Prabhu Singh v. UOI & Ors.

5 Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of DelhI to th township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundk, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village BakkarWala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka Th difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, that of villagd I Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other side of the t outhern boundary of revenue estate of village Mu(ndka: pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Sectior..:• •..,..,........,,. 'l• 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2I1999I2OOO Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village MUndka were further acquired pursuant to a notif'cation dated 21 3.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to nçtification dated 17 6 2005 issued under ection 4 of the Land Aquis;tion Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification datedt 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 notificatiordated..17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in viIlage Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisitions Collector dtermined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural 1 land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi

10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to the rtification dated 25 2 1997 uder which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka wereacquired, the learned I and Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with I reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ U0 lacs per acre and since the date of. Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted IA APP 784/2005 & connected....,....,...........,.................. t -......:.•,.. -.,.. - k - - '..... -...... '--. I ' S,..............-.. 0 •• •., i the price for one year @ 11 5% per nnurn This,r price wa dopted for category A lands For Iand in category B, t1e value t was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertaining tO th 3 notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001and gave nd benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair.. m'arket value of the lands to be determined was asof 21 3 2003

1. ard 24 9 2003 Even pertaining n to the otifiation 'dated ' 7 6 2005 which required fair market value of land to be' determined In the revenue estatei of village Bakkarwaia and village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector dtermined the same with reference to the notification fixing[1] inirnum value of, agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 and gave no increase 'Aggrieved by the determinatioi of the fair market 1 value of, the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector the land 1 owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land

3 Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being mde, MIde various judgments and decrees, whch are under challenge in he above captionec appeals, the Reference Coçirt took corrective action, as per the view f the Reference Court, and nhanced the fair market value In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification ated i P.5.2.1997 v i d e which agricultural lnds in village Mundka were aquired, the Reference Court adopted the same nOtification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the • 4 • ••, •• • • •, •. • •., - -.... t •.:..:. ••:.. •. •.•.:,; nd, 3 biswa of agricIturai land n vIlge undka was sold as ot 5 a 1996 for a saI consideration of 4,75,OOO/- !38OO/ waS incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 513OO9I- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair p market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Tking the argument zp forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of k 25 2 1993, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, I e the dates when notifications under. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant whreto agricultur& lands were acquired irv village Mdndka, bi increasing the price progressively, if not by 12 /o per annum at least by 10% per annum It is urged thaton the ame basis, land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urge& that since \Illages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the p township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Prataj' Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs VOL as per vihich fairmarket value of land, per bigha,, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Ka!an as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A lnd.•..., 0 c. • 0 • • 0 0 •0.. )I ? and fl,73,5001- for category B land, 2,35,85O for category A land and 1,90,150/7 for category B land, 4,O[2],85O/- for ' category A land and 3,24,85OI- for category B land, respectively '

18 I may note 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 ne, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UPI would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be dopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a. representative. s3rflple of, the whole, the sample must bear some adequate ro pportion to the whole For example, learned counsel would urge that if, it has to be determined whether what percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method td pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice I pne would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% 'ull of rice and if that one grain happens tq be a piece of stone, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full oftones At least a fistful should, be liftqd and then checked as a representative sample, is[7] the example given The second reason on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being epresntatve of the price is the reason tht people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey jt would be difficult to issue even the notification undr Section 4 • ••.. v: •;... ¶ 'I Land. AcquisitiOn Act. Learnéd':couneI would concede. hat the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not !punc, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by himshouId be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why xP-L be not taken as the basis to determire the fair market ue of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, Iearned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995, 4Refernce 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOl would s4iov the actual market value of the land land thus learned oursel would urge that the said four ale deeds should be S onsidered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected.[1] therein is less than the minimum price notified by the f3overnment 1 the price fixation should be with reference to the piinimum price notified by, the Government which is nearest to he point of time when the respective notifications were issued Lnder 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) DLT 231 /ai Singh Vs 1101 The decision in /a,Singh's case (supra) concerns itself 5 with the determination of the fair, market value of land!In village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a ntrfication dated 15 10 1993 at fl,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel Nould urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LL APF 784/2005 & connected......'.,......................... •.L. aGqulred and thus, it Is not uncommfl, for persoo purchase small parcels of lands in areas where likely to I take place, these transactions are speculative cannot be measure of the fair mFket value of i taken to be a representative land as on the date of the sale Further, the princ'iples of ratio and proportion as also the principles of ave(aeS and the of sapling tell me that to be representative of th principles m whole, a sample must bear at inteiligibl proportion o the t whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by, the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted,i h9ld that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional 1, reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1to Ex R[4],datedi1995,3051997, 461997 d 89l997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price, much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-I In fact, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimm price for agricufturi land in Dhi notified by L te Government.

23 Thus, the fair market valu of the Ids would bel req uired to be fixed either with refernFe to the decision of this Cout inL gh'scase (supra) 0r prp5ingh'CaSe (supra) ci ned by the Division 24 I highlight that both desioS, pen Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Suprme Court k 25 The decision in jSingh's case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of i,32,OOOI- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof tLA APP 784/2005 & connected P t... •.wo.id shbv thätth.e C dut• a$:ss:sed): fr •narkt value, [th •.: I reference tOt sale deeds executed been the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikr 1(alan or Village Mundka, aparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale' price of agricultural land in the 2 aØjoining villaes would bel i indicative of fair market value of land ii' Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Singh's case (pya), the Diiision Bench Oj was concerned with agricultural Iandn Tikri Klan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra aid pertaining to varioust Ii riotifications issued under Section 4 the Land Acquisition Act 1 dtermined the fair market value of Ori cuItural lands in ViIIage Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - • S NO Date Village Price per Bigha 1 24 071995 & Tikri Kaln 2,15,160/7 for Block 16 11 1995 A & 1,73,500/7 for I Block B land ii 06 1996 Tikri Klari & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra 4 A & 1,90,156/- for Block B land 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan Z[4],02,850/- for Block A & 3,24,850/- for Block B land

27 Following the judgment in Pratap S,ngh's case (sura) I pave decided the fair market valu for he land situated in ravenue estate of Village Ghevra, whith was acquired pursuant in the bch of appeals being Land td,. notification dated, 6 2 2003 at LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 15of 19 2H AcisItlon Appeal No 48912009, ChranJi Mr on 2 6 2011 I have determined the fair market value of the lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425I- per bigha as of 6.2.200, 3 O the issue of comparabilitY of land in, village BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that village Bakkarwala dos not abut NH-10, as do the J wherea other v;IageS, but it has to be highlighted that it is more to the urban areas of, Delhi vis-a-V1S Ghevra and Tikri i proximate Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 viIageS, has an advantage

28 Since the decision in Pratp, Singh[5] case (supra) dIs with notifications more proximate in point of time to, the ea notifications with which 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 arket valueof lands determined ifl Pap 5inq case (supra) As per the decision in Pratap 5inqi case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fa i r compensation assessed was 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73,500/- per.bigha for Category B land The first notification with which I am concerned is $ 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 days F Ifl Pratai Sin 7 case (supra) ti 7LJ/ increase was determined t to be 10% pet annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Category A 4 •.............................................................................................. ••.....:.: 2 f: H lands, the fair market value assessed is,49,4O[8] 75 per bigha.........: I e: 11,97,162/- per acre and fr Category B lands, I assess the I fai market vaiue at 2,O[1],117it per bigha e 9,65,361 6.0 per.-: aCre ••. ••. -.........: • • c

29 The next notificatioi with which I am ooncerned..j dated 21 3203 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chlranfi La/s Eas (supra), With reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6 2 2003, the fair market value assessed was 4,03,425I- pert bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in • Vjllage Mundka should be 4,03,425!- i e 19,36,440I- per acre, I wFiich I hereby fix

30 I propose to deal with the notification dted 24 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquird in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala.[1] •...,.• 31 As noted hereinabove, in Chiranhi Lal's case (supra), prtaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,42S/- per biqha and thus, increasing i the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to S 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227.20 pe4r acre The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17 6 2005 I decree the same LAApP784/2005&connected Page l7of 19 • 4.. • - •..• --- -- - - - -- -

32 I am left with the notification, dated 24 9 2003 pertaining to Village Bakklarwala and w i t h., 1ref6rence to the f8ir 1 market value assessd in Chirani, Lal's case, I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days,, the figure[1] comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24.[9] 2003 33 Accordingly, the appeals filed by the UnTon of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections tiled! rs stands decreed as under bye land owne I For the land falling in Category A land in Village 1. Mundka the fair market value is fixed at isi 2,49,408 75 per bigha ie ] 1,97,162/- p e r acre a n d for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at 2,01,117/- per bigha e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as on 25 02 1997 For th& land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed lat 4,03,425/- per bigha' i e r 19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21 03 2003 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i e 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair • } -• ••• market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per 1 bighai e f LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 18o 19 I t t. t.,,.........,.: •..:.,: 23,93 227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 v) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fajrs market value is fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 !) Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as pr statyte and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs UQI, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced y the IR eference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree The appellants and cross-objectorswho succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE 'JUL 08, 2011 mm S ' S LAAPP'784/2OO5&connected Page19ofl[9]