Mahabir Prasad v. Union of India & Anr.

01 LA.APP. 1059/2010,: LA.APP. 1068/2010, LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. 124/2011k LA.APP. 127/2011,.LA.APP. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2011' • • LA.APP.784/2005 & conneded • • • Pag[3] of 1 0' (Relating to. Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award No.13/2006-07, Viilâge-Mundka) AND + LA.APP 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA.APP. 426/2009, LA.APP. 428/2009, 442/2009, LA.AFP. 611/2009, LA.APP. 616/2009, LA.APP. 278/2010. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 •dated 24.09.2003 & Award No.3/2004-05, Village-Bàkkarwala) AND + LA.APP. 1029/2010 & CM No.5948/2011, LA.APP. 1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010; LA.APP. 1033/2010 & CM No.6645/2011, LA.APP. 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM No.6943/2011, LA.APP. 1064/2010, LA.APP. 1066/2010, LA.APP. 1067/2010, LA.APP. 11/2011, LA.APP. 122/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award No.1/2006-07, Vi!lage-Bakkarwala) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed. to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not?

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest 7 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral)

1. am deciding the abOve captioned: appeals, and relatabte civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of crOssobjections; all of which have been listed hereinabove.' LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 4of19 The present decision concerfls issue of fixation of fak market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala and village Mundka. The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under:- S.No. Name of Village Date of notificatioh under Section 4of the LA Act 1; Bakkarwala 24;9.2003

2. Bakkarwala 17.6.2005 3: Mundka 25.2.1997.Mündka 21.3.2003 Mundka 17.6.2005 4; It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No;2 hereinabove, pertainingto village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant where.to lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-b, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the Stateof Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the sx other side of the Southern bouhdary of village Mundka. The difference between the topology of the two villages is; whereas the land of village Mündka abuts NH-b, that of. ilIage Bakkarwla does not so, abut; being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of villageMundka; As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka iscrossed first, followed by viIIag Ghevra and then villaeTikrj Kalan. Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA.APP.784/2005 & connected S S 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 villae Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification 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 a notification dated 17.6.2005 issued under Section 4 of, the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.13/200607. '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. Eurther 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 Muhdkalwer.e acquired).as per award No.1/2006-07. '.. In a nut shell,, the Land Acquisition Collectbr determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with referené to the minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi. For clarity I, may note that pertaining to the notification dated 25.21997 under which agricultural lands. in the revenue estate of village,Mundka were acquired, theHearned Lnd Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural !a'hd notified with effect from 1.4.1997 @ Z10 lacs per acreand. since the, date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.. '.... the price for one year @ 11.5% Oer annum; This price was adopted for category A lands. For lands in category B,, the vaRj.e was further discounted by 90,000/- per are. Pertaining to the notifications dated.2I.3.2003 and 24.9.2003,. the Land Acquisition. Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1.42001 and gave no EJ ii benefit ofnhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 211.2003 • and 24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the nótification dated 17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and village MuBdka as of 17..6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum Value of agricu!tural lands,in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 and gave no increase..• •.... •

11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of th lands by the Land Acquisftion Collector, the land owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 894 and on the reference being made, 'vide various iudpments and decrees, which are under challenMe in the abov0t. captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective ttion, as per the view Of the Reference Court, iand enhanced the fair rnarketvalue....

12. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dted 25.2.1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were cquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Government of NCT Delhi had fixed: the minimum -Value for -, agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997., but as against the Lard Acquisition CoHector depressing the price @ 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by only 34 day-s inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and - the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25.2.1997. This was the value - fixed for category A lands • and for'category -B lands; with refeence to the valUes fo category A land depressed the same by-90,000I- per cre. -- - - - 13. - - Thus, for category A lahds the Reference- Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- per acre • - 14. Pertaining to the notifications dated 213.2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village 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 m'nimum price notified by the Government of NCT -- Delhi, the Reference Court - adopted the - 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 arnum determined the enhanced- price as:- of 21.3.2003 as a-Iso - 24.9.2003: Thereafter•the - Reference- Cou- --took the value notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected - - I- - - Page 8of19 -- annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at wee added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003, which I note comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the skim arrived at is 15,92,215/-). For the date 24.9.2003 th e l price determined was 20,41,000/- per acre. Peraining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto'agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundk'a the learned Reference court adopted the minimum price for agricultural. lands hotified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-10 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 determined was 20,35,255/- per acre... 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 ' With reference to the evidnce; led,., in LAC. No.384/2004 /amna 'Vs. LIQI & Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/2005, which 4W argument was adOpted by other learned counsel who appeared for the dther appellants, that the learned Trial, Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA.APP'.784/2005 & connected,,, ' Page 9 of'19 a and 3. biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold asof 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/-. 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, lend price per bigha.would'come to 4,46,00.0I- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair, markt value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000I- per bighai 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 determin;d as of 25.2.1993, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, Le. the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant whereto agricultura,I 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 lands Jn, village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, 'it was 'urged that since. 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 villag.e Mundka and Bakkarwal'a with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding a Watch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appe& No.193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceaed) Thr; LRs V[5].. £10! as per which, fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined Jn the revenue estate of village Ttkri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11.6.19.96 and 17.12.2002 at 2,15,164/- 'for, category A land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected, e[2]) and 1,73,500I- for category B land; T[2],35,850 for category A land and 1,90,150!- for.category B land, 4,02,850I- for category A land and 3,24,850I- for category B land, respedively. 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 me, learned counsel for the land owners have' only relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-1.:

19. Pércontra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot 'be 'adoptdd as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some, adequate proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be dtermined whether what percentage of Stones are mixed in a bag of rice -it would not be a safe me,thod to pick only 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 graih happens to be a piece of stone, one would reach to the conclusion that tji'e bag is' fall of stones. At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is- the example given. The second 'reason on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisitioh inasmuch as before acquisitions are' made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a Surve' it would be difficult to issue even the notification Under Section 4 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected, Page 11 bf 19 Ll • of the Land AcquisitiOn Act. Learned counsel would concede that the reasáns given bythe learned Reference Court are not sound; but would urge that the two.contentions advancd by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to Why Ex.P-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair narket 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 UOl would show the actual market value of the land and, thus 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. • • • • An independent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union. The same rests itself on a decision Of a DivisiomBench of this Court reported as

2006. (135) D LT 231 Jai 5!nqh Vs. UQI... The decision inJJS!nghs case (supra) concerns itself with.the determination of the fair market value of land in vlillage • Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15.10.1993 at i,32,000/- per bigha. Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • • • • Pace 12 of 19 1. as Petition.s for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have beeh 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 fl,32,000i- 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 village Mundka shouldbe determined as of 25.2.1997,21.13.2003 and 17.6.2005, by giving 5% increase..

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Vfflage Mundká 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 the Land AcqXisition Act, which was issued on 252.1997. It i 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 pre determined rates,a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA;App.784/2005 & conncted,, S acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase srnaI parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are.likely to take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to be a rep résentative measure of the fair market value of land as on the date of the sale. Further, te principles of ratio and pçoportiofl as also the principles of averages and the principles of samp 1 ing tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible prQportiOn to the hole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned eference 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 determired 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-1. In fact, the • sale price 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 lands would be. required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this. Courtin case (supra) or prata Singh's case (supra). • I highlight that both.deci.siOns, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court The decision in / 5/nghcaSe (supra)dtermifle fair market • value, of land in. Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000I- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005'& connected... would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either. in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, apparently on the.premise0.that being cöntigu.ous 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 Sincjh's case (supra), the Division Bench was cbncerne.diith aghcultural lands in Tikri 'Ka.lan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Sectiorj 4. of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri KaI'an and Ghevra as under:-. 0 S.NO. Date. Village, Price per Bigha

1. 24.07.1995 & TikriKalan 0 2,15,1-60/- for Block 16.11.1995...,. A & 1,73,500/- for Block B land 2 11 06 1996 - Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra •0 A & 1,90,156/- for ' Block B land

3. 0 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan., 4,02,850/- for Block A & 3 1 24,850I- for Block Bland:

27 Following the judgment in Pratap S,ngh's case (supra) I have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6 2 2003 in the batch of appeals being Land LA APP 784/2005 & connected O S Acquisition Appeal No 489/2009, QjjLapiI La vj2/PQLifl./_& on.2.6.2011. Lhave determined the fair market value of the lnds in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425/- per bigha as of 6.2.2003. On the issue of comparability Of land in village BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-b, as do the other viIlges, but it has to be highiihted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi visàvis.Ghévra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, -qua said 2 villageS, has an adyantage Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation[1] it is the broad probabilities and similarities which ma,tter. Thus, I hold alt 4 villages to be

1. equivalent[1] unless qua some land special features can be shown