Union of India v. Ban Wari Lal

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment[7]

2 To be referred to Reporter or not[7] 3 \A/het,her the judgment should be reported in the Digest? • PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, j (Oral)

1 I am deciding the above captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of V... •. r... ross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove ¶ LAAPP784/2005&connected Page4ofl[9] • •. • • •::..'t.........,,...,.. V... V...

2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of market vlue of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarw and village Mundka

3 Th dates on which fair market Valueof the land S to be determined may be graphically noted as under - ___ Name ofVillage Date of nbtifiction unde Section 4 of the LA Act I

1 Bakkarwala 24 9 2003 2 Bakkarwaia 17 6 2005 3 Mudka 25 2 1997

4 Mundka 21 3 2003

5 Mundka 17 6 2005

4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serf& No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate 0? • •. •. Village Mundka, as pe r serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikrt Kaln Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of viIlage Murdka The difference between the topology of the two villags i, whereas: the land of village Mundka abuts NH-b, tEt of village Bakkarwala does not so abut, being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate ofvillageMundka. 6.: AS we proceed fron the cfty of Delhi to the.townshi.p[1] of Rohtak, village, Mundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan 7 Agricultural lands in viJlage Mundka were acquired LAAPP784/2cHJs&connected Page5ofl[9] I •.• H pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Lan'd cquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were furthr acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21 3 2003 t issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition At as per award No 3/2905-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dpted 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which lends in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fai market value of the acquired lands under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural V.. V• -. Y land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi 10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to the

V. •. notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in.: the reventie estateof village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Cllector determined the fair market value with reference to the rninimum price for Egricultur! land notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ 10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted I * H the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum 1This price was adopted fr category A lands For lands in category B, the iaIue was further discounted by 90,UJ0/- per acre Pertaining to the notifications, dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 003, the Land Acquisition Cffllecfor relied upon the notification flxing% the minimum price 6f gricultura[4] land as of. 4 2001 and gaye no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005' which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 and gave no increase -.-.;- 11 J\ggriev9d by the determination of the fair market value of the landsby the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought a reference under Section 18 of te Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in •1• the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair rnarketvalue

12 In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 vide whih agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, tte Refernce Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by th Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA APP 784/2005 & connectd 1.. t 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% for fuil one year, adopting 'the percentage 11 5, decreased the vlue by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notifid the minimum value was 1 4 19g[7] and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was I....i'..-... dated 25 2 1997 This:was the value fixed for category A lands................ and for catgory B lands, with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre

13. Thus, for category A lands the Rference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for • category B land the ame was determined @ 8,99,288/- per acre 1 /; 14 Pertainihg to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in vdlage Mundka and village Bakkarwala rspectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 tE'e rext revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and: the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Referenc Court adopted the principle of mean. average 'What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of 1 4 2001 and increaing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced pnc as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 Therafter the Reference Court took the value notifie\d as of 30 8 2P05 and depressing the same by 10% per LA APP 784/2005 & connected'. annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 03 as also 24 9 2003 The twb sums arrived at were added a divideq by two to arrive atthe mean figure as of 21 3 200, hich I te comes to fl[5],92,083 33 per acre (In some decisio I note the sum arrived t is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000I- per acre 15, Pertaining to the notification data 17 6 2005 fsuant whereto 'agricultural lands were acquir in village Bakkarwala andMur?dka the learned Reference Cirt adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands noti by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 20O[1] nd giving increase @410% pe annum deternned the valueand with • respect tothe lands in village Mundka, on accoun[1] o[1] locational advantag, being autting NH-10 gave 5% ore and 4.[4] determined the fair niarket value as of 6 OO tn surh of............................................................................ 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwa[a the price determined was 20,35,255/- per acre L[6] In the aforesaid backdrop of the faotual scenario in ? which I ha('e penr1ied profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition oIlector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve •:.. r......... into the arguments ad'vlanced before me during hearing today 1,.........

17 With rferencé to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs LIQI & Ors, it was urged by Sh L B Rai, • learned couns'el fore the appellant in LA AppNo 784/2005, which[4] argument,wa adopted b other learned counsel who appeared for th other 4appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in igroring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha 4LA APP 784/2005 & connected 4Page 9 of 19 Ii '4 nd 3 biswa' f agriciJltuTaI land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 199,[6] for a sale conisideration of 4,75,000I- '38,00J/- was incurred towards sale duty a 1rid thus the price of th3e land would be 5,13,000I- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per big ha would, come to 4,46,000J- as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel would u rde that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka wasp r[4],46,000I- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument iforward, it is urged,that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, i è the dates when notificatins under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant wh)ereto agricultural lands ere acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the price progrsstveiy, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10 per annum It is urged that on the same basis, Jand price should' be determined for the agricultural lands in •:.; village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kaln, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous 'villages: and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards 'the township of Rohtak, some;increase be made in the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the udgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of • Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap S,ncjh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs 1)0/ as per which fair market vlue of and, per bigha, was determined in 44the revenue esta'te of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/ for category A land an l,73,500I- for categoç B land, 2,35,85Q for category 4 land and i,9O,150/- for ategory B land, 4,02,850- for category A land and 3,24,850J- for category B land,, respectiveJy

18 I may n'ote here that in various land, acquisition references, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for tipe land owners have only relied upon the dale deed Ex P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstickfor the reason, to be a reprsentative sample of the whole, the sample must bear someadequate proportion to the' whole; For example, learned coursel would urge th'at if it has to be determined whether what percentage of stones are mixedtina bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pickonly one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one would reach to the conclion that the bag is full of slones At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as representative I sample, is.the exafnpl given The second reason on which • learned counsel woul[1] attack the sale deed as not being representative of th price is the reason that people do come to. kow abou pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey it ouId be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 LA APP 784/2005 & con ncted the Land Acquisition ct Learned counsel would concede that the reàsons'g4ven by the learned Reference Court are' nt ound, but would urgethat the two contentions advanced by him should be considerd by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 refrred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court' pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 0 5 1997, 4 6 1997 ad 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOI would show the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge tht the said four sale deeds should be • consderei, but Fasteiis to add, that since value reflected therein is less thpn the minimum price rioti,fied by the Government, the price 1fixation should be with reference to the minimum price noified by the Govrnment which is nearest to the point of time wherthe respective notifications were issued under Section 4 of th Land Acquisition Act 2p An incependent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned dounsel for the Union The same rests ttself on a decisioR of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT23iJjSingh Vs (JO! • 21 The decisionrinJSingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which wee acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at i,32,000I- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch 'H: I-i as Petitions fdr Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Suprem Court 1b[9] either side have been dismissed Learned cOUnSeJ takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fait market value of land ' in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 a 1,32,Q00/- per bigha, the fair market value should b ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% pet annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned couns[1] would ure that in view of the locational advantae of village Mundka, 1air market yalue of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25 2 1997, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, by giving 5% ircrease