Union of India v. Harkishan & Ors.

3 I determined 'the 'fai market va.lue' as Of, 17.6.2005 in sum of:; 21,37,017 75 per' acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was Z 20,35,255/- per acre. 16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled th reasoning of the Land Acquisition CoI!etor 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 Jamna Vs 110/ & Ors, it w a s 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 th other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not,justified in iginoring the sale deed Ex P-i whreunder 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & conn'ected.1.[1] F) 3' 4...-.........'.: •• •• pnd 3 biswa of agricuIturaI and in village Mundka was sold as of It,58 1996 for a saI corsideratiori of Z[4] 1 7.[5] 1000/- 38,0OO/- was incurred towards sa'e duty and thus the ice of the Jan,d would be 5,13,OOOJ- and calculated with reference thereto, land price......;.: •...,.: •,per bigha would come to 4,46,000I[7] as of 5.81.1996. Learned t, counse! 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 bigIa as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is ed urg that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993, • 1,.3.2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifications under CC Section[4] of the Lnd CAcquisition Act were issued pursuant i whereto agriculturallands were acquired in village Mundka,by increasing the priceprogressively,'if not by 12% per annum at, least by 10% per annum It is urged that on the same basis, landprice should be determined for,the agriculturpl landsC u village Bakkarwala Alternatively, Jt was urged ilthat since iillages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous..:. •'..;. ji Il ages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the ownshi of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the. land in village Mun4a and Bkkarwala with reference to the t C )udgment and decree datedC 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of • Land Acquisition Appeals, leadi matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr, LRs Vs (JO! as per which fair rrkarket'value of land, per bigha, was determined in J the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, C 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land C * I * C C C C -. C •,. ( C -- - - ---- - t and 1,7,500I- for category B. 'and, T[2],35,85O or category A: land and 1,90,i50I- for category B land, 4,d[2],85OI- for category A land and 324,85OI- for category B land, respectively

18 I cnay note here that in various land acquisition refereces, various parties have proved a number of saEe deeds executed from timeto time, but during argument today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned ounsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the whole For example, learned counsel would urg tht if it hastitdbe determined whether what percentage of st9nes are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method It to pick only one grain, for if it hpens to be the grain of rice one would lead to tHe conclusion that he bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grir happens to be a piece of stone, one would reach to the concluion that the bag is full of stones At least a fistful should belifted anó then checked as a representative sample, is the example given The second reason on whih 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 difficultto issue even the notification under Section 4 t LA APP 784/2005 &conneted

I. •........ •... •. I.. • •.. •.. •••.•..;; I...,.;..'- -... -:•_...-.- - •4LiL....,. -.....,.. • i;, the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede 4at the reasonsgiven by the learned Refer ence Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as th reasons as to why Ex P-i be not taker as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly,.earned counsel,would futher urge: tht the fou.r, sale deeds Ex-1 to R-4 referred to ifl th decision of the learned eference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 30.5.1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon b UOI would show the actual market value of the jand., andi, thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be considered, IRut hastens to add, that since 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 Government which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued Jnder Section 4 oif Acquisition Act 20 An independent and alternative argument is also tj H by learned counsel for the Union The lsame rests 1advanced itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as • 2006 (135) DLT 231 /a;Singh Vs 1)0/ 21 The decision in /aiSingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the deterrnination 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 urge that the lsaid decision has attained finality inasmuch r

4 S 1 5 •, S.,.. '. ••: •,... t acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase,smaIl parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place, these transactions are specuIativ and cannot be ' taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of Iand as on the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the principles iof averages and the I principles of sampliçg tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample riust bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not fdr the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Count, but for the twin reaoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market vlue of the land could, be detemined. TherE is an additiofll reason not to rly upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6.11 995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 are also pertainin 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 average 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 woiJld be required to be fixed either with reference to he decisipn of thi Court (supra) or prtap5ingh'scaSeSupra)

24 I highlight that both decisioiS, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court,caSe (supra) deterined 25 T7ie decision in JI 5ing m fair markt value of land in Villag Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000/ per bigha as af, 115 10 1993 and the perusal thereof{ Page 14 of19 1 4 I i I -,.........••,•:.: • ' I would show that the CoUrt assessed the fair, market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990tifl the year. 1996 either iii 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 ln Pratap Sincjh's case (supra), the 'DivisionBench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and arother 1 adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - S NO fbate i Village Price per Bigha 1 24 07 1995 & Tkri Kalan 2,15,16/ for Block 16 11 1995, A & 1,73,500/- for Block B land 2 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/7 for 3 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block A & 3124,850/- for

27 Following the judgment in PratapSingh'scase(uprã) 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. 2.3, 3, 21 T 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the and situated in ViHagt Bakkarsvala the fair mr1<et vau is fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants a n d, cross-objectors who have succeeded would alobe entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as arified in the decision reported as cl 93(2001) DLT 59 Sunder vs 110/, for the compensation, pa[4] originally ard as enhanced by the Refereflce Court and finally oh the sum enhanced by the pesent judgment and decree S vii) The apeliants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be ent!tled to proportionate costs viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE QLy, 08, 2011 rm LAAP784/2005&connected Page 19of 19 -