Union of India & Anr. v. Baljeetsingh

Delhi High Court · 08 Jul 2011 · 2011:DHC:13350

Pradeep Nandrajog

LA.APP.335/2010

2011:DHC:13350

property appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld enhanced land acquisition compensation based on government notified minimum prices and judicial precedents, rejecting reliance on isolated sale deeds as unrepresentative.

Full Text

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP.335/2010
UNION OF INDIA& ANR. Appellant'
Through: Ms.Deepika,Advocate

VERSUS

BALJEETSINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate for R-1 I Mr.B.B.Sharma, Advocate for DDA

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULYO8,2011 mm 2011:DHC:13350 :
: ••.. .. . . : • .. H . . .
,, . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . :. • • • • . . . .
.. ' . . . ..
I . : • •
Al HIGH COURT OF DELHI NEW DELHI b /7 . .
DateofDecis!c.: 8th/U/y,.2011 . ø . . . . . .
. . . . .. i&AP 784L2Q0 JAMNA Appellant
Through Mr L B Rat, Advocate, Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, Mr 0 5 Lakra, Advocate, Mr K Sunil, Advocate, Mr Anuj Bhandarl, Advocate
. . . . . ..
.; M.Shadam Farashat, Advocate , .. . fl

VERSUS

4 )
.
. . tj
: UOI & ORS •••
Respondeflt.S .
Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with pcp
Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawafli and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates
Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika Agnihotfl, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sharma, Ms Shobhna Takiar. and Mr Arun
Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND

LAAPP 879/2005, LAAPP 880-881/2005, LAAPP
121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated
25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village Mundka)

AND

LAAPP 583/2009, LAAPP 603/2009, LAAPP 604/2009, LA APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009, 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010, LA APP 784/2005 & connected
I
Ff

LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAPP 7
125/2010, LAAPP. ' .164/2010, L.A.APP. 185/2010,; LA.APP.
186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LA APP 238/2010, LA.APP
• . 239/2010,. L'A.APP. 243/201.0, LA.APP. 244/2010, LA.APP:
• 245/2010,. LA.APP. 247/2010, LA.APP.. •'251/2010, LA.APP.
252/2010, LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP., 267/2010, LA.APP.
• 273/2010 LA.APP. 274/2010, . LA.APP. 275/2,010, LA.APP.
• 312/2010, LA.APP. 324/2010, L.A. APP. 326/2010,. LA.APP.
327/2010, LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP
331/2010, LA.APP. 332/2010 'LA.APP. 3/2010 with CM APPL.
No. '5524/2011, LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367/2010, LA.APP. .
368/2010, . LA.AP,P. : 69/2010, LA.APP.. 371/2010 ,& CM APPL. .
No.20099/2010, LA.APP. 374/2010, LA.APP. 375/20.10, LA.APP.
,377/2010 1 LA.APP. .379/2010, LA.AP.P. ,. 423/2010, • LA.APP.
452/2010, LA.APP. 461/2010, LA.APP. 472/2010, LA.APP.
• .• 694/2010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No. 6340/2.011, LA.APP.
• 697/2010, ' LAAPP. 698/2010 & CM A'PL. .1734/2011; LA.APP..
. 706/2010 &: CM APPL. 17215/2010, LA.APP. 707/2010, LA.APP;
• 708/2010, LA.APP. 709/2010, LA.APP. 710/2010 with. CM; APPL.
•
• No.2568/20J1, LA.APP. 713/2010 with CM APPL. No.74.73/2010., •••• ••
LA.APP. ,715/2010,.LA.APP. 717/2010, LA.•APP. 719/2010, LA.APP.
766/2010,' LA.APP. •' 796/2010, •LA.APP, 797/2010, LA.APP
• •. •• ••• . . ' 798/2010, LA.APP. 799/2010 LA.APP., : 818/2010, LA.APP. . •
• • 819/2010, LA.APP. 829/2010, •LA.APP. 831/2010 & CM APPL.
• : 955/2011, LA.APP. 832/2010, LA.APP.. 833/2010 & CM APPL.
• .
. 6392/2011, LA.APP. 834/2010, LA.APP. 842/2010, LA.APP. •, • •• • ' 871/2010, LA.APP.• 74/20I0, 'LA.APP; 875/201.0, LAAPP.
• • '
•' 876/201.0, LA.APP. .• 877/20101 LA.APP. •' 878/2010, LA.APP. • •
• • •• 879/2010, LAAPP. 880/2010; • LA.APP. • 881/2010 .& CM • • .
• •• ' '
APPL.6505,/2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP. .: • •
• • • 884/2010, LAAPP. 886/2010, LA.APP . '888/20101 LA.APP.. • , "
• .• "•
889/2010 & CM APPL.2249/2011, LA,APP: 890/2010, LAAPP.
• 893/2010 & CM APPL. 6750/2011, LA.APP. 894/2010 & CM •
• . No.23353/2010, LA.APP. 895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP.
897I20]0 & CM APPL728/2011, LA.APP. 90.3/2010, LA.A•PP. • • •
• •, • LA.APP784/2005 & connected • • • • • • • • •
907/2010, .LA.APP. . 938/2010, .LA.APP. 939120:10.,.. LA.APP.
1034/2010 & CM APP;L. 3086/2011, •LA.APP. 1040/2010 & CM:

APPL. 5673/2011, LA.APP. 1041/2010, LA.APP.' 1043/2010, . .
• . LA.APP. 1045/2010, LA.APP. 1046/2010, LA.AP. 1048/2010, LA APP 1049/2010, LA APP 1050/20a0. LA APP 1056/2010, • .. LA.APP. 1060/2010, LA.APP. 1061/2010, LA.APP. 1071/2010, LAAPP 125/2011,LAAPP 126/2011,LAAPP 258/2011
• .. (Relating to Notification u/$ 4 dated 21.03.2003 & :Awa!rd
N.o.3/20050.6, Villge-Mündka) . . . . . •...• .•. . ••
• ••. AND

LA.APP. 600/2009; LA.APP. 605/2009, LA.APP. 615/2009, .

LA.APP. 310/2010, LA.APP. 325/2010, LAAPP. 376/2010, LA.APP.
383/2010, LAAPP 384/2010, LAAPP 385/2010, LAAPP
473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, .. LA.APP. 586/2010', LAAP.
591/2010, LA.APP. 638/2010, .LA.APP :. 69012010; LA.APP.
• 692/2010, ILA.APP. 711/2010, LAAPP, 716/2010, LA.APP.
763/2010, • LA:APP. 872/2010, LA.APP. 873/20101 LA.APP.
885/2010, LA.APP; 887/2010, LA.APP.. 891J2010 'LA.APP.
••
892/2010, LA APP 898/2010, LA APP 906/2010 & CM APPL
No.4443/2010, LA.APP. 937/20.10 & CM APPL. 232.99/2010, LA.APP. 1042/2010, LA.APP. 1047/2010 . . . ., (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.200 &. Award •
No.1/2005-06,Village-Mundka) •: •
AND

LAAPP 1003/2010, LAAPP 1017/2010, LAAPP 1019/2010, LA..APP. 1022/2010, LA.APP. •I03/2010, LA.APP.. 1044/2010, LA.APR 1051/2010 1 LA.APP. 1053/2010, LA.APP. 1054/2010 &

CM ..APPL. N.5656/2011, LA: APP. 1055/2010, LA.APP•. •
1057/010, LA.APP, 1058/2010, LA.APP: 1059/2010, LA.APP. •
1068/2010; LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. 124/2011, LA.AP.P.
127/2011, LA.APP. 128/2011, LAAPP. 259/2011 •• .. •• "
LA.APP:784/2005 & connected . •. • Page 3.of 19 .
V

ORDER

3..•. The dates on which fair market value of the land hs, to be determined may be graphically noted as under - S.No.• Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act Bakkarwala. 24.9.2003....

2. Bakkarwala 17.6.2005.. Mundka.... 25.2.1997.. Mundka. 211.2003... • 5,. Mundkä. 17.6.2005....

4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertainingto village Bakkarwala, is the same ' pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above Abutting NH-b, leading from the city of Delhi to the township pf Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of, village Mundka The differe.nce between the topology of the two villages is; whereas the land of village Mundka. abuts.:NH40, that, of., village • Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka • 6,. As we proceed from the city.of DeIi to the township • of Rohtak village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan., •.. •. 7... Agricultural lands in village Mundka, were acquired LA.APP.784/2005 &'connectéd.• •.. Page's of 19 pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21.3.2003 issued under Section 4 of th.e Land Acquisition Ac.t as per award N3/2005-06 as also' award No.1/200506. Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a • •. nOtification dated 17.6.2005 i ss Ue,d undr Section 4 of the Lahd Acquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006707. •

S. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village

Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24.9.2003 issued under SectiOn 4 ofthe Land Acquisitioi Acta.s per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of, the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No./2006-07.. •

9. • In a nut shell, the Lahd AcquisitiOn Colieçtor.• determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi •.10. For clarity I may note that pertaini,ho to the notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned, Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with • • reference to the minimum price for ag'ricuiturai'• tahd notified with effect from 1.4.1997 @ Z10 lacs per acre and Since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted • LA.APP.7847200& connected •, the pnce for one year @ 11 5% per annum This price was /7 adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notificaton fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined ws as of'2.1.•3.2O0.[3] and 24,9.2001 Even pertaining' to.: the notificatirì dated 17,6.2005 which required fair market value of •land to be determined in the revenue estate of village B,ak'karwa.la. ahd 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 Aggrieved by the determi'natioi of the 'fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought a reference under. Section 18 of the' Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in the above cptioned appeals., the Reference Court: took correctAve ctin, a per the view of the Reference 'Court, and ' • enhanced the fair market value. '..,. • •: 12 ln a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were • acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land 'Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP784/2do[5] & connected ' •• •. •.. • • Page 7'of 19 ' • \, Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for / agricultural lands in Delhi e 1.[4] 1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference wherto Government had notified the minimum value was 1.4.199.[7] and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was ri dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for category A lads and for cateory B lands; with reference to the values for category A land depressed thesame by !90,000./- peracre. I.

13 Thus, for, category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value © 9189,288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- per I) acre

14. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003. whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka ad 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 sad dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principlq of men average. What the Reference Courtdid was to. adopt the vaiue • as of 142001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of,21 3 2003 as als 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Referefice Court took the value notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per I 9/ annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 8.2003 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive.at the mean figure as of 213.2003; which I note comes to 15,92,083.33 per ac're (In some decisjOns.[1] notethe sum arrived at is Z 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000I- per acre

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acqufted in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving.[4] increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, onaccouht of location& advantage, being abuttingU NH-lU gaVe 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price U 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 me during hearing today.

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 Jamna Vs. UQI & Ors., it was Urgedby Sh.L.B.Rài,.. S..learned counsel.forthe appellant in LA App.No.784/2005, which

U. argument was adopted by other learned counsel.who appeared. U for the other' appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was hot justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA..APP.784/2005 & connected..,........: and 3 biswa of agricultural land in vUage Mundka was sold as of

5.8. 1996 for a sale consideration of[4],75,000/- Z38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 513,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,00O/- as of 5 8 1996 Learned ounsel would urge that there is ho reason not 'to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in: viilage Mundka was 4,46,000/7 per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be deterrmned as of 25 2 1993, 21.3.2003 a n d 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 pride 'should be determined for the agricultural:, lands iii village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since vlIages 'Tiki Kalan,. Mundka and Bakk.arwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of Rohtak,sdrne increase.bende in thevalue of the..• land in Village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding a.batch of S Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs UQI as per. • which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995,.11.6.1996 and 17.12.2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A: lEnd: • • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected •.•,• • and 1,73,500/- for category B land, Z[2],351,850 for category A land and I,90,150I- fdr category B lahd; 4,02,8501- for category A land and 3,24,850I- for category B land, respectively. I may note here that in various lapd aciuisitioh referenes, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today befor

J. me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upoh the sale deed Ex:P[4]..... S Per contra, Sh.Sanjy Pbddr leaned.cbunsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot b. adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representativ sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adeqat proportion to the whole For example, learned counsel wouki urge that if it has to be determined whether what percntage of stonesare mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of ric one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of ric and if that one. grain happens to be iece Of stone, one would reach to the conclusion thatthe bag is full of stones. At least fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is the example given The second reason on whic learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come td know about peding acquisition inasmuch as before cuiition are hiade, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey it would be difficult.to issue even the notification under Section.[4] LA.APP.784/2005 & connected... of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learnd Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the easons 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 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 andthus 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 arUrnent 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 Ia! Singh Vs 1101 21 The decision inJjSingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at U,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch H 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 Bakkarvala as of 15.10.1993 at 1,32,000!-er 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 v'iHaè Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned couneI • ôuld urge that in view of the locational advantage of; viIlae. Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997, 21 3 2003 and 17.6.2005, by giwing 5% increase... ' 22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of th Land AcquisitiOn.ACt, which was isued n 25 2 1997 It is a matter of common knowledge that precedig the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Lard • Acquisition Act, survey's are, carried out with the object bf. determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasa • • numbek and fields are required to be notified fdr, the proposd'' 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 poIKy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of devIoped rësidèntial land to the ones whose lands are •. •. •. LA.AP.784/2005 & cohnected.. •.,. •, • acquireçi and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase • s.raIl parceFS of Land in areas where cquisition ar likely to'. take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of land as on the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratIo and proportion as also the principles of averages and the principles of sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole'. Thus, not for, the reasoning advanced by the, learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted,I hold that Ex P 1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional ' reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 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 Jn the said 4 sale deeds averages much Iess than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government

23 Thus, the fair,market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court in a/Sin h'scase (upra ) pr taP51fl'5, ca5e (supra).

19,888 characters total

25 The decision in J/ Singh's case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwla in sum of 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof LA.APP.78412005 & connted. '..... •,, ', would show that the Court assessed the fair m,arket value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalab or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala 26.: In Pratap 5/ngh'case (supra),.the Division Benth was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another 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 Kalan and Ghevra as under - S.NO. Date Village Price per Bighà 1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,26O/- for Block 16.11.1995 A& 1,73,500/ fOr lock Bland 11.06.1996 •Tik.ri Kalan & 2,3.5,815/-. fof Block Ghëvra..: A.& 1,9016/- for • block B land 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02;850I- for Block A & 3,24,850/- for Block B land AcquisitiOn Appeal No 489/2009, chtrnjt La! VsLf India & on 2 6 2011 I have determined the fair market value of the Anr lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425I per bigha as of 6 2 2003 On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWala with and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that village Mundl<a, Ghevra whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-10, as do the, other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more urban äreãs bf proximate to the belhivis-à-vi[5],. Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage Since exactness can never be achieved In the matters of assessing fair compensation1' it is' the broad probabliti'e and similarities which matterS Thus,: I hold 'l:l 4 villageS 'to be' equivalents d special features can be shown unless qua some lan

28 Since the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the 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 concere.d in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in Prap Sinq/j case (supra) As per the decision in PratpSiflg,'S case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995 for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was 2,15,160/ per bigha and 1,73,500I- per bigha for Category ' and. The first notification with which I am concerned is 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village Muñdka were acquired The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 Q[1] c91 days In (supra) the ea5e was determined nnua/ifla to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Category A LA.APP.784/ 2005 & connected - --.-.--.-. -V VVV• -':' lands, the fir market value assessed is,49,408 75 per bigha i e fl[1],97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess the fair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. ?9,65,361.60.per,'

29. The next notificatiOn with: which 11am concernedJ -.. dated 22 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chiranhi Lal's cas (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 6.2.2.003, the fair market value assessed was 4,03,42'5I- pr 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 Village Mundka should be 4,03,425I- I e 19,36,440I- per acre, which I hereby fix 30 1 propose to deal with the notification dated •. 24.9.20.03, after dealing with the notification dated 7.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala 31 As noted hereinabove, in Chirant' Lal's case (supra, pertaining' to the notfication dated 6.2.2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425/- per bigha and thus, increasing S the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 per cre The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village BakkaraIa as of..17.6200 •5. I dcre the sañie -. ' LA.APP.784/2005 & conected.-.... •. - - V

Union of India & Anr. v. Baljeetsingh

AI Summary

Full Text

ORDER

Contact Us for a Free Consultation