Geetesh Malahotra v. Union of India

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed toseethejudgment[7] 5

2 To be referrd to Reporter or. not?

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?., the priceforne tr @ 11 5% perannum This price Was adopted for cegoy A lands For lands in categ&ry B, the value was further diounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertaining to the notifications Jated 21 3 2003 and 241.9.2003, thel Land Acquisition Gqllector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural Ianq as of 1 4 2001 and gave no bnefft of,tr ft ihF Fh.fir _......................... LIJt1L LI¼IAIJ market v,alue of the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 2Ô03 and 24 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 which rquired fair rrarket Valuel of land to be determined in the reveflue estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the LandAcquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing miniñium value of agicultural lands in Delhi as of 1,.4. 2001 and gave no increase

11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the laQds by the Land Acquisition Colletor, the lahd owners soughta reference under, Section 18 of the Land AcquisEtion. Act.'894 and.onthe rfererce beina- /:Ii Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i e 1.4.1997, but as against the Land' Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% fdr full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by t only 34 days inasmuch as the date with refererice whereto Government 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 category A lands and for category B lands, with reference to thel values for catgory A land depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre

13 Thus, for, category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and fOr •1 category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/7 per: Pertaining to the notificationsdated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after*the Government had notified the minimum rates for agriculturni 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 NCT Delh, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean I • average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by, 10% per annum dterruned the enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of. 30.8.20.0.[5] and depressing the same byJO% per LA APP 784/2005 & connected fl....,...,......:..,..: H.:•...•.., tile Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede at the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but Would urge that the two contenti9ns advanced by im should be considered by this Court as the asons as o hy, Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair maket 'alue of lands in village Mundka and Bakkrwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOI would show the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be • considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by the Government, 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 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

20 An independent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006(135)DL1231/atSinghVs UQI 21 The decision in /aisincjh's case (supra) concerns itsef with the determination of the fair market value of land in village akkarwala which were acuired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at Z 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urg that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA APP 784/2005 & connected:DHC:13269 S NO Date Village Price p er, B i g ha 1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 11 1995 A & 1,73,500/- for Block B land -- 2 11 06 1996 -- Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/7 for Block B land 3 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block - • - -.• - - • A, c r- r • •1 would show that the Co1urt assessed the fair market value efererice to sale deeds eçecuted between the years 1990 ti the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan oy Village Mundka apparently on the premise that beirig contigucus villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative ofair ma 1rket value of land in Villae Bakkarvala

26 In Pratap Sincjh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in ikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Sectior 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village; Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - S D,LL+OJtJ/_ •.:-- BlockBland •. ---. •--

27 Following the judgment inPratapSinghcase (supra) I havedecided the fair market value for the land situated in f \/I-I - •k •; • i evei iue eLce.Lfl. vJIIay,e ievi, vvi JILII -vy cnuII u - pu' uI-IL CI to notification dted 6 2 2003 in the batch of appeals being Land LAAPP784/2005&connected Pagel5ofl[9] 1:1..•.. -. -....-.,... • •; I I,...:.: '.: •.•....: ( I ? 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2Q0 to For the land situated in Village Ba.kkairwala, the fair market value is fixed at 4,25,64i/- per bigha i e !20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who haye 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 £101, for the compensation, paid originally,aid as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on theum enhanced by the present judgment and decee vii): The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed' would also be entitled to proportionate costs viiil, All pending an applications std disposedof ein terms of the prayers made thetein,

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE NLY[8],2O11 YTFT[1] ' APR 784/2005 & connected -1