Full Text
LA.APP.889/2010 & CM No.2249/2011 (Cross Objections)
UOI Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate for the applicant/respondent.
08.07.2011 CM Nos.10220-21/2011
ORDER
1. R-1 Dalbir Singh has died. Vide CM No.10221/2011 it is prayed that the delay in re-filing CM No.10220/2011 be condoned, by which application, his legal heirs seek substitution.
2. Both applications are allowed as prayed for subject to just exceptions.
3. Amended memo of parties be filed in the Registry today itself by counsel for the applicants. LA.APP.889/2010 & CM No.2249/2011 (Cross Obiections) For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG.
J. JULY 08, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:13406 r % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DRtp ofPpri^ion: 2011 + JAMNA UOl Sl ORS I A APP. 784/2005 I Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate, Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate, Mr.D.S.Lakra, Advocate, Mr.K.Sunii, Advocate, Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate Mr.Shadain Farashat, Advocate
VERSUS
Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel(LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms.Deepika, Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates. Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Kanika Agnihotri, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharma, Ms.Shobhna Takiar and Mr.Aruh Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND + LA.APP. 879/2005, LA.APP. 880-881/2005,. 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 fated 25 02.1997 &Award No.2/1999-2000, Village Mundka) AND + LA.APP. 583/2009, LA.APP. 603/2009, LA.APP. 604/1009, LA.APP. 606/2009, LA.APP. 610/2009, 74/2010, LA.APP. 78^010, LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 1 of: rl M' W LA.APP. 79/2010, LA.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010, OA.APP. 125/2010, 186/2010, 239/2010, V,245/2010, 252/2010, 273/2010, 312/2010, 327/2010, 331/2010, LA.APP. 164/2010, LA.APP. LA. APP. 200/2010, LA.APP. 243/2010, LA.APP. 247/2010, LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. 274/2010; LA.APP. 324/2010, LA. APP. LA.APP. 329/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 332/2010, LA.APP. 333/2010 with GM APPL. No. 5524/2011, LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367/2010, LA.APP. 368/2010, LA.APP. 369/2010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & GM APPL. No.20099/2010, LA.APP. 374/2010, LA.APP. 375/2010, LA.APP. 377/2010, LA.APP. 379/2010, LA.APP. 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. 6340/2011, LA.APP. 697/2010, LA.APIf. 698/2010 & CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APP. 706/2010 & CM APPL. 17215/2010, LA.APP. 7p7/2()10, LA.APP. 708/2010, LA.APP. 709/2010, LA.APP. 710/2010 with CM APPL. No.2568/2011, LA,APP. 713/2010 with CM APPL. I^Jo.7473/2010, LA.APP. 715/20iq, LA.APP. 717/2010, LA.APP. 719/2010, LA.APP. 766/2010, LA.APf. 796/2010, LA.APP. 797/201'0, LA.APP. 7^8/2010, 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. 874/2010, LA.APP. 875/2010, LA.APP. 876/2010, LA.APP. 877/2010, LA.APP. 878/2010, 879/2010, LA.APP. 880/2010, LA.APP. 881/2010 APPL.6505./2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/2010, 884/2010, LA.APP. 886/2010, LA.APP. 888/2010, 88972MF'&''cM~7ppi^^ LA.APP. 890/2010, LA.APP. 893/2010 iv CM. APPL. 6750/20n, LA.APP. 894/2010 & CM No.23353/2010, LA.APP. 895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP. 897/2010 & CM APPL.728/2011, LA.APP. 903/2010, LA.APP LA.APP.784/2005 & connected 185/2010, 238/2010, 244/2010, 251/2010, 267/2010, 275/2010, 326/2010, 330/2010, LA-APf*. LA.APP. LA.APP.APP. 9O7/20I0, I^.APP. 938/2010, LA,APR, 9a©/2;^l% 1A.APP, 1034/2dl0 & GM APPL 3086/2011, LA.APP. 104^/20.10 & CM APPL. 5673/2011, L/\.APP. 1041/2010, LA.APP.* i043/2010, LA.APP. 104^5/2010, LA.APP. 1046/1010, LA.APP. 1048/2010, LA.APP." 1049/2010, LA.APP. 1050/2010, LA.APP. 1056/2010, LA.APP. 1060/2010, LA.APP. 1061/2010, LA.APP. 1071/2010, LA.APP. 125/2011, LA.APP. 126/2011, LA.APP. 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 Award No.3/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND -I- LA.APP. 600/2009, LA.APP. 605/2009, LA.APP. 615/2009, LA.APP.-310/2010, LA.APP. 325/2010, LA.APP. 376/2010, LA.APP. 383/2010, Ia./VPP. 384/2010, LA.APP. 305/2O1O, LA.APP. 473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP. 586/201(^, LA.APP. 591/2010, lA.APP. 638/2010, LA.APP. 690/2010, LA.APP. 692/2010,, LA.APP. 711/201O, LA.APP. 716/2010, LA.APP. 763/2010, LA.APP. 872/2010, LA.APt^. 873/2010, lA.APP. 885/2010, LA.APP. 887/2010, LA.APP. 891/2010, "LA.APP. 892/2010, LA.APP. 898/201^; LA.APP. 906/2010 & CM APPL. No.4443/2010,, LA.APP. 93'7/20lO & CM APPL. 23299/2010, LA.APP. 1042/2010, LA.APP. 1047/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award No.1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND LA.APP. 1003/2010, LA.APP. 1017/2010, l^-A.APP. 1019/2010, LA.APP. 1022/2010, LA.APP. 1023/2010, 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.APP. 1058/2010, LA.APP. 1059/2010, LA.APP. 1068/2010, LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. 124/2011, lA.APP. 127/2011, LA.APP. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award NO.13/20Q6-07, Village-Mundka) AND + LA.APR. 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA.APP. 426/2009, LA.APP. 428/2009, 442/2009,, LA.APP. 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 + 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, Village-Bakkarwala) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judglnent should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. (Oral)
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.
2. The preeent decision concerns issue of fi^cation of market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwaff and village Mundka. •3. The dates on which fair market value of the land has
1. 5 to be determined may be graphically noted as unden- S.No. Name of Villaae Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act
1. Bakkarwala 24.9.2003
2. Bakkarwala 17.6.2005
3. Mundka 25.2.1997
4. Mundka 21.3.2003
5. Mundka 17.6.2005
4. It may be highlighted tha^ the notification at serial No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the sahie pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka; as per serial No.5 above.
5. Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of 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 difference between the topology of the]two villages is; whereas the land of village Mundka abuts hJH-lO, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate ofvillage Mundka.
6. As we proceed from the city Of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan. ' Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA.APP.784/2005 4connected Page 5of19 pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Lafid Acquisition Adt 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 the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.3/2005-06 as also award No.V2005-06. Further lands in the revenuecestate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.20O[5] 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 24.9.2003 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.
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 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 agricultural land notified with effect from 1.4.1997 @ ^10 lacs per dcre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted the price for one year @ 11.5% per annum. This 'price was adopted for category A lands. For lands in category 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 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 market value of the lands to be determined was as of 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 Bakkarwala and village Mupdka 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 determination 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 captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and •enhanced the fair market value. 12- In 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.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 7of 19 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 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 whereto Gpvernment had notified the minimum value w^s 1.4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was t dated 25.2.1997. 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 ?90,000/-fper acre.
13. Thus, for category A lands 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 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 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 minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Reference Coprt 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 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 24.9.2003. The two sums arrived at were addei| and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.20^^, which I note comes to ^15,92,083.33 per acre (In some decifons I note the sum arrived at is ^15,92,215/-). For the date 24.9.2003 the price determined was ^^20,41,000/- per acre.
15. Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 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 NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the vahje 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 before me during hearing today.
17. With reference to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 lamna 1/5. UOl & Ors.. it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared fOr the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereunder 1 bigha 1^2003 as also pnd 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of ^4,75,000/-. t38,000/- was 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 woulcf come to ^4,46,000/- as of 5.8.1|996.- Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was ?4,46,000/- 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 determined 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 should be determined for the agricultural lands in 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 village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No.193/2006 Pratao Sinah (Deceased) Thr. LRs 1/5. UO! 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 land LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 10of19 and ?1,73,500/- for category B land; ?2,35',850 for category A land and ^1,90,150/- for category B land; ^4,02,850/- for category A land and ?3,24,850/- for category B land, respectively.
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. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of the W'hole, the sample must bear somq adequate proportion to the whole. For example, learned 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 safe 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 of stone, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full 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 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 under Section 4 0 the Land Acquisition,Act. Learned counsel would concede t^t the reasoris given by the learned Ref4|ence Court ^re not spuncj, but wo'pd urge that the two contentions adva'nced by him ^h,ould be dbnsidered by this Court as thie reasons as to why Ex.P-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bfkkai^wala. Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge tbat |he four sale deeds tx.R-i to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Cour;t pertaining to sale deeds dated 6,1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOI would 6how 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 i^rice notified by the Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government which ismearest 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 laiSinah 1/5. UOL
21. The decision in lai Singh's case (supra^ concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village B^kkarwala which were acquired pursuar>t to a notification d^ted 15.10.1993 at ?1,32,000/- per bigha. Learned qounsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Cpurt 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 Bakkarwala as of 15.10.1993 at ?1,32,000/- 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 24.9.2003 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 dpt^ermined as of 25.2.1997, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, by giving 5% increase.
22. With respect to the sale deed Ex.P-1, 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 s^e is about 7months prior to the 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 un^er 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 fgr 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;& connected Page 13 of19 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 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 inteiiigibie 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- 1to Ex.R-4, dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 46.1997 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.
23 Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to th^ decisiod of this Court in laiSingh's chse (supra) or Pratap Singh's case (supra).
24. Ihighlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
25. The decision in lai Singh's case (supra) determined' fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of " n,32,000/- per bigha as of 15.10.1993, and the perusal thereof I would show that the Court ass|^sed the fair market"value with reference to sale deeds execuj|pd between the years 1990 till I ^ 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 Pratao Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tjkri Kaian an^i another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Sectiori 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 Bigha
1. 24.07.1995 & 16.11.1995 Tikri Kalan ?2,15,160/- for Block A & n,73,500/- for Block B. land 2- 11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan & Ghevra ?2,35,ai5/- for Block A &• ?1,90,156/- for Block B land
3. 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan ^4,02,850/- for Block A & ?3,24,850/- for Block B land
27. Following the judgment in Pratao 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, lands in Village Ghevra at t[4],03,425/- per bigha as of 6.[2] 20 ^ on the issue of comparability of land in village Bakkarwala w village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true a whereas village Bakkarwala does not abut NH-10, as d other Villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is njo proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-^-vis Ghevra aqd T Kaian and to that extent, qua said 2villages, has an advantage^ Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters o assessing fair compensation, it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter. Thus, 1hold all 4 villages to e equivalent, unless qua some land special features can be shown
28 Since the decision in Pratan Singh's, case -(supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which 1am concerned, 1am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which 1am concerned in relation to the air market value of lands determined in Pratap Singh'scase (supra). AS per the decision \n_Pratap Singh's case (supra) for the date 24 7.1995, for Category Alands f^ir compensation assessed was f[2],15,160/- per bigha and n,73,50a(. per bigha for Category B land. The first notification with i^ch 1 am qoncerned is 25 21997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired. The time span sweeps 1year and 216 hays i.e. 5gi.days. In Pr^t^n.Singh's case (supra) tha annual inaease was determined to be 1G% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to Category A / \ iaids, the fair market value assessed i|*2,49.408:|f per bigha j.S. til,91,1621- per acre and for Category Biand^1assess the fair market value at ?2,01,117/- per bi^a i.e. ?9,66,361.60 per acre.
29. • The next, notification with whiich I am concertied_^ dated 21.3.2662) pertaining to Village lytundka. In Chiranii La!s cas (supra), with ref^erence to the decisipn in Praiap.binqh'scase (supra), for agriculturaUlands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 o;f the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assflri^ed was^4^03,425/- per bigha. This was uniformly applied. Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, Iam of the oa|nion that |)ertajning to the notification dated 21.3.2003, faiir Market value of land in Village Mundka should be ^4,03,425/- i.f. ^9,36,440/- per acre, which I hereby fix.
30. I propose to deal with the notification dated 24.9.2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala. 3]^ As noted hereinabove, in Chit^anii Lai's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003, fair market value assessed by me was f[4],03,425/- per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2years and 131 days, the figure comes to ?4,98,589/- per bigha, which comes to ?23,93,227^20 per acre. The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17.6.2005. Idecree the same. ^,
32. 1 am left with the notifiption dated 24.9.2003 pertaining to Village.Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair market value assesled in Chiranii Lai's case, Iwould require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a. period of 201 days, the figure comes to ?4,25,641/- per bigha i.e! ^20,43,076.80 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Viildge bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003.
33 Accordingly, the a-ppeaIs filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:i) For the land falling in Category A land in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed; at is ?2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. ^ 11,97,162/- per dcre and for Category Blands, the fa-ir market value is fixed at T[2],01,117/- per bigha i.e. ?9,65,361.60 per acre, as on 25.02.1997. ji) For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at ?4,03,425/- per bigha i.e. n[9],36,440/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003. iii) For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at ?4,98,589/- per bigha i.e. ?23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005-. iv) For 'the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at ?4,98,589/- per bigha i.e. ^^23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.^005. For the land situated in Village BakkarwaiaJ^he fair market value is fixed at ?4,25,'641/- per laflfha i.e. ?20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 24.09.2003. vi)' Appellants and cross-objectors who have s,uf:ceeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per sta-tute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93'(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOL 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-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs. viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein. ^gi,Y 08, 20i; >Tlim § LA.APP,784/2005 S^|fonnected (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG). JUDGE Page!|iiffl[9]