Union of India v. Baldev Singh & Anr

9. contended that this sale after mal<ing a reas deed should be relied upon, onable deduction towards development cost to determine the fair market value of undeveloped agricult Jahangir Puri. Another. ural land in village Bhalswa sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16 bigha situated in the Mamurpur was sold to R upon an Agreement to S executed by one Shfi society 'M/s.Butterfly', w be sold on 05.08.1996 ( revenue estate of village 3dha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of ^26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon, (e) Learned.counsel for the land owners also relied ell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was Khushi Ram in favour of a hereunder land was agreed to ^"18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that, the land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir aid as good evidence o the said village as of the i.e. 5.8.1996. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay. appearing on behalf of Union dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2; in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in fair market value of land in date of the agreement to sell ^oddar learned senior counsel of India relied on a Sale Deed, whereunder 1-03 bigha of land Puri was sold at a price of n,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum is to be given-on said value, the price as on the date of the notification under Section 4 comes to ?1,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt i:he price of developed land for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mat;ers Page 7 of22 IP fixing tine market value of undeveloped agricultural land having a'vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the fair market value of the land at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court. 10.. It may. be noted that whpn judgment wasVeserved in the 19'^'^ August, 2011, decision had in a batch of land acquisition ^.App.No.266/2008 titled laiSinah Vs. UOI &Anr. in which similar arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar submitted that in response to the arguments of learned counsel for the land owners, the, arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response.

11. The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the deposition ofShri Trilok Chand [Halqa Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.ll2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah above captioned matters on been reserved for judgment appeals, lead matter being LA ks- Union ofIndia in which he f area while proving the Ai<s Si. Jahangir Purl. His testimony v and Libaspur are situated, in as explained the topology of the -ra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa 'ould reveal that village Kadipur the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in tine East, villages Samalpur Badii and Haiderpur are situated in the Sarai Pipalthala are situated Purl. West and villages Bharola and n the South of. village Jahangir LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 8 of22 / •II 12.. I may additionally, note that the lay,out plan of the National Capital Territory | of Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purr is situated on.the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.l. vjillages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, Khera Kalan, Alipur, MamoorDur (Nareia) are on the western side of National Highway No.l.

13. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post:is in the revenue estate of said of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the the area was of a kind where to. urbanization'was of a weak acquisition of agricultural Ian village was for re-settlement character of urbanization in potential price increased due nature. In the, decision reported as Amar Sinnh Vs. IJninn nf India 1998 (V) AD (Dellii) 45i, resettlement colony called Jah sprung up during the period c

76. It has to be remembered were also for re-settlement of, it was noted that there existed a angir Puri in the area which had f emergency i.e. the year 1975that the two subject acquisitions slum and J.J.Clusters,

14. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 lai Sinah t/?. um Anr. which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and 1. would highlight that hiie assessing the fair market value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpu Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalar and Bawana, I had noted t Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Nareia, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd nat the topology of the area LA.Apg.No.999/2010 & connected matlers Page 9 of22 ft constituted a 'V at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-IO bifurcated at a common point,, proceeding in different directions, at Sa.bzi Mandi. it needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabove and abuts towards the east of

15. In the, appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt witFi notifications issued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated 25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1). and the sale deed dated.24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same; sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sut-para (d) of para. 8 hereinabove. In. the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these ins recorded in paragraphs 21 to two sale deeds for the reaso 23 which are reproduced hereunder:is predicated on the 2 sale s dated 25.3.2000, and the ch is dated 25.4^2001. As

21. The first argument deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 wh comes to ^26.75 lakhs ^^63.478 lakhs per acre. Court has rejected the per the former, fair mc rket value for the former per acre and the latter The learned Reference 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for all the reasoning that the purchased by a religio 'Radha Swami Satsang' -had tendered the sale the villages in question on sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was JS trust by the name of and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who 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 dee d Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise • mi • ifii been held not to be rel fair market value of able evidence to determine agricultural lands on the Organization "Christian the testimony of PW-7 S the organization stated reasoning it was purchased by a No.n Government Organization" and as per ister Annie, the secretary of that the organization had to pay the price for,the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requ site size suitable for the requirement.of the organization and is being used for destitute women circumstance, personal t

22. As held in the dec.e. there was o the vendee. a special - __sions reported as 1995 (1) sec,717 Land Acquisition Officer E/uru Ors. l/s. jst!Rohini &Ann (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 i^ohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Offirpr (Refer para 13) sale tr sale' deed which are ten of Section 51A of the L. ansactions evidenced in a liered in evidence by virtue A.Act 1894 have not to be determine the market v the reason there may which have led the buye, true test is the price vvh ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to f~\ 4- l__i i alue of land in an area for be special circumstances •to pay a higher price. The ich a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influe circumstances or the fan of land. An informed bi studied the market,and need by any special cy to buy a particular piece yer would be one who has has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area anc buyer'has a fancy for a the prevailing prices. If a l^artlcular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair marl<et value of the lands in the area. I would be failing i Union of India had relied do not highlight that the 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 th ^63.478 lakhs per acre lakhs per acre-for Ex.PV e price which comes to for Ex.PW-1/2 and ^28.89 V-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & coimectedmatters

10) Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-] intrinsic evidence of the destroy each other.

23. Thus, apart from t Reference Court, with i reasons in para 21 a reasons to hold that advisably not be gooc market value of subjec intrinsic evidence of the of a fancy of the buyer note an unreported c counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya 19.12.2008 disposing o matter being LA.App.K (since deceased) thru / highlighted that the sale deed, therein by which L&T had purchased 8 bigha land 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 tjancy for the said land ahd 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./3, themselves are having ^ fanciful price and ex-facie ie reasoning of the learned vhich I concur, afore-noted bove would be; additional the 2 sale deeds would evidence wherefrom fair: 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 transaction being the result. I would be failing not to ecision cited by learned 3eing the decision dated ' a batch of appeals, lead 0.193/2006 Pratao Sinoh Rs Vs. (JO! Ors. It was eduction on account of the •ge, was accepted by the "le instant cases the 2 sale Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 e basis to determine fair nent ignores the reasoning question, with suitable d parcel of land being iai Court and thus even in t deeds in question i.e. should be treated as th market value. The argur 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 1/3'"'^, the price arrived at would be the same as wo jld be price arrived at with deeds f India i.e. the s^le deeds reference.to the averag produced by the Union o LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mafters produced by the Govern ?1,3.7,000/- per bigha which L&T had purchas ment were giving a price of and the sale deed under' ed 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 f 1/3'"'' would be: deducted,600/-. It may further be said judgment the year of id the notification under Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court determined fair market jalue 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 ^2,15,1.60/- per bigha, from the sum of ?3,26 highlighted that in the the sale was 1993 a Section 4 of the Land meaningfully. It is not the appreciation for 2 that the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for ifat was so, years had required to be given, I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent contradiction in the valijie 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."

16. For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural land in village Bhalswa jahangir Puri.

17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalsw a jahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of ns lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e., 1 acre land was sold at ?15,70,000/-;

18. Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land owners was ?15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is LA.App.No.999/2010 &• connected matters difficult to comprelnend the Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8,[4] abnormally high value as per 1996 in which the stated price is ns.lal<hs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was ?18 lakhs per acre and 7 to ?15.[7] lakhs per acre. 1 ne years down the line the price fell ed to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the • learned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has op special considerations and n informed willing buyer and, without being influenced by particular land, and had thus

19. I have discussed this 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2 where an abnormally high p have held the same not to be market value of a large part paid by a buyer smitten with ned that the said price was for Dt the price settled between an an Informed willing seller and special needs pertaining to a discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wheref/om fair market value of a large track of land had to be fixed. issue in my.decision dated 008 iai Sinah l/s' UO! & Ann i.e. "ice for a parcel of land is with evidence, of neither the buyer nor the seller being wellinformed and there being a special feature qua the land and good evidence to determine fair of land, being the fanciful price fancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and 23 of the said decision.- 1reite

20. As regards. auction rat situated in the Sanjay Gandh any substance in the argumen rate the same. tes of developed plot of land Transport Nagar, I do not find Its of the learned counsel for the land owners and concur with the decision of the learned Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised on the decision of ths Supreme Court reported as LM Chand l/s. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769; Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the e of residential plots or flats by ividence relating to auction rates DDA.

21. In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 jai Singh l/s. UP! & Ors.. I he d extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme Ciourt in Lai Chands case with reference to price at which c different agencies i.e. DDA ar and findings in para 29 to 31 ( are extracted hereunder:eveloped plots were allotted by d D5IDC. Relevant observations Df the decision in jai Sinails case

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 R by DDA. Whether it was The inchoate evidence factors, being 3 in num Supreme Court in render this evidence as the value of land in the s

30. It is no doubt true. Reference Court, that Bawana Industrial Area esidential Scheme developed 20% or 75%, we do not know, has resulted in the same Der which were noted by the Chand's case (supra), which most unreliable to determine Jbject cases. as held even by, the learned with the development of Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had acquired a building pc would be what would tentiality, but the question be the value to which the building potentiality would translate itself.

31. I hold that the learned Reference Co'urt, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in Lai Chands 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, tp deal with the same while 1 shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 15 of22 • f

22. Highlighting that in La! Chancfs case (supra) the f • Supreme Court held that sucli raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be crystallized.

23. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.

24. Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-hold property > under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with reference to village Rithala Rohini Residential Scheme, I n where lands wefe acquired for egate the plea for compensation to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that Iam concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuringi 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha.:

25. From the topology of thu area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwar) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC: village Burari is on the east of and indeed the plan for Delhi NO.112A/2008 it emerges tha village. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel towards Mubarka Chowk from the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnii Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages separated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 16 of22 thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparable.

26. While assessing the fair market value ofthe land situated in village Burah, which was acquired pursuant to notifications 2003 issued under Section 4 of had considered the material on record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of.LA./^ippeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled Raiba! & Ors. Vs. Union of India & 3d assessed the fair market value,580.82 per acre for Category A:re for Category B land and dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07 the Land Acquisition. Act, Qr^ In the said decision, I ha of agricultural land atm,60 land, no,44,522.73 per ac V) ?9,28,464..65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. notification dated 18.07.200:= The land acquired pursuant to had been assessed by me at ^9,20,568/- per acre for Category Aland and ^7,28,512/- per acre for Category B land. In Jai Singh's case {supra), I had assessed the fair market value ofland in 10 villages as-under:-. S.No. Village Name Dat und e of Notification er Section 4 Fair market value (in lakhs per acre)

1. Pooth Khurd 7.8. 2000 n[4].75 for Category 'A' ?14.3728 for Category 'B'

2. Holambi Kalan 7.8. 2000 ^4.75

3. Bawana 7.8. 2000 n[4].75 for -Category 'A'.n[4].38125 for

4. Khera Khurd 11.c o o o, CM ^^4.835 for,?14.46413 for liA.App.No.999/2010 8c connected matters.5. Nareia 2.5.2001 ^16.165. for ' Category 'A' ^5.76087 for

6. Holambi Kalan 22, 8.2001 n[6].745 for ?16.43811 for 7.. Alipur 22. 8.2001 i ?16.745 for ?16.43811 for

8. Holambi Khurd 22. 8.2001 ^ 16.745 for ^6.43811 for

9. Rajapur Kalan 22. 8.2001 n[6].745 for n[6].43811 for -10. Sanoth 7.12.2001 n[7].295

11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 ?18.655

12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 n[8].655

13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 ^18.655

14. Alipur. 23.5.2002 fl[8].655

15. Sanoth 27. 1.2003 ^19.435 for ns.94:912 for ^8.47539 for Category 'C

16. Rajapur Ka ah 27.;L.2003 ^9.435 for n[8].94912 for n[8].47539 for Category 'C pra) I had also analyzed the by the Government from time not to be the ipse dixit of the 27.' In lai Singh's case (su minimum land rates enhancec to time, and found the same LA.App.No.999/2010 & cojmected matters Government officers and inad found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV a[6] Delhi 13 Gairai Sinah Vs. UP! & Ml., 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. IJOL ill (2004)

95 Hukum Sinah Vs. UOl and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 A/^/7e/7Q^^/-5/77(7/7 Vs. UO/ & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence various dates between the years to the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:-

51. 1 need to elaborate decision in Gairai's ca pertaining to fair marke village Holambi Kalan as Division Bench of this Court in ich I have discussed in para 49 a little more with respect to the

36. Discussing the evidence t value of agricultural land in of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 \A.irai the Court discussed t: ^ he 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 haying 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 no,03,36.4/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered,the prices notified by the Government as per policy dated 1.4.1997 ijnd 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 we11-factored in when minimum price notificati the fact that even with Court found that as age that the potentiality had been the Government issued the on w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by respect to sale transactions the ^ inst the minimum price notified as of 1.4.1997 at ?10 lakhs per acre, sale-instances were highlighting that the price was ^0,03,364/- per acre

52. The decision in Ma^hender Sinoh'^ case, pertaining to village Bawana, refer highlights with reference that the Master Plan for -ed to by me in para 49 above, to para 28 to 31 of the decision Delhi 1990 had been taken into account by the Court which was projecting residential. commercial and indu agricultural land in Delhi had noted that notwi.t projecting and - the la potentiality, the same h strial future exploitation of and on the issue of potentiality istanding the Master Plan so. nds theoretically acquiring a ad not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date which the Division Bench was... evelopment had taken place in village Bawana and Hclambi Kalan and nobody had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in a gap between what would be et growth and what the, market ecisions in Gairafs caise and para 49 above there is expected to be the mark actually grows. The LA.App.No;999/20r0 & connected matters 41^ II i'.: 'liD Mahender Sinoh's • ca translated itself into a when prices rose by se highlight that potentiality reality between 1990 and 1997 about 16,5% per annum and with the requisite mome thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate ntum 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 d(Bveloped land and the hunger of the market got saturated.

53. The empirical evic from the 2 sale deeds reilied upon by the land owners, in respect whereof the lea good reasons not to rely further reasons in paras relying upon, being fane ence in the instant case, apart rned Reference Court has given upon and for which I have given 21 and 22 hereinabove for not iful 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 n[7],74,109/- per acre as of the date of the sale i.e. 2 0.5.2002.

28. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by either parties other than tl" e minimum price, notified by the Government from time to ^jme, I hold that the Learned Reference' Court has rightly adopted the correct principle and has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the interregnum period between t:he dates when minimum prices were notified and, the date of the notification issued under % Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and finding no scope to further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I dismiss all appeals and cross objections, whether filed by the land owners or the Union of India.

29. I leave the parties to bear their own cost.,^ SEPTEIVIBER 19, 2011 mm LA.App.No.999/2010 & coiiaected matters % "T—- (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE ry