Union of India v. Padam Kumar Vaid & Anr.

2 To be referred to Reporter or not 7

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? • PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (Oral)

1 I am deciding the above captioned appals and relatable civil miscellanecus applications which are b way of cross jecions, all of which have been listed hereinabdve - - - - '• IIL1LIJII • No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands wereacquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, as per serialNo 5 above 5 Abutting NH-10,17 leading from the city of Delhi to they tow,nship of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Ba.kkarwala lies towards jhe other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka' T14e difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the 'and of village Mundka abuts NH-lO, that of village.. Bakkarwala does not sb abut being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka

6. As we proceed from the dt of Delhi tb th hhin; pursuant to a notification dated 25.2j997 issued under Section 4 of Ith.e. Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2000 V Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification datd 21.[3] 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award v 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 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwa!a 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 dated 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 V In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector V determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural V land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi V

10 For clarity. I may note that pertainin to the notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in V 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 agricultural land notified with effect from 1.4.199.[7] @ 10 !acsper acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted LA.P.P.784/2005 &conncted..... V..,,. • •.. •... •. ••.... ••. - 41 overnment of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum 'lue for agricultural lands in Delhi i e,. 1 4 1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% fo fuh one year, adbptng the percentage 11 5, 'decreased tl4e value by, only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was i,l. 4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of thef Land Acquisition Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for category A lands and for,category B lands, with reference o the values Jor category A land depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre

13 Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value © Z[9],89,288/- per,acre and for • category B land the same was determined © Z[8],99 1 288I- per acre, 14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 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 nctified the minimrn rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as df, 30 8 2005 Using the sad dates and the minimum 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, increar the same by 10% per 'annurn deterh-iined the enhanced................................................... price as of '2L[3].2003 as 'also 24 9 2003 Thereafter, the Reference Court took t h e value notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10 % per V

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 1.7.6.21005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwaia 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 alnd giving increase @10% per annurçi determined the value and with 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 in sum of 21,37,01775 per acre and for village Bakkarwala 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 reasoninq of the Land h •..•........, •: •.. -..,'-.: ' and 3 biswa of agrriultural land in vi!lag Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- 38,000/- wa incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 446,000/- 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 4,46,000I- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument torward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25.2.19.93, • 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, i 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% pr annum at least by 10% per annum It is urged that on the same basis, land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that siflce villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, an n d in fact village Tikri Kala is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the and in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch fi 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 11 195, 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 72,15,164/- for category A land LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page lOaf 19

IV. ' 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-i 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 yardstick for the reason, to be a representative S sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the whole For example, 1earned 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 afe method 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 grain happens to be a piece 1of stone, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a fistfl should be lifted and then checked as a representative saniple, 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 acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification undr Section LA APP 784/2005 &connected............. f the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are nQt sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered 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, lea med 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 çieeds dated t[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 ithe. said four sale deeds should be considered, but hastens to add, that since value i.reflected therein is dess than the minimum price inotified 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 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 /ai5incjh Vs 1101 21 The decision in Ia' Singh'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 1 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA APP 784/2005.& connected acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place, these transactions are speculave and cannot be mket value of taken to be a representative measure of the fair& land as on the date of, the sale Further, the principles of, ratio and roportion 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 S reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1 t Ex R-4, dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997 1 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale phce much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, te 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

23 Thus, the fair, market value of the lands would be - required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court i nJ5/ngh'ScaSe (supra) or prataQ5/ngh5cseSuPra) oi

25 The decision in Jat SIncJ/7's case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof: fVT would show that the Court assessd the fair market value with reference to sale deeds[1] executed between the years till,1990 the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan 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 Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands inTiki 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 ad Ghevra as under - SNO Date Village Price per aig ha 1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Ka!ar 2,15,160/for Block 16 11 1995 I A & 1,73,500/- for Block B lan[4] 2, - 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,l901I56/ for Block B land 3 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block A & 3,24,850/- for I Block B land • -- - ____-____ ______________________ ' 27 Following the judgment in Pratap Singh'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 Acquisition Appeal No 489/2009, ChIra7I/L/ Anr on 2 6 2011 have determifle the fair market value of the nds in ViHage Ghevra at 4,03,425/- per bigha as of 61 2003 On the issue of, comparabihtY 'of land in village BakkarWaa with village 4undka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BkkarWala does not abut NH-lU, as do the ' other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Dehi vis-a-vls Ghevra and ikri IKalan and to that e4ent, qua said 2 villageS, has an acvantge Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters assessing fair compensation[1] it is the broad probabilities anç e o b si4mlaritieS which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villag te equivalent[1] unless qua some land special features can be showr

28 Since the decision in Pratap, Sipghs case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of' the,opiiOn that it would be just, fair and proper to determine thes. fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value f lands determined in Prap Sig case (supra) As per the decision in Pratap, 5i,his case (supra) for the date 24.7.1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed Was t[2],15,160/- per bigha and 1,73,500I- per bigha for Category B i-A TK firct notification with which i am concerned is