Delhi High Court
Rajbal & Ors. vs Uoi & Anr. on 7 June, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved On: 6th June, 2011
Judgment Delivered On: 7th June, 2011
+ LA APP.NO.971/2008 &
CM No.4135/2009 (Cross Objection)
RAJBAL & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla and Mr.Inder Singh,
Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Mr.J.N.S.Tyagi, Mr.S.K.Verma,
Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.H.R.Singh, Mr.V.K.Singh,
Mrs.Vijaylakshmi Jain, Mr.Shyam Babu
Ambavata, Mr.N.S.Chechi, Advocates.
Versus
UOI & ANR. ......Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel
(LA), GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachin
Nawani, Mr.R.C.Ray and
Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates.
Mr.Amit Mehra, Advocate for Mr.Ajay Verma,
Standing Counsel DDA.
AND
+LA.APP.1045/2008, LA.APP.1101/2008 & CM 4148/2009,
LA.APP.1228/2008 & CM No.7778/2009, LA.APP.1232/2008,
LA.APP.1237/2008 & CM No.11653/2011, LA.APP.1254/2008,
LA.APP.1261/2008 & CM No.2902/2009, LA.APP.1262/2008 & CM
No.11651/2011, LA.APP.1269/2008 & CM No.7847/2009,
LA.APP.1270/2008, LA.APP.1271/2008 & CM No.7834/2009,
LA.APP.1272/2008 & CM No.11648/2011, LA.APP.1274/2008 & CM
No.11580/2011, LA.APP.23/2009, LA.APP.49/2009, LA.APP.75/2009,
LA.APP.87/2009 & CM No.7472/2009, LA.APP.91/2009,
LA.APP.131/2009, LA.APP.151/2009, LA.APP.163/2009,
LA.APP.193/2009, LA.APP.195/2009, LA.APP.205/2009 & CM
LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters Page 1 of 19
No.10067/2011, LA.APP.207/2009, LA.APP.221/2009 & CM
No.10071/2011, LA.APP.225/2009, LA.APP.235/2009,
LA.APP.237/23009, LA.APP.239/2009, LA.APP.297/2009,
LA.APP.313/2009, LA.APP.317/2009, LA.APP.641/2009, LA.APP.3/2010,
LA.APP.4/2010, LA.APP.5/2010, LA.APP.31/2010, LA.APP.33/2010,
LA.APP.30/2011, LA.APP.31/2011, LA.APP.32/2011, LA.APP.37/2011,
LA.APP.1092/2008 & CM No.7843/2009, LA.APP.1097/2008 & CM
No.4643/2009, LA.APP.1098/2008 & CM No.11674/2011,
LA.APP.1099/2008 & CM No.7840/2009, LA.APP.1100/2008 & CM
No.9986/2011, LA.APP.1118/2008, LA.APP.1227/2008, LA.APP.1/2009
& CM No.11671/2011, LA.APP.2/2009 & CM No.3003/2009
LA.APP.26/2009 & CM No.3006/2009, LA.APP.28/2009 & CM
No.4145/2009, LA.APP.92/2009 & CM No.7770/2009,
LA.APP.126/2009, LA.APP.150/2009, LA.APP.152/2009 & CM
No.9953/2011, LA.APP.160/2009 & CM No.11685/2011,
LA.APP.170/2009, LA.APP.184/2009, LA.APP.192/2009,
LA.APP.194/2009, LA.APP.204/2009, LA.APP.206/2009 & CM
No.9956/2011, LA.APP.212/2009, LA.APP.218/2009 & CM
No.7878/2010, LA.APP.226/2009 & CM No.11680/2011,
LA.APP.234/2009, LA.APP.236/2009, LA.APP.238/2009,
LA.APP.240/2009, LA.APP.248/2009, LA.APP.285/2009,
LA.APP.286/2009, LA.APP.287/2009, LA.APP.288/2009,
LA.APP.289/2009, LA.APP.290/2009, LA.APP.292/2009,
LA.APP.294/2009, LA.APP.296/2009 & CM No.11597/2011,
LA.APP.312/2009, LA.APP.314/2009, LA.APP.316/2009,
LA.APP.318/2009, LA.APP.319/2009, LA.APP.320/2009,
LA.APP.321/2009, LA.APP.322/2009 & CM No.11683/2011,
LA.APP.323/2009, LA.APP.377/2009, LA.APP.379/2009,
LA.APP.381/2009, LA.APP.382/2009, LA.APP.387/2009,
LA.APP.971/2008 & connected matters Page 2 of 19
LA.APP.444/2009, LA.APP.522/2009, LA.APP.640/2009,
LA.APP.642/2009, LA.APP.69/2010, LA.APP.431/2010,
LA.APP.686/2010, LA.APP.33/2011, LA.APP.50/2011,
LA.APP.1286/2011 & CM No.11686/2011, LA.APP.1287/2008 & CM
No.2910/2009, LA.APP.88/2009 & CM No.11677/2011,
LA.APP.368/2009, LA.APP.44/2010, LA.APP.296/2011 & CM
No.11597/2011 and LA.APP.34/2011 (Relating to Notification under
Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 18.7.2003)
AND
LA.APP.347/2007, LA.APP.349/2007, LA.APP.351/2007,
LA.APP.354/2007, LA.APP.355/2007, LA.APP.362/2007,
LA.APP.369/2007, LA.APP.386/2007, LA.APP.397/2007,
LA.APP.21/2008, LA.APP.274/2008, LA.APP.631/2010,
LA.APP.840/2010, LA.APP.342/2007, LA.APP.343/2007,
LA.APP.344/2007, LA.APP.345/2007, LA.APP.346/2007,
LA.APP.348/2007, LA.APP.353/2007, LA.APP.356/2007,
LA.APP.363/2007, LA.APP.364/2007 and LA.APP.387/2007 (Relating to
Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated
24.7.1998)
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?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Registry is directed to number the cross-objections if any lying
unnumbered in the above-captioned Appeals.
2. The present decision decides the above-captioned Appeals and
cross objections which pertain to lands acquired pursuant to
notifications dated 24.7.1998 and 18.7.2003 issued under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and I note that the subject lands are
situate in the revenue estate of village Burari and Jharoda Mazra
Burari. It may be noted that pursuant to the notification dated
24.7.1998 lands were acquired in the revenue estate of the village
Jharoda Mazra Burari and pursuant to the notification dated 18.7.2003
the subject lands which were acquired were in the revenue estate of
village Burari.
3. The land measuring 705-07 bigha situated in the revenue
estate of Jharoda Mazra Burari was acquired by the Government
pursuant to the notification dated 24.7.1998 issued under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The purpose of the acquisition was to
set up a 'Dairy Colony'.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award
No.5/LAC/CL/2000 as per which the Land Acquisition Collector
ostensibly took into consideration the potentiality and fertility of the
land to ascertain the quality thereof as also its proximity to the
nearby habitation. The award records that the survey of the acquired
land was concluded to find out the grade of the land as per its fertility
and use. Based thereon the Land Acquisition Collector has classified
the land into the following categories:-
Block 'A': (443-15 bigha) : Plain agricultural land of
standard quality.
Block 'B' (197-07 bigha) : Low lying land of poor fertility
and prone to water logging.
Block 'C' (64-05 bigha) : Degraded land not put to any
agricultural use.
5. It may be noted that the basis of so holding has not been
recorded/set out in the award.
6. The Land Acquisition Collector considered 4 sale instances out
of which 2 instances were of the same village and as per which land
measuring 500 sq.yds. each was sold for `50,000/- on 07.08.1997,
whereas the other 2 sale instances were of village Wazirabad, a
village in the vicinity, the first of which being the sale deed dated
27.01.1998 was in respect of the land ad-measuring 1028 sq.yds. and
the sale price was `1,00,000/- and the second sale deed dated
26.05.1977 was in respect of land ad-measuring 1600 sq.yds. which
was sold for `3,00,000/-. The Land Acquisition Collector thus noted in
the award that the indicative price as per the 4 sale deeds comes to
`139/- per sq.yd. but did not rest his award thereon inasmuch as the
said price resulted in the land value being less than the minimum
price notified by the Government as per Office Order dated 24.9.1998
under which the minimum indicative price fixed by the Government
for agricultural land in Delhi was `11,20,000/- per acre i.e. 4 bigha
and 16 biswa as of 1.4.1998. I note that as per the Office Order in
question the rate per square yard comes to `230/- (approximately).
Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the
compensation payable as under:-
Block 'A' : `11,20,000/- per acre;
Block 'B' : `10,08,000/- per acre (After effecting 10%
reduction from the price of category 'A')
Block 'C' : `8,96,000/- per acre (After effecting 10%
reduction from the price of category 'B')
The Land Acquisition Collector also awarded compensation for
the trees found in the acquired land and also granted other statutory
benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act.
7. Dissatisfied with the assessment, the appellants sought
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and on
the reference being made the learned Reference Court answered the
Reference under several orders passed under Section 26 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and assessed the market value of the land by
adopting the minimum rate notified by the Government i.e.
`11,20,000/- per acre for Category 'A' land but gave benefit of an
annual increase at the rate of 11.5% for the period 1.4.1998 till
24.7.1998 and as was done by the Land Acquisition Collector, even
the Reference Court depressed the said price by 10% each over the
preceding value to determine the fair market value for land
comprised in Category 'B' and Category 'C'. Accordingly, the
Reference Court enhanced the compensation, per acre, as under:-
Category 'A' : `11,60,580.82.
Category 'B' : `10,44,522.73.
Category 'C' : `9,28,464.65.
8. This assessment by the learned Reference Court has been
accepted by the Government, but the land owners have challenged
the same in the above-captioned appeals listed under caption II
above.
9. Another parcel of land ad-measuring 1448-01 bigha (301.66
acres), situated in the revenue estate of village Burari, i.e., the
adjoining village was acquired by the Government pursuant to a
notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
on 18.07.2003. This land was acquired for the public purpose,
namely, the development of a 'Bio-Diversity Park, Phase-II'.
10. While determining the market value of the subject lands, the
Land Acquisition Collector, treating the land as agricultural land,
classified the same into 2 categories, namely, Category 'A' and
Category 'B' as per the award bearing No.2/LAC/N/05-06. The Land
Acquisition Collector observed that the acquired land is on the
Eastern side of the Forward Bund and categorically held that the land
was not prone to Burdhi and/or Baramadi i.e. was not prone to
alluvium or diluvial effects of the river currents. He observed that the
subject lands were 'Do Fasli' i.e. 2 crops were grown on the lands
each year.
11. The Land Acquisition Collector put in Category 'A' only 12.44
acres of land out of 301.66 acres and the remainder 289.22 acres was
put in Category 'B'. The Land Acquisition Collector has observed that
he had obtained the consolidation report from the office of the
Kanugo showing the variation in the value of the land at the time of
consolidation.
12. Relevant would it be to note that on what basis he did so has
not been stated in the award and one is left guessing. The only
reason for classifying the subject lands in two categories is that some
lands were better in quality than the other. The Land Acquisition
Collector referred to the previous award wherein the land was
classified in 3 categories. I highlight that the Land Acquisition
Collector has given no reasons why he was placing only 12.44 acres
land in Category 'A' and the remainder in Category 'B'.
13. Pertaining to the fair market value, in the absence of any sale
deed presented before the Land Acquisition Collector from which fair
market value could be determined, the Land Acquisition Collector
relied upon the Office Order dated 9.8.2001 as per which minimum
value of agricultural land in Delhi was fixed at `15,70,000/- per acre,
and accordingly held said price to be the fair market value for lands in
Category 'A' and for unexplainable reasons, in any case none which I
can fathom, assess the value `5,05,000/- per acre for the remaining
land. With respect to a report received from the Horticulture
Department, the Land Acquisition Collector observed that land
comprised in Khasra Nos.116/3, 4, 7, 8, 14, 26, 106/26, 133/25 and 26
were having orchards and for which he assessed further
compensation pertaining to said lands with respect to the value of the
trees thereon. Needless to state statutory benefits under the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 were also granted.
14. Dissatisfied with the assessment of the fair market value, the
land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act and hence various references were made to the
Reference Court.
15. After affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence,
the Reference Court answered the references by rejecting the
categorization of the lands as per the award and granted a uniform
compensation for the entire land. Adopting the minimum price for
agricultural land issued by the Government on 09.08.2001, and
granting an annual increase @11.5% per annum on the sum of
`15,70,000/-, the Court fixed the market value of the land at
`19,20,568/- per acre as on 18.07.2003. Needless to state statutory
benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were granted on the
enhanced compensation.
16. This decision has been challenged by the land owners as also
the Government.
17. A perusal of the decision of the Reference Court would reveal
that the matter was argued on two counts. On the first count the land
owners won and on the second count they lost. The first count on
which they questioned the award pertained to classification of only
12.44 acre land in Category 'A' and for which they relied upon the
valuation given to the lands during consolidation proceedings which
took place in the year 1970-72. The second count pertained to the
market value of land and for which they relied upon two sale deeds
Ex.PW-1/2 (in the reference sought by Raj Bal LAC No.226/1/2007 as
per which 7 bigha 15 biswa land comprised in Khasra No.19/26 in the
revenue estate of village Burari was sold by the recorded bhoomidars
thereof Sh.Ram Kumar and Sh.Rajesh Kumar in favour of Motor
General Finance Ltd. on 9.12.1993 at a recorded sale consideration of
`39,17,000/-. Therefrom they urged that the fair market value of
agricultural lands in village Burari have to be treated at `39,17,000/-
per acre as of 9.12.1993 and desired that market value of their lands
be enhanced as of the year 2003.
18. I may note that in the reference sought pertaining to the lands
which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 24.7.1998,
this sale deed was pressed into aid by the land owners therein as
well.
19. The sale deed has been rejected by the learned Reference
Court pertaining to both sets of acquisition. I shall be dealing with the
reasoning of the learned Judge soon hereinafter.
20. Consolidation proceedings in both villages took place under the
provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention
of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 [as extended to Delhi].
21. Since the consolidation proceedings in question were relied
upon only pertaining to the agricultural lands in village Burari and
record thereof alone was proved before the Reference Court, it may
be noted that 93 sheets of the consolidation record was proved as
Ex.PW-4/1 in the reference sought by Raj Bal & Ors. and this was
proved through the testimony of Sh.Rajender Prakash Kanugo who
appeared as PW-4 and the same records that during consolidation
land in the village was assigned 16 annas, 12 annas, 10 annas, 8
annas, 6 annas and 4 annas.
22. I may highlight that as per the award No.2/LAC/N/05-06 the
subject lands are comprised in rectangle No.106, 107, 108, 109, 110,
112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 142 and
143. As per the award the lands in all the rectangles save and except
rectangle No.142 and 143 and only lands comprised in Khasra No.6,
15/1-2, 16 and 25 in rectangle 133 have been put in Category 'B' and
the remainder in Category 'A'.
23. The record of consolidation shows that the Land Acquisition
Collector, notwithstanding having referred to have seen the record of
consolidation, has not reflected the same correctly inasmuch as I find
the following valuations given during consolidation.
Rectangle No. Value in annas
24. I may highlight the patent absurdity in the award wherein
rectangle No.142 and 143 have been placed in Category 'A' which
during consolidation were assigned value 12 anna ignoring that
rectangle 115, 116, 125, 126 and 132 to 134 were also assigned the
same value.
25. I shall be taking corrective action at the appropriate stage. But
would note at this stage that the learned Reference Court has
somewhat undone the injustice by treating all lands in the same
category of which finding the land owners are happy but the
Government is aggrieved of.
26. From the facts noted hereinabove, the arguments of the rival
parties can be discerned. As regards the Government it questions all
lands in village Burari being put in the same category and also with
regard to the enhancement given by the learned Reference Court. As
regards the land owners they are aggrieved by the fact that the
market value of their lands was not determined with reference to the
sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 i.e. the sale-deed dated 9.12.1993 under which 7
bigha and 15 biswa of land in village Burari was sold for `39,17,000/-.
27. I may note that a number of documents were proved by various
parties before the learned Reference Court, but I need not trouble the
reader of my decision with the same as neither counsel relied upon
them during arguments for the obvious reason the sales reflected in
the sale deeds post 2003, being after the acquisition being notified,
could not be treated as reflective of the fair market value of the lands
as of either the year 1998 or of the year 2003.
28. Questioning the adoption of the sale price as per Ex.PW-1/2 and
justifying the rejection thereof by the learned Reference Court,
Sh.Sanjay Poddar argued that Motor General & Finance apparently
entered into 2 agreements to sell, both dated 15.10.1999 being Mark
'A' and 'B' for a consideration of `42,90,000/-. Learned counsel urged
that the speculative value reflected in the sale deed dated 9.12.1993
is apparent inasmuch as the said land was agreed to be sold 5 years
and 10 months thereafter for a sum of `42,90,000/- i.e. a meager
price rise of `3,73,000/- which would give an appreciation of less than
1% in the total period of 5 years and 10 months as against various
decisions holding that during this period the price rise of agricultural
land in Delhi was around 10% progressive, in some and flat in others
depending upon the situational advantage/disadvantage of the
subject lands. By way of illustration to make good the point, learned
counsel argued that doing reverse calculation, if `42,90,000/- was the
value as of 15.10.1999, depressing the same by reducing it 10% each
year even on a flat rate, the value as of 1993 would be around
`14,00,000/- for 7 bigha and 15 biswa land. Counsel highlighted that
this would translate to a value of `1,80,000/- per bigha. However,
counsel was quick to add this may not be taken as his admission as
the argument was only to illustrate a point. Learned counsel
highlighted the testimony of Sh.Arun Mitter PW-3 a director of the
company who appeared in LAC No.140/1/206 and admitted that he
was not familiar with the topology of the area and had no proof of any
earnings from the land during the period it remained with the
company and virtually admitted not having put the land to any use.
Counsel stated that his assertion that flowers were grown therein by a
Mali had to be ignored inasmuch as when questioned who was the
Mali, who employed him and in what manner salary was paid to him,
Sh.Arun Mitter disclosed his ignorance. Counsel also highlighted that
one land owner Sh.Laxmi Chand who was a petitioner along with
Charan Singh & Ors. in LAC No.138/1/06 admitted land being used as
a godown i.e. a commercial purpose. Learned counsel further
submitted that on the issue of the land price, Ex.RX1 being the sale
deed dated 22.11.2003 executed in favour of Nisha Tyagi showed
that the lady had purchased agricultural land in village Burari on
22.11.2003 for `6,32,000/- being 5 bigha and 19 biswa of land and
the sale deed Ex.RX2 dated 2.1.2004 showed that Raj Bal, his wife
Usha Tyagi and his sister-in-law Shobha had purchased 2 bigha, 10
biswa land in the same village for `2,65,651/-. Therefrom counsel
sought to justify the inflated figure in the sale deed relied upon by the
land owners.
29. Pertaining to the sale deed executed in favour of Motor General
& Finance it certainly assumes importance that the company,
speaking through its Director, gave no convincing reasons of having
put the land to any use. The claim that flowers were grown and were
consumed in house is most uninspiring inasmuch as not even the
name of the Mali employed could be provided by Sh.Arun Mitter. No
proof of any salary paid to the Mali was adduced. The speculative
nature of the transaction is self-evident from the fact that nearly 6
years thereafter the company ostensibly sold the land at a meager
price rise of `3,73,000/- which gives not even 1% increase in the
value of the land spread over nearly 6 years, to be exact 5 years and
10 months. That Arun Mitter admitted having no idea of the topology
of the land in the area would show that the company was not an
informed buyer and in respect of sale of land it is settled law that the
test is the price which an informed buyer would pay to a willing seller
and to be an informed buyer there must be evidence that the buyer
has knowledge of the topology of the area, the land available for sale
and such other factors showing that the buyer was an informed buyer
as observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as
Mohammad Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer 2009 (14) SCC
367.
30. I accordingly hold that the sale deed in question would not be a
good guiding factor on which fair market value of the lands in
question has to be determined and would likewise even reject the
sale deed relied upon by Sh.Sanjay Poddar as the same relate to
small parcels of land and cannot be treated as a good representative
sample of the whole.
31. Thus, pertaining to the subject lands I hold that the basis to
determine the fair market value has to be the Government Officer
Orders fixing minimum price at `11,20,000/- per acre as of 1.4.1998
and `15,70,000/- as of 9.8.2001, which, treating `11,20,000/- as the
base figure and the date 1.4.1998 gives us a progressive price rise of
about 11% per annum and this I highlight conforms to a percentage
increase which is being given by the Courts as a thumb rule.
32. On the issue of the situational location of the land, there is no
evidence that it is near developed colonies in Delhi.
33. In the decision reported as 2011 IV AD (SC) 383 Om Prakash vs.
State of Haryana & Ors. it was observed that several facets have to
be kept in view while determining the potential value of the acquired
land and some of these would include:-
(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-à-vis the city or the
town or village which had been growing in size because of its
commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other
kind of importance or because of its explosive population;
(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the
buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as
the case may be;
(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for
occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;
(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the
acquired land for building purposes;
(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots
or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close
proximity of the acquired land;
(vi) benefits or advantages or educational institutions, health
care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the
acquired land which may become available to the occupiers
of buildings, if built on the acquired land;
(viii) and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land
itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a
few.
34. In view of the discussion hereinabove I find complete
justification in the reasoning of the learned Reference Court
pertaining to lands which were acquired pursuant to the notification
dated 24.7.1998 as also the classification of the lands into 3 blocks
and corresponding values assigned thereto and hence I hold that
LA.APP.347/2007, LA.APP.349/2007, LA.APP.351/2007,
LA.APP.354/2007, LA.APP.355/2007, LA.APP.362/2007,
LA.APP.369/2007, LA.APP.386/2007, LA.APP.397/2007,
LA.APP.21/2008, LA.APP.274/2008, LA.APP.631/2010,
LA.APP.840/2010, LA.APP.342/2007, LA.APP.343/2007,
LA.APP.344/2007, LA.APP.345/2007, LA.APP.346/2007,
LA.APP.348/2007, LA.APP.353/2007, LA.APP.356/2007,
LA.APP.363/2007, LA.APP.364/2007 and LA.APP.387/2007 are required
to be dismissed.
35. As regards the remaining Land Acquisition Appeals and cross
objections filed, I hold that the Reference Court gave good reasons to
disagree with the classification resorted to and the price assigned
thereto by the Land Acquisition Collector, but find the Reference
Court having committed one error, in that it has assigned one market
value to the entire acquired land.
36. It is no doubt true that the Land Acquisition Collector had
referred to the subject lands as 'Do Fasli', but with reference to the
record of the consolidation proceedings, and as discussed by me
hereinabove, it is apparent that different rectangles had different
values ranging between 4 anna to 16 anna and in respect of the lands
with which I am concerned, noting that they are comprised in
rectangle No.106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 125,
126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 142 and 143, to which value of 4 annas
was assigned to rectangle No.128, 6 annas to rectangle No.107, 112
and 114, 8 annas to rectangle No.106, 127 and 129, 10 annas to
rectangle No.108, 109, 110 and 113 and 12 annas to the remainder, it
would be just and proper to classify lands acquired in village Burari in
2 categories. Lands valued at 10 annas and 12 annas would be in
Category 'A' and the remainder in Category 'B'.
37. I accordingly hold that lands comprised in rectangle No.108,
109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 125, 126, 132, 133, 134, 142 and 143 would
be treated as in Category 'A' and lands comprised in rectangle
No.106, 107, 112, 114, 127 and 129 would be treated in Category 'B'.
Needless to state lands comprised in various Khasra Nos. relatable to
the rectangle in question would so stand categorized.
38. This concludes one issue of categorization and which
unfortunately for the land owners has resulted in the relatable cross
objection succeeding on the point that not all lands have to be placed
in the same category.
39. On the issue of the fair market value of the land, as noted
hereinabove the learned Trial Judge has adopted the price notified by
the Government at `15,70,000/- per acre as of 9.8.2001 and has
enhanced it by 11.5% per annum to reach the figure of `19,20,568/-
per acre and this price I hold is the fair market price for lands in
Category 'A' detailed in para 37 above. I reduce the said figure by
10% for Category 'B' lands and thus hold that the fair market value
for Category 'B' lands would be `17,28,512/-.
40. I conclude by directing that LA.APP.347/2007, LA.APP.349/2007,
LA.APP.351/2007, LA.APP.354/2007, LA.APP.355/2007,
LA.APP.362/2007, LA.APP.369/2007, LA.APP.386/2007,
LA.APP.397/2007, LA.APP.21/2008, LA.APP.274/2008,
LA.APP.631/2010, LA.APP.840/2010, LA.APP.342/2007,
LA.APP.343/2007, LA.APP.344/2007, LA.APP.345/2007,
LA.APP.346/2007, LA.APP.348/2007, LA.APP.353/2007,
LA.APP.356/2007, LA.APP.363/2007, LA.APP.364/2007 and
LA.APP.387/2007 are dismissed. I leave the parties to bear their own
costs.
41. LA.APP.971/2008 & CM No.4135/2009, LA.APP.1045/2008,
LA.APP.1101/2008 & CM 4148/2009, LA.APP.1228/2008 & CM
No.7778/2009, LA.APP.1232/2008, LA.APP.1237/2008 & CM
No.11653/2011, LA.APP.1254/2008, LA.APP.1261/2008 & CM
No.2902/2009, LA.APP.1262/2008 & CM No.11651/2011,
LA.APP.1269/2008 & CM No.7847/2009, LA.APP.1270/2008,
LA.APP.1271/2008 & CM No.7834/2009, LA.APP.1272/2008 & CM
No.11648/2011, LA.APP.1274/2008 & CM No.11580/2011,
LA.APP.23/2009, LA.APP.49/2009, LA.APP.75/2009, LA.APP.87/2009 &
CM No.7472/2009, LA.APP.91/2009, LA.APP.131/2009,
LA.APP.151/2009, LA.APP.163/2009, LA.APP.193/2009,
LA.APP.195/2009, LA.APP.205/2009 & CM No.10067/2011,
LA.APP.207/2009, LA.APP.221/2009 & CM No.10071/2011,
LA.APP.225/2009, LA.APP.235/2009, LA.APP.237/23009,
LA.APP.239/2009, LA.APP.297/2009, LA.APP.313/2009,
LA.APP.317/2009, LA.APP.641/2009, LA.APP.3/2010, LA.APP.4/2010,
LA.APP.5/2010, LA.APP.31/2010, LA.APP.33/2010, LA.APP.30/2011,
LA.APP.31/2011, LA.APP.32/2011, LA.APP.37/2011, LA.APP.1092/2008
& CM No.7843/2009, LA.APP.1097/2008 & CM No.4643/2009,
LA.APP.1098/2008 & CM No.11674/2011, LA.APP.1099/2008 & CM
No.7840/2009, LA.APP.1100/2008 & CM No.9986/2011,
LA.APP.1118/2008, LA.APP.1227/2008, LA.APP.1/2009 & CM
No.11671/2011, LA.APP.2/2009 & CM No.3003/2009 LA.APP.26/2009 &
CM No.3006/2009, LA.APP.28/2009 & CM No.4145/2009,
LA.APP.92/2009 & CM No.7770/2009, LA.APP.126/2009,
LA.APP.150/2009, LA.APP.152/2009 & CM No.9953/2011,
LA.APP.160/2009 & CM No.11685/2011, LA.APP.170/2009,
LA.APP.184/2009, LA.APP.192/2009, LA.APP.194/2009,
LA.APP.204/2009, LA.APP.206/2009 & CM No.9956/2011,
LA.APP.212/2009, LA.APP.218/2009 & CM No.7878/2010,
LA.APP.226/2009 & CM No.11680/2011, LA.APP.234/2009,
LA.APP.236/2009, LA.APP.238/2009, LA.APP.240/2009,
LA.APP.248/2009, LA.APP.285/2009, LA.APP.286/2009,
LA.APP.287/2009, LA.APP.288/2009, LA.APP.289/2009,
LA.APP.290/2009, LA.APP.292/2009, LA.APP.294/2009,
LA.APP.296/2009 & CM No.11597/2011, LA.APP.312/2009,
LA.APP.314/2009, LA.APP.316/2009, LA.APP.318/2009,
LA.APP.319/2009, LA.APP.320/2009, LA.APP.321/2009,
LA.APP.322/2009 & CM No.11683/2011, LA.APP.323/2009,
LA.APP.377/2009, LA.APP.379/2009, LA.APP.381/2009,
LA.APP.382/2009, LA.APP.387/2009, LA.APP.444/2009,
LA.APP.522/2009, LA.APP.640/2009, LA.APP.642/2009,
LA.APP.69/2010, LA.APP.431/2010, LA.APP.686/2010, LA.APP.33/2011,
LA.APP.50/2011, LA.APP.1286/2011 & CM No.11686/2011,
LA.APP.1287/2008 & CM No.2910/2009, LA.APP.88/2009 & CM
No.11677/2011, LA.APP.368/2009, LA.APP.44/2010, LA.APP.296/2011
& CM No.11597/2011 and LA.APP.34/2011 stand disposed of in terms
of paras 37 and 39 above requiring a decree to be drawn with
reference to whether the lands are comprised in such Khasras as fall
in such rectangles which have been placed in Category 'A' or in
Category 'B'. Needless to state such appeals and cross objections
which relate to such lands as would be in Category 'A' stand
dismissed. Appeals filed by the land owners and also cross objections
filed by the land owners which relate to lands placed in Category 'B'
are dismissed. Appeals filed by the Union of India as also cross
objections filed by Union of India pertaining to lands in Category 'B'
would stand allowed in terms of para 37 and 39 above.
41. Needless to state impugned decrees would stand modified
accordingly. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
JUNE 07, 2011
mm / dk
