Union of India v. Kalawati Decd. Thr Lrs & Ors.

1 I Yr LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAPP 1.25/2010, LA.APP. 164/20I0 LA.APP 185/2010, LA.'APP ••.'. 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LAAPP 238/2010, LAAPP 23912010; LA.APP. 243/2010.[1] LA.APP; 244/2010; LA.APP.'. 245/2010, LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010', LAAPP 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/201d, LAAPP 27/2010, 'LA.APP. 274/2010, LA.APP., 275I210, LA..APP. 31212010, LA.APP. 324/2010,. L.A. APP. 326/20.10, LA.APP. 327/2010., LA.APP. 329/201.0, LA.APP. 330/2010, LA.APP. 331/2010, LA.APP. 332/2010, LA.APP..333/2010 with C.M. APPL. No. '5524/2011, LA.AP.. 335/2010, LA.APP.. 367/2010, LAAPP 368/2010; LA.APP. 369/2010, LA.APP. P 371/2010 & CM APPL:' No.20099/2010, LA.APP. 374/2010,.LA.APP.' 375/2010; LA.APP; 377/2010, LA.APP, 379/2010, LA..AIDP. '423/2010, LAAPP... 452/2010, LA.APP. 461/2010, 'LA.APP. 472/2010, LA.APP.. 694/2010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No.' 6340/2011, LA.APP...697/2010, LA.APP. 698/2010 & CM APPL, 1734/2011, LA.APP. I... 706/2010 &.CM APPL. 17215/2010, LA.APP. 707/2010, LA:APP. 708/2010, LA.APP. 709/2010, LA.APP..710/2010 with C11' APPL. No.2568/201,1, LAAPP..713/2010 with CM APPL.. Jo.7473/201.0, LAAPP 715/2010, LAAPP 717/2010, LAAPP 719/2010, LAAPP 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, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAPP 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LA.APP.. 877/2,010, LA.APP. 878/2010, LA'.APP: ' 879/2010, LA.APP..880/2010, LA.APP. 881/2010 & CM APPL.6505./2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP.' 884/2010., LA.APP. 886/2010 1, LA.APP. 888/2010, ' LA.APP.. •. 889/2010 & CM APPL.2249/2011,. LA.APP.. 890/2010, LA.APP. H 893/2010 & 'CM APPL 6750/2011 1. LA.APP. 894/2010, & CM No.23353/2010, LA.APP. 895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2.010, LA.APP... 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP 907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 939/2010, LAAPP 104/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LA APP 1040/2010 & CM APPL 5673/2011, LA APP 1041/2010, LAAPP 1043/2010, LA.APP. 1045/2010..... 048/2010.. - LA.PP. 1049/201.0, - LA.APP. 10-50/20 10 LA.APR 1056/2010,.. LA.APP. 1060/2010, L.. 01-0, LA.,PP. 1071/2010,. LA.APP. 125/2011, LA.AP.P. 126/2011, LA.APP 258/2011. (Relating to Notification u/$ 4 dated- 2L03.2003- & Award - No.3/200.5-06, ViIlage-Mundka) AND +. LA.APP. 600/2009, LAAPP. 605/2009-1 LA.APP.. 615/2009, LA APP 310/2010, LA APP 325/2010, LA APP 376/2010, LA APP -.. 383/2010, LA.APP. 384/2010, LA.APP; 385/2010,. LAAPP. 473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP. 586/2010, LA.APP: - 591/2010, LAAPP 63812010, LAAPP 690/2010, LAAPP 692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/2010, LAAPP 885/20.10,. LA.APP 887/2010[1] LA.APP. 891/2010, LA.APP,... 892/2010, LA.APP. 898/2010, LA.APP.. 906/2010 & CM APPL;- No.4443/2010, LA.APP-. 937/2010 & CM -APPL. 23299/2010, LA.APP. 1042/2010., LA.APP. 1047/2010... • (Relatig to.. Notification. u/s 4 dated 21.0.3.2003 & Award No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND • LA.APP. 1003/2-010, LA.APP. 1017/2010, LA.APP. 1019/2010; - LA.APP. - 102-2/2010, LA.APP. 1023/201.0, LA.APP. 1044/2010, •. • LA.APP. 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010, LA.APP. 1054/2010 &. CM APPL. No.5656/2011, LA. APP..- 1055/2010, LA.APP. •. 1057/2010, LA.AP.P. 1058/20-10, -LA.A.PP. 1059/2010, LA.APP. 1068/2010, LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. • 124/2011, LA.APP. 127/2011, LA.APP.- 128/2011, - LA.APP. 29i2011.. - ••.. LA.AP784/2005 & connected.. •. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No.13/2006-07, ViilageM'undka). AND • LA.APP. 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA.APP. 426/2009, LA.APP. 428/2009, 442/2009 LA.AP'P. 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-Bakkarwala) AND + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No 5948/2011, LAAPP • ' ' 1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, 'LA.AP'P. 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.AP • 1067/2010, LA.APP. 11/2011, LA.App;.122/2o11 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated'. 17.06.2005,& 'Award No.1/2006-07, Village-Bakka,rwala)..'.. 'CORAM:. HON.[1] BLE MRJUSTICE PRADEEPNANDRAJOG • ' Whether the Reprters of local papersayballdwed • • to see the judgment? • • • • •. To be referred to Reporter or not?:, ' •

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

1. ' • I am deciding the above, captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications Which ré by way of cross objections; all of which have been listed hereinabove.,' LA.APP784/2005 & connected,... • '.. '.....'..., 2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of fau market value of land in the revenueestate of Village &akkarwa1a and, village Mundka. 3.. The dates on which fair market value of the l'ad. has. to be determined may be graphically noted as under - S.No. Name of Village Date of notift- ation under. Section4oftheLAAct Bakkarwala. 24.9.2003. Bakkarwala 17.6;2005.,..Mundka. 252.19.97. Mundka: 21.3.2003 •..... 5.. Mundka.,. S 17.6.2005 S

4. It may be highlighted that the notification at serial..No.2hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pUrsuant whereto lands were:acquired in the revenue e.state of •.Village Mundka; asper serial No[5] above....

5 Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi' jo the township pf Rohtakin the State of Har'ana, are villages Mundka Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the • S àther side of the Southern boundary of village Mund'k'a. The.. difference between the topology of the two villages is; whereas the Jand of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other side of the Southernbou.ndary of rvenue estate of village Mundka. S As we proceed from the city. of Delhi to the tôvnsh'ip of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village I Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired • LA.APP:78472005 &connected.' •. •. ' '. • pursuant to a notification dated 25.24 997 issued under Section 4 of te Land Acquisition Act as peraward No 2/9/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Midka were further acquiredpursuant to a notificatioh dat 21.3.2003 issued under Section 4 qf 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 sarne village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.[6] 005 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 Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a. notification dated 24.9.200,[3] isued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act a. ' 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

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 that pertaining to the notification dted 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in % the revenue estate of viRage Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisitibt Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural laind notified With effect from 1.4.1997 @ Z10 lads.peracre and since the dt of Sedion 4 notification was anterior in point of tirn, discounted A APP 784/2005 & connected the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum This price was adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 9O,000/- per acre..Pertaihing to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification 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 rnrketvalue of the laflds to be determined ws sbf 21.3.2003. and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwaia and village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing.inimum value of agricultural làhds in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 and gave no increase

11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition: Collector, the lari.d owners sought a• reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 anti on the reference being made, vide various judgrents and decrees, which are under challenge in the above captioned appeals, the leference Courttook corrective action, as per the view of. the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair market value 1.... In:a nut shell, perainng to the notification' dated 2.5.21.1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition C011ector under which the., Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for. agricultural lands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the pdce @ 11.5% for full one year; adopting the percentage 11.5, decreased the va!ue by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and.the nbtification und.er Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was • dated 25.2.1997. This was the valuefixedfor category A. lands, and for category B lands, with reference to the values for • category A land depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre.

13. Thus, for category A lands the Réferene Court determined the fair market value © 9189,288/7 per acre añd.fàr category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288I- per,. acre.....

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.912003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference. Court took note of the fact that after the. Governmeflt had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhias of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the minimum pice 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 increaing 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 annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21.12003 2003 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arriv at we, added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figur as of 21.3.2003, which I note comes to 15,92,083 33 per ace (In some decisions I note the sUm arrived at is 15,92,215/-)., For the date' 24.9.2Q03 th price deterrnined was,Z20,41,000[7 peracre.

15. Pertaining' to the notifiation dated 17.62005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned 'Reference Court adOpted. the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of N'CT 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. '

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 befóre me during hearing today. '

17. ' With reference to' the evidence led in ' LAC No384/2004/arnna Vs. LJOI & Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai,. learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.74/2005, which' ' argument was adopted by other learned counsel.who appeared for the other appellants; that the learned Trial judge was nat justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereunder I bigha LA.APP.84/2005 & conneted, ' ', and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5.81996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/-. 3 8, 0 0 0/-.,,'wa s L 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, 4,46,0'00I-. as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold thatfair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- 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 determind as of 25 2 1993, 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% per annum at least by 10% per annUm. It is urged that on the same basis ' land price shouId be determined for the, agricultural; lands in viIlage 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 toinship of Rohtak, some increae be made. in the value ofth'e ' land in yillage Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the % )udgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of, 'Land. Acquisition Appeals, lead matter. being' LA Appe&. • No.193/2006 Prata,o Sincjh ('Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. UO/asper' which fai.r market vlue of, land, per' bigha, was determined in the revenue est'ate of. village Tikri Ka'ln as of: 16.21.1995, ' 11.61996 and 17 12 2002 at '2,15,164/- for category A land LA.ARP.784/2005 & connected.. '. ',. 'Pap 10 of 19:,:, a.nd U,73,500!- for categbry B land; 2,35,85@ for category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land; 4,02,850/-: for category A land and '3,24,850I- fOr category, •B land, respectively.

18 I may note héré that in various land acquiiibn references various parties have proved a number of sale deeds executed from time to time, but durirg arguments tobay béore me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i • 19. •' Per contra, Sh.Sanja.y Pbddar learned cbunsel for the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adopted 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 determined, whether what percentage of H stones are mixed in a baof rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead to the condusion that the bag is.i00% full of rice and if that one grain ha.ppens to be a piece of stoie, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of'stons. At least a.. fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative 'sample, 'is the example given. • The second reso"n 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 acqui lsitions. '. are made, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasors given by the learned Ref&ence Court. are npt • sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by.thiscoutas the reasors as to why;Ex.P-1 be not taken as the basis..to determine the fair 'market value of lands in village Munclka and Bakkarwala Thirdly,:learfled counsel would further, urge that the four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decisièn of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 46.1997 and 89.1997 relied• upon by UOI would show' the actual mrket value of'.the land. rd thus learned counsel wbuld urge that the said four sale deeds 'should be •'. considered, but hastens to add, that ince 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 Governrn.eit 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 isi also 'advanced by learned counsel for the Union, The same 'rests ' itself on a decision of a Division Bnch of this Court' reported. as • •. 2006 (135)'DLT 231 /aiSingh.Vs. UQI. •. • • '... •. •

21 The decision InjQSIngh'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 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel woUld urg.e that the said decision has attaifled finality inasrnudh LA.APP:784/2005 & connected. ', •,...•. as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either Side hve, been. disrnised Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in k'illage Bakkarwala as of 15.[1] 10.1993 at 1 32,000!- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertaihed by increasirig the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakkarwaiá as of 24.9.2003 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 should be determined as of 25.2.1997, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 005, by giving 0... 22° With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was told in Village •.. Mundka as of 5.8.199.6,: it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 months prior tothe date Of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25 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 deterrnining as to what lands., comprised in ivhich khasra numbers and fields are quired to be notified for the proposed acquisition and whn this happens people in the area come to O know that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands •. • would,be acquired. In Delhi, the large scale acquisition pojicy • enjoins upon the Government to allot., atpre determinedrates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA APP 784!2005 & connected acquired and thus, it is not ucommon, for persons to purchase n small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place; these transactions are speculative and. cannot. be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of landas on the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and the principles of smpling tel me that to be representtiVe 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-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional I reason not to rely upon the said sale deed. The sale. deeds Ex.R- O 1 to Ex.RL[4], dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sa)e price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the sàe prie in the said 4 sale deeds averages muh less thn even j fl j mum. p rice for agricultural land.inDelhi notified by the'Goverflment.