Smt Bala v. Union of India & Ors.

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant vvhereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minirnum price. for agricultural lands hotified. by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4i2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with •. • respéct to the lands Jn village Mundka, on accont 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,O17 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price •. V •deterrnined was 20,35,25.5i per acre... V 16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasonin • jof the Land Acqisition.Ccll:e.ctdras also that.of the Refere1eIourt, ft.. I delve into the arguments advanced before me duringering today.

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs UQI & Ors, it was urged by Sh LB Rai, learned counel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005 which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeated for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P[4] wherunder 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected • V... • •:.. ••'.....: nd 3 biswa of agncultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- 38,000/- was ii~ curred towaids sale duty and thus the price of the land woud be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,060/- 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 Lhat with reference to the said price, fair market \/alue needs to be determined as of 25.[2] 1993, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notictions under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were isud pursuant

V. •:..•.;,.whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village iviundka,by.; increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% pr annum at feast 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 Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages and in fact village Tikri Klan is further tovvards the township of Rôhtak, soe increase be made in the value of the lançl in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with refrence toi the udgrnent and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batcti of and Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal NoJ93/2006 Pratap S/ngih (Deceased) Th[1] LRs. Vs. 110/ as per which fair market value of land per bigha, was deteimined 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 of the Land Acuisition Act Learned counsel would concede titiat the eason given by the learned Reference Coprt are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions a dManced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons s to why Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine thd fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwaa Thirdly, learned co 'unsek.woulld further urge that the ou deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decisionpf the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deed dated 6.1.1995, 30 5 1997, L 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOI would showthe;actüal'market-välu.eofthE land andtbus learned.: counsel wbuld urge that the said four sale hould be considered, but hastens to add, that since va!i reflected therein Js less i than the minimum price notifiØ by the • I:. -... Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government which is rearest to the point of tim when the respective notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

20 An independent and alternative argumiis also advanced by learned counsel for the Union T h e'me rests acquir and thus, it Is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small prcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to as take place, thsetraflsactiOflS are speculative and cannot be takn tQ 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 averges and the principles of sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proo l tiOfl to the vvhole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hithero-fore noted, I hold that Ex cannot be good evidence w,herefrom market • value of the land could be determined There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed Th 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 Governhflt.'

23 Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be:'required to be:fixed éithr with reference to' the decision of this,.ourtinLn'h'Scas(5uPra)'0r PratapS!pg,case(5UPra).

24 I highlight that b o t h decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court ha\/e been upheld by the Supreme Court 25' The decision in JStngh's case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bak w karala in sum of 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof LA APP 78/2OO[5] & connected • ',. •,••• •. •'. •, •'• •- ', would 5how that the Court assessed the fair n rkt value with refer9nce to sale deeds executed betv en the[1] yais 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan br, 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 mai ket value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap SinQh's cage (supra), the Division Bench was cocerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village nrned Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act:dete.rmined the.fIr market value of agricultural iands'in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - S NO Date Village Price per Bigha 1 24 07' 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 11 1995 A.. Z[1],73,500/- for Block B land L.2.. 1106J96:. Tikri Kafan... & 2,3,815/ for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for 3 7 12 2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block A & 3,24,850/- for

27 Following the judgment in Pratap Singi's.'... case (supra).-........ I have decided the fair market value for the L n, situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acc uied pursuant to notification dated 6 2 2003 in the batch of appeals being Land • •.... -. I II 23,93 227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 200 For tke and situated in ViHage Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,25,64I/- per bigha I e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 203..•,......i H Appelants and cross-objectors w h o.Aae succeeded would also be entitled to solatiurn and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs 110/ for the compensation, paid originally, and as enhanced by the Reference Couit and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree The appellants and crossobjectors who succeed vvculd also be entitled to proportionate costs All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein S

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)

JUDGE JIJLY 08, 2011 mm LA APP 784/2005 & conected