Full Text
22.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 651/2011
MANGE kAM Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Vats, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for respondent No. 1/UOI
Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA.
30.09.2011
This application is filed by the appellant praying inter alia for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, particularly paras 3 and 4 thereof, the same is allowed. The delay of 5 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
ORDER
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 31.05.2011 passed by the Reference Court in LAC LA.APR. 651/2011 2011:DHC:15706 No.79/10 arising out of Award No.l3/DC(W)/2006-07 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 17.06.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short ^the Act').
2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APP.784/2005 entitled Jamna vs. UOI & Ors. decided as recently as on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly draws the attention of this Court to the operative paras 31 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:-
33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and 1 hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:i) XXX LA.APP. 651/2011 ii) XXX iii) For the land situated in village Mundka the fair nnarket value is fixed at ?4,98,589/- per bigha, i.e. ?23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005. iv) XXX V) XXX vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOI. for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree." ( > 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters.
4. Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of Jamna Tsupral. the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant as granted to the appellants of village Mundka, covered by notification dated 17.06.2005 in the LA.APP.784/2005. HIMA KOHLI,J SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 rkb LA.APR. 651/2011 ' * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date ofDecision: 8^^ fuiv. 2011 + LA.APP. 784/2005 JAM'NA... AppeHarit Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate,' Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate, Mr.D.S/Lakra, Advocate, Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate,;: / ' ' " Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate. /.; Mr.Shadam Farashat, Advocate, Versus • ^ UOi & ORS \... Respondents" Through: MrSanjay Poddar, Standina • Counser.(LA), GNGT Delhi with Ms.Deepika/Mr.Sachin^Navvaniand Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocate's Mr/^ay Verma,' MsvKanika; Agnihotri., |V]r.Kunal Sharnf^a,:• M.r.SumerSethi, Mr.B.B.Sharrna, • Ms.Shobhna Ta.kiar and ^4^.Ar.cm Birbal, Advocates for DDA • and',. '., ^ • -!- LA.APP. 879/2005^. 1:A.APP. SSO^Sai/ZaOS, LA.APP. 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification-iii/s:4 dated 25.02.1997 &Award.No.2/1999--20Q0>i![age Mundka) v; AND • \ • •+ LA.APP. 583/2009, LA.APP.. 603/20D[9],:lJ\;APP;.®4/2009, LA.APP. 606/2009, LA.APP. 610/2009^ 74/2010, LA.APP. 78/2010, LA.APP.784/2005 &connected. ' ' • Page.rof[3],[9] '1/ •' Scr LA.APP. 79/2010, LA.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010, LAIAPP. 125/2010, LA.APP. 164/2010, LA.APP. 185/2010, LAiAPP. LA. APP. 200/2010, LA.APP. 238/2010, LA.APP. 243/2010, LA.APP. 244/2010, LA.APP. 247/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 274/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP, 324/2010, L.A. APP. LA.APP. 329/2010, LA.APP. 331/2010, LA.APP. 332/2010, LA.APP. 333/2010 with CM APPL No. 5524/2011, LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367/2010, LA.APP. 368/2010, LA.APP. 369/2010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & CM APPL No.20099/2010, LA.APP. 374/2010,, LA.APP. 375/2010, LA.APP. 377/2010, LA.APP. 379/2010, LA.APP. 423/2010, LA-APP. 452/2010, LA.APP. 461/2010, LA.APP. 472/2010, LA.APP. 694/2010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No. 634Q/2011, LA.APP. 697/2010, LA.APP, 698/2010 & CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APP. 70.6/2,Q10 ^& CM APPL. 17215/^010, LA.APP. 707/2010, LA.APP. 708/2010, LA.APP. 709/2010, LA.APP. 710/2010 with CM APPL. No.2568/2011, LA.APP. 713/2010 with CM APPL. NO.7473/201Q, LA.APP. 715/2010, LA.APP. 717/2010, LA.APP. 719/2010, LA.APP. 766/2010, LA.APP. 796/2010, LA.APP. 797/2010, LA.APP. 798/2010, LA.APP. 799/2010, LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.APP. 819/2010, LA.APP. 829/201O, LA.APP. 831/2010 & CM APPL. 955/2011, LA.APP. 832/2010, LA.APP. 833/2010 & CM APPL 6392/2011, LA.APP..834/2010, LA.APP. 842/2010, LA.APP. 871/2010, LA.APP. 874/2010, LA.APP. 875/2010, LA.APP. 876/2010, LA.APP. 877/2010, LA.APP. 878/2010, LA.APP. 879/2010, LA.APP. 880/2010, LA.APP. 881/2010 & CM APPL.6505/2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, U.AFJP. 883/2010, LA.APP. 884/2010, LA.APP. 886/2010, LA^^m' -^^0® 889/2010 & CM APPL.2249/20il, LA.APP. 890/2010, LA.APP. 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA.APP. 894/26l0 & CM No.23353/2010, LA.APP.," 895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP. 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LA.APP. 903/2010, U.APP. LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 2of19 186/2010, 239/2010, 245/2010, ' 252/2010, 273/2010, 312/2010, 327/2010, 251/2010, 267/2010, 275/2010, 326/2010, 330/2010, I_A.APP.
U.APP. LA.APP. LA-APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 907/2010, LA.APP. 938/2010, LA.APP. 939/2010, LA.APP. 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011. LA.APP. 1040/2010 & CM APPL. 5673/2011, LA.APP. 1041/2010, LA.APP. 1043/2010, LA.APP. 1045/2010, LA.APP. 1046/2010, LA.APP. 1048/2010, LA.APP. 1049/2010, LA.APP. 1050/2010. LA.APP. 1056/2010, LA.APP. 1060/2010, LA.APP. 1061/2010, LA.APP. 1071/2010, LA.APP. 125/2011, LA.APP. 126/2011, LA.APP. 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award No.3/2005-06, Village-Mundi<a) AND ' + LA APP. 600/2009, LA.APP. 605/2009, LA.APP. 615/2009, LA.APP. 310/2010, LA.APP. 325/2010, LAAPP. 376/2Q10, LA.APP. 383/2010, 473/2010, 591/2010, 692/2010, 763/2010, 885/2010, 892/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 No.1/2005-06, Viliage-Mundka) LA.APP. 384/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP. 638/2010, LA.APP. 711/2010, LAAPP. LA.APP. 872/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 887/2010, LA.APP. LA APP. 898/2010, LA.APP. 906/2010 & CM APPL. No.4443/2010, LA.APP. 937/2010 CM APPL 23299/2010, LA.APP. 1042/2010, LA.APP. 1047/2010 38.5/2010, 586/2010, 690/2010, 716/2010, 873/2010, 891/2010, LA.APP. dated 21.03^2003 & Award. AND LA.APP. 1003/2010, LA.APP. 1Q17/2Q10, LA.APP. 1019/2010, LA.APP. 1022/2010, LA.APP. 1023/2010, LA.APP. 1044/2010, LA.APP. 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010, LA.APP. 1054/2010 & CM APPL. No.5656/2011, LA. APP. 1055/2010. LAAPP. 1057/2010, LA.APP. 1058/2010, LAAPP. 1059/2010. LA.APP. 1068/2010, LA.APP. 1O69/2O10, LA.APP. 124/2011, LA.APP. 127/2011, LA.APP. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2011 LA.APP.784/2005 &connected. Page 3of19 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005, & Award No.13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka) AND + LA.APP. 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA.APP. 426/2009, LA.APP. 428/2009, 442/2009, LA.APP. 611/2009, LA.APP. 616/2009, LA.APP. 278/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24.09.2003 & Award No.3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala)
B. AND + LA.APP. 1029/2010 & GM No.5948/2011, LA.APP. ^1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, LA.APP, 1033/2010 & CM IMo.6645/2011, LA.APP. 1062/2010, 1063/.2010 & CM No.6943/2011, LA.APP. 1064/2010, LA.APP. 1066/2010, LA.APP. 1067/2010, LA.APP. 11/2011, LA.APP. 122/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award No.1/2006-07, VillageTBakkarwala) 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 IMANDRAIOG. I. (Oral) !
1. I am deciding the above captioped appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections; all of which have been listed hereinabove. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected
2. The present decision concerns issue of fixation of fair market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala and village Mundka.
3. The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under:- S40. Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4 of the La Art
1. Bakkarwala 24.9.2003
2. Bakkarwala 17.6.2005
3. Mundka ' ^25.2.1997
4. Mundka 21.3.2003
5. Mundka 17:6.2005 may be highlighted that the notification at serial No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka; as per serial No.5 above. '
5. Abutting NH-10, leading from the city pf Delhi to the township pf Rohtak in the State.of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan. Village Bakkarwala lies towards the,# other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka. The difference between the topology of the two villages is; whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-IO, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the Southern boundary of reyenue estate of village Mundka.
6. As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan. ' _
7. Agricultural lands in village Mundka weres acquired LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 5of39 i pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.1997 issued ynder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/1999/2000. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21.3.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/2005-06. Further lancis in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.1372006-07.
8. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24.9.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.3/2004-05. Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No.1/2006-07.
9. In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi.
10. For clarity I may note that pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from 1.4.1997 @ ^10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of tijne> discounted LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 6of19 § the price for one year (g) 11.5% per annum. This price was adopted for category A lands. For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by ?90,000/- per acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24,9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1.4.2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 and gave no increase.
11. Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge.in the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the vievvf of the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair market value.
12. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @11.5% for full one year; adopting the percentage 11.5, decreased the value lay only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1.4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25.2.1997. This was the value fixed for category Alands and for category B lands; with reference to the values for category Aland depressed the same by ?90,000/- per acre.
13. Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @^9,89,288/- per acre and for category Bland the same was determined (a) ?8,99,288/- per acre. ' '
14. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwaia respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 the next revision was as of 30.8.2005. Using.the said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean average. What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of 1.4.2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21.3.2003 as also 24.9.2003. Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 8of19 annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21.3.2003 as also 24.9.2003. The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003, which I note comes to ^15,92,083.33 per acre (in some decisions I note the sum arrived at is ns,92,215/-)., For the date. 24.9,2003 the price determined was ?20,41,000/-per acre.
15. Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural Iannis were acquired in village Bakkarwala and i^iundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.2001 and giving; increase @10% per annum determined the vajue. and with respect to. the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage! being abutting \NH-10 gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17.6.2005 in "sum of ?21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the. price determined was ?20,35,255/-per acre.
16. In the aforesaid backdrop of the factua! scenario in which 1 have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today.
17. With reference to the evidence led In LAC ^ No.384/2004 lamna Vs. UO! &Ors.. it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.Mo.784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned couhse! wh© appeared for the other appellants,, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-l whereunder 1 bigha i and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village |Vjundl<a was sold as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consideratipn of 75,000/-; ?38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be ?5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to ?4,46,000/- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was ?4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5.8.1996. Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25,2.1993, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum. It is urged that on the same basis, land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kaian, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards'the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No.193/2006 PraiaD Sinah {Deceased) Thr: LRs Vs. VOl as per which fair market value of lanci, per bigha, v*/as determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16.11.1995, 11.6.1996 and 17.12.2002 at ?2/15,164/- for category A land LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 10of19 i • t and ?1,73,500/- for category B land; ^2,35,850 for category A land and ?1,90,150/- for category B land;.?4.02,850/- for category A land pnd ?3,24.850/- for category B land, respectively.
18. I may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a nunnber of sale deeds executed fronn time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-1.
19. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of the whole, the saniple must bear some adequate proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one wpuld reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones. At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is the example given. The second reason pn which, learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 LA.APP.784/2005 &connected. Page 11 of19 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex.P-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala. Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the fo,ur sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-4 referred ^to Jn the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOI would show the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
20. An independent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union. The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 laiSinah 1/5. UOI.
21. The decision in laiSingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to, a notification dated 15.10.1993 at ?1,32,000/- per bigha. Learnecl counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finallt-y inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 12 of19. » [/' as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed. Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15.10.1993 at ^1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003 as also 17.6.2005. Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997. 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, by giving 5% increase.
22. With respect to the sale deied Ex.P-1, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on ^ 25.2.1997. it is a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in wbi.Gh khasra numbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposed acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to know that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands would be, acquired. In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005 &connected,. /i., P^gelSoflS • V?1L.-. — -» acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purctiase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place: these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of land as on the date of the sale. Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and the principles of sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to tlie whole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex.P-1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined. There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed. The sale deeds Ex.R- 1 to Ex.R-4,' dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 are. also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex.P-1. In fact, the sale price in the said 4. sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government.
23. Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this... Court in /aiSingh'scase (supra) or £ra£a£4Sjs6icase (supra). Oi 24. Ihighlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
25. The decision in/sL«22fii.«se (supra) •determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of n,32,000/- per bigha as of 15.10.1993, and the.perusal thereof ^. Page14 of 19 would show that the Court assessed the fair mari<et value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Ka|an or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala.
26. In Pratao Singh's case (supra), the Pivision Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agriculturai lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:jS.NO., Date Village Price per Big ha
1. ! 24.07.1995 & 16.11.1995 Tikri Kalan 15,160/-for Block A & n,73,5G0/- for Block B land
2. 11.06.1995 Tikri Kalan & Ghevra, ^2.35;8l5K for Block A & n,90,156/- for 3. L ^ _j 17.12.2002 Tikri, Kalan ?4,02,850/- for Block A & ?3,24,850/- for
27. Following the judgment in Pratao Sinoh'sC'Sise (supra) i have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6.2.2G03 in the batch of appeals being iand LA.APP.784/2005 & connected,:, VA Acquisition Appeal No.489/2009, rhiranfiLa/ vs..Union ofIndia & fijTn on 2.6.2011.[1] have determined the fair marl<et value ofthe lands in Village Ghevra at ^4,03,425/- per bigha as of 6.2.2003. On the issue of comparability of land in village Bakkarwala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village Bakkarwala does not abut NH-10, as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-vis Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2villages, has an advantage. Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of • assessing fair compensation, it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter. Thus, 1hold all 4 villages to be. equivalent, unless qua some land special features can Be shown.
28 Since the decision in Pratap Sihqti's case•(supra), deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which Iam concerned, Iam of the Opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which Iam concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in case (supra). As per the decision case (supra) for the date ) 24 7.1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was ?2,15,160/- per bigha and n,73,500/- per bigha for Category B land The first notification with which I am concerned is 25 21997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka wece acquired. The time span sweeps 1year and 216 cfe^5.ae.^days. in ftgtefiSffiMicase (supra) thp annuaiinaease was determined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining" to Category A Page16 of 19 LA.APP.784/2005 &connecte(j lands, the fair market value assessed is ^2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. ni,97,162/- per acre and for Category Blands, Iassess the fair market value at ?2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. ?9,65,361.60 per acre.
29. The next notification witli which I am concerned_A| rlatpd 2i.5.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. In ChUMUiJSLi cas (supra), with reference to the decision in pratap Singh'scase (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act: on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was ?4,03,425/- per bigha. This was uniformly applied. Since there is atime gap of just alittle over 1month, Iam of the opinion that pertaining to the notification- dated 21.3.2003, fair market value of land it? Village Mundka should be ?4,03,425/- i.e. n[9],36,440/-_p.er acre, which Ihereby fix.,
30. I propose to deal with the notification dated 24.9.2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17.5.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired In.Village Mundlo and Village Bakkarwala.
31 As noted hereinabove. in ChmuLL^rss^se (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003, fair market value assessed by me was t[4],03,425/- per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2years and 131 days, the figure comes to ?4 98 589/- per bigha, which comes to ?23,93,227.20 per acre. The same is held by me to^be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of l/.6.200b, Idecree the same. • Page17 of 19 LA.APP.784/2005 &connected. r • - V
32. I am left with the notification dated 24.9.2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair market value assessed in Chiranii Lai's case. I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days, the figure comes to ^4,25,641/- per bigha i.e. ?20,43,076.80 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003.
33. Accordingly.,.the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as undeni) For the land falling in Category A land in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at is ^2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. ? 11,97,162/- per a'cre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at ^2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. ^9,65,361.60 per acre, as on 25.02.1997. ii). For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at ?4,03,425/- per bigha i.e. ^9,36,440/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003. iii) For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at ?4,98,589/- per bigha i.e. ?23.93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005-. iv) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at f[4],98,589/--per bigha i.e. LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 18 of19 ?23,93,227,20 peracre, as on 17/06.2005," • •vj For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at ?4,25,641/- per: bigha i.e. f20,43,076.80 per acre', as on 24.d[9];2003. • - • vi); Appellants and cross-objectors who have..suGce^ would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute.and,as clarified, in. the decision, reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOJ. for the. compensation, paid originally and as.enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum. enhahGed.,by the present judgment and decree. vii) The appellants, and cross-objectors v\iho.succeed would'also.be entitled to, proportionate costs. viii) All pending applications stand dispos.ed ofln.terms of, the prayers made therein.... ~,, 2011 lA.APP.784/2005 & connected
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 1-0 of 19 •,V