Om Dutt & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

10 For clarity 1, may note that petaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 under whici agricultural lands in the revnye 9sfate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land AèquisitIon Collector determined the fair market valu with 'reference to the minimum price for agricultural land nottfied with efl4ect from 1 4 1997 @ U0 lacs per acre ad since the date of Section 4 notification was[7] anterior in point of time, disconted 'LAAPP784/2005&connected Page6ofl[9]...............................: I the price fOr oneyear @ 11 5% per an Tt price wat adopted for category A lands For lands in aategory Bt, the value I 1 was further discountedby 90,000/- per acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the Land Acqusiion Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001 and gave no benefitof enhancement with reference othe fact that the fair marketvalue 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 determned in the, revenue estateof village Bakkarwala andy ivillage Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing mininiuhi value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 and gave no increase

11 Agrieved by the determination of the fair make value of the lands by the Lard Acquisition Collector the landf soight a reference under Section 18 of the Lar4d Acquisition ict 1894 and on the reference being made, vide various jtdginents and decrees, which ar under cbalJeng in, the abovel captioned appels, the Referere ourt took corrective açn, as per the view of the Reference Court, andy,: •..:.. •H, • •.......,, cI t; t Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimiyTl yalue afqr agricultural lands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997, but as agaist the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% for fulI'one t year, d.opting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by t only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference wheretb ' Goverdment 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 ctegory A lands and for, category B lands, with reference td the values for category A Jnd depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre

13 Thus, for, category A lands the Peference Court m or deterined the fair market value © 9,39,288/- per acre and f ca,tegory B, land the sme was determined @ 8,99,288/- per, • •.................... acre 14... etaining, to the nOtifiatibns dated 21.3.2003 nd •. ••. •..•,, 1 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village'Bakkarwala respectively, were acquired, the Reference Court [ook 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 dae and the miniplum price notified by. the Government of NCT Delhi,:the Reference Court adopted the principle of nieah 'average What the Reference Court did was toadopt the value as of 1 42001 and increasing the same by fO% per annum determined the enhancedprice as of 21 3 2003 as also 249 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value •'•.. •. • •, r ••.,• notified aS of 30 82005 and depressing the same by 10%per ILA APP 784/2005 & connected, '.1... •'...•. I I anti bwa.pf agrcUIturt land in viflage undka was sodas of 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75OOO/- 38,000I- ws iicurred towards sale duty and thus the pice of the land wOt.Id be 3,13,OOO/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,OOO/- as of 5 8 1996 Learned c'ounsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair, rnarket' ial:ue of agricultural lands in village Mundka was t[4], 4'6,Q00I- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Ta k ib,gl t h e argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the aid price, fair rarket value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993 1 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifications under Sectiori of the La4nd Acquisition Act were issued pursuant Al vhereto agricultural lnds were acquired, ir 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 vI llagek Bakkarwala Alternatively, 1t was urged that since villages Tikri Kalart, Mundka and Bakkarwala re contiguous villages, an[1] in tact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the • t township' of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the 'fl lnd in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment, and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of L:rd Acquisition Apeals, lead matter, being LA Appeal No 1932006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr LR[5] Vs UO/ as per which fair market value of la?d[4] per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of viflage Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 199 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land 4 4 LA APP 784/2005 & con'nected lind 1,73,5OO/- for category B Iand, 2,35,850 for category A ' land and 71,9Q,150/ for category B land, 4,O[2],85OI- for & ategofy A land and 3,24,85O/- for category B land, espectively. I,

18 I may note here that in various land acquisition eferencs, various parties have proved a number of, gale deeds xecute from timeito time, but during arguments today before learned counsel for the land owners have only relied uon the saledeed x P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay poddar learned counsel for the 4 55 6 er Ex P-i cannot be JOl wobld urge that the ale price as p dopted1as' the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative

4. ampl of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate W 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 p i c k o nly o ri-el grai, for if it happens to be the grain of'ricei one would lead to theconclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice nd if that one g'rain happens to be a piece of stOne, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a fistful be lifted and then checked as a representative 4 should..... sample, is the example given The second reason on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come to Ithow about pending a'cquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions re mc1e, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey, it would be difficult to iJssue,, even the notification under Sectin 4 LAAPP784/2OO5&ccnnected Pagellofl[9] I, 4 $ I 4 ' 5,.. 4•••. 4 4 r F J r - 4:.....:•...... '..,...... ( I;; •': •••.: •. •,,'. k • •: • •.......,.:. a• • • -...:. I fthe LandAcqLustIon Act Learneç counsel would concece 'that the reasons giver by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge the two contentions advanced 'by- !thät him should, be considered bythis Court as the reasons as to whY. ExP-1 be not taken as thebasis to determine the fair market value of lands invillage Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned would further urge that the four sale deeds 4 counsel Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Feference CQurti pertaining to sle deeds dated 6 1 1995,:M[5].1997,e 46 1997 and 8.9..1997 relied upon by UOI would 1actul shw Ahe, market yalue of th land and thus learned coynsel would uge that the said four sal'e deeds should be considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected • threin !i les than th minimum price notified by the oternne, th epSrice fixation should be with reference to the mirimum price notified by, he Governmen[4] which i nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 2,Q:1 An., independent and alternative argument is also i j adanced bylearned counsel for the Union The same rests _itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as S I 2006 (135) D121 231 Ia' Singh Vs UQI 21 The decision in La! Sin gh's case (sura) concerns itself • witi the deteritnination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkrwala wfiich t wee acquired pursuant to a 1 notification t datd 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned[1] counsel old urge) that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch t I... k..... I:.•.. •.. 4 1 I I I I -'-. ------ [ 1 3 as Petitions forSpeciaI Leave to App eal filed before the Suprem... ¼. • •...,,... Cort by, rter sid have been dismissed Learned counsel takes the 'gument i!rward by urging that by adopting the farn market vae of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at........,.....: 1,32,OOOf[4] per bigha, the fair. maret value shoul be ascertaine by,incrasing the price progressively by 10% pert annum tà' determine the market value of land in viIag Bakkarwal as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6.2005. Learned couns& would urge that in iew, of the locatioal 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 repect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1.bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 1996, itwould assume importance that the sale is about 7 nonths prior to the date of the notification isue under ection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25 2 197 It is a 'matter of common knowledge that precedin the publication of,al, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitioh Act, survey's are carried out with the objct of deteminin as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are recjired to be notified for the proposed acq,uisiti,on ' and when this happens oeople in the area come to S...... W know that very soon there is every liKelihood that the Ia,nds would be acquired in Delhi the large scale acquisition policy enjoihs upon the Government to ailot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA APP 78,4/2005 & ccrnected I N. • •.,..... J.: • '',..: ',.,,,,....:•. •.. 'F a icquiredand thus, it is ot 'urcommOfl, fort persons to purchase c srnaII prceIsof lands i1' aeas where acquisitions are likely o take place, thes transactions are speculative nd cannot be tken o be a representative measure of the fair market value bf land as on the date of the sale Further, the principles of rio nd proportion as also the principles of averages and the princip rn.leof saptingtell me. that,o e represfltatiVe ofthe' hole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the hole Thus, not for te reasoning advanced by the learnd Reference Court,but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore note d, I hold that Ex P 1 cannot be good evidence wherefrommarketr • value of; the land could be determin'ed There is an additioial. easonrot 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 9L997 are alsopertaifliflg to Village Mundka a n d reflect a sale rice nuch lo\Ner than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fart, the t ale rice in the said 4 sale deeds averages inuch Ies tI]an ven th minimum price for agricultural and in Delhi noti4ied'by the Government / Thus, the fair market value of the tands would be 21. •reuired d be fied' dither with. refrece to the dcision of.this Fourt inL h'scase (supra) or pp[5],ngh'scase(SUpra)

25 The decision in fai Singh's case (supra) determfled Jair mrket value of land in Vill)ge Bakkarwala in sum of p[1],32,090!- per bigha as of 1510 1993, and the perusal therof LA APP 784/20ó[5] & connected Page 14 of •... •.,,,' '• •,.•.• ' '1 4 ' •..• '•, ' '• • • 4.• • •• •". I ' • •', • •,' 4,.',. • • •,' •. • '. •.: ':' '. •, 4 • •'• 1.,,,• '' 4, ', • 11 ' ". '' ''. '' • •4 • •.,:, 4 " • ' 4 HHH show that the Court assessed the fair market v8lue[4] ith referençe to sa deeds executed between the years 1990 till the\yearJ996 either in Village Tikri Kaln or Village Muncka kapprently, on the premise that being contiguous villagers,ale •.....' •. 1 rice of agricultural land in the 2,adjoining villages woulJ be indicatiye of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Sincjh's case (supra), the Division Bench 4 wascorcerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another •...•... S. I adjoiqing Village na4med Ghevra and pertaining to various potifications issued under Section 4 of Ihe Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village tTikri Kalanand Ghevra as under:- •..., •:... tS NO Dat Village Price per Bigha 1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block

4. A & 1,73,500/-;for •• •;. Block B land S.,... • •' 2 1]' 1996 - Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for. Block Ghevra A & 1,90,15€/- for

54. I Ihav decided the fair market value for 4 the land situated! in evenue estate of Village 4Ghevra, which was acquired puru84nt to notification dated 6 2 2003 in the batch of appeals being La"nd AAPP784/2905&con4cted / PagelSofl[9] •: 5'•' 4....,...[4] / I I •::.•t • ••:.: •. ••'i..:;....:; I t ' i.•} kL... J•:. '•. L• •: ••...' •••. ' ¶, c A4SIIOtfl AeaI No 489/ 2OO, ia o 2 6 2l i have determined the fair market value of the nds in ViHag Ghevra at 4,O[3],425I- per bigha as of 6 2 2003 On the issue f comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWaLa wiçh..' '! •..-. viilàge Mund[1], Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas viIte BakkarWala does not abut NH-lU, as do the { dther yiIIage, but it has to be highlighted that it is more rximte to the urban areas of Delhi vi5- -ViS Gbevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage ince exactness can never be achieved in the matters of ssessiflg fair campepsation[1] it is the broad probabilitieS and imilarttieS whict matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be V equivalnt[1] unless qua some land special feature can be shoVn Since the decision ifl @Qi!22LL case (supa) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notfidat,orIwithwam concrhed, lam ofh opiniQflthat' it woilck be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market valueof lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined Ifl tQ hscaSe (supa) As per the decision inj?ratP 5ipg[7] case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair, compensation assessed was:2,15,160 per bigha and 1,73,500I- per bigha for Categ B land Th first notification with which I am concernect is 25 2 l99Twhereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired, The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 avs;e 5da ln Pratap Singi case (supra) the anpua/ increase was determined to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to CategoY A LA APP784/2OO[5] & connected H..... • •.; • I E 1 --k: lands, thefa[4] market value assessed is[2],49,4Q.[8] 75 pe4r bigha re fll,97,9?/- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess he fair market vlue at 2,01,117/ per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre

29 The next ilotification with which I am concerned is f ( dà1ted21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chiranhi LI's cas (supr), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh'saSe - FL -. i-- • (supra), for agricultura,lJaflcis in viiiage Li.1evFd,pILciIIII!'yLl u l otification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 6.[2] 2003, thth fair market value 'assessed was 4,03,425/- per bigha This was unifomly applied Since there is a time g of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion tht pertainin to he notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market v'alue of land in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i e 19,36,440I- per acre,:wich I hereby fix !3q I propos& to deal with the notification daed 24 9 2063, after dealing 1 with the notification datd 17 62005 H pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mtjndkaand Village Bakkarwala:31 As noted hereinabove, ii) Chjranii Lajcase (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market va)ue assesed by me was 4,03,425/- per bigha and thus, increaIng the same by 10% for[2] years and 13]. days, the figure comes to 4,98,59I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 per ère The same is held by me to pe the fair market value of lançl in Village Mundka and Village Bakarwala as of 17 6 2005 I decree -- - - I:,; •: '. •L: "•:..,,.,: k I c I am left with the notifiatiofl dated 24 9 2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to th lair market value assessd in ChiraniI Lal's case, I would require to pprecite the price by 10% per annum fora period of 201 days,'. 1•; • the figure...,. comes to 4,25,641!- per bigha i e 20,43,076 8q per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in VilIage Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003. 33, Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India ' euire to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same The, ppeals filed by the land owners and the crossobjectiOflS 1fi4led by the land owners stands decreed as under — For the land falling in Category A land in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at is 11, 97,/- per ac(e and 2,49,408 75 per bigha i e 162 s xedat ) for Category B lands, the fair market value i fi 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre,) as on2502 1997 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425/- per bigha 'i e 19,36,440I- peracre, as on 1 03 2003 I For the land situated in Village Mundka the,fair market value is fixed at Z[4],98,589I- per bigha i e 23,93,227 20 p e r' acre, as on 17 06 2005 iv) For the land situated in Village Ba,karwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i e LA'APP78Lt/2OO5&coflflected Page 18of 191 I 1 I I • f. /••. i.. • I* !...: •. •: • ••.....,.. 23,93 1 227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 I v); p, For the land situated in Village Bakkrwa1a th fair I mrket value is fixed at 4,25,641/- per bgha i / 20,43,076 80 per acre, as or 24 09 2003 Appellants and Sross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitleq to solatium a n d intert a s, per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs (JO!, for the compensation, paid oriinaHy and as enhanced b' the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the Oresent judgment and decre The appellants and cross-objectors 'vho succeI would also be entitled to proporLionate costs vtii) All pending applications stand disposed of intermsof theprayers made therein

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE 08,,JULY 2011 nm.. Wi tA APP 784/OO[5] & connected. 5 it