DEVINDER GUPTA ( 1 ) SUBJECT matter of these two appeals is the determination of compensation for the land of appellant s situate within revenue estate of Okhla acquired through two separate notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 4. 4. 1964 and 6. 4. 1964. ( 2 ) BY notification issued on 4. 4. 1964 under Section 4 of the Act 1160 bighas 10 biswas land situate in Okhla was sought to be acquired for Planned Development of Delhi. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 7. 12. 1966. The Collector on 24. 7. 1971 made his award No. 12/71-72 only with respect of an area of 72 bighas 12 biswas. He offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,200/- per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied reference was sought. The Reference Court by the impugned award dated 4. 5. 1984 proceeded to determine the market value at Rs. 11. 373/- per bigha. Still feeling dissatisfied the claimant/appellant has filed appeal being RFA No. 356/84 seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha for its land measuring 22 bighas 9 biswas comprised in khasra No. 25/2 and 26 situate in Okhla. ( 3 ) ANOTHER notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6. 4. 1964 by which the Delhi Administration sought to acquire an are of 104 bighas 7 biswas exclusively owned by the claimant for which declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 5. 5. 1966. By his award No. 1943 dated 25. 2. 1967 the Collector Land Acquisition classified the land in four different blocks offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 2200/-; Rs. 1800/-; Rs. 1200/- and rs. 800/- per bigha respectively for Block I, Block II, Block III and Block IV lands. Feeling dissatisfied the claimant sought reference. The Reference Court by the impugned award did not make any enhancement and thereby dismissed the reference. Feeling dissatisfied appeal (RFA No. 242/80) has been preferred claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. ( 4 ) COLLECTOR Land Acquisition in his award No. 12/71-72 offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,200/- per bigha by placing reliance upon his earlier award No. 1258. Subject matter of the. said award was the land situate in village. 40,000/- per bigha. ( 4 ) COLLECTOR Land Acquisition in his award No. 12/71-72 offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,200/- per bigha by placing reliance upon his earlier award No. 1258. Subject matter of the. said award was the land situate in village. Okhla, which was acquired through notification dated 13. 11. 1959. Compensation was offered by Collector in that case @ Rs. 4,000/- per bigha. Taking the fair market value as on 13. 11. 1959 at Rs. 4,000/- per bigha and giving due margin for the rising trend in prices of market value of lands, appreciation was allowed. Accordingly, he assessed compensation at Rs. 4,200/- per bigha. At this stage it may be mentioned that the appellant s land was also the subject matter of acquisition made through notification dated 13. 11. 1959. Accordingly, reference had been sought by the appellant. On decision of the said reference by award dated 3. 10. 1966 the appellant had sought further enhancement by filing RFA No. 101/67. By judgment dated 22. 2. 1984 a division Bench of this Court proceeded to determine the fair market value of the appellant s land, which was subject matter of acquisition through notification dated 13. 11. 1959 at Rs. 9,000/- per bigha. The market value was assessed at Rs. 9,000/- per bigha since learned counsel for the appellant had confined claim for compensation only at Rs. 9,000/- per bigha. The reference court arising out of the Collector s award No. 12/71-72 placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 101/67 (Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese v. Union of india) decided on 22. 2. 1984 and thereby allowed appreciation only on Rs. 9. 000/- at the rate of 6% p. a. and held the fair market value as on 4. 4. 1964 at Rs. 11,373/- per bigha. ( 5 ) CLAIM for further enhancement in the amount of compensation in both the appeals is on the ground that village Okhla adjoins revenue estate of village Bahapur. Entire land of the appellant was having very prime location and was situate just in front of the Holy Family hospital and Jamia Millia University. It was separated only by the Okhia Road. Entire land of the appellant was having very prime location and was situate just in front of the Holy Family hospital and Jamia Millia University. It was separated only by the Okhia Road. The Collector land Acquisition in his award No. 1943 had also noticed that the acquired land was not governed by Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and was of good quality and it was reasonably level road. He had also noticed that Jamia Millia University was also in existence on the date of notification and the land had good potentiality for being utilised for construction purposes. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the land in Okhia was better situated as compared to land of Bahapur but due to determination of compensation, which had been made in RFA 101/67 at the rate of Rs. 9. 000/- per bigha the claimant/appellant was deprived of full amount of compensation. For irrigated land situate in village Bahapur compensation as on 13. 11. 1959 was assessed at Rs. 19. 000/- per bigha by this Court in ram Mohan Wahee v. Union of India and others 62 (1996) DLT 302. Even for the land situate in village Jogabhai, which was acquired through notification dated 13. 11. 1959, which was inferior to the land situate at Okhia and far away from Okhla and Balipur, this Court in delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese v. Union of India 45 (1991) DLT 76 had determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 15. 000/- per bigha. Therefore, it was urged by learned counsel for the appellant that land being situate immediately in front of Holy Family Hospital and Jamia Millia University being prime location and in close proximity to developed and developing colonies, it ought to have been evaluated, if not more, at least at par with the valuation made for village Bahapur. The land situate in Okhia admittedly was far superior to the land situate in village Bahapur, but the appellant was not tendered fair amount of compensation merely- because of the circumstance that lesser claim had been made by counsel representing the appellant in a case arising out of acquisition made through notification dated 13. 11. 1959. The land situate in Okhia admittedly was far superior to the land situate in village Bahapur, but the appellant was not tendered fair amount of compensation merely- because of the circumstance that lesser claim had been made by counsel representing the appellant in a case arising out of acquisition made through notification dated 13. 11. 1959. ( 6 ) HE also urged that the Collector Land Acquisition was not justified in dividing the acquired land on separate blocks, after he had come to the conclusion that the land was almost level and was not an agricultural land and was located in close proximity to developed and developing colonies. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute as regards the location of the land that the entire land, which is subject matter of these appeals situate within revenue estate of Okhla was in front of the Holy family Hospital and Jamia Millia University and was separated only by Okhla Road. In Delhi simla Catholic Archdiocese v. Union of India 45 (1991) DLT 76 it was noticed that village bahapur and Jogabai were contiguous. Therefore, it was held that transactions relating to sale of land in Bahapur would be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable for land situate in village Jogabai also since no sale transaction had taken place in village Jogabai. It was noticed that village Bahapur was situated on both sides of Main mathura Road, a National Highway of great importance. It was also noticed that some of the land, which was subject matter in the said appeal situate in Jogabai was contiguous to the land of village Bahapur for which compensation had been fixed at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per bigha. The land situate in village Bahapur was far away from the main Mathura Road was assessed at Rs. 16,000/- per bigha. Version of the claimant in the said case was noticed that the acquired land was Situated on Okhla Road leading from main Mathura Road to Okhia, a picnic spot. It was also noticed that the land abutting main Mathura Road was of commercial nature. Vis-a-vis Okhla and Bahapur comparison was made of land of Jogabai. It was held that though the land of village Bahapur abuts on both sides of main Mathura Road (National highway ). It was also noticed that the land abutting main Mathura Road was of commercial nature. Vis-a-vis Okhla and Bahapur comparison was made of land of Jogabai. It was held that though the land of village Bahapur abuts on both sides of main Mathura Road (National highway ). On one side of the road where the boundary of village Bahapur ends, land of village Jogabai is located contiguous to village Bahapur and the portion of the acquired land abuts Okhla Road, which ends at the picnic spot at Okhia and does not go beyond that. Since land of village Bahpur had been assessed at Rs. 16,000/- per bigha, therefore, for the contiguous land situate in village Jogabai compensation was assessed in the said judgment at Rs. 15,000/- per bigha. ( 8 ) FOR such of the lands of village Bahapur, which was adjacent to the road, compensation as on 13. 11. 1959 was assessed at Rs. 19. 000/- per bigha in number of decisions of this court for which we may make reference to the decisions in RFA 463/79 (Chajjuvs. Union of india) decided on 3. 12. 1979 and in RFA 115/73 decided on 27. 10. 1994 and in Ram Mohan wahee s case (supra ). ( 9 ) CONSOLIDATED Aksh Shajra Kistwar of villages Bahapur, Okhia and Jogabai was jointly prepared by Shri Nafiz Ahmed, Halqa Patwari and AW. 1 Shri Randhir Singh, who was Halqa patwari of village Bahapur at the relevant time. It gives topography of the acquired land vis-a- vis the other land marks in the locality, as it existed on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act e. g. Holy Family Hospital, Jamia Millia University, Okhia Road and National Highway and the acquired land of village Jogabai and Bahapur. Being located in close proximity to developed and developing colonies the acquired land had tremendous potentiality for being utilised as residential as well as commercial buildings. It had same potentiality and similar location as of the lands of the three villages. It is an admitted position that no sale instance of equivalent land or comparable land were available for village Okhla in order to enableus to determine the amount of compensation and for that reason alone the Collector Land acquisition had relied upon the market value as had been assessed for the lands acquired on 13. 11. 1959. It is an admitted position that no sale instance of equivalent land or comparable land were available for village Okhla in order to enableus to determine the amount of compensation and for that reason alone the Collector Land acquisition had relied upon the market value as had been assessed for the lands acquired on 13. 11. 1959. In the case of appellant s land, as have already noticed, compensation was restricted at Rs. 9. 000/- per bigha because is counsel had restricted the claim at Rs. 9,000/- per bigha only. For the adjoining villages for comparable land the market value as on 13. 11. 1959 had been fixed at Rs. 19,000/- per bigha. For the land situate in village Jogabai for which compensation was determined by this Court at Rs. 15. 000/- per bigha appeal was carried by the appellant to Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by its judgment delivered in civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20115-16/91 (Delhi Simla Catholic archdiocese v. Union of India) decided on 19. 10. 1995 directed payment of compensation at the rate of 18,000/- instead of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha. In case that be the position, there is no reason why compensation be not assessed and determined in this case also by placing reliance upon the market value of lands situate in village Jogabai and Bahapur. ( 10 ) THERE cannot be any dispute with the proposition and has been judicially noticed by Supreme Court in Nand Ram and others v. State of Haryana J. T. 1988 (4) S. C. 2181 that when lands were similarly situate having the same potentiality and location and are acquired for same public purpose under the same notification all owners deserve to be paid compensation at the same rate. This principle has also been consistently followed by this Court in a number of decisions, for which we make reference to the decisions in Sita Ram v. Union of India 79 (1999) DLT 10; Mangtoo @ Mangoo v. Union of India and others 78 (1999) D. L. T. 723; Rameshwar Dayal and others v. Union of India 77 (1999) D. L. T. 1 (F. B.) and Mohar singh and others v. Union of India 2001 IV AD (DELHI) 307. As such we are of the view that compensation deserves to be assessed by relying upon determination of the market value of land of Bahapur. As such we are of the view that compensation deserves to be assessed by relying upon determination of the market value of land of Bahapur. ( 11 ) THERE was no justification in the Collector having resorted to the classification of the land in various blocks, more particularly when it was an urbanised land located in close proximity to developed and developing colonies. ( 12 ) JUDICIAL notice can be taken of the fact that there has been rise in market prices of the lands in and around Delhi eversince the land came to be acquired by successive notifications issued for development of Delhi. In fact prices started rising immediately after partition of the country because of the influx of refugees, who wanted to settle in India. The first acquisition in large scale took place when notification itself for Planned Development of Delhi had the effect of rise in market values of the land. Delhi thereafter had been expanding resultantly putting more and more pressure on lands, which still remained unacquired. Thereafter there have been series of notifications issued. Prices increased by leaps and bounds. In the absence of any other material as regards sale instances of similar lands, this Court adopted various principles to arrive at fair market value for a subsequent period when for earlier period market value is already determined finally either by this Court or by the Supreme court. Earlier principle followed was to allow an increase at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per year. Discarding the said principle, appreciation was allowed in subsequent judgments on percentage basis ranging from 6% to 12% p. a. Choice at which rate increase is to be allowed depends upon number of circumstances including the locality where the land is acquired, the period of acquisition etc. Considering the locality and its importance, we are of the view that an increase at the rate of 12% per year over the base rate of Rs. 19,000/- per bigha as on 13. 11. 1959, fair market value can be worked out for the lands, which were acquired through the two notifications issued on 4. 4. 1964. Allowing such an increase in the absence of any other material, is an established method which has also been followed even by Supreme court in Gokal v. State of Haryana AIR 1992 S. C. 150 wherein increase by 50% was allowed for a period three years. 4. 1964. Allowing such an increase in the absence of any other material, is an established method which has also been followed even by Supreme court in Gokal v. State of Haryana AIR 1992 S. C. 150 wherein increase by 50% was allowed for a period three years. Allowing an increase of 12% p. a. from the market value of Okhla land as on 13. 11. 1959, we are of the view that fair market value as on the date of the two notifications i. e. 4. 4. 1994 and 6. 4. 1994 for the land situate in Okhia will be Rs. 29. 025/- per bigha. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeals are allowed with proportionate costs. The appellant/claimant is held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 29. 025/- per bigha. In addition to the enhanced market value the appellant/claimant will in RFA No. 242/80 be paid solatium at 15% and interest at the rate of 6% p. a. In the other appeal i. e. RFA No. 356/84 the claimant/ appellant will be paid solatium on the enhanced market value at 30% and interest at the rate of 9% p. a. for a period of one year from the date Collector taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p. a. tilt payment. The claimant/appellant in both these appeals will also be paid interest on solatium in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6271/98 (Sunder v. Union of India) and other connected appeals decided on 19. 9. 2001.