the learned Reference Court, being the same as was
advanced before me, has been noted by the learned Reference
Court with reference to the evidence relied upon. It reads:-
―Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted
that DDA & DSIDC allotted plots in Narela Residential
Area and Narela Industrial Area at much higher rate.
He has relied upon allotment letter dated 04.01.2000
issued by DDA of the plot no.52, Pkt. 03, Sector A-5,
Narela which was allotted to Sh. Hem Chander at the
pre-determined rate of `3028/- which he has proved as
Ex. PW6/1, Allotment letter dated 26.06.2003 of plot
no.55 Pocket 03, Sector-05 area measuring 70 Sq.
metres in which rate was fixed as `3,989 per sq.
metres, which is Ex.PW6/2 both this and allotment letter
dated 09.07.90 of industrial plot allotted by DSIDC i.e.
plot no.270, measuring 350 sq. yards at Narela
Industrial Complex at the rate of `650 sq. metres which
is Ex. PW3/1 and another allotment letter dated
25.04.2000 of industrial plot which is Ex. PW3/2, which
was sold at `3000 per sq. metres.
Further Ld. Counsel has submitted that from the
statement of PW9 Kanwal Singh & document Ex.
PW11/1, which is detail of land acquired. It is apparent
that total land acquired is 7209 bigha. Thus total cost
of development per bigha would be 1794400000 =
`248911 whereas Ld. Counsel has submitted that DDA
by selling alternate plot in Narela Residential Scheme @
`3208 would be `2531408/- per bigha.
And if 30% of the total area utilized for roads,
park, drain etc. total area comes for sale is 70% so the
price of per bigha would come to (2531408 - 759422 =
17719866 per bigha). And after deducting
development charges from sale price of one bigha i.e.
`1771986 - 248911 = 1523075 per bigha, where as
petitioner has been given rate only `3,27,083/- per
bigha.
Similarly he has tried to demonstrate the profits
earned by DSIDC. He has relied upon testimony of PW7
R.D. Sharma, Asstt. Manager, DSIDC who has produced
documents Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Ld. Counsel has argued
that total expenditure incurred on development of
Narela Project by DSIDC was 720526901 till 2001 and
total area of plots with DSIDC was 11247 hectare i.e.
1361250 sq. yard. Therefore, total earning of DSIDC is
`2142917 per bigha, calculation is as under:
Total area under plots = 112.47 hec i.e. 1361250 sq.
yards.
Price per sq. metre in = `3000/- per sq. yards
the year 2000 at
which DSIDC sold plot
Total earning = `4083750000
Total expenditure = `720526901
Total profit = `3363223099
i.e. Profit comes to `2470 per sq. yard or `2470000 per
bigha (i.e. 3363223099 divided by 1361250 sq. yards)
and the LAC has paid compensation @ `327083 per bigha
only, meaning thereby that DSIDC has earned a profit of
`2142917 per bigha.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued
that LAC has awarded compensation @ `327083 per
bigha for the land in question if 200% appreciation of the
said price is considered on account of land, the figure
comes to `654166. If the amount is deducted from sale
price per bigha i.e. `24700000, the figure comes to
`1815834 per bigha & petitioner is entitled for the same.‖
29. Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the
extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with reference to
the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela
Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was 20% or
75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidence has resulted in
the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the
Supreme Court in Lal Chand's case (supra), which render this
evidence as most unreliable to determine the value of land in
the subject cases.
30. It is no doubt true, as held even by the learned
Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana
Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela
Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building
potentiality, but the question would be what would be the value
to which the building potentiality would translate itself.
31. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping in view
the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lal
Chand's case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence as
reliable. On the issue of potentiality relating itself to the value, I
promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I
shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of
the lands.
32. The third submission in the alternative was based upon
the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bedi Ram's
case (supra), and the submission is as noted in para 12 herein
above. The land owners require the price determined in
Dharambir's case (supra) relating to the notification dated
30.10.1963 in sum of `16,750/- per bigha for village Mamurpur
to be treated as the basis and progressively increased, firstly by
6% per annum, then by 10% per annum and lastly by 12% per
annum for different periods and thereby determine the fair
market value for the 8 notifications in question.
33. It be highlighted that in Bedi Ram's case (supra), with
reference to the base date as of the year 1959, for the year
1976 i.e. a period spanning 17 years the Division Bench of this
Court applied the progressive increase method by firstly
enhancing the price per annum by 6% till the year 1965 and
then by 10% per annum till the year 1973 and finally by 12% for
the remaining 3 years.
34. However, in Lal Chand's case (supra), the Supreme
Court categorically opined as under:-
―Whether the award relating to acquisition on 24-10-
1961 is relevant?
47. The appellants contend that some lands in
Rithala were acquired under Section 4(1) Notification
dated 24-10-1961 for the planned development of Delhi
and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs 7000
per bigha. Their contention is that as the present
acquisition is in the year 1981, the market value of the
acquired land should be determined with reference to
the market value determined for the 1961 acquisition
by providing an appropriate increase at the
cumulative/compounded rate of 12% per annum. This
Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In
ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel10 this Court
held: (SCC p. 751, para 15)
―15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of
determining the market value by providing
appropriate escalation over the proved market
value of nearby lands in previous years (as
evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions),
where there is no evidence of any
contemporaneous sale transactions or
acquisitions of comparable lands in the
neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably
safe where the relied-on sale
transactions/acquisitions precede the subject
acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four
to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even
if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be
a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few
years, may become unsafe and unreliable
standard where the gap is larger. For example,
for determining the market value of a land
acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase
method with reference to a sale or acquisition in
1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is
because, over the course of years, the ‗rate' of
annual increase may itself undergo drastic
change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of
varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden
spurts in prices affecting the very standard of
increase.‖
(emphasis supplied)
48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to
three years prior to the acquisition, the court should,
before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that
there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if
the acquisition is of this year 2009, it may not be
possible to determine the market value, based on the
2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or
15% per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that
the price of immovable properties in most areas of the
country came down by more than 40% to 50% from the
2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before
increasing the price with reference to the old
transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award
made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any
use for determining the market value for a 1981
acquisition.‖
35. It is apparent that the ratio of law laid down by the
Division Bench in Bedi Ram's case (supra) runs in the teeth of
the law declared by the Supreme Court in Lal Chand's case
(supra), which decision follows an earlier decision of the
Supreme Court reported as 2008 (14) SCC 745 ONGC Ltd. Vs.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel.
36. In the instant case there is another good reason not to
follow the law laid down in Bedi Ram's case (supra) for the
reason I find that a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in
the decision reported as 88 (2000) DLT 650 (DB) Saraswati Devi
& Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors., pertaining to agricultural lands in village
Mamurpur - Narela, did not apply the progressive percentage
increase with reference to the price determined in Dharambir's
case (supra) as of the year 1963, which would have resulted in
the land price being determined in village Mamurpur - Narela as
of 14.3.1980 @ `2010/- per annum per bigha and gave the
increase @ `1000/- per bigha. If Bedi Ram's principle was
applied the price would have come to approximately `50,000/-
per bigha but the learned Division Bench determined the same
at `33,000/- per bigha.
37. That apart, as would be noted herein after by me, while
discussing on the issue of the fair market value of subject lands,
in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in
LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on 11.5.2006, Mahender Singh vs.
UOI & Ors. and connected Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to
agricultural lands in village Bawana, and I highlight that one
village with which I am dealing is village Bawana, pertaining to a
notification dated 15.11.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act where-under 3604 bigha and 18 biswa of
agricultural land in village Bawana was acquired for an industrial
estate i.e. Bawana Industrial Estate, the fair market value as of
15.11.1996 was determined @ `1,99,904.68 bigha which equals
to `9,59,542.46 per acre and relevant would it be for me to
highlight that if the notification dated 25.7.1997 by which price
for agricultural land being the minimum price determined by the
Government was `10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997, the price
determined by the Division Bench would equal the minimum
price notified by the Government.
38. If I were to take the price as of 15.11.1996 @
`9,59,542.46 per acre, pertaining to the notifications with which
I am concerned, the price would be approximately the same as
determined by the learned Reference Court if I give benefit of
progressive increase by 10% per annum. But, I leave it at that
for the moment for the reason, as assured by me herein above, I
would be holistically discussing the subject while opining upon
the fair market value of the subject lands as on date of the 8
notifications in question.
39. The fourth argument, which was advanced only by
Sh.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel who appeared for Ram Kishan
and others, the appellants in LA.APP.No.268/2008 and who are
the respondents in the Cross Appeal filed by Union of India i.e.
LA.APP.No.292/2008, is as noted in para 13 above i.e. the
testimony of Ram Kishan that from the subject lands belonging
to the family they were earning `1 lakh per bigha by sale of
agricultural produce.
40. The learned Reference Court has not accepted the
testimony of Ram Kishan because he gave no proof in support of
his oral testimony.
41. The reasoning of the Court that there was no crop
standing on the land when its possession was taken over on
4.10.2000 would require an inference to be drawn that the
acquired lands belonging to the family were not being put to
agricultural use and growing 3 to 4 crops per year, is fallacious
no doubt, for the reason it is matter of common knowledge that
by the 3rd week of September rice is harvested in Delhi and if
vegetables are grown, even they are harvested and the land is
left fallow for some time, to be readied to grow wheat which is
sown around the first week or the second week of November
each year.
42. But the other reasoning of there being no evidence led
in the form of documents is relevant. Now, as per the testimony
of Ram Kishan he was working as an Administrative Officer in
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi till 31.3.1996 i.e. was not a
tiller himself till said period and thereafter earned a pension. If
the family, as claimed by him, was earning `1 lakh per bigha, for
the lands belonging to the family, which admeasure 18 bigha
and 18 biswa, the annual income would be `19 lakhs and one
finds it strange that not a penny was invested in a bank or a
security wherefrom interest or dividend could be earned.
Besides, there is no proof of such high volume of sales being
effected in the local Mandi or otherwise. The trader to whom
the produce was sold has not been examined. No proof of
number of workers employed, diesel purchased to run the tube-
well, if any, to irrigate the fields or electricity bills paid if the
pump was electrically driven has been furnished and if the fields
were irrigated by canal water, no proof of any payment made to
the irrigation department has been furnished. Thus, the learned
Trial Judge is fully justified in not adopting the yield basis, by
capitalizing the same, to determine the fair market value of
lands. There is no reliable evidence on the issue of the yield
and the self serving deposition of Ram Kishan has been rightly
rejected.
43. If there is reliable evidence of an independent expert or
there is otherwise reliable evidence, as was found in the
decision of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1997 (1) SC 444
State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Rama Rana & Ors., pertaining to the
yield from agricultural land, only then it would be safe to
determine fair market value by applying the principle of
capitalizing on the yield basis and that too, the capitalizing
being 10 times the annual yield and not 20 times as was sought
to be projected.
44. The fifth argument which was advanced, as noted
herein above in para 14, by Sh.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate was that
the mean average principle be adopted with reference to the
notification dated 24.1.2008.
45. In para 7 above, I have put in a tabular form, the
minimum prices notified for agricultural land in Delhi from time
to time. I highlight that the notifications with which I am
concerned are dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001,
7.12.2001, 16.5.2002, 25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the years
are 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. From the table in para 7
above, we find that minimum prices have been notified as of
1.4.2000, 1.4.2001 and 30.8.2005. Thus, there would be no
need to factor in the minimum price notified under the
notification dated 24.1.2008 which is w.e.f. 8.12.2007 i.e. is 4
years away from the last year with which I am concerned i.e. the
year 2003. I highlight that reckoned w.e.f. the year 2000 i.e. the
first year with which I am concerned, the notification would be 7
years away. The law of statistics which governs mean average
as one of the recognized modes to determine a value, in
between 2 given values, requires the 2 end points to be the
ones which would be closest to the point for which the mean
average has to be determined.
46. I am left to deal with the last submission, as noted in
para 15 herein above, and for which I highlight that the learned
Reference Court has, pertaining to the notification dated
27.1.2003 determined the fair market value in some References
with respect to a sale deed dated 20.5.2002 where under 1
bigha and 13 biswa of land was sold in village Rajapur Kalan and
has determined that based thereon the price as of said date
works out to `17,74,109/- per acre and increasing the same for 8
months by 12% per annum, for the date 27.1.2003 the price
would be `19,16,037/- per acre rounded off to `19,16,040/- per
acre.
47. With reference to the Award No.10/DC(NW)/2004-05 it
is apparent that land comprised in Khasra No.200 admeasuring
1 bigha and 13 biswa was a Category ‗C' land. The sale deed in
question pertains to the same land and indeed there is logic that
if said sale deed had to be accepted, it would reflect fair market
value of Category ‗C' land. As per the learned Land Acquisition
Collector `1.7 lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the
depressions for land in Category ‗B' and further sum of `1.7
lakhs per acre would be required to fill up the depressions in
Category ‗C' land, meaning thereby depressions in Category ‗B'
land were less vis-à-vis Category ‗C' land. In other words, with
reference to Category ‗A' land, the price of Category ‗C' land
would have to be reduced and vice-versa, vis-à-vis Category ‗C'
land, the price for Category ‗B' land and for Category ‗A' land
would be required to be increased suitably.
48. I now enter the final stage of my discussion. In view of
the evidence herein above noted and reflecting upon the
reasoning adopted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and
the learned Reference Court, I pose the question: What should
be the fair market value of the subject lands as of 7.8.2000,
11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001, 7.12.2001, 16.5.2002,
25.5.2002 and 27.1.2003 i.e. the dates on which the
notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act 1894.
49. I have, in para 37 above, noted a decision of a Division
Bench of this Court in LA.APP.No.866/2005 decided on
11.5.2006, Mahender Singh vs. UOI & Ors. wherein pertaining to
village Bawana, fair market value determined as of 15.11.1996
is `1,99,904.68 per bigha which equals to `9,59,542.46 per acre.
The said decision would be relevant on the issue of potentiality,
an issue which I have promised to discuss. The decision notes
that the subject lands i.e. the lands with which the Division
Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inasmuch as,
as discussed in paras 25 to 28 of the decision, rural areas in the
Union Territory of Delhi was attracting migrants. Based on
population growth, 5 villages in rural Delhi were identified for
providing major health facilities, schools, markets and rural
industry, one of which was village Bawana. It was noted that
G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to
village Bawana and that the Master Plan for Delhi notified in the
year 1990 had indicated the land use in the area to be changed
in the future to industrial and commercial, but had also
observed that notwithstanding this, for the reason no zonal plan
was notified as contemplated by Section 11A of the Delhi
Development Act 1957, the lands continued to be used for
agricultural purposes and there was no evidence that till the
year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to
the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant
case, where all subject lands were continuously put to
agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision.
To put it pithily, the potential use of the lands giving birth to a
potential land value with reference to the area being known to
all as being required in the future for building purposes, was
found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference
to the potentiality i.e. the lands being, in the near future capable
of being built upon. To put it differently, the decision, though
not so expressly stating, would be a proposition that there is a
difference between the undeveloped land having building
potentiality in presenti vis-à-vis a land having a building
potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above,
as of the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was
`9,59,542.46 per acre and which I highlight once again is the
same as would be determined with reference to the notification
being closest in point of time i.e. the notification dated
25.7.1997 where-under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum
price fixed by the Government as of 1.4.1997 was `10 lakhs per
acre. Interestingly, the same Division Bench had pronounced
another judgment reported as 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13 Gajraj
Singh vs. UOI & Anr. where pertaining to agricultural lands in
village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6 biswa land was
acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15.11.1996,
fair market value determined for Category ‗A' lands was
`9,76,121/- per acre and for Category ‗B' lands was `9,51,121/-
per acre i.e. near approximate to the fair market value of lands
in village Bawana. It needs to be highlighted that while
determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village
Holambi Kalan, evidenced from the observations of the Court in
para 19 and 20 of the decision, location and potentiality with
reference to development work carried out in the surrounding
lands was considered. I would highlight that another Division
Bench of this Court, in another adjoining village in the same ‗V'
i.e. between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village
Singhola determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @
`1,30,523/- per bigha i.e. `6,26,510.40 per acre. The decision is
reported as 2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs. UOI and the
same Division Bench, as per the decision reported as 111 (2004)
DLT 95 Hukum Singh vs. UOI, pertaining to a notification dated
14.1.1994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @
`1,40,230/- per bigha i.e. `6,73,104/- per acre.
50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding
paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to
time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price
for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7
above bring out two very important facts relevant to determine
the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the
years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990
minimum price was `4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to `10 lakhs
per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is `5.35 lakhs spread
over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and
the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price rise
over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the
next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It
shows that due to urbanization, between the year 1990 and
1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative
evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in Gajraj's case (supra), which I have discussed in
para 49 above.
51. I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the
decision in Gajraj's case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to
fair market value of agricultural land in village Holambi Kalan as
of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the
valuation on the basis of agricultural yield and found that the
gross return per acre per annum was `95,000/- for multiple
cropped land and having good irrigation facilities and thus
capitalized the land price at `9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the
second method of land prices of comparable lands in the
surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the
Court discussed the matter with reference to land prices in
adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and
based on sale instances found that based on the said sale
instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land price
would come to `10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court
then considered the prices notified by the Government as per
policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average
figure of `9,76,121/- per acre for Category ‗A' lands and
`9,51,121/- per acre for Category ‗B' lands. The decision
highlights that the potentiality had been well-factored in when
the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f.
1.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale
transactions the Court found that as against the minimum price
notified as of 1.4.1997 at `10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were
highlighting that the price was `10,03,364/- per acre.
52. The decision in Mahender Singh's case, pertaining to
village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above, highlights
with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master
Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court
which was projecting residential, commercial and industrial
future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue
of potentiality had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan
so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality,
the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact
that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which
the Division Bench was concerned, virtually no development had
taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody
had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in
para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected
to be the market growth and what the market actually grows.
The decisions in Gajraj's case and Mahender Singh's case
highlight that potentiality translated itself into a reality between
1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and
thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate with the
requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between 10%
per annum to 11% per annum. One reason could be that
pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly large area came
to be developed, both residential, commercial and industrial and
probably there was enough availability of developed land and
the hunger of the market got saturated.
53. The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart from
the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in respect
whereof the learned Reference Court has given good reasons
not to rely upon and for which I have given further reasons in
paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not relying upon, being fanciful
sale deeds, to determine fair market value, we have with us the
sale deed relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Collector
pursuant whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan
the learned Reference Court has held that as per the said sale
deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002 the fair
market value of agricultural lands would be `19,16,040/- per
acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning that 1 bigha and 13 biswa
of land which was sold for `5,39,690/- and `70,160/- was paid as
stamp duty would mean that `6,09,850/- (`5,39,690/- +
`70,160/-) were spent would yield the price `17,74,109/- per
acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.
54. Thus, the best which could be said as the most
favourable situation for the land owners would be that with
reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 for Category ‗C'
lands the price i.e. fair market value of lands in the area would
be `17,74,109/- per acre. For Category ‗B' and Category ‗A' land
the price would have to be suitably enhanced and here we find
another area of dispute for the reason, as noted by me
hereinabove in sub-para (a) of para 18 the learned Land
Acquisition Collector in different awards has deducted
sometimes `1.2 lakhs per acre, sometimes `1.56 lakhs per acre
and sometimes `1.7 lakhs per acre from the price of Category
‗A' lands to determine the price for Category ‗B' lands and
wherever lands were in Category ‗C' as well the price has been
deducted further by `1.7 lakhs per acre.
55. Now, neither side has brought any evidence on record
as to what would be the money required to be spent to level the
lands and I note that categorization is based only on the basis of
certain lands having pits and depressions of various depths
requiring the same to be leveled and this would require money
to be spent. But on what basis has the Land Acquisition
Collector held, in some awards that `1.2 lakhs per acre would be
spent and in some that `1.56 lakhs per acre would be spent and
in some that `1.7 lakhs per acre would be spent? There is just
no clue.
56. In Gajraj Singh's case (supra), the price differential
worked out was `25,000/- per acre. I have noted hereinabove
that the acquisition in Gajraj Singh's case pertained to the date
15.11.1996. In Gajraj Singh's case the price for Category ‗A'
land determined was `9,76,121/- per acre and for Category ‗B'
land the price determined was `9,51,121/- per acre and the
price differential comes to about 2.5% with reference to the
price of Category ‗A' land.
57. I thus hold that Gajraj Singh's case should be my
guiding star for price differential in the instant cases as well and
thus I hold that wherever Category ‗A', Category ‗B' and
Category ‗C' have to be differentiated on price, the differential
should be 2.5%.
58. Thus, if `17,74,109/-, rounded off to `17.75 lakhs per
acre would be the price for a Category ‗C' land in village Rajapur
Kalan as of 20.5.2002 and highlighting that the sale deed Ex.R-2
admittedly pertains to a Category ‗C' land, the price for
Category ‗B' land would be `18.20 lakhs per acre and for
Category ‗A' land would be `18.655 lakhs per acre.
59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumes
importance that as per the minimum price notified by the
Government as of 1.4.2000 the per acre price was `13.82 lakhs
and as of 1.4.2001 the same was `15.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the
percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. If
I treat Category ‗A' land price at `18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002
based on the sale deed Ex.R-2, deducting the price by 11% per
annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately
`16.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when
contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government
at `15.7 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is
`70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be
achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of
land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of
land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the
location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would vary the price
by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the
sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the
minimum price notified by the Government has an element of
rationality and acceptability. It needs to be highlighted that
though under normal circumstances a sale on a particular date
is normally not held good evidence to work out a land price on a
date prior thereto but may be used as evidence to determine
land price on subsequent dates, for the reason a price on a
particular date is the result of various market forces/conditions
having already impacted the land price and it would be difficult
to fathom the existence of market forces/conditions walking
backwards. But, in the instant case, with reference to the 5
notifications dated 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001
and 7.12.2001, the differential period is small inasmuch as the
sale deed in question is dated 25.5.2002 and thus in the peculiar
facts of the instant case, the sale deed in question, which itself
has been projected by the Union of India as an evidence of
market value of land as on said date, would be a relevant piece
of evidence to be taken into account while determining the
market value of land as on the dates 7.8.2000, 11.9.2000,
2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001.
60. The argument that village Narela had always been
treated locationally advantageous for the reason the township of
Narela was in existence since long and this was recognized
when, pursuant to a notification issued in the year 1963, vis-à-
vis the adjoining villages `2 per square yard price advantage
was given to lands in village Narela in Dharambir's case, looses
sight of the fact that the price differential due to locational
advantage was keeping in view the realities in the year 1963.
Over the period of time, as urbanization took place in Delhi and
more and more areas came under plotted development which
included areas in North-West of Delhi i.e. the area with which I
am concerned today, the price differential faded and by the year
2000 and onward, it has become non-existent.
61. I thus hold that pertaining to the notifications dated
7.8.2000, 11.9.2000, 2.5.2001, 22.8.2001 and 7.12.2001 the
land prices would have to be determined on the basis of the
minimum price notified by the Government as also with
reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 for the reason I find
no other cogent evidence wherefrom land price as on said dates
could be determined. Pertaining to the notifications dated
16.5.2002, 23.5.2002 and 27.1.2003, the land price needs to be
determined with respect to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002
because with reference to the said sale price it is apparent that
land price as of said date comes to more than if determined with
respect to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein minimum
land price notified was `15.7 lakhs per acre with effect from
1.4.2001.
62. With respect to the price differential for Category ‗A'
and Category ‗B' lands, noting that pertaining to the said
notifications categorization has been done only pertaining to the
land acquired in village Pooth Khurd and Holambi Kalan
(pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 only), Village
Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela and Alipur (pertaining to the
notification dated 22.8.2001) I hold that vis-à-vis the said
notifications, after increasing the price for the date differential,
fixing the same for Category ‗A' lands, deduction has to be
effected by decreasing the same by 2.5% to determine the price
for Category ‗B' land.
63. Before I work out the compensation and since it would
be evidenced that pertaining to Category ‗A' lands, the land
prices would marginally increase in a few cases and
substantially in the other, a striking note of discordant would
emerge with respect to the land price determined pertaining to
the notification dated 23.5.2002 pertaining to village Holambi
Kalan wherein the learned Reference Court has determined the
fair market value at `22,14,23,900/- per acre as of 23.5.2002,
but I need to highlight that pertaining to the same notification
dated 23.5.2002 in relation to village Alipur the learned
Reference Court has determined the fair market value at
`17,85,240/- per acre and I find that pertaining to village
Rajapur Kalan and Sanoth, pertaining to the notification dated
27.1.2003 the fair market value assessed for Category ‗A' lands
is `19,16,040/- in some cases and `19,13,760/- in a few,
meaning thereby that much lesser compensation has been
worked out in the year 2003 vis-à-vis the compensation worked
out for Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated
23.5.2002 and the reason for the abrasion is that in said
notification the land price determined in Gajraj's case (supra) as
of 15.11.1996 has been taken and increased at the rate of 12%
per annum compounded.
Village Pooth Khurd Notification dated 7.8.2000
64. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001
wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per
acre is `13.82 lakhs and requiring said price to be suitably
updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 7.8.2000 and
with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for
Category ‗C' lands, land price per acre comes to `17,74,109/-,
rounded off to `17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category ‗B' lands
increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to `18.2 lakhs per
acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to
`18,65,500/- per acre for Category ‗A' lands; and decreasing the
said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale
deed for the date 7.8.2000; the mean average price for
Category ‗A' lands in village Pooth Khurd comes to `14.75 lakhs
per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to
`14,38,125/- per acre for Category ‗B' lands. Noting that the
learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away
with Category ‗B' lands and uniform price awarded is
`14,37,280/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me
comes to a meager `1,000/- per acre and thus qua Category ‗B'
lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference
Court.
65. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India
and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the
appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been
prepared and labeled as ‗GRID-A' hereinabove are dismissed.
66. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners
and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by
Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable
for Category ‗A' lands in village Pooth Khurd pertaining to the
notification dated 1.4.2000 in sum of `14.75 lakhs per acre and
for Category ‗B' lands the compensation awarded at
`14,37,280/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or
cross references which pertain to Category ‗B' lands are
dismissed.
67. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation
stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition
Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs.
UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period
where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for
which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation
shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be
entitled to proportionate cost.
Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 7.8.2000
68. For the reasoning given in paras 64 to 67 hereinabove
pertaining to the notification (same) dated 7.8.2000 relating to
village Holambi Kalan, all appeals as per ‗GRID-B' hereinabove
and cross objections stand disposed of enhancing the
compensation to `14.75 lakhs per acre and I highlight that as
per the award and even as per the reference all subject lands
were of uniform category. Needless to state appeals filed by the
Union of India and cross objections wherever filed are dismissed.
Appeals and cross objections filed by land owners are allowed by
enhancing the compensation to `14.75 lakhs per acre together
with statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as
explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93)
DLT 569, except for the period where there is a delay in filing
the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no
interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These
appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate
cost.
Village Bawana Notification dated 7.8.2000
69. Pertaining to village Bawana relating to the same
notification dated 7.8.2000 where the learned Reference Court
has not enhanced the compensation, for parity of reasoning, fair
market value for Category ‗A' lands is fixed at `14.75 lakhs per
acre and for Category ‗B' lands at `14,38,125/- per acre and
noting that Union of India has neither filed any appeal or cross
objection, appeals as per ‗GRID-C' hereinabove are allowed by
fixing the compensation as hereinbefore mentioned and
needless to state on the enhanced compensation the appellants
shall be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition
Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs.
UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569, except for the period where there is a
delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no interest
on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants
would be entitled to proportionate cost.
Village Khera Khura Notification dated 11.9.2000
70. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001
wherein with effect from 1.4.2000 minimum price notified per
acre is `13.82 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be
suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.
11.9.2000 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002
wherein for Category ‗C' lands, land price per acre comes to
`17,74,109/-, rounded off to `17,75,000/- per acre, and for
Category ‗B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes
to `18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices
comes to `18,65,500/- per acre for Category ‗A' lands; and
decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with
reference to the sale deed for the date 11.9.2000; the mean
average price for Category ‗A' lands in village Khera Khurd
comes to `14,83,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by
2.5%, it comes to `14,46,413/- per acre for Category ‗B' lands.
71. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per ‗GRID-D' filed by the
land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in
appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing
compensation payable for Category ‗A' lands in village Khera
Khurd pertaining to the notification dated 11.9.2000 in sum of
`14,83,500/- per acre for Category ‗A' lands and `14,46,413/-
per acre for Category ‗B' lands. I note that pertaining to this
notification and the village, the Union of India has not filed any
appeal. On the enhanced compensation statutory benefits as
per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment
reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted,
except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal,
for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced
compensation shall be paid. These appellants would be entitled
to proportionate cost.
Village Narela Notification dated 2.5.2001
72. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001
wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per
acre is `15.7 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be
suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.
2.5.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002
wherein for Category ‗C' lands, land price per acre comes to
`17,74,109/-, rounded off to `17,75,000/- per acre, and for
Category ‗B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes
to `18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices
comes to `18,65,500/- per acre for Category ‗A' lands; and
decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with
reference to the sale deed for the date 2.5.2001; the mean
average price for Category ‗A' lands in village Narela comes to
`16,16,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it
comes to `15,76,087- per acre for Category ‗B' lands. Noting
that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done
away with Category ‗B' lands and uniform price awarded is
`15,85,570/- per acre and since for Category ‗B' lands the price
worked out by me is less by `9,000/- per acre which is a meager
amount, I hold that for Category ‗B' lands the price determined
would be as per the reference but for Category ‗A' lands the
price stands enhanced to `16,16,500/- per acre.
73. All Land Acquisition Appeals as per ‗GRID-E' filed by the
land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in
appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing
compensation payable for Category ‗A' lands in village Narela
pertaining to the notification dated 2.5.2001 in sum of
`16,16,500/- per acre and as per the reference order for
Category ‗B' lands. Thus, appeals filed by the Union of India as
also cross objections filed by Union of India as also such appeals
which relate to Category ‗B' lands filed by land owners are
dismissed and the ones i.e. the appeals and cross objections
filed by the land owners pertaining to Category ‗A' lands are
allowed as aforesaid and needless to state on the enhanced
compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act
1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI
2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where
there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay no
interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These
appellants would be entitled to proportionate cost.
Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001
74. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001
wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per
acre is `15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be
suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.
22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002
wherein for Category ‗C' lands, land price per acre comes to
`17,74,109/-, rounded off to `17,75,000/- per acre, and for
Category ‗B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes
to `18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices
comes to `18,65,500/- per acre for Category ‗A' lands; and
decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with
reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean
average price for Category ‗A' lands in village Holambi Kalan
comes to `16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by
2.5%, it comes to `16,32,637.50 per acre for Category ‗B' lands.
Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any
reasons, done away with Category ‗B' lands and uniform price
awarded is `16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked
out by me comes to a meager `9,000/- per acre and thus qua
Category ‗B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the
learned Reference Court.
75. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India
and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the
appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been
prepared and labeled as ‗GRID-F' & ‗GRID-G' hereinabove are
dismissed.
76. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners
and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by
Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable
for Category ‗A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the
notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of `16,74,500/- per acre and
for Category ‗B' lands the compensation awarded at
`16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or
cross references which pertain to Category ‗B' lands are
dismissed.
77. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation
stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition
Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs.
UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period
where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for
which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation
shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be
entitled to proportionate cost.
Village Ali Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001
78. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001
wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per
acre is `15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be
suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.
22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002
wherein for Category ‗C' lands, land price per acre comes to
`17,74,109/-, rounded off to `17,75,000/- per acre, and for
Category ‗B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes
to `18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices
comes to `18,65,500/- per acre for Category ‗A' lands; and
decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with
reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean
average price for Category ‗A' lands in village Ali Pur comes to
`16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it
comes to `16,32,637.50 per acre for Category ‗B' lands. Noting
that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done
away with Category ‗B' lands and uniform price awarded is
`16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me
comes to a meager `9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category ‗B'
lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference
Court.
79. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India
in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as ‗GRID-
H' hereinabove are dismissed. I note that land owners have not
filed any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court.
80. There shall be no order as to costs.
Village Holambi Khurd Notification dated 22.8.2001
81. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001
wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per
acre is `15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be
suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.
22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002
wherein for Category ‗C' lands, land price per acre comes to
`17,74,109/-, rounded off to `17,75,000/- per acre, and for
Category ‗B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes
to `18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices
comes to `18,65,500/- per acre for Category ‗A' lands; and
decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with
reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean
average price for Category ‗A' lands in village Holambi Khurd
comes to `16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by
2.5%, it comes to `16,32,637.50 per acre for Category ‗B' lands.
Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any
reasons, done away with Category ‗B' lands and uniform price
awarded is `16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked
out by me comes to a meager `9,000/- per acre and thus qua
Category ‗B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the
learned Reference Court.
82. The appeal filed by the Union of India in respect
whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as ‗GRID-I'
hereinabove is dismissed. I note that land owners have not filed
any appeal challenging the decision of the Reference Court.
83. There shall be no order as to costs.
Village Rajapur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001
84. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001
wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per
acre is `15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be
suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.
22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002
wherein for Category ‗C' lands, land price per acre comes to
`17,74,109/-, rounded off to `17,75,000/- per acre, and for
Category ‗B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes
to `18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices
comes to `18,65,500/- per acre for Category ‗A' lands; and
decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with
reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean
average price for Category ‗A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan
comes to `16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by
2.5%, it comes to `16,32,637.50 per acre for Category ‗B' lands.
Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any
reasons, done away with Category ‗B' lands and uniform price
awarded is `16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked
out by me comes to a meager `9,000/- per acre and thus qua
Category ‗B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the
learned Reference Court.
85. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India
and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the
appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been
prepared and labeled as ‗GRID-J' hereinabove are dismissed.
86. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners
and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by
Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable
for Category ‗A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the
notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of `16,74,500/- per acre and
for Category ‗B' lands the compensation awarded at
`16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or
cross references which pertain to Category ‗B' lands are
dismissed.
87. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation
stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition
Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs.
UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period
where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for
which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation
shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be
entitled to proportionate cost.
Village Sanoth Notification dated 7.12.2001
88. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001
wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per
acre is `15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be
suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e.
7.12.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002
wherein for Category ‗C' lands, land price per acre comes to
`17,74,109/-, rounded off to `17,75,000/- per acre, and for
Category ‗B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes
to `18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices
comes to `18,65,500/- per acre for Category ‗A' lands; and
decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with
reference to the sale deed for the date 7.12.2001; the mean
average price for Category ‗A' lands in village Sanoth comes to
`17,29,500/- per acre. Noting that all lands in village Sanoth as
per the award and as per the Reference Court are of same value
I hold that for acquired lands in village Sanoth for the
notification dated 7.12.2001 the land owners would be entitled
to the enhanced compensation in sum of `17,29,500/-.
89. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India
and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the
appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been
prepared and labeled as ‗GRID-K' hereinabove are dismissed.
90. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners
and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by
Union of India are allowed by granting compensation in sum of
`17,29,500/- and needless to state on the enhanced
compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act
1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI
2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where
there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which
period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall
be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled
to proportionate cost.
Village Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 16.5.2002
91. Pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, as held by me
hereinabove the land price would have to be determined with
reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and for which land
price for Category ‗A' lands has been determined by me at
`18,65,500/- per acre and since there is just a difference of 4
days between the date of sale and the notification I maintain
that for the notification in question dated 16.5.2002 the land
owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of `18,65,500/-
per acre and I highlight that as per the award and the reference
all lands are in the same category. Appeals and cross objections
filed by the land owners as per the ‗GRID-L' are allowed and
needless to state on the enhanced compensation the land
owners would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per the
Land Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the judgment
reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except that in
such appeals or cross objections filed by land owners where
there is delay, no interest would be paid for the period of delay.
Proportionate costs stand awarded. Appeals and cross
objections filed by Union of India are dismissed.
Village Shahpur Garhi Notification dated 23.5.2002
92. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002
pertaining to village Shahpur Garhi, noting that the date of the
sale deed and the notification has a differential of only 3 days I
hold that pertaining to this notification, since land is of same
category, the land owners would be entitled to compensation at
the rate of `18,65,500/- with statutory benefits as per the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 as interpreted in the decision reported as
Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 except in such appeals or
cross objections filed by land owners where there is a delay, no
interest would be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate
costs stand awarded. All such appeals and cross objections by
land owners as per ‗GRID-M' stand allowed as aforesaid and all
appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India are
dismissed.
Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 23.5.2002
93. As noted by me pertaining to the notification dated
23.5.2002 relating to village Holambi Kalan all lands have been
treated in the same category by the learned Land Acquisition
Collector and the learned Reference Court. The learned
Reference Court has awarded compensation in sum of
`22,14,239/- per acre which I have found to be excessive
inasmuch as for the date 23.5.2002 I have held that fair market
value would be `18,65,500/- per acre and thus all appeals and
cross objections filed by the land owners as per ‗GRID-N' are
dismissed and appeals and cross objections filed by Union of
India are allowed by modifying the impugned decree passed by
the learned Reference Court and reducing the compensation
payable to `18,65,500/- per acre on which, needless to state,
with reference to the enhanced price with reference to the
award the statutory benefits already granted stand maintained.
No costs.
Village Ali Pur Notification dated 23.5.2002
94. Pertaining to the notification dated 23.5.2002 relating
to village Ali Pur, for parity of reasons qua the said notification
relating to village Holambi Kalan and Shahpur Garhi I determine
fair market value payable at `18,65,500/- per acre and thus all
appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India as per
‗GRID-O' are dismissed and all appeals and cross objections filed
by land owners as per said Grid are allowed by enhancing the
compensation payable to `18,65,500/- per acre on which
statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act as interpreted in
the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569
shall be paid save and except in such appeals or cross
objections where there is a delay, interest would not be paid for
the period of delay. Proportionate costs as well.
Village Sanoth Notification dated 27.1.2003
95. Pertaining to the appeals and cross objections by the
land owners and Union of India as per ‗GRID-P' pertaining to the
notification dated 27.1.2003 relating to village Sanoth, I note
that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has placed the lands
in 3 categories and I find that the learned Reference Court has
without any discussion held the lands as of uniform category
while awarding compensation.
96. On the mean average basis which I have been following
by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference to the
notification issued by the Government as also by increasing the
same with reference to the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 and
taking the mean average, for Category ‗A' lands the price comes
to `19,43,500/- per acre and for Category ‗B' land the price
comes to `18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category ‗C' lands the
price comes to `18,47,539.68 per acre. I find that the learned
Reference Court has uniformly determined fair market value at
`19,13,765/- and thus such appeals or cross objections which
have been filed by land owners the same have to be dismissed
in so far they pertain to Category ‗B' and Category ‗C' lands and
similar would be the fate of appeals and cross objections filed by
Union of India pertaining to Category ‗A' lands. The said appeals
and cross objections as per ‗GRID-P' are dismissed. Appeals and
cross objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category ‗A'
lands are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of
`19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced
compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act
1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI
2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid save and except in such
appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest
would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as
well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India
pertaining to Category ‗B' and Category ‗C' lands are allowed by
modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by
reducing the compensation for Category ‗B' land to
`18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category ‗C' land to
`18,47,539.68 per acre.
Village Rajapur Kalan Notification dated 27.1.2003
97. For parity of reasoning as per para 96 above pertaining
to village Sanoth, similar corrective action is to be required
pertaining to lands acquired pursuant to notification dated
27.1.2003 relating to village Rajapur Kalan and where I find that
the learned Reference Court has in some cases awarded
compensation in sum of `19,13,765/- per acre and in some
cases at `19,16,040/- per acre by treating all lands of uniform
category. On the mean average basis which I have been
following by increasing the price as of 1.4.2001 with reference
to the notification issued by the Government as also by
increasing the same with reference to the sale deed dated
20.5.2002 and taking the mean average, for Category ‗A' lands
the price comes to `19,43,500/- per acre and for Category ‗B'
land the price comes to `18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category
‗C' lands the price comes to `18,47,539.68 per acre. Thus such
appeals or cross objections which have been filed by land
owners the same have to be dismissed in so far they pertain to
Category ‗B' and Category ‗C' lands and similar would be the
fate of appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India
pertaining to Category ‗A' lands. The said appeals and cross
objections as per ‗GRID-Q' are dismissed. Appeals and cross
objections filed by land owners pertaining to Category ‗A' lands
are allowed by decreeing compensation payable in sum of
`19,43,500/- per acre and needless to state on the enhanced
compensation statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act
1894 as interpreted in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI
2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid save and except in such
appeals and cross objections where there is a delay, interest
would not be paid for the period of delay. Proportionate costs as
well. The appeals and cross objections filed by Union of India
pertaining to Category ‗B' and Category ‗C' lands are allowed by
modifying the relatable decree in the Reference Order by
reducing the compensation for Category ‗B' land to
`18,94,912.50 per acre and for Category ‗C' land to
`18,47,539.68 per acre.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 23, 2011
mm/dk
