Om Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in vtllae 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 agricultural 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 Delhi, the Reference Court adoptedthe principle of mean average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of.1.4.2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined 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 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per • 2 • H... •. •.,. •• •. 2 annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as o 21 3 2003, which I note cones to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000I- per atre

15 Pertaining t the notifiction dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural Inds were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT lelhi with effect fom 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with 3 respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 Jn sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bbkka-rwalal, the price determined was 20,35,255/- per acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before m'e during hearing today.

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs 110/ & Ors, it w as urged by Sh LB Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA ipp No 784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LAAPP.784/2005 &connected '.. -. '.9: ' 'i. and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of Z[4],75,000/- 38,000I- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land woiId be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argumnt fprward, 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, J.e. the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka,by increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum It is urged that on the same basis, land price should be determined for the agricultural Iand in village Bakkarwala Alt&natively, it was urged that sifice villages Tikri Kalan, 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 kvillage 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 ApeaI No 193/2006 Pratap Sincjh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs (10/ as liper, ihich fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 195, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2 1 15 1 164/7 for category A land LA APP 784/2005 & connected, 17— - - - - -- -- as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of, 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24.[9] 003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in vllage Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997, 213.2003 and 17 6 2005, by giving 5% increase E P-i, whereunder 1

22 With respect to the sale dee'd bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural laid was sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 months prior to the dateof the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on

5.2. 1997 It is a matter of, common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are required to be notified for, the proposed acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to know that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands would be acquired In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at 1pre.deterrhined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LAAPP784/2005&connected Pagel3ofl[9] • • • •.. -- - -• '.-• • •