Full Text
LA.APP.200/2010
SURAJ PRAKASH Appellant
Through: Mr.L.B.Rai,Advocate
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1
JUDGMENT
41 HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER % 08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. I PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. JULY 08, 2011 mm o -3 2011:DHC:13413 LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 12212010, LAAPP 125/2010, APP 185/2blO,•LLA.APP. 186/2010,(LA APP 200/201QYLAAPP 238/2010, LAA1PP 239/2010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP 245/2010, LA.APP..247/2010, LA.APP 251/2010[1]:.,..'LA;APP. 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPP 312/2010 1 LA APP 324/2010, L.A.APP 326/2010,. LAAPP 327/2010, LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2p10, LAAPP 331/2010, LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 333/2010 with CM APPL No 5524/2011, LAAPP 335/2010, LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP 368/2010, LA.APP. 369/2010, LA.APP. 311/2010. & C. APPL. • No.20099/20.10, LA.APP, 374/2010, LA.APP. 375I2010,..LA.Ap;... 377/2010, LA.APP..379/2010, LA.APP. 423/2010, LAAP.P, 45212010[1] LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 634W2011, LA APP 697/2010, LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010, LAAPP 708/201,0 LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL No.2568/2011, LA.ARP. 713/2010 with CM APPL. No7473/201Q, •• LAAP 715/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LAAPP 71912010[1], LA APP 76/2010, LA APP 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010, ! LA APP 798/2010, •LA.APP. 7.99/2010,: LA.APP. 818/2010,.LA.AP. 819/2010, LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 & CM APPL.632/2011; LA.APP. •.834/2010, LA.APP. 842/2010, • LA.APP, 871/2010,: LA.APP. 7.4/200 LA.APP. 875/2010, •• LA.APP. 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 - - -.. A A r r I.:.854/2UIU, LA.AF. 3b/zUIU, • LIA.M'. 5bö/LUIU, LM.Rrr.. A F rs[1] I A A r ri 0 C ( / '•C\ 1 (\ 1 A A Ofl (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 13/pO6-O[7], Viilage-Rindka) AND + LA APP 40/2009 Cros Objectio, LA APP 426/2009, LA APP 428/2009, 442/2009, LA AP 611/2009, LA APP 616/2009, LA APP 278/2010 2 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 4 09 2003 & Award No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND + LA.APP 1029/201.0 &•• CM N$94.8/2011,....'LA.APP. 1030/2010, LAAPP 1031/2010, LAAPI 103312010 & CM No6645/2011[1], LAAPP 1062/2010, 063/2010 & CM No 6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP 1066/2010, LAAPP 1067/2010, LA APP 11/2011, LA APP 122/2011 (Retting to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 200S & Award No 1/2006-07 Villae-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 Resorter or not'?
3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? • PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I (Oral)
1 I am deciding the above captioned 2 appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applicatiors w}nch are by way of cross ojections, all of which have been listed hereinabove LA APP 784/2OO[5] & connected Page4of19 $
2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation off,t,r market value of land in the revenue estate of Village "If. and village Mundka 3.: The dates on which fair maketvJudft lahd has: to be determined may be graphically noted as under - S No Name of Village 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 that the notification at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the sam 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 Rohtakin the State.o•f H'äryana are•vilJges Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan ViIlge Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka lihe difference between the topology of the two villages is, wheras the land of village Mundka abuts NH-b, that of villae Bakkarwaladoes not so abut being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Miindka
6 As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township • of Rohtak, village Mundka is cossed first, followed by villae Ghevra and then villageTik.rI Kalan.
7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA APP 784/2005 &connected pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2!l999/20O0 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Munika 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 17.612095 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in the rvenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24..9.2O[3] issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 3/2004-05 Furthek lands in the revenue estate of (3' nd 3 bisvya of agricultur land in vil'age Murdka was sold as of
5. & 1996 for a sale consieration of 4,75,000/- 38,000I[7] was incurred tqwards sale dut' and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculbted with reference thereto, land price, per big ha would come to 4,46,000/- as of 5 8 196 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 f olirw a' rd Jt 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' \/illages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are cohtiguous 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 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs 110/ as per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in Zi the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 anb 17 12 2002 at 2 15,164/- for category A land f the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel rould àncede that the reasons given by the learned Referen Court are not sound, but would urge that the twol contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasonsas 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 deeds dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UQI would iq how the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be • considered, butl hastens to add, that since value reflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation houd 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)DLT231/a151nghV[5] UQI 21 The decision in /ai Sincjh's case (supra) concerns itself •with:th.e determination of the faft market valüe of land in village. Bakkarwa!a which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha LearneJ counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA APP 784/2005 & connected •..... S •..5.... • •... •.... •• •..•. •.•. •....... • • •. •.. •.! ••..: •... 2. •.,.. S.5.....•,...... as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme C9urt by either side have been dismissed[1] 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 f a i r, market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land jn village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of vTillage Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25 2 1997, 21 3 2€03 and 17 6 2005, by giving 5% increase, a
22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunderl • bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold Jn 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 Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25 2 1997 It is a matter of common knowledge thatpreceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of Al determining as to what lands, comprised in wh'ich khasa 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 ••,;.[4] • ••• •.•: acquired and thus, it is not uncDmmofl, for persons to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where auisitiofl[5] are likely to take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be measure of the 1fair mar<et value of taken to be a representative lnd as on tbe 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 ther. whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the lerned 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 additioflal not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex Rreason 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-i 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 dcision of this Court injjS/flqLLcaSe (supra) or Pratap Singh's case (supra)
25 The decision in JI Singh'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 perusaI thereof LAAPp7S4/200S&connected Pagel4ofl[9] 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 premise that being contiguous villagers, salk price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoinir'ig villages would be indicative of fair, market value of land in Village Bakkarwala
26 In PrataQ 5Ingh'5 case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertainin to various notifications issued under, Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 4 determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Villag Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - •....'............ lands, the fair market value assessed is U,49,408 75 per bigh i e11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lards, I assess the fair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre
29 The next notification with whith I am concernedj dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Murdka In Chiranti Lal's cas (supra) with reference to the decision ip Pratap Singh's case (supra), for, agricultural lands in Village Gvra pertaining to a notification issued under. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6 2 2003, the fair market value assessed was 4,03,425I- per bigha This was uniformly 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 21 3 2003, fair market vafte of land In 4 Village Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i e 19,36,440/- 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 ViIlag •. • •1 Mundka and Village Bakkarwala 31 As noted hereinabove, in Chiranh' Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair, market value assessed by me was 4,03,425I- per bigha and thus, increasln •...... ks., 1 h/ fr vrc d:131. days, t h e.fig:ure.com'eStb •• -
32 I am left with the notification dated 24 9 2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair market value assessed in Chiranti Lal's case, I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a perio of 201 days the figure comes to 4,25,641/- per bigha i e 203,076 80 pe acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 33 Accordingly, the appeals 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 - For the land falling in Category A land in viiiagd S MLindka the fair market value is fixed at is 2,49,408 75 per bigha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at 2,01,117/- per bigha e 9,65,36 60 per acre, as on 25 02 1997 For the land situated in Village Iylundka the fai market value is fixed at 1.,03,,4251- 1per bigha i e - 19,36 1 440/- per acre, as on, 21 03 2003 For the land situated in \,illage Mundka the fair market value is fixed[4] at 4,98,589/- per bigha i e 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkawala the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per igha i e LA APP 784/2005 & connected Pagecl[8] of 19 23,93 227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated, in Village,Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,25,641/ per bigha Lre. 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 1 93(2001) DLT 569 Sun'er vs UQI, for t h ei it compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum en4ianced by the present judgment and decree vii)l T he 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
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE $UL'T 08, 20]1 S