Roshan Lal v. UOI & Ors.

2. To be referred to RePorter or not? LA.App.No.1312007..t I i: I '.i "': Page 1 ol[8] tl

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

1. Above captioned appeals pertain to acquisition of, agricultural lands comprised in the revenue estate of village Baprola. Acquisition conrmenced pursuant to a notification dated 72.B.lggl issuecl under Section 4 of the Larrd Acquisition Act. award No,5/DCW/2000.01, the L.alnci,: categorized the acquired lands into Bldck determined fair marlcet value of Blocl< /', per bigha ancl Block B lands at T[1],77,A831- 2, As per Acquisition Collector A and Block B. He lands at T[2],08,383/per bigha. 3.. Land owners sought reference uncler the Land Acquisition Act and for reasons which commendable, the learned Reference Court LA.{.pp.No'.r[3],2007 references by passing orders cjn different dates. '4. The orders by which references have been decide.d are dated 25.8.2006, ?-8.8.2006, 29.8.2006, 30.8.2006, 31.8.2006, +9.9.2006, 21,.9.2006, 29,9.2006 and 30.10'2006'

5. I would note that all orders have been pasied by the same Judge. lt is apparent that the lbarned Judge ddciding the references WaS more concerned with the units which he' would earn

6. The problem wh.ich he has created for the Appellate Court is that evidence is scattered in various references anc$ different pieces of.evidence has been co.nsid.ered'in different orders, and further with respect to the ia.me evidence; Section 18'of are not very decided.the PageZ of E:itl ii, 1.. j';i.,;. ':'i.,.N..t, 1il,.:| ll rl ri ' t.:,i i: / ri, ' fl 'r.i 0ii rli{l}' t'rl if;., 't;;,;i..::,.d lL different reasoning are to be found in different ordeis. lt has only made the journey of this Cor_rrt a litile longer.

7. The Reference Court has enhancecl the compensation to T[2],77,3741- per bigha for Block A lancl a.ncl {1,86,123.38 per bigha 'for Block B land. A perusal of the var'ious decisions would show, and indeed learneil.counsel foi the parties so concede, the learned TrialJudge was seizecl wigr, 3 sale deeds dated 5.12.1996,5.8.1996 ancl 19.5.1987, exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1, Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.pW-1/3 ln LAC No.178/2004' Exhibit marks i,n other references wourjcl lret different. The learned Reference court also discussed an agreement to sell dated 17.B.1996, Ex.PW-L14 in LAC No.178l2OO[4]

9. Ex.PW-1/1 pertains to 1 bigha and 3 biswa of lancl sold in the revenue estate of village Nilothi. Ex. pW-ttZ,pertains to l bigha land sold in village Mundka and Ex.P\^/-1./3 pertains to 1 bigha land sold in village Najafgarh. 10.. The reasoning of the learned Reference Coirri in '. various orders, refusing to place reliance upon the said, sale. deeds, is that the contiguity' of the 3 villages with village Baprola wo.uld be no ground to treat the price of the'land in' the said sale deeds as reflected of the market value of lancl in village Baprola for the.reason if the principle of contiguity is to ' be applied, entire Delhi wciuld become one unit LA.App.No.13/2007 Page 3 ofB 'i: /\) r_! 11, Different reasons have been given by'the learneci ReferenceCourtnottore|yupontheagreementto"se|l,Ex.PW- UlwhereunderforthedateLT,B.lgg[6],l2bighaandl0biswa of|andinvillageBapro|aWasagreedtobeso|c|fort24lacs per aCre

12. The reasoning of thb cumulatively re;a-d; with reference various imPugned orders is:learhed Reference CourL,; to htres of. the view in the sum of t[6] lacs The stated part sale consideration in was'paid in cash.

(ii) The buyer did irot enforce the agreement to.sell and, the parties settled for thelamount to be refunded in sUm otj" {8.[5] lacs in cash, (iii)ThepurchaserWasastudentatthe.timeoftheI transaction and there was no evidence of his having any. source of income. 1iv) No,step[5] were taken to obtain no 'objection certificates from the income tax or the revenue authorities'

13. Cumu.lativeeffectaforesaidofthe4circumstances' would be, as per the diffbrent process of reasoning adopted' that the transaction is shrouded with suspicion and thus would not be a safe guiding index to determine the fair market value of land irr village BaProla !4, While enhancing the compensation' the learned Re.Ference Court has adopted the pricd noted by tlre Government, being the minimum price for agiicultural land in DelhianddepressingtheSameforcategory.Bland.andwithoutt depressingthe'SameforCategoryA'Iand,.enhanced.the LAApp.No '1312007 Page b of I I lr / tompensation by giving price rise @ i*2% p'a' on the minimu LA.APP.No '1312007 m,{ price as notified'

15. Learned'counsel for the appellants would ur99 that aperLlsalofthemapoftlrecityofDelhiwouldrevea|thatas WeproceedfromtheCityofDelhitowardsthetownship.of Rohtakalong.'NH-lO,villagelvlundkaiscrossed;-thelandsof. 'village Mundka abut NH'-10' The map of Delhi would fufther ' showthatNajafgarhroad'leading'toDelhifromDhansahits NH-l0nearDayaBasti.Toputitdifferently,asNH.l0croSSeS.DayaBasti,Najafgarhroadbranchesout;thepointforminga,V"

16. ln between Najafgarh road and NH-10' the sp'ace between tlre 'V' has various villages' The village of Nilothi' BaproIa,MundkaandBakarwalaarelocatedinthesaidspace. StandingonNajafgarhroadandlooking5traighttowardsthe North, w€ find,n.i first in the line is village Baprola followed bythelandsofvitlageBakarwalaandthenthe|andofvi|lage. Mundka. tn other words; wtrereas ':,:it of village Baprola woutd be near Najafgarh road, proceeding along atstraight line intheNorthern.directionwouldbeagricultural.Iandofvil|age Bat<arwalaandfinallythela'ndin.villageMundkaandthese lands would abut NH-10: L[7]..ln'otherwordsthelocationaladvantageof|andsin villageMundkawou|dbethattheyabutNH-10.TheIocationaI advantageofthelandsinvi||ageBapro|awou|d.bethattlibr"tgh notexact|yabuttingNajafgarhroad,,theyu'gextrenrely proximitetoNajafgarhroad.Being'towardsNajafgar.hroad, |andsinvillageBapr|aarenear.tl-reurbanizedparlofDelhi, g I I $$l / It{.tlf 1.t i'i t. I" elk;.,D i' I 1l rl l. l Ilk'r rS[ l.l.ti i: r!, i Page 5 of[8].:rril., ', f pertaining to not relying upon the sale deeds of villages Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarh does not appeEr to be so,-rnd ior the reason tlre learned Reference Court has not con,giclerecJ the topology.of the area in its totality and has failed to appreciate that villages Baprola, Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarh are between the 'V' constituted by NH-10 and Najafgarh road However, it may be noted that small parcels admeasuring l bigha and 3 biswa, l bigha and l bisinia ', | |, respectively, were sold uncler the sale deeds Ex.PW-1/1, Ex.PW-1/2,and Ex.PW-1/3. The principles df a sampling would guide the.Court that to be a representative. of the whole, a sample must bear a reaionable proximation to the whole and if the sample is too meager, it would be a sample. improperly so called.and not a sample properly so called.

20. Thus, not for. the reasoning of the learned' Reference CourL, but for my reasoning hereinbefore noted, I hold that it would be unsafe to determine. the marlcet value of agricultural lands in village Baprola with refefence to the said 3 sale deeds. 2t, As regards the agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/4, I. accord my concurrence with the reasoning of the "learned / Reference Court; it is sound and logical. For the 4 features pertaining to the said agreement to sell, aS ' extractedl hereinabove, I hold that it would'be most unsafe to rely upon Ex.PW-U[4] to determine the faiilmarket value of lancls in village Baprola LA.App.No.13/2001 Page 6 of[8],/ and I note that the residential colony qf Vikas. Puri abuts the agricultural lands of village Baprola:[hus, the reasoning of the learned Reference CourL 18, 19.,t 't,.,' $l,Mt '::i:" i I;;.i.n t. t.T,ul[ tl:' '. l' i !' i l' it i

22. Land 'j - LA.APP.No.1312007;. ln mv d'ecision dated 8.7.2011, Anneals lead ACq U lsltlOn ^1, ysu tJ, t,/ IY \/.l., deciding a batch of matter being' Page 7 ofE / ' LA.App.No.784/2.005 lamna vs.. Uo/ & ors,, pertaining to a notification datecl 25.2.1997, fair market value of category.A' lands in village Mundl<a was deternrined at T11,97,L6210 per acre and foi category B lancls the same wa's determined at {9,65,3q[1].60 Per aSre 23, t 'have already helcl hereinabove that t[e topolsgY, of the area would entitle equivalence of agricurltural lands in village. Mundka with village Bakarwala as also 'the insta,nt village, BaProla. 24. since categorization of the lands has not been. questioned, thr-rs I hold that for the acquired lands irr village Baprola, pertaining to thg notification dated L[2].B'!997, fair / market value. of land could safely be assessed with reference to the, decision in lamna's case (supra) and by granting 107o increase in the value of the land, commencing 25'2'1997 ' being the notification with which I was concerned. in /ag-tna's caSe(supra),instantnotifi.cationbeirrg\2,8.'1997,,tlre increased fair market value of land pertgining to category A Iands is (12,52,264.30 per acre and for category B lands the same is t10,61,899.50 Per acre.