Ram Rishi (Deceased) Thru. LRs v. UOI & Ors.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? (Oral) agricultural lands comprised in the Bqprola. Acq uisition commenced dated L[2].8.1997 issded under Acquisition Act.

2. As per Acquisition Collector A and Block B. He iands at T[2],08,383/pbr bigha.

3. Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and for reasons which are not very commendable, the learned Reference Court decided the references by passing orders on different dates. 4( The orders by which references have been decided are dated 25.8.2006, 28.8.2006, 29.8.2006, 30.8.2006, 31,8.2006, 19,9.2006, 22.9.2006, 29.9.2006 and 30.10.2006.

5. I would note that all orders have been passed by the same Judge..lt is apparent that the learned Judge deciding the references was more concerned with the units which he would earn

6. The problem which he has created'for the Appellate Court is that evidence is scattered in various references and different pieces of evidence has been considered in different orders, and further wilh respect to the same evidence, LA.App.No.l312007

1. Above captioned aPPeals pertain revenue pursuant Section to acquisition of estate of village to a notification 4 of the Land awa rd No.5/DCW/2000-01, the La nd categorized the acquired lands into Block determined fair market value of Block A per bigha and Block B lands at t[1],77,083/- Ja!. t',"1 t! kt i{ t..( 't a,i.f, '; 1l t- JI t[1]:, "t rl le ti i;l J I I + _rl rl I.t,I il il, d;l Page 2 of[8] different reasoning are to be found in different orders' lt has on|ymadethejourneyofthisCourta|itt|e|onger. T.TheReferenceCourthasenhancedthe compensation to t[2],17,3741- per bigha for Block A land and T[1],86,123.38perbighaforBlockBland'Aperusalofthe' various decisions would show, and indeed learned counsel fo'r the parties so concede, th.e learned Trial Judge was seized with 3 sa|e deeds dated 5,12.1996, 5.8.1996 and 1.9.5.1987, exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1, Ex.PW-L/2 and Ex'PW-L/3 in LAC No.I/812004. Exhibit marks in other references would be different. The learned Reference Court also discussed an agreement to sell dated 17.8.1996, Ex.PW-1/4 in LAc No.178/2004. g. Thus, for purposes of the instant decision reference is being made to the evidence led in LAC No'L78l2004' lt may be highlighted that the land owners, in different references Werere|yinguporieitherora||theabove4exhibits.

9. Ex.PW-1/].pertainstolbighaand3biswaof|and sold in the revenue estate of village Nilothi' Ex'PW-Llz pertains to L bigha land sold in village Mundka and Ex'PW-1/3 pertains to 1 bigha land sold in village Najafgarh.:lo.t The reasoning of the learned Reference court in various ordels, refusing to place rdiiance upon the said sale deeds, is that the contiguity of the 3 villages with village Baprola would be no ground to treat the pricg of the land in the said sale deeds as reflected of the market value of land in village Baprola for the reason if the principle of contiguity is to be applied, entire Delhi would become one unit' d(. t: I F! \v I I; I 'I ] I l:.i I: Page 3 of[8] t LT, K Different reasons have been given by the learned Reference Court not to rely upon the agreement to sell, Ex.PW- 1/1 whereunder for the date 17.8.1996, 12 bigha and 10 biswa of land in village Baprola was agreed to be sold for {24 lacs per acre. L[2]. The reasoning of the learned cumulatively read; wit"h reference to hues various impugned orders is:- I Reference Court, of the view in the,d 'l t a t '|,,; G" t.ta, \t.l I I l I t I

(i) The stated part sale consideration in was paid in cash transaction and there was no source of income. sum of T[6] lacs I I l- \9, I I

(ii) The buyer did not enforce the agreement to sell'and the parties settled for the amount to be refunded in sum of T[8].[5] lacs in cash. (iii ) The purchaser was d student at the time of the evidence of his having any

(iv) No steps were taken to obtain no objection certificates from the income tax or the revenue authorities.

13. Cumulative effect aforesaid of the 4 circumstances would be, as per the differe.nt 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 in village Baprola. Ll. While enhancing the compensation, the learned Reference Court has adopted the pri.cg noted by the Government, being the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi and depressing the same for category B land and without depressing the same for Category A land, enhanced the LA.App.No.l3/2007 Page 4 of[8] & compensation by giving price rise @ 12% p.a. on the minimum price as notified.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that " a perusal of the map of the city of Delhi would reveal that as we proceed from the city of Delhi towards the township of no(tat along NH-10, village Mundka is crossed; the tands of village Mundka abut NH-10. The map of Delhi would further show that Najafgarh road, leading to Delhi from Dhansa hits NH-10 near Daya Basti. To put it differently, as NH-10 crosses. Daya Basti, Najafgarh road branches out; the point forming a tt t, In between Najafgarh road and NH-10, the space.between the 'V' has various villages. The village of Nilothi, Baprola, Mundka and Bakarwala are located in the said space. Standing on Najafgarh road and lo.oking straight towards the " North, w€ find that first in the line is village Baprola fottowed bV jhe lands of village Bakarwala and then the land of village Mundka. In other words; whereas lands of village Baprola would be near Najafgarh road, proceeding along a straight line ' in the Northern direction would be agricultural land of village Bakarwala and finally the land in village Mundka and these lands would abut NH-10. L[7]. In other words the locational advantage of lands in village Mundka would be that they abut NH-L0. The locational advantage of the lands in village Baprola would be that though not exactly abutting Najafgarh road, they are extremely, Froximate to Najafgarh road. Being towards Najafgarh road, lands in village Baprla are near the urbanized part of Delhi,

16. / LA.App.No.I3/2007 fl al { \i I a Page 5 of[8] l0 and I note that the residential colony of Vikas Puri abuts the agricultural lands of village Baprola. Thus, the reasoning of the learned Reference court 18. I la,, l| a. !l," *t l|r I ! I (: +' F. l. I.t,i pertaining to not relying upon the sale deeds of villages Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarh does not appegr to be sound for the reason the learned Reference court has not considered 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.

19. However, it may be noted that small parcels admeasuring 1 bigha and 3 biswa, 1 bigha and L biswa respectively, were sold under the sale 'deeds Ex.PW-1/1' Ex.PW-1 12 and Ex.PW-1/3. The principles of a sampling would guide the Court that to be a representative of the whole, a sample must bear a reasonable 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 Court, but for my reasoning hereinbefore noted, I holothat it would be unsafe to determine the market value of agricultura,l lands in village Baprola with reference to the said 3 sale deeds. 2L. As regards the agreement 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 extracted hereinabove, I hold that it would be most unsafe to rely upon Ex.PW-1/4 to determine the fair market value of lands in village Baprola.,' |,, rl t \J Page 6 of[8]