Union of India v. Om Prakash & Ors.

2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala '.ahdviJlae Mundka The dates on which fair market value of 'the lafld ha to be determined may be graphically noted as under:- S.No. Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act '.Bakkarwala 24.9.2003

2. Bakkarwala 17.6.2005 3: Mundka 25.2.1997 MUndka 2113.2003 Mundka 17.6.2005 '

4. It maybe highlightedthat the notification at serial No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same • pursuant whereto' lands were"acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka; asper.seial No.5 above. Abutting NH-lU, leading from t1ie dty of Delhi to the township of Roht'ak'in the Stateof Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghera and Tikri Kalan. Village •Bakkarwala lies towafdsthe 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 NH-10, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut;' being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka. ' 1

6 As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township S '6f Rohtak, village Mundka is cossed first, followed by village • • • Ghevra and then vI'llage'Tikri Kalan... ' •' '...'

7. ' Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired • ' LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • '. '. ' Page 5'of 19 H ursuart to a notification dated 25.2.1997 issued under Sctibii • 4 of the Land A.cquiition Act as per award No.2/199912000,. gricultural 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.1/2005-06. Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act asper 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 4of the 'Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.3/2004-05. Further lands" in the revenue estate of a.... -.... the same village were acquired pursuant to anotification 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 narket value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agriculturl land as notified by'the overnment..of NCT Delhi.

10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to, the •. 'notificatioft.dated '25.2.1997 un.dr which agricultural lands in the rvnue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned • • Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural lahd notified with effect from 1.4.1997 @ T10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4.notificatio'n was anterior in point of time; discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connectd. '.. " ". ' • ',.,'. the price for one year © 11.5% pen annum,; This price was adopte'd for category A lands. Foe, lands in category B,the value was further discounted by 90,000'/7 per acre. Pertaining to the notification.s dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003, the, Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the' notification, fixing the • minimum price of'agricultura'i land as of 1.4.2001 and gáve'ho • benefit of enhancement with 'reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands.to be determined was as of21.3.2003, 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 S village Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition, Collector • ' ' d'etermined the same with 'reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.42001 and gave no, increase. Aggrieved by the determination of the fair niarket value of the lands by the Land Acuisition Collettor, the land. oners sought a reference under Sction 18' of' the Lana Acquisition 'Act 1894 and onthe reference being made, 'vide vrious judgments and decrees, which, are under, challenge in',he above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per,the. view of the Reference Court,'and enhanced the fair market value, In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification 'dated 25.2.1997 vide' which agricultural lands in village Mundka iere acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adop'ted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the." LA.APP.784/2005 & connected •. Page 7.of 19, • • • •: ' ' '. ' •. Government of NCT Delhi had fixe the minimum value. for • agricultUral lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but as aginst 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 inasrnuch as. the date with reference whereto.Governmenthad notified the minimum value was 1.4.1997 a pd • the notification under Scti.on 4 of the Land Acquisition Act Was 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/- per acre. • 13,. Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court, determined the fair marVet value © 9,89,288- per acre and for

171. ' ' With reference '. to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 /amna Vs. UQI & 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 Jud9e, was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereurder 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005& connected ' ' ' • • • ' ' rid 3 bisia of 'agricultural lad ir village Mundka w, sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale considertion Of 4,75,000/- 38,000/ was incurred towards sale duty: a*d thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/-.and calculated with reference thereto, land price per'bigha would come to 4,46,000I- a of 5.8.1996. Learrëd' counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of iagftultural lands in village Mndka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of. 5.8.1996. Taking the argument foward, 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 lest by 10% per anhum. It Is urged that on the same bajis, land price should be determibed for thC agricuftura.l 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 Bakkawala 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 5!ncjh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. 110/ 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.,, 0 and fl,73,500/- for category B lând;2,35,85O for a'tgoy A. land.nd 1,90,150I- for category B land;.4,02850i- for. c'ategbry A land and 3,24,850I-. for category B land,.. respective y I may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have prove.d a nunber of sale deeds: executed fron-i time to time but during arguments.today. before. nié, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon. the sale deed Ex.P-1; Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for 'the. • UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot be adoptd as the yardstick for the reason, to be a répesentative. sample of the whole, the sample must bear some. adequate. proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has tobe determined,whether what percentage of. stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a sfe method: to pick only one grain, for if.it happens to be thegrain of rice, one would lead to the cohclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, oe wuId 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 exmple given; The second reason on which, learned counsel would attack-. the sale deed as not being.,• representative of the p'rFce is the, reaso.n 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'lunder Section 4 LA.APP.784/2005& connected..;.. ' ' •..-. cf. the. Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel would concede tnat the reasons giveh by' the learned RefErence Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex.P-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair mrke,t 'value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala. Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex.R-i to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Preference Court pectainirig to sale deds dated 6.1.1995 1 30.5.1997,. 4.6.1997 and 8.9.197 relid u.pon by UOl would show the actual market value of' the laid and thus learned +coursel would urg.e that the said four s&e deeds should be. •onside'red,. but hastens to add, that since value reflected therein is,., less than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be with rferende 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 ftself on a decision of,a Dkis'ion' Bench Of. this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 Ia! Singh Vs 1101 21i' The decision in'Ia!S!ngh's case (upra) 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 urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmudh LA.APP.784/2005 & connected, ', ' Page 12'of 19., Ile as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before 'thèSupren Court by either side ha'e 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 fl,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 advantaé of villag Mundka, fair; market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, by giving.5% increase..........

22. With rsect to the sale deed Ex.P-1, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold Jn Village.Mundka as of 5.8.1996[1] it would assume importance that:th e. • ale is about.[7] months prior to the dateof the notification issued under Section. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25.2.1997. It i s a: matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under SectiOn 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are tarried.out 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 • kbw that very soon there is every, likelihood that the. lands would be acquired. In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy enjoins upon the Governrnentto allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ofles whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.. Page 13 of, 19 1? acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcis of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place, these tansactions 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 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-1 cannot be 'good evënce 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- 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 sle pr in the said 4 sale deeds 3Jrges much tess than e4n th minimum price for agricultU"'fl.d ip Delhi rictified.b' th Govenment Thus, the fair market vae of the lands would be req uiredto be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court'iL5!flh'5ca5e (supra) or prgtap S/ngh's case (supra).

24 I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division • Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25 The decision in j/ Singh'5 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 perusal thereof LAAP 784/2005 & connected would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 tiU • the year 1996 either Jn Village Tikri •Kalan or Village Mundk.a,, ' apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale I 'price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in 'Village 'Bakkarwala.

26. In Pratapsingh"s"case ( supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in. Tikri Kalan and another • adjoining Village named Ghevra and' pertaining to various • notifications issued under Sectiorj 4 of the Land Acuisition Act determined the fai.r market value of agrcUlturai lands in Village •. • TikriKalan and Ghevra as under:- S.NO. Date. • Vifiage. Price per'Bigha 1., 24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/-. for Block 16.11.1995 A & 1,73,500/7 for Block:B land.. 11.06.1996.Tikri Kalan. & 2,35,8.15/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,901156/- for Block B land

3. 17,.12.2002 Tikri Kalan. 4,02,850/- for Block, • •.. '; ' ' A & 3,24,850/7 for Block B land Acquisition Appeal 'No.489I200, chfrap/i La!,Uninof1fldia&. Anr on 2.6.2011. I have determined the fair market yalue of the land in Village Ghevra at 4,03,4'25I per big ha, as of.2.2003. On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tiki Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala' does 'not abut NH-lU, as do the: othef villages, but it ha's o be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vIs-6-Vi[5] Ghevra and Tiri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villagS, has advantage Sice exactness can never be' achieved in the matters: of assessing fair compensation,' it is the broad probabilities. and similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be rd special features can be shown equivalent[1] unless qUa some la '.

28 Since the decision in Praap /'7cih case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notficatiOflS with which I am concernedi I am of the opinion' that it would be jut, fair and proper to determine, the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to theJair •market aIue of lands determifled'in Prp 5/ng case (sPra). As per the decision in Pratap 5ngh' case (supra) for th date 24.7.1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was 2,15,160/-, per; bigha and 1,73,500/-' per bigha for Category B land. The first' notification with which I am concerned is 25.2.1997 Whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired. The time spa. sweeps 1 year and 216 da i.e. 581 days. In • ' PràtQ 5ipq case (supra) the anpy!!flea5e was determined to be 10% per annu (flat). Thus, pertaining, to Category A m Page 16 of[9] LAAPP.784/2005 connected ' ' lands, the fair-market value assessed is 2,49,408.[7] per bi•gh•a I:.• 11,97;162/- per acre and for Category B lands; I assess the. Jair market,value at 2,01,117/ per bigha i.e. 9,65,361.60 per acre:....... The next notification with which I am concerned is dated 213.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. In iran// Lal's cas supra),with refeence to the d'ecisiop in Pratap.5inh's case (supra), for agricultural-lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a hotificatipn issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition ACt on 62.2O03 the fair market value assessed was 4,03,425I per bi'gha. This was unif6rmly applied. Since there is a time gap of just a little bver 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21.3.2003',: fair market valUe of land in Villge Mundka should be 4,03 1425I- i.e. 19,36,440.I- pracre which I hereb,y fix. I prOpose to deal with the notificatiQfl dated 24.9.2003, after dealing with the. notification dated 17;6.2005 'ursuaht whereto agricultural lands were acéuied in Village Mundka and Village Bakarwala....,. As noted hereinabove., in Ch an!! La/'s case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003,.fair market value asssed by me was Z[4],03,425/7 per bigha and thus, increasing •' the- sare by 10% for. 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589!- per bigha, which comes to 23,93.,227.20 'per cre. The same is-held by me to be the fair market value of lad.in Village Mundka and Village Bakkar.wala as of 17.6.2005. I decree. the same.

32 I am left with the notification dated 24 9 2003 pertaining to Village BakkarNala and wfth reference, to the.fa.ir market value assessed in Chirani' Lal's case, I would require to appeciate the price by 10% per annumor a period of 201 days, the figure comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i.e. 20,43;076.80 per acre, which' I determine to be the fair marketvalue Of land in ViliaeBakkarwala.as of.24.9.2003 3.. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India,, 'require to be dismisse.d and I hereby, dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-obJectiofl filed by the land owners stands decreed as ünder:L For the land falling in Category A land in Village Mundka the fair market value IS fixec$ at is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e 11,97,1621- per aicre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at 2,01,117/- per bigha Le. 9,6.5,361.60 per acre, as on25.02.1997. • For the land situated in Village Mundka' the fair • market value is fixed at.4,03,425!- per bigia i.e. 19,36,440/-per acre, as on 21.03.2.003.. For the and situated in Village Mundka the fair market ')alue is fixed at Z[4],98,589/- per:.biha Le., • 23,93,227.20 per acre, as oi.17.06...2005 T For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i e LAAPP.784/2005 & connected •• •. Pge 18 of 19 23,93,227.20:per acre, as on 17.06.2005.. • For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair tharket value is fixei at 4,5,641/-. per biha i.e. • 20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 2409.2003. vi Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded •. would also be entitld to sbla•tium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 56 Sunder vs. Lb!1 for the •.. •..• compensation, paid originally and as. enhaflced by • the Reference Court and finally on. the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree. • S vii) The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to•proportionate.costs. viii) All pehdingapplications stand. disposed of internisof.. the prayers made therein. • ••, •.: (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) • JUDGE • • JULY 08, 2011 • •.• •: • • •... •.nm •. •.. • • • •. • •.•. • LA APP 784/2005 & connected