Union of India & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar Jain & Anr.

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 To be referred to 1Reporter or not?

3 Whether the dgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NAI\IDRAJOG, I (Oral)

1 I am deciding the above captioned appeals ani relatabie civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objeCtions, all of which have been listed hereinabove L.A APP 784/2005 & connected f the Land Acquisitiont Act Learned counsel would concede that the rasons glven% by the learned Reference Court are not sdund, but WoulcJ ug e that the two contentions advanced by Fiim should be consiqered by this Court as the reasons a$ to why,x P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in \Illage Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel wotild further urge that the four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R[4] referred to in the decision of, the learned Reference Càurt pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995,.30.5.1997, 4 6 1997 and 84.1997[1] relied upon by UOI would show, the actual market value of the land and thus )earnd counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be considered, but hatens to add, that since value reflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by.the Government, the price fixation should be with reference z,to the mirimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to r the point of time when th respective notifications were issued Secti?n 4f theLano Acquisition Act 20 An dependent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned course! fQr the Union The same rests itself on a decision of a Di'ision Bench of this Court reported as 2006(135)DLT231/aí51ngh Vs VOl 21 The decision in /a/ Sin gh's case (supra) concerns itself,. with the determination of the fair market value of land in village akkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned ounsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality, inasmuch LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 12 of, 19 -.'- I I acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purcaSe small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitiOnS are 'ikely o take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be measure of the fair market value of tken to be a representative

7. laçd as on the date of the sale Further, t he principles of ratio arid proportiofl as also the principlesr of averages and the pi-inciples pf sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible pr9portlOn to the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by, the learned Rference COurt, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that E> P 1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market, value of the land could be determined There is an additiohal reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6 1 1995, 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 are also pertaining to Village Mudka and reflect a sale price much lower than tHe sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, he sale pice in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government Thus, the fair market value of the laflds would be required to be fixed either with reference to the dcision of this Court in case (supra) or Pratap Singhs case (supra)

25 The decision in Ji Singh's_case (supra) determined fair market valde of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum o[1] il 1 1 32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereo LA APP 784/2005 & connected I I I I would show that the Cort assessed the fair mrket value with, refereic taledeeds execud betveen the yars 99O till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka apparently on 4the pemise that being contiguous villagers, sale 3 price of agricyltural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair iarket value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Singh's case (suora),l the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and an9ther adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various ¶ notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village • Tikri Ka.lanarid Ghevra asunder:-,• • Date •: Price per B 1gha 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 11 1995 A & 1,73,500/- for Block B. land 717-2 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for BlocBland 3 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block A & 3,24,850/- for Block B land AcquiSitlOn Appeal No 489I200, Chiranj/La/ v LQ Lncita& Anr on 26 2011 lhave determined the fair market value of the ands in Village Gevr at 4,03,425I- per bigh as of 6.2..2003 On the issue of comparabihtY of land in village BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abt NH-10, as do the other villages[1] but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-ViS Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage Since exacteSS can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fir compensatiOn, it is the broad probabilities ad similarities which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages to tk equivalent[1] unless qua some land special featureS can be hoW 28 -Since the decision in Prtap, 3Jiich'5 case (supra) deals with notifications more proxim at e in point of time to the ' notificationS WithWlCh I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determIne the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relatiOn to the fair market value of lands determined in Prap 5ing case (supra) As per the decision inP,TataP 5ing/7 case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was 2,15,160/- per bigha nd 1,73,500I- per bigha for tatego B[1] 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 7 06 2005 v) For the 1and situated in Village Bakkrwala the fair market vali±je is f at ixed 4,25,641/- per, bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 v) Appelants and cross-objectors who have succeeded wuld lsobe entitled tosolatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 5691. Sunder vs (JO!, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree The ppel!ants and cross-objectors ho succeed would also be entitled to proportionate cots All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE 'jULY 08, 2011