Full Text
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate VCTSUS JAI NARAIN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
- % 8.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 78412005.
---'*fi PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULY 08, 20LL mm J 2011:DHC:13368 r o/o JAMNA
UOI & ORS , - ?v,il,:|,, ',.' jet!ljxlf.Yr.:|1$fJ{Ft-1f, tb
-)
," r, :
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
M r.L. B. Rai, Advoca,", o'oo""tn' M r.l.5.DahiYa, Advocate'
M r. D.S.t-atcra, AQvocate' Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate'
Mr.nnuj Bhandari, Advocate fuf r.'Sf'lu'O a m Fa rashat' Advocate
Mi. sioOnarth' Panda Advocates Vtr.njaY Verma, Ms'Kanika . ngnihdtri, Mr.Kunal Sharma' tuti.Sut.r Sethi, M r'B' B'Sharma'
Mt.Sf'toOhna Takia r, and M r'Arun Birbdl, Advocates for DDA
BB0-88112005, Notification .u/s viltage Mundka) f
LA.APP. dateil l I I Page 1 of:19 LA.APP. 784/2qos
Through:
Through: n.npp.zs+/3005 & connected : LA.APP. 87gl2OO5 ' LA'APP' t)tlzooo, L43l2oo7 ("Relating to
25.02.Igg7 & Award No'2/1999-2000' AND
LA.APP. 60612009, LA.AP P. 61012009 " 7 412010', LA'APP' 7812010', LA.APP. 79I2OIO, LA.APP. I2II2OIO, LA.APP. !22I2OIO, LA,APP.
725I2OIO, LA.APP, ]-641201O, LA.APP. IB5I2OTO, LA.APP.
186/2010, LA. APP. 20012010, LA.APP. 23812010, LA.APP.
23gl2OrO, LA.APP. 243l2OrO, LA.APP. .24'4120,10, LA.APP.
245l2OrO, LA.,APP. 241 120t0, LA.APP.' 25L12010, . LA.APP.'
252l2oro, LA.APP. 266120!0, LA.ARP. 26712010, LA,APP.
273l2OrO, LA.APP. 27412010, LA.APF. 27512010, LA.APP.
37212010, LA.APP. 32412010, . L.A. AqP. 326120:-0, LA.APP.
,32712010, LA.APP. 32912010, ' LA.APP. 33012010, . LA.APP.
33l.l2o\0, LA.APP. 33212010, LA.APP. 333/2010 with cM APPL.
No, 5524120tI, LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367120]-0, LA.APP.
36812010, LA.APP. 36912070, LA.APP. 37r/20r0 & cM APPL.
No.2009 912010 , LA.APP. 37 4120T0 , LA.APP. . 3'7512010 , LA.APP.
377 I2OIO, LA.APP. 379ITOLO, LA,APP. 423I2OTO, LA.APP.
45212010., LA.APP. 46rl2oto, LA.APP. 472/2010, . LA.APP.
694120L0, LA.APP. 69612010 & CM APPL. No. 634012011, LA.APP'
69712W0, LA.App. 698120l-0 q CM APPL-. 173412011, LA.APP..
706/2#tO & CM AppL. 172t5l2OIO, LA.APP. 70712010, LA.APP.
7o}l&rc, LA.APP. ToPl2oro', LA.APP. 7rol2oro with cM APPL'
. No.2sb8 l2OI1, LA.@h Cy-kPPL. No.7473 l2OLO, I. LA,APP, 7T5I2OT .APP. 7 19I2O1O, LA.APP.
7 66/20T0,. LA.APE .APP. 7 97 12010 , LA.APP.
798120t0, LA,APP. 79912010, LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.APP.
819/2010, LA,APP. 82912010, LA.APP, 831/2010 & cM APPL.
955I2OIT, LA.APP. B32I2OLO, LA.APP. 833/2010 &. CM APPL.
639212011, LA.APP. 834/2010, LA.APP. 842120l.0, LA.APP.
87,TI2OIO, LA.APP. 87 4I2OTO, LA.APP. 875I2OIO, LA.APP.
87612010, LA.APP.877l20r0, LA.AP?.87812010, LA.APP, ', 879l2OtO, LA.APP. 880/2010, LA'APP. 88112010 5{ CM
AppL.650 5.120rr, LA.APP. 88212010, LA.APP. 883/201.0, LA.APP.
88412010, LA.APP. 886/2010, LA.APP. '888/2010, LA.APP.
889/2010 & CM APPL.2249l20ll, LA.APP, 8901201-0, LA.APP.'
B93\2OL0 & CM 'APPL. 6750120l-7, LA.APP. 894120!0 ',& cM
'No.2335 3120t0; LA.APP. 895120]-0, LA.APP . 89612010, LA'APP'
BgT I2OIO & CM APPL,728I2OIT, LA,APP. 9O3I2O1O, LA.APP.
LA.APP.7 84/2005 & connected tb f,s go7l2oro, LA.APP. 938/2010, LA.APP. g3.gl2oro, LA'APP'
1034/2010 & 'cM APPL, 3086/20tr 1, LA:APP. L04012010 & cM
APPL. 56731207t, LA.APP. :IO Il2Oto, LA.APP 104112010, LA.APP.ro45l2}10,'LA.APP.:.046120]-0,LA.APP.l048l20r0'
LA.APP.IO4gl2oIo,LA.APP.1050/2010,'LA.APP.1056/2010'
LA,APP. 1060/2010, LA.APP. 1061i2010, LA.APP: t077120L0, LA,APP. I25I2OT1, LA.APP . 12612011, LA.APP,25BI2OTI f,#.
(Retatfng to Notification uis 4 dated 21.03.2003 &
No.3/2O05-06, Village-M undka)
;.
.i '
383/2010, LA.APP. 38412010, LA.APP. 385/2010, LA.APP.
473120l0, . LA.APP. . 4g2l20ro, LA,APP. 586/2010, LA.APP' sgtlzoro, tA.APP, 638/2010, LA.APP. 690/2010, LA.APP.
692.120T0, LA.APP. TIII?070, LA.APP , 71612010, LA.APP.
763120L9, LA.APP. 87212010, ' LA.APP. 87312010, ' LA.APP. gSiiiolo, LA.App. gBT lzoro, LA.APP. 891i2010, 'LA.APP.
8}2I2OTO, LA.APP. 898/2010, LA.APP. 9O6I2OLO & CM APPL.
No.4443 |2OTO, LA.APP. 93712010- & CM APPL' 2329912010, LA.APP. 104212010, LA.APP. 7047 12010
(Relating to Notification u/s No. 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka)' dated 21.03.2003 & Award
AND
LA.App. 1003i2010, LA.APP.. IOIi ]2OIO, LA.APP. 1019/2010, LA.APP. 102212010; LA.APP. I023120t0, LA.APP,' 104412010, '
.CM APPL. No.5 656120.7]-, . LA. APP. 1055/2010, ' LA.APP.
1057120]-0, LA.APP. 1058/2010, LA.APP. 1059/2010, LA.APP.'
1068/2010, LA.APP. t069120]-0, LA.APP. t24l20rr, LA.APP. r2712011, LA.APP. 12812011, LA.APP. 259120rr
Award' - (Relating to Notification uls 4 dated
No. 13/2006-07, Village-M undka)
AND
"t ii , LA.APP. 4Ol2O0g & Cross O.bjections, LA.APP. 42812009, 44212009, ' LA.APP..
6t6l2OO9; LA.AP P . 27 Bl20r0 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24.Og.ZbOS
No.3/2004-05, Vil lage-Bakka rwa la ), AND LA,APP. L}zglzo:Jo & cM No.5948120L1, '. LA.APP.
1030/2010' LA'APP' t03t12010' LA'APP' 1033/2010 & cM', uo.6645 12OI]-', . LA.APP. 106212010, 1063/2010 & CM
NO.6943 I2O],I, LA.APP. 1064I?0T0, LA,APP. T06612010, LA.APP.
1067 12010, LA.APP. 1112011, LA.APP, l22l20rr
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06'2005
No.1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala) .
LA.APP. 42,6;12009, 61112009, .'LA.APP.- t & -Award "
& Awa rd fa} '
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local to see the judgment? papers may be
2. To be referred to RePofter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, l. (O.ral) a llowed T in the'Di.gest?
1. I am deciding the above captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way. of cross objections; all of which have been listed hereinabove. LA.APP.[7] 8412005 & connected
2. The present market value of land in and village Mundka.. 3, The dates on whjch fai'r market valub.of the. land to be determined may be graphically noted as under:- \\ decision concerns issue of fixation of fflp ' i,' the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwa'ld l^^- I l'g) Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act 24.9.2003 77.6.2005 ' 25.2.1997. 21.3.2003, 17.6.2005 at serial. the s'ame estate of were" acquired -' S.N'o.
1.
2. 3.'
4.
5. 4.. Name of Villaqe Bakkarwala Bakkarwala Mundka Mundka Mundka It may be highlighted that the notification. No.2 hereinabove, pertainin(7 to.villagb nakkarwala, is pursuant whereto lands were"acquired in the revenue Village Mundka; as.per serial No.5 above. 5, Abutting NH-10, leading,from.. the city of Delhi to the township pf Rohtak in the state of Haryana, are.villages Mundkq, Ghevrb and Tikri Kalan. Village Bakkarwala lies towa"rds*fhp other side of the southern bounda ry of village Mundka. The difference between the topology of the two villages is; wherea,s' the land of village. Mundka abuts NH-10, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the, southern boundary of revenue estate of villagg Mundka
6. As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mrindka ib crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan,
7. Agricultural lands in village Mundka pursuant to a n.otificatiol dated 25.2.Igg[7] issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Ac.t as per award No.2/1999/2000.r Agriculiural lands in the ievenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 2I'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 date d L[7].6.2005 issued under Section 4 of. thd Land Acquisition Act as per Award No'13/2006-07.
Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24.g.2003. issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as' per Award No,312004-05. Further lands in the revehue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17,6.2005 (the same notifiFation under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No '112006-07 '
9. In a nut shell, the 'Land 'Acquisition collector' 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 \hat peftainin$' to the notification dated 25.2.Igg[7] under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village'Mundka.were acquired, ttre learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural lahd notified with effect from I.4.Igg[7]. @ t10 lacs per acre'and since.the date of Section 4 notification was anteriol in point of time, discounted LA.AP P.[7] 84 /.2005 & co n nected #Ete' Ib/ p, the price for one ygar @ 1L5% per gnnu'm.. This price' was adopted for category A lands.' For lands in category Br the'value
1. was further discounted by T90,000/- per acr.e: Pertain,ing to the ' notifications dated 2L[3].2003 ' and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collbctor" relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of L.4.2OOl and'gave ho benefit of enhancem'ent with reference to the fact that the fair, market value of the lands'to be determined was as of 2L[3].2003 and 24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the notification.dated I[7],6.2005 which required fair market value of 'land to bp,determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and; villqge Mundka,as of 17.'6.2005, the Land Rcquisitio.n Collector determined the same with reference to the notificdtion fixing mininrum value of agricultural lands in.Delhi as of J 4.2OO[1] and lave no increase. Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market 11. 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 deicrees, which are under challenge in the above captioned' appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference court, and enhanced the fair market.value.
72. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notificatlon dated 25.2,1997 vide which agiicultural 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.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected ' Page 7 of,79 i-, ut.i i Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the mininium Value' for, agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. L[4].Igg[7], but as against the Land Acquisition collector depressing the price @ 11,5o/o far full'one year; adopting the percentage 11.5, decreased the value by.. only 34 days inasmuch as it'r" date with referen'ce 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.\997. This was the value fixed for category A lands. and for category B lands; with reference to the 'values for' ' category A land depressed the same by t90,000/-.per acre. '13.Thus,forcategoriA'|andstheReferenceCourt determined the fair market value @ t[9],89,288/- per acre and for category B land the same wa-s determined @ tB;99,2881.- per.'. acre.
14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 2L[3].2003 and 2+.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and' village eaftkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Governrnent had.'' notified the minimum rates for agricultttral lands in Ddlhi as of i' I.4.ZOO[1] the'next revision was as of 30.8.2005. Using the said lr".,f: dates and the minimuf pricb notified by the Government of NCT $ _r.. Delhi, the Reference Court adopted'the principle bf mean average. What the Reference Court did.was to adopt the value. as of.1.4.2OO:- and increasing 'the same by ir}% per annum determined the enhanced price as, of,21.3.2003 as also 24.g.2003. Thereafter the Reference Court.took th.u value notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 1'0% per t \\,i: errived at ad of 2L 3'2003 as'also annum determined the sum arrlved at as o 24.g.2003, The two sums'arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure'as of 2L[3].2003', which I note comes to t15,92,083.33 per acre (ln some decisions I note'the: Sqmarrivedatis<I.5,g[2],215/-).Forthedate24'9.2003the price determin.ed was {20,41,000/- per acre. '
15. Pertaining to the notification dated 77.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands' wbre acquired in'village,. Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Refere'nce Court:adopted: the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1,4.2001 an,d giving 1g;r increase @10%.per annum determingd the valu'e and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, o'n account of locational advantage, being abutting'NH-10 gave 5% more and determined the faii market value. as of; 17.6.2005 in'sum.oi <2!,37,0I[7].75 per acre and for villag? Bakkarwala tl" pricq determined was <20,35,255/- per acre.:
16. In the aforesaid backdrop of {he factual scenario in which I have pbnned Profiled the rf oni.ng, of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the., rence Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before md-] ring hearing tod.ay. T[7], With reference to the encq l,ed in LAC urged by Sh.L,B.Rai, No.3B4l[2] OO[4] lamna Vs. UOl & Ors., it F.No.78412005, which / --l argument was adopted by othei learn ju'stified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.Pr.[ LA.APP.78412005 & connectdd unsel who appeal.ed Trial Judge was not" whereunder'.[1] bigha..,l E" -..-7 \b and 3 biswa of agricultqral land in village [4undka was so.ld as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consideiation of T[4],7qi000r. {38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the gripe of the lAnd would f -".be t[5],13,000/- and calculated with refereRc't! thereto, land price I per bigha would come to {4,46,000/- as o{.5.8.1996. Learned counsel.would urge that there is ho reasoni'not to hold that fair parket' value of agricultural lands in village Mundka wa.s t[4],46,000/- per bigha as of 5.8.1996.:Taki'ng the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair,market value needs to be detefmined as' of ?5 2.1993, 2I.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% per annum at least bV I0% per annum. lt is urged that on the same basis, land price.shbulb be determined for the agricriltur:al lands in village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged tha] since villages 'Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are. contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further.towards the township of Rohtak, somE increasd be m.ade in the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala'with reference to the judg'ment and decree dated 1,9.12.2008 deciding a 'batch of Land Acquisition Apf eals, lead matter being LA Appeal No.193/2 006 Pratap Sinoh @eceased).T/?t. LRs.Vs, uQl'as per which fair market value of. land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri. Kdlan as of 16'11'1995, 11.6.1996 and:I[7]..:-.2.2002 at T[2],75,1641- fof.category A land ' ' \-k and {1,73,500/- for category B land; {2,35,850 for lcategory A land and {1,90,150/- for Category Bi' land; 74,02,850/- for category A land and '.<3,24,8501for category B land, respectively.
18. lmay note here that in various land acquisitiOn references, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during argurhents today before me, learned counsel for the land'owners have gnly relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-1
19. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOI would urge tha.t the'sale price as per.Ex.P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to b'e 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 tb be determined.whether what percentage of stones.are mixed in a bag of iice it would not be a safe metfiod to pick only one grain, tor it 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 of stone, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of 'stones' At.least a iistfut should be l.ifted and then checked as a representative Sample, is.the example giyen. The second reason on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not 'being representative of the price is the reason that p'eople do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before eicquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notificdtion.under Section 4. Page 1L of19 It!*; \{ of the Ldnd Acquisition Act. Learned'cOu'nsel'would conceide if'at ttre. reasons given by the'learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by iiim should be considered'by t[is Court as the reasons'as to why Ex.P-l be..not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value. of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala. Thirdly, learned counsel woutd further urge ttrat the four sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-4 referied.to in the decision of the learned. Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995' '30.5,Igg[7], 4.6.1gg[7] and 8.9.1997 relied upo,i by UOI would show the actual market, value of the land and'thus leained counsel would urge that the said four.s.ale deeds should be ccjnsidered, but hastens to add, that $ince value, ieflected '.!: thereih is less than the minimum plice notified by. the Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the. minimum price notified by the Government which'is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were-issued.under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 20..An independent and alternative arlgument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union. The Same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of'this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 23I lai Sinoh Vs. UO/. - -7 2I, ' The decision in lai Sinah's case (bupra) concerns itsblf with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired Bursuant to a notification dated 15.10.1993 at T[1],32,000/-.per bigha. Learned coUnsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch "F-t1"*t' ).; t\ I ": as Petitions for Special'Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme I Courtp'by either side have' been dismissed' Learned counsel ta,kes'the argument forward by urging that by'adopting.the fair marki:t value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15'10'1993 at' T[1],32,000/- per bigha, the fair rharkbt value should be ascer$ined by increasing the piice progressively by L0% pel. annum. to determine the. market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24.g'2003 as also !7'6'2005' Learned counsel would urge that in view of the iocational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25,2.1gg[7],2I.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, by'giviri.g 57o increase. with respect to the sale deed Ex.P-1, whereunder 1 22. -. - '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 the Lahd Acquisition'Act, which was issued on'
25.2. Lg,g[7]. lt is a matter of iommon knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey;s 'are carried lout 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. ln Delhi, the large scale acquisitibri po.licy enjoins upon the Govefnment to allot, at pre determined rates'' a plot of developed resiUential land to the on'es whose lands are. '\.. acquiredandthus,itisnotuncommon'forpersonstopurchase small parcels of lands'ln areas wheie acquisitions' are likely to take place; these transactions are specplative and cannot be taken to be a represeritative measure of the fair'market value qf |and,ason'thedateofthesa|e.Further,theprinciples.ofratio and.pro'portionaSa|sotheprincip|esofaveragesandthe principlesofsamp|ingte|lmethattoberepresentative.ofthe whole, a sample must bpar at intelligibie proportion to the' whole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced bi t|e learned Reference court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore'noted' I ho|.dthatEx.P-lcannotbegoodevidencew|rerefrommarket value of the land could be determined' There is an additiohal reason not to rely upon the said saIe deed.-The.sale,deeds Ex.R.- 1'toEx.R-4,dated6'1'1995'30'5'1gg7'4$'L997and8'9'L997 area|sopertainingtoVillageMundkaandref|ectasaleprice., much|owerthan.thesalepricerecordedinEx.P-1.Infact,the sa|epriceinthesaid4saledeedsaveragesmuchlessthan eventheminimumpriceforagriculturaIlandinDe|hinotifiedby the Government. 23.,Thus, the fair market value of the' lands uiou'ld be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court in lai Sinoh'scase (supra) ciT Prata 5in,ah's case (supra)' 24, I hightight that both decisions' penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been uphetd by the Sripreme Court'
25. The decision in lai Sinah,s case (supra) 'determined.;. fair market.value of land. in Village.Bakkarwala in 'sum 'of tl,32,000/- per bigiha as of 15'10'1993' and the 'perusal thereof LA. APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected ' Page L4otL[9] 1\ would show that the Court assessed the.fair market value'with reference to sale deed,s executed between the years 1990 till 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 in.dicative of fair market value of land in Village B.akkarwala. 26, ln PratAp Sinah's case (supra), the Division Bench, was concerned with agiicultural lands in Tikri 'Kalan and.another. adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued'under.Sectiorl 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under: t
27. Following the judgment in Pratap Sinqh's case.(supra) I have decided the fai.r market value for the. land situateil in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant. to notification dated 6.2.2003 in the batch of appea'ls being Land LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected '
S. NO. Date Village Price per Bigha
1. 24.07.1995 & 16.[1] 1.1995 Tikri Kalan {2,15,1601- for Block A & t[1],73,500/- for, Block B land
2. 11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan. & Ghevra t[2],35,8151- for Block A & {1,90,1561- for
3. 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan <4,02,850/- for Block 'A & <3,24,850/- for AcquisitionAppeaINo,48g|2oog,ChiranjiLaIvs,|Jnionof|ndia&' Anr,on[2],6'2011'thavedetermi,nedthefairmarketval,"o'.1u, |andsinVil|ageGhevraatt[4],03,425|-perbighaasof[6].2.2003j on.theissueofcomparabilityoflandinvillageBakkarwalawith vil|age Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village Bakkarwala dbes not abut NH-10, as do the other villages, but it has to be-highlighted that it is more proximat.etotheurbanbreasofDe|hivis,.d.vis..GhevraandTikri Kalanandtothatextent,quasaid2vilIages,hasanadvantage. since exactness. can never be achievbd in the matters of.assessingfaircompensation,itisthebroadprobabititiesbnd similarities which matter'.Thus' I.hold atl.[4] villageS-to be equivatent,un|essQ.uaSome|andspecia|featurescanbeshown. \-Ysr v vrv'l !-,
28. Since the decision in PrataP sr dea|swithnotificationsmoreproximate'inpointoftimetothg' notificatiorrs with which l am concerned' l am of 'the opinion that., it wou|d be just, fair and proper to determine.the: fa.ii market,. valueof|andswithwhichIamconcerhedinrelationtothefair: market value of lands determined in Pratap Sinoh's case (supra)" As per the decision i n Pratap Sinah's case (supra) for the date
24. T1995,forCategoryAlandsfair'compensationassessedwas <2,!5,!60l- per b.igha and {1,73'500/- per bigha for Category B land. The first notification with which I. af concerned is 25,2,;ggTwhereunderlandsinVillageMundkaWe[eacquired. The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 da)ts i'e' 587 days' In Pratapsinah,scase(supra)theannua|increasewasdetermined tobelo%peranr.tum(flat).Thus,pertainingtoCategory..A ' I a a '.-) _42 <y lands, the fair market value assessed is {2,49'408'75 per b'igha ''". *'',n',I,62:( per ac.re and for Category B,lands, l assess the fair market value at t[2],OI'Ll-71- per bigha i'e' t[9].'65'36-1'6'0 per' The next notifitation with which I am 'concerned-6 acre. 29, ? U the same. LA. APP.[7] 84/2005 & co n nected P^seL[7] 0fL[9],-o dated 21.3.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka ' ln.Chlra1l'i Lal"s cbs (supra), with reference tq the decisio,n in Pratap Slnah'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't[4],03,+251- per' bigha. This. was'uniffrmly'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 2I.3.2003, fair rnarket value of land in Village Mundtca should be <4,03,425/- i.e. {19,36,440/- p'er acre' which I herebY fix,.
30. I propose to deai wittr the' notificatiqn dated' 24.g.2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 '6'2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acQuired in' Village Mundka and Vi'lla[9],e Bakkarwala'.
31. As noted hereinabove, in Chiran.ii Lal's case (supra).,. periaining to the notification dated 6.2'2003, fair market value assessed by me was {4,03,4251- per bigha and thus, increasihg thesameby:I0%forZyearsandl3ld,ays,thefigurecomesto {4,98,589i- per bigha, which comes to't23 '93'227 '29 q:t Acrb' ' The same is held by me to be the fair.matket value of"land. in " Village Mundka and Villbge Bakkarwala as of'17 '6"2005' I dgcree ri 32.lam|eftWiththenotificationdated2!'.9.2003. pertbining tg Village Bakkarwala and with refefence,, to'the fain market value assessed in Chlran.ti Lbl's case, I woulcil require tO appreciate the price' py tOo! per annut -r.a period of 201days' the figure comes to t[4],25,6qU- per bigha.i.e. <20,43,076'80 pe'r acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of'land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24'9'2003 33..Accordingly, Ihg appeals'filed by tle Union of lndia require to be' dismissed and'l hereby dismiss the same' The.appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed' by the land owners stands decreed as under:rY, A land in Village ' i) For.h: tung fallins.. in Cateso:u," ltt: ll..' MLrndki the fair 'market. value is fixed at" is { 2,49.A08.75 per bigha i.9.T !!,g[7],162|- per ejcre.and.. for Category.B Iands, the,fair market value is fixed at '{2,07,Ilr71- per bigha i'e' t9'65'361'60 per acre' as on 25.02.1997. ii) For the land situated market value is fixed {19,36,[4] 401- Per acre, ' iii) For'the land situated market value is fixed {23,93,227.20'Per acre, iv) For the land market 'value LA.APP.[7] 8412005 & con.nebted in Village Mundka the. fai'r at {4,03,4251.- Per bigha i'e' as on 2I.03.2003.': nf',l in. Village Mundka at {4,98,5891- per as on 17.06.2005: the'fair bigha i.e. situated in Village Bakkarwala' the fair is fixed at. {4,98,5891-'per bigha i''e' ' 1l,/ * H,. '.{23,d[3],227.20 per acre,.as on 17,06.2005' ';. v) For the land situated in Viliage Bakkdrwala'the fair ' market valu'e is fixed. at t[4],25,64U- per bigha i'b' ' <20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 24'09.2003, vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded wou|da|sobeen'tit|edtoso|atiUmandinterestasper statute and aS clarified in the'decisiOn reported as.'f', ' "hii: 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder'vs. (/O/, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by; the Reference court and finally on the sum enhanced' ';', by the present judgment and decree.: vii) The appellants and'cross-objeitors wlro succeed.i. wou,ld also be entit{ed to proportionate costs..i viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of ' vers made therein.. the prayers made therein. _.-.".-*t{
JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 mm:: LA.APP.[7] 84/.0.005 & connected.t li. rV