Dayanand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants are also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarl placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters, to which counsel for the respondent/UOI has no objection. 4 4. Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of Jamna (supr, the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellants as granted to the appellants in the LA.APP.784/2005. However, it is clarified that the appellants shall not be entitledto claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 335 days in filing the appeal as LA.APP. 51812011 also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 14410/2011 preferred by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. HIMA KOHLI,J AUGUST 04, 2011 rkb a LA.APP. 51812011 Page[4] of[4] It d N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI l;i I % Da te of DcjIO. 8t JUlY, 2Q ± 1:AZft 78412005, I I Appeflant jA{V1NA Through Mr L B Ra!, Advc cate, Mr I S Dahya, Advocate Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr Sunil, Advocate K MrAnuj Bhandall, Advocate I Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate LZ ii. Versus I I nhII UOI & ORS Respondents Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Stanifl 1g Counsel (LA), GNCT Defti vith Ms Deepika, Mr 5ach1n a\4iani and Mr. Siddharth Panda Ado1ates Mr Ajay Vet ma, Ms Kanika Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Seth', Mr B B Sharma, Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA AN D: I + LAAPP 879/2005[1] LAAPP 88o-881/2Op[5] LAAPP i 21/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notif, cation u/s 4 dated 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village Mundka) AND iII);1II I II LA.APP. 583/2009,. LAAPP. 603/2009[1] LA.APP. 604/2009, LA APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010, LA APP 784/2005 & connected y I, • •..•• •.

71 V I I1t I 'i'i 1' 11IiI II p r, J' • • • • • j u II.I,II • • 1 LAAP 79JO1O, LAAPP 121/2010, LAPP 122/2010, LAAPP 125/2010, LAAPP 164/2O1O, LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LAAPP 238/2010, LAAPP 239/2010, LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 241/2010, LAAPP 245/2010, LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/20 10 LAAPP 252/2010[1] LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267V2p10, LAAPP 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 275fr410, LAAPP 312/2010, LAAPP 324I2O1p LA APP 3/Q1O, LAAPP 32712010, LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 33V41O 1 LAAPP 331/2010, LAAPP 33212010[1] LAAPP 333/2O1i jith CM APPL No 5524/011, LAAFP 335/2010, LAAFP 67/010, LAAPP 368/2010, LAAPP 36/291O, LAAPP 371/2010 & CM APPL No20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP 452/2010, LAAPP 46112010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No '6340/2011, LA APP 697/2010, 14 LAAPP 698/2010 & CM PPL 173/2011, LAAPP 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LA APP 707/2010, LA APP 708/2010 L4APP 709/2010 1 LA APP 10/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL' No 7473/2010, LAAPP 75/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010/ LA APP 766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 797f2010, LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LAAPP 829/2010 LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LAAPP 832/2010 LAAPP 833/20.10 & CM APPL 6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010 LAAPP 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LA APP 877/2010, LA APP 878/2010 LA APP 879/2010, LA APP 880/2010, LA APP 881/2010 & CM APPL650512011, LA APP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010 LAAPP 884/2010, LAAPP 86/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPI 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA APP 894/2010 & CM No23353/2010, LAAPP 895/2010, LAAP} 896/2010, LAAPP 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP LA APP 784/2005'& connected r 907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 939/201Q, LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LAAPP 1040/2010& CM IPPL 5673/2011, LA APP 1041/2010, LA APP 1043/2010[4], L.AAPP 1045/2010, LAAPP 1046/2010 LAAPP 1048/2010, LAAPP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050/2010, LAAPP 1056/2010;, if LAAPP 1060/2010 1 LAAPP 1061/2010, LAAPP 1071/2010, UA APP 12$/2011, LA APP 126/2011, LA APP 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Awar No.3/20.0506, VilIage; M.undka) •....• •.:.... I... AND 1 3 -I- LAAPP 600/2009[1] LAAPP 605/T09, LAAPP 615/2009, [.APP 310/2010, LA APP 325/2010, LA APP 376/2010, LA APP 383/2010, LAAPP 384/2010, LAAPP 385/2010, LAAPPI o 473/2010,.LA.APP.. 492/2010,: LA.APP. 586)2010, LAAPPL. 91/2010, LAAPP 638/2010, LAAPP 690/200, LAAPP[1] '. 692/20.iO,LLA..APP: 711/2010, LA.APP. 7.16/2.010, LAApP...:• 763/20k0, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/2010, LAAPP' 88/2010, LAAPIP 887/2010, LAAPP 891/2010, Pl. 892/2010, LA APP 898/2010, LA APP 906/2010 & CM APPL r,Jo4443/2010, LA'APP 937/2010 & CM APPL 4 23299/2010 AAPP, 1042/201b., LA.. APP. 1047/2010 (ReIating to Notiiction u/s.[4] dated 21.0.3.2003 & Award No 1/200506, ViHgeMundka)......... AND...

LA APP 1003/2010, LA APP 1017/2010, LA APP 1919/2010 A.APP. 1022/2010; LA.APP. 1.023/2010, LA.APP. 1044/20I • LA APP 1051/2010, LA APP 1053/2010[1] LA APP 1054/2010 S CM APPL No5656/011, LA APP 1055/2010, LAAPP 1 1057/2010, LA APP 1058/010, LA AP 059/2010, LA APP' 1068/2010, LAAPP 1069/2010, LAAPP 124/2011,LAAPP' 127/2011, LA APP 128/2011, LA APP 259/2011 1 LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 3o119 • • • •.. •j •.., 1,,. 4 7.•, •. • • • I • • •.... •.,..,••..1.[4] 'I (Relating tQ Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award 3- No 13/200607, Viilage-Mundka) AND • 1' LA APP 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA APP 426/2009 AAPP 428/2009, 442/2009, LA APP 611/2009, LA APPt 616/2009[1] LA APP 278/2010 Relting to Notification u/s 03 4 dated 24 09 20 Award No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala)

AND LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No 5948/2011, LAAPP 1030/2010: LA APP 1031/2010, LA APP 1033/2010 & CM FJo6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 103/2010 & CM FJo6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP 1066/2010, LAAPP 1067/2010,LAAPP 11/2011,LAAPP 122/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06 2005 & Award No 1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala) CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG[1]

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I (Oral)

1 I am deciding the above captioned appeals and rlatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objectons, all of which have been listed hereinabOve L APP 784/2005 & connected 4 4. -.............::• • r:. ••:..• ';',[4] '........,......: kL r ! ) 2 The present deosion concerns issue of fixation offafr market valueof land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwà ' and village Mundka 1 ( 3 The dates on which fair marketvalue ofthe land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under - S No Name of ViHage Date of notification under Section 4 of th LA Act

4 It may be highlighted that the notification at seial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarviala, is the S.. pursuant whereto lands were acquired in therevenue estate 1of Villa9e Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of Delhi to the si township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, T Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village BakkarwaJa lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka The difference between the topology of th two villages is, wheres the land of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, that of villag1e Bakkarwala does not so abut, being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of. Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by villag Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired age5o[9]....: •••.: •:• •--••-.....—. 1 '•. • -...;..,., I: • k. ( pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued unde[1] Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per. award No 2/1999/2000 gricuItural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were urther aqquired pursuant to a notifiction dated 21 3 2003 ssued urder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as pier award No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further 'ands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a.notifictio.n dated 17.6.2005 isued under Sectidn 4 of.the Lánd• Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village:1 Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notificatiop 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 he ame village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 4 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 Collectdr etermined the fair market value of the acquired I'ands, under all with reference to the mimum price for agriculturl the awards, ni iand as notified by the Governmet of NCT Delhi '40 For clarity I may rote that pertaining to th otification dated 25 2 1997 under wch agricultural lands i -...;. i L. the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with efrence to he minimum price? for ariciftural land notifie ith effect from 1 4 1997 @ 10 lcs pe'r acre and since the dat of Section 4 notification was anteri4or in point of time, discounte A.AP.784/2005& connected.. Page 6bf:19.; c 4 4. ' t:,. • •:... •.:•...,. • H? •......:.......... ••:.; !:• i. •,; •: •..:, i.,... Ii t.................: •........'" k;.. S •( •... • A the price for on year @ 11 5% per ar This price was ( adoed for category A lands For lands itegoy, t h e value Las further discounted by 9O,OOO/- per Pertaining to the otifications dated 2,1.3.2003 and $2003, the Land kAcquisition Collector relied upon the ification fixing the hiinimum price of agricultural land as of14 2001 and gave n benefit of enhancement with reference tithe fact that the fai tnarket value of the lands to be determine was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to th notification dated 17 6 2005 which required fair market v1ie of land to be determined in the revenue estate of vilIae Bakkarwala and iIlage Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Lan Aquiition Collector de'term the same with.refeence t,. minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi s of, 1 4 2001 and gave no increase Ti Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market vaIue of the lands by the Land Acquisition CoRector, the Iand o1wriers 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, th Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and * ehhacicedthéfairmarketvalue 12 In a nut shell, pertaining to the ntification dated 25 2 J997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the sam notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA APP 784/2005 & cohnected r I 1 - 'Governthent of NCT Delhi had fixedthe minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi e 1 4 1997 1 but as against the Land cquisition Cllector depressing the price @ 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by ce reto nly 34 days inasmuch as the date with referen whe Government had notified the minimum value ws 1 4 1997 and t h e notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25 2.1997. This was the value fixed for category A lands, a n d for category B lands, with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court ietermined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288I- pe'r, acre

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and iillage Bkkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference ourt 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 NC[1] Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mear average What the Reference Court did was tá adopt the value • s of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annurr determined the enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 as aIsc 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value iiotified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% pert Page8ofl[9] •.:. ' 1........... I I -...-..-....... I nnum deterined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as m also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrivec at were added and divided by, two to arrive at the man figure as of 21 3 2003, which I not e e comes to Z15,92,,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note th[7] urn arrived at is fl592,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the pnce determined was 20,41,000/- per acre

15 Pertaining hto the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwal and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted he minirium price for agricultural lands notified by té Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 42001 ard giving iperease c10% per annum determined te 'value and witIj respect tote lands In village Mundka, on account of Iocational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determine the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum o 21,37,017 75 per acre and f o r village Bakkrwala the pric determined was 20,35,255/- per acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scnario in which I have penned profiled the reasoniqg of the Land 4cquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court I delv ihtb the aruments advanced before me during hearing today

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/004 Jamna Vs UQI & Ors, it was urged by ShL B Rait linArnpri` iñci fr th nniInt ini N' 7RdI?flfl S,... I.......,.. 1 8nd 3 biwa of agicultural land in viIlage Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1q96 for a sl consideration of 4,75,000/- 38,000I- was inurred towards Sale duty and thus the price of the land would j. be 5,13,OOO/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price I per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel wold urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair t...........;.. mrket value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was ' 4,46,000/- fper bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument foward, it is ured 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 I Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant S wFiereto agricultural lands were acquired in village [lundka, by ahd 1,73,50QI- for category B land, 2 35,850 for category 14 land 'and 1,90,150/- for category B land, 41 02,850I- for category A land and 3,24,850I- for category B land, I respectively 18 14 may rote here tHt in various land acquisitions rferences, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds 4ecuted from time to time, but during arguments today before rre, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon[1] the sale deed Ex P-i I 19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for thej UOl would urge that the sale price as per.Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequat&' W, propo,rtion to the whole For example, learned counsel would uge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage of sones a• re mixed in a bag of rice it woUld notbe a sfe:méthod. t[9] pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice oie would lead to the conclusion that the bag js 100 0 6 full of rice 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 should he lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is the example given The second reason on wh4ich le'arned counsel would attack the s&e deed as not being (. r representative of the price is the reason that peopl do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before cquisitions are made, lnd in the area. is surveyd. Without a sirvey ft '. f the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would cnede that the reasons given by the learned Refernce Court re not pund 1 but would urge that the two conteons advanced by imsould be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex F-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market alue of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, 1arnei coLnsl would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4t referred to in the decision of the learned Feference court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 611997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOI would show the actual market value of the land and fthus learned gounsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected S therkein is less than the minimum price notified by the overnment, 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 undr Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

20 An independent and alternative argument is also advnced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests iesei on a idetision of a Division Bench of this 1 Court reported as 20o[6].(135) DLI 231 Ia! Singh Vs 1101 21 The decision nJSingh's case (supra) concerns itself,.. ••• •.--..---.- -.----. S ! •' k.;... • 1; i s Pepitions for SpeciI Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side hav been dtsmssed Leaned counsel fakes th argument forward by urging that by adoting the air, et s of 151,J 993 at ark value of, land in village Bakkarala a 1,32,OOO/- per bigha, the fair market value should b '.. 1 ' • •: •..: '•• ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per nnum, tq determine the market value of land in villag kkarwala as of 24 9 003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel ivould urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka hould be 1etermined as of 25 2 1997, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, by giving 4 5% increase With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, 'wheeunder 1 • Village thgha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold ii undka as of 5 8 199, it would assume Importance that th gale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued upder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25 1997 It is a matter of, common knowledge that preceding La 4 of the thepublication of a notification under Section n kcquisition Act, suçvey's are carried out witi the object d.e'termining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra umbers and fields re required to be notified for the propose to cquisition and when this happens peOple in the[4] area come 4; ••..••' V know that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands ivoulØ be acquired In Delhi, the 1,arge scale acutsition po1ic enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lnds ar 4 * I L • '...........::.:. ••::.,.;• ac6uired a n d thus 1 it is not uncommon, for persflS to purchase snaII parceIs of lands in areas where acqUisftloflS are likely, to I 1 ' take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to be a representative measure of te fair market value of i lapd as on the date of the sale Further, t h e principles of ratio arjd proporion as also the principles of averages and the p5ncip1es of, sampling tell me that to be representative of the I whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the I whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I h9ld that Ex P 1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market vMue of the jand could be determined There is an additional t rason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex Rito 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-i In fact, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in beihi notified by, tte Government Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be ruired to be fixed either with reference to the decision of Ahis qourt injL1L24tLcSe ( supra) or Pratap Sincjh'S case (supra)

25. The decision in La' SingcaSe (supra) determined ir market value of land in Village BakkarWala in sum o fa f 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof 1 LApp784/2OO5&connected Page l4of 19 I: I. ouId shpw that the Court asessed the fair marketvlue with reference to sale deds executed between the years 1990 tiil the year 1996 either in VilFage Tikri Kafan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise tht being contigtjous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages wpuld be iidicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Singh's,case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another djointng Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various[1] rotificatiors issued under. Section 4 of the Land Acquistion Act etermined the fair market value of agricultural lands in ViIlage Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - • SNO Tbate Village Price per Bigha 1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for. Block 16 1 L 1995 A & 1,73,500/- for, Block Bland 2 11 0,[6] 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A Z 1,90,156/- for Block B land