Savitri Devi v. Union of India & Ors

2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep • Nandrajog, 3.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APP.No.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 para 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:- LA.APP. 53212011 Page2of[4] "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 under:xxx xxx 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 peracre, as on 17.06.2005. xxx xxx 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." 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, to which counsel for the respondent/UOI has no objection. Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of ]amna (supra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant as granted to the appellants in the LA.APP.784/2005. However, it is clarified that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 282 days in filing the LA.APP. 53212011 I appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 14871/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. HIMA KOHLI,] AUGUST 10, 2011 rkb LA.APP 53212011 -,..: • -. LAAPP 79/2O1O, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAPP, 125/2010, LA APP 164/2010, LA APP 185/2010, LI[4] PP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LA APP 238/2010, LAAPP... 239/2010, L A.APP.243/2010[1] LA.APP. 244/2010' LAAPP I 245/2010, LAAPP 247/2010[1] LAAPP 251/2010, LAA'P:22!2oio, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP 273/2O1O, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAP 275/2010, LAAPP; 312/2O1O, LAAPP 324/2010, ¶LA APP 326/2010, LAAPP \327/2010 LAAPP 329/2010, LA4PP 330/2010, LAAPP 331/2010, LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 333/2010 with CM APL No 5524/2611, LAAPP 335/2010, LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP 368/2010, LAAPP 369/2010, LAAPP 371/2010 & CM APPL' No20Q99/20l0, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP 452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010[1] LAAPP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011, LA APP 697/2010, LAAPP 698/2010 &CM APPL 1734/2011,LAAPP 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010[1] LAAPP 708/2010, LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LAAPP 715/2010, LAAPP 717/2010, LAAPP 719/2010, LAAPP,766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010, LAAPP 1 798/2010, LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LAAPP 829/010, LAAPP 83112010 CM APPL 955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 cM APPL 6392(2p11, LAAPP 84/2010[1] LAAPP 842/2010, LAAPP 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LA APP 877/2010, LA AIP 878/2010[1] LA APP 879/2010, LAAPP 880/2010 LAAPP 881/2010 & C APPL6505/2011 LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010, LAAPR 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL 2249/201'l, LA APP 890/2010, LA APP • 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LAAPP 894/2010 & CM No 23353/2010, LA APP 895/2010, £A APP 896/2010, 'LA APP 1897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected t j... L i.,.......-.: --... - • U.-..-_ rj j \ ' c; ".0O7/2O1O, LA APP 938/2010, LA APP 939/2010, LA APP h1O342010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LAAPP 1040/2010 & CM APPL t5673/2011, LAAPP 1041/2010, LAAPP 1043/2010, LAAPP 1 1045/2010, LAAPP 1O4/2O1O, LAAPP 1048/2010, i LAAPP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050/2010, LAAPP 1050010, LAAPP 1060/2010, LAAPP 1061/2010, LAAPP 1071/2,010, LAAPP 125/2011,LAAPP 126/2011,LAAPP 258/2011 (Relatng to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award jNo 312qo5-o[6], Village-Mundka) AND I + LAIPP 600/2009, LAAPP 605/2009, LAAPP 615/2009, ILA APP 310/2019, LA APP 325/210, LA APP 376/2010, IA APP 383/2010, LAAPP 384/20l0, LAAPP 385/2010, LAAPP 4.73/2010, LAAP.: 4.92/2010 1: LAAP.. 586/2010,.LA.APP. '. 591/2010, LAAPP 638/2010, LAAPP 690/2010, LAAPP 69212010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP. 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAFP 873/2010, LAAPP 885/2010, LAAPP 887/2010, LAAPP 891/2010, LAAPP 892/2010, LA APP 898/2010, LA APP 906/2010 & CM APPL No4443/2010, LAAPP 937/2019 & CM APPL 23299/2010, LA APP 1042/2010, LA APP 1047/2010 (Reaing to Notification u/s 4 d'ated, 21 03 2003 Award jNo 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka)

AND LAAPP 1003/2010, LAAPP 1017/2010, LAAPP 1019/2010, LAARP 1022/2010, LAAPP 1023/2010, LAAPP 1044/2019, LAAP4P 1051/2010, LA APP 1053/2010, LAAPP 1054/201Q & • CM APPL No 5656/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LAAPP 1057/2010, LAAPP 1058/2010, LAAPP 1059/2010, LAAPP 1068/2010, LA APP 1069/2010, LA APP 124/2011, LAAPP;127/2011, LA APP 128/2011, LA APP 259/2011 LA APP 784/2005 & connected ' I i... •, i,:..:....,. 4 4............................................... •.t 4..,.. I.... t (I.eattng to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award 13/2006-07, ViIage-MUndka) ' AND; + L APP 4I2009 & Cross Objections, LA APP 426/2009, LAAFP 48/2009 442/2009, LAAPP 611/2009, LAAPP 616I2O99, LAAPP 278/2010 • ' •., -.:.. • I • -....,. • 1 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24 09 2003 & Award T NO 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkawala) AND Y. I4APP 1029/2010 & CM No 5948/2011, r LAAPP 1p30i2910, LA APP 1031/2010, LA APP •1033/2010, & CM No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM No6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP 1066/2010, LAAPP 1067/2010,LAAPP 11/2011,LAAPP 122/2011 (Relatirjg to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 1/2006-07 Vi!lage-Bakkarwala) L CpRAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

3 Whether the judgment should be repoed ip the Digest? I PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral) am deciding the above captioned appeals nd selatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by, way of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove j,LA.APP.784/2005 &'conhected Page4ofl[9].:. C... •.... S. •,: • -......: • • • •:. - •••...,..- 1., '..:;:

2. • The. present decision concerns 1:ssue o..fffixatio.nof.a r. I market value of land in the revenue btate of Village Bakkrwa andviJlageMundka ' t 3: The dates on which fair market value of the land has to bd.determined may be graphically noted as under - I 5 N& Name of Village Date of notifiation under: Section 4 of the Lk Act: I i Bakkarwala 24 9 2003 2 Bakkarwala 17 6 2OO[5]

3. Mundka 25 2 1997

5 Mundka 17 6 2005 i 4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No 2 tlereinabove, pertainipg to village Bakkarwala, is t h e';"san S pursuant wheteto lands were acquired in the revenueestate • Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 abo'Je 5 Abutting NH4O, leading from the city of Delhi tã t[1] towhship of Rohtak in the State of Haryana are viRages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of, the Southern boundary of village Mundka Tfe difference between the topology of the two villages is, wherea the land of village Mundka abuts NH-b, that ofvillag Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other side of th Southern boundary of revenue estateof village Mundka

6 As we proceed frqm the city of Delhi to the township • of Rotak, village Mundka is crossed first, jol.lowed by vi!lag Ghevth and then village Tikri Kalan j[7], Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA APP 7S4/2005 & connected Page 5 of[9] rH 3 pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issueder Section t 4 ofthe Laid Acquisition Act s pfr4award N/1999/2OOO I,Agricufturat lands in the revenue estate of vi!Iage 1Mundka were k further acquired pursuant to a notification datd 21 3003 I issued under Section 4 of the Land' Acquisition Ac as per award I No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands in the: revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursdant to a i notifiction dated 17 6 2OO5issued under Section 4 of the Land { 11Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in the revenue est&te of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2O03 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Att as pr Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the reyenue estate of the sarne village were acquired purs9nt to a noticatipn daeçJ 17 6 2005 (the sa,me notification under which rands in village Mundk were acquired) as per award Nb 1/2006-07 9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisitio'n Collector determined the fair market value of the jcqu,ired !aiids, under all the awrds, with reference to the minimim price for agricultural land s notified by the Government of NCT Delhi

10 For clarity. I may note that pertinin to the notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in 4 the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned LandAcquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the mini4hium price for agricultural land notified! with effect from 1 419,[9] 7 @ 10 lacs per acre and sipce the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted! Page 6of19 4..... I I I 4 'I 3 1 r ' I,..:. the price for one year 1 5% rer annum, This price was adopte'd for category A lands For laçids in category B, the value was further discounted by 90000I- pr acre Pertaining to the •: notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, theLand.'Acqus.itipn Collector • relied upon the notification fixin the rninirnun price of agricultural rand as o 1 4 2001 and gav'e no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair i t market value of the lands to be determined was as of 213.2003 and 24 9 2003 Evenpertaining to the notiftcat'on dated 17 6 2005 which required fair market value of land to be 'determined in the revente estate of village Bakkrwala and: village Mundka as of 17 & 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector, detrmned the same J1nth reference to the notification fixing mirIimurn value of agricu'ttiral lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 nd gave no increase 11, Aggr,ieved by the d m eterination of the fair market 1 value[1] o the lands by the Land Acquis tion collector, the land owrers sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vide • •• • • I various 4judgments and decrees, whicft are under challenge 'n the bpve captioned appeals, the Reference Court tbok • •-.:.[1] • • corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and.............,,• enhancedthefairmarketvalue i •t --•....... In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dted I i onIy34 ds:i;pasmh as thedat.e wth:.reterence wreto •.. Govrnment had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and the notification under Section 4 of tl'\e Land Acquisition Act was t dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for category A ands 1; and for category, B lands, with reference to the values for ' category A lapd depressed the same by 90 per acre,000I- ? 13 Thus, for category A JandS. the Reference Court ( detern'ined he fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for. I category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288I- per,.: acre ! Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 a n d 24 92003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka a nd villae Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Governmenti 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 ReMrence Cout adopted the principle of rpean 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 2492q03 Thereafter the ReferenceCourttook the value notified as of 30,. 1 8.200. 5 and depressing the same by 10% per rorwara, it.is.urgea tnt Wi[E[1] [titftilUt LU LII dIU,pIILe, ------------. S 1 - - --- _ ------ -; t \ and 1,T(3,5OO/- for category B. land, 2,35,85O for category land and 1,9O,15O/- for category B land, 4,O[2],85O/- kr category A $and and Z[3],24,85OI- for category B land, t respectively.,:•: 18 ' I may note here that in vrrious land acquisitiOn: references, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds executeçi from time to time, but during arguments today before I me, leaned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i...... Per contra, Si Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the. i.... UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be dopted[1] as theyardstick for the reason, to be a representdtive sample 11of the 1 whole, the sample must bear some adequate ropotion to the whole For example, learned counsel would Lirge that if it has to be determined whether what percentageof tones are mixed in a bag of rice it wodld not be a safe method to pick only one grain, for fit happens to be the grain of (ice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rce and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one woUld reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a fistful s1ould be lifted and then checked as, a representative............................................................ ample,'is the example given The second reason on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being epresentative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending.acuisition inasmuch, as before acquisiiOr1s are made, land in the area is survyed Without a survey it vould be difficult to issue even the notifidation under Section 4 LAAPP784/2OO5&connected Pagellofl[9]....... S,.,................,,,.,. L I fte Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede at thelreasons given by the learned Reference Court are not oind, but would urge tat the two contentions advanced by him shotjld be considered by this Court asthe reasons as to why ExP-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market.... I.. •: • \'aIue of Iands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly,. j.. • 0. • • ',...........,.. learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds I ExtR-1 to R-4 referred to in the, decision of the learned,. ? •. '....... J: •.:,'.... Feferençe Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 05 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOI would show the actual market value of the land and thus learned dounsel wbuld urge that the said 1fodr sale deeds should be considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected. threin i s less t h a n the minimum price notified by the Goiernmeçit, the price fixation should be with reference to the 1+llnlmurn pricenotified by the Government which is nearest to tne point of time when the respective notifications were issued 9nçler Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 20 An independent and alternative argument is aso dvance' Y learnd counsel for the Union Thel, same restst iself on decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as I 2006(135)DLT231/ai51n(7h Vs VOl 21 The decision in Jai Stngh's ease (supra) concerns itself with the dtermThatioh of the fair ma:rketvalue Of land in.villae Balkarwla which were acquired pursuant to a notificat?on dated 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned cOunel Aould ure that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA AP 784/2005 & connected............ I I I,...i I... r 1 H Has Petitons for Special Leave toAppea filed before the Suprem Cburt y 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 • annupi to determine the market value of land in village J Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would jrge that in view of the locational advantage of vill ag Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25 2 1997, 21.12003 2Q03 and 17 6 2005, by giving 59 p increase With respect to the saldeed Ex P-1, whereunder 1 • bigh and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold i Vilage Mundika as of 5 8 1996, it would assume iniportance that the • • •: sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notificationtissued uriçier Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was isse0 on I 197 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 deterrrining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposeçl j acquisiion and when this happens pectple in the area come to know that very soon there is esjery likelihood that the Iand, 'ould be acauired. In Delhi, th.e large scale acquisi.tiônØóIicy S J JR acquired'and thus, it is not uncommon, for persors to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place, these transaç:tioflS are speculative and cannot be taken to be a rresentatiVe measure of the fair market value of lan as.n the.date of t h e sale. Further, the prirciples'9f ratio and proortion as also the principles of averages an d the rinciple of sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligIlle proportion to the 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-i 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 - • 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 neich:lo:wer than thesale price recordei in Ex P-i In fact, the sae l3rice in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Govrnment 1 23 Thus, the fair market value of te lands woul d be requir,ed to be fixed ei t h e r with reference to the decision of this I tcourt injL Ln h'scase (supra) or pratap Sincjh's case (suprM

24 I highlight that both decisions, pençied by the Division • Benci of this Court have been upheld b' the Supreme Court' 25 The decision in L al supra) determined fair rnrket value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,090I- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof 1 LAAPP784/2OO5&coflt Pagel4Ofl[9] • •: I r.... '•i:•.. H L • ¶,.;•. -....'::- ' ••.....:.•:...,..:...,:. •. '. twu Id how that the Court assessed the fair market value with I reference to sale deeds executed between the years 199Otill I the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Vtllage Mundka, apparertly on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale !t prie of agricultural land in the 2 adjoinirg villages would be indicatrje of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench I was corcerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another Al adjoinin'g Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under, Section 4 of te Land 1 Acquisition Act the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village:determiPed Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - S NO; Date Village Price per Big ha 1 24 071995 & Tikri Kalan, T[2], 15,160/- for B,Ick J[6] 11 1995, AI.& 1,73,500/-for Block B land

2. 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Blbck: hevra A & 1,90,156/- fot' Block B land I 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan 4 1 02,850/- for BIock:.. I.... A & 3,24,850/I for Block B. land 27 ollowin the jugmeritn Pra tav S/ncjh[5] ca se (supra) ( I have dGlded the fair market vlue for the land situated in re1enue estate of Village hevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6 2 2003 in the batcb of appeals being Land ( I I •.. •: • •. • • 4:•. S I I I I •. ••.• • i AçquIsItIqfl AppeI No 489/2009, Anr on 26 2011 I have determined te fair market value of I l. - r l in illage Ghevra at 4,O[3],425hPer bigha as of 6 2.[2] OO On the issue of comparabilitY of land n village BakkarWala with village Mudka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that j h e reasvillage BakkarWala does not aut NH-lU, as do the other villages, but it has td be highlighted that it is more t, I proximae to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-ViS Ghevra and Ttkri j lalan nd to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of asesing fair compensation[1] it is the broad probabilities and t Siflflhlaflt[5] which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be c equivlent, unless qua some land specil features can be shown. ' w 28 Since the decision in Pratap SinqhS case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I ' am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to dternifle the fair markët Ivalue of lands with which I m concerned in relation to the J., 4:markét value of lands determined in Praap 5ijçjii case (supa) rp As per he decision inEataP Sincth case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for CategorY A lands fair compensation assessed was,15,10I- per bigha and,1,73,500I- per bigha for Category B land Tie first notification with which I am concerned is 25 2 1q97 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquied The tie span sweeps 1 year and m 216 81daY[5] In Pratap5fflg/71S case (supra) the ann1@JnCreaSe was determIflec to be 10% per annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Category, A LAAPP78/2O05&c0nt: -., r I 2t s I tarids,tF.e fair market value ssessed is 2,49,408 75 per bigha e 1i97,162/- per acre and f o r. Category B lands, I assess the fair market value at 2,01,1'17/- per bigha i ai T[9],..65361 60 per::.: '•.:'

29 The next notification with which I am concerned is ! dated 21 3 2003 pertaining to Village Mudka In Chiranii cas (supra), with reference to the decision in tap Singh's case (supra),for agricultural lands in Village Gevra pertaining to a A notification issued nd under Section 4 of theLa Acquisition ct bn 6 2003, the fair market value assessed was 4,03,425I- per J i.,. Sincthere is a time gap of 1his as uniformly applied e igha w just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification datd 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in • Village Mundka should be T403,f125I- i e i 19,36,440I- per acre, which I hereby fix

30 I propose to deal with the notification dated 24 9 20p[3], after, dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in VilIge Mundka and Village Bakkarwala Chiranit LaIs case (supra), 31 As noted hereinabove, in prtaini1g to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market value assessdd by me was 4,03,425I- per bigha and thus, increasing the sane by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to i[4],98,589/- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 per cre S The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Vt}lage Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17 6 2005 I decree fthe same LAAPP784/2OO5&C0flt Page 17of 19 I •.4•, ( • - • 1 - •: 32 am left with the notification daed 24 9 2003 pertaining Ito Viilage Bakkarwala and with1referenCe to the fair, mrket value assessed in Chirani Lal's case, I would requiretO appreciate the price by 10% per annum, ior a period of 201 days, the figure comes to 4,25,641I- per biglia 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 frequire jto be dismissed ansi I hereby dismiss the same The appeals filed by the land owners nd the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under - I) For the land falling in Category A land in Village F I Mundka the fair arket value is fixed

(PRADEEP NANQRAJOG) JUDGE 08, i2011 mm APP784/2OO5&connected } - - -