Union of India v. Om Prakash & Anr.

4 LAAPP LAAPP 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/010, LAAPP 816/2010, LA.APF. 87712010, LAAPP 878/210 LAAPP e 879/2010, LAAPP 880/2010, LAAPP 881/2010 & Cl APPL6505/2011, LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/210, LAAPP 884/2010, LA APP 886/2010, LA APP L P. 8&9/2010 & C APPL2249/201, LAAPP 89020 0, LAAPP 89312010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA APP 894/2010 & CM No 23353/2010, Lj\ APP 895/2010, LA APP 896/2010, LA APP 897/2010 & CM APPL 728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP LA'APP 784/2005 & connected..I.:.. C,.....,.... I I

1. I........,.... I, 9d7/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 939/2010, 1 4AAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LA APP 1040/2010 & CM A1PL 5673/2011, LA APP 1041/2010, LAAPP 1043/2010, L/APP 1045/2010, LAAPP 1046/2010, LAAPP 104812010, LAAPP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050/2010, LAAPP 1056/2010, L[2] APP 1060/2010, LA APP 1061/2010, LA APP 1071/2010, L[4] APP 125/2011, LA APP 126/2011, LA APP 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 003 & Award N[5] 3/2005-06, Viflage-Mundka)

AND LAAPP 600/2009, LAAPP 605/2009, LAAPP 615/2009, LA APP 310/2010, LA APP 325/2010, LAPP 376/2010, LA APP 33/2010, LA APP 384/2010, LA APP 385/2010, LA APP 473/2010, LAAPP 492/2010, LAAPP 586/2010, LAAPP • 591/2010 LAAPP 638/2010,LAAPP 690/2010, LAAPP 692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP 763/2010, I..AAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/2010, LAAPP 885/2010,. LA.APP.•: 88712010.,. LA,APP. - 891/20.10, LA..APP. -: 892/2010, LA APP 898/2010, LA APP 906/2010 & CM APPL N4443/2010, LAAPP 937/2010 & CM APPL 23299/2010, L4APP 1042/2010,LAAPP 1047/2010 (Reating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2 0 011 & Award No 1/2005-06, Viflage-Mundka) t AND L/ A P P.'1003/2010, LA APP 1017/2010, LA AP[1] 1019/2010, • L/APP 1022/2010, LAAPP 1023/2010, LAAPP 1044/2010, t '.3:- -- •',•-•. ' -' •.--. (lelating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award Nb 13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka) AND I 4 LA APP 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA APP 426/2009, L4APP 428/2009, 442/2009, LAAPP 11/2009, LAAPP 616/2009j1AAPP 278/2010 (Felating to Notrfiction u/s 4 dated 24 09 20q[3] & Award No 3/2004-105 Village-Bakkarwala) AND + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No594'8/2011, LAAPP 1Ô30/2010, LAAPP 1031/2010, LAAPP 1033/2010 & CM • No 6645/211, LA APP 106212010, 1063/2010 & CM N66943/2011, j.AAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP 1066/2010, LAAPP 1067/2010L/\APP 11/2011,LAAPP 122/2011 (Relating to Notification, u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala)

CORAM ISIONIBLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed tosee the judgment 7 To be referred to Reporter'or not 7 Whether the judgment should be reported i n, the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (Oral) I I am deciding the above captioneçl appeals and re!atable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of crbss objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove LA APP 784/2005 & connected S... •.... -./..: I.,: •::.';... •:•.••: •:: ' pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were firther acquired pursuant to a notification datd 21 3 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award Nb 312005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a ntificatioh dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of the and 4quisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8i Agricultural lands in the revenue estat of village,..:.. Bakkarwala were acquird pursuant to a notification dated 21 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as O pr Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notificatiGn dated 1,1.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 9i In a nut shell, the Land 1A.cquisitiorJ Cpllector dtérmind the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural ld as notified by the Government of NCT Dlhi

10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to the ntification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired', the learned - Lnd 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 acre a n d since the date o1Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time,discounted -..,..,.• AAPP 784/2005 & connected 4....................... - fi......................... V.... fi... fi........... 4.,.... fi.,,.... t I. - I 12dov;ernrnent of NCT pelhi., had fixed the min.i.mLr va1U fØr aricultural lands in Delhi i e 1.4.1997, but as against t hp Land.Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% for fuI one y1ear, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the va,,.,l uO. by; A, tA,ik:'rafarparp mh ei rinfn Lfl.IIy J[9] J1ay II FI 1!ULI F • U DLI I; L4C.1L'. V.VILI I --' • •••--... c... • •..,......; V...:'..: •: ••....... ?;.......,... y,.. •..: • • S • t f_s p anum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 003 as also t 24 9 2103 The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21 3 2003, which I note cOes to 15,92,O83 33 per acre (In some d4isions I note the m sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the' pice detemThed was 20,41,O00/- per acre A

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pirsuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in vilLage Bkkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference C0LI,rt adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Gvernment of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving i4rease@10% er annum determined the value and With A rspect to the lands in village M undka, on account Aof locational • •. pdvantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum of l,37,U17 75 per acre and for village akkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255/- per, acre

16. In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I h'ave p4enned profiled the reasoning of the Land Aquisition 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 A In LAC S No 384/2004 /amn Vs 1)0/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh L aRai, lerned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which arument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for the other appe.lhts, that the learned Trial Jude was..not. justified in ignoring khe sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA APP 84/2OO[5] & connecteo A is I A '. -..... •.... A • A.•...... 1. A....... •... • •: I I, $.....•;,,..,: •. •.. j. ': •'. •.......:.. and 3 biswaf agncuItal land in village Mundka wa sold asof 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- 38,000/- was tncrred towards sale duti and thus the pride of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, Iand price per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- as of, 5..8.1996. Learned coupsel would urge that thre is no reason not to hold that fair, maket value of agicultLiral lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigh[6] as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument fQr'ivard, it is zurged A,,hat with reference to the said pric, fair 0.. market value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993, 21 3 2003 and[9] 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Laid Acquisition Act issued pursuant whreto agricultural ands were acquired ii village Mundka, by incr4easing the price rogr4ess:vely, if not by 12% per annum at leat by 10% per annum It is urged that on th same basis, land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that sinçe \/illages 1ik[6] Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala ae contiguous vill4ges, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further t9wards the township of 'Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the lani in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a;batch of Lani Acqui9sition Appeals 4 lead matter being LA Appeal No 93/20' 06 Pratap Sincjh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs 1101 as per whsh fair maket value of land, per bigha, was detminedin the revenu estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 1611 1995, 11 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land LA AP 784/2005 & connected -..... 0 00 • 0. - •0

0. I •:, H and l,V[3],5OOI- for category B land, 2,35,85O for category A land ard 1,9O,150/- for ca4tegory B land, 4,O[2],85O/- for categor A land and 3,241850/- for categor' B land, repectively I may note here that in various land acguisition refirences,, various partie haveproved a nurr)ber' of. sale deeds excuted from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deedEx P-i 19' Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar lernç[1] counsel for the el UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adpted as4the yardstick 7for the reason, to be a reresentative sarpleof the whole, the sample must bear some adequate prportihn to the whole For example, learned cot4nsel would ure 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 an 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 sarnple, is the example given The second reson on which lea -ned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being -, the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons iven by the learned Reference Couçt are not ound, but would.urge that the twocontentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex.P[4] be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market alue of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, iearnrd 'counsel woulc! 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 j1997 4 6 1997 and 8 -.:9.1997[1] relied. upon by UpI would Chowl the dctual market value of the land and thud learned counel would Urge that the said four sale deeds should be considered, but hastens to add, that.since value reflected. there?n is less than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the mininum price notified by the Government which is rearest to the Ppint of time when the respective notiflcations were issued tinde Section 14 of the Land Acquisition Act

20 An independent and alternative argument is also a dvalLlced by learned counsel fQr the Union The same rests itself ona io decisn of a Division Bench of this Court reported as. -- "•T. - ---- - ---..---- - ',....,.. aS Pettop for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supre IFT t Curt by either side have been dismissed Learned coun takes the argument forward by, urging that by adopting the 10. rrarket value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 19931at i,32,OOO/ per bigha, the fair market value, should acertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% pier N annum to determine the market value of land in viIIae Bakkarwa!a as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned couriset i wpuld urge that in view, of the locational advantae of vilIag Mundka, fair market value o'l land in village Mundka should be dtermined as of 25.2.1997, 2,1.3.2003 and 17.[6] 2005, by. giving 5% increase

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bgha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in ViII[9] M'undka as bf 5 8 1996, it would assume importance tat sale is about 7 months prior to tiRe date of the notifiction issJ uider 9ectipn 4 of the Land Acobisition% Act, which was issued 4i 25 2 1997 It is a matter of common knowledge that precedibt the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Lartd Abquisition Act, survey's are carried out with they oject o dtermining 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 kow that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands would be acquired In Delhi, the large scale acquistion policy ejoins upon' the Government to allot, at pre detrri4ined rates, a plot of developed residential land to theones whose l ands are LgAPP784/2005&connected Page 13 ofl[9] I actiLiired and thus, it is not uncommon, for p e rsoflrs t purchase I snaII paçeI lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to ak pla thse transactiOn are speculative and cannot be ( measure of the fair market value of takn to b a 1?epresentatiye land as on th date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and the prirciples f 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 Reerence Court, but for the twin rfasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hoi[1] that Ex P-i caninot be good evidence wherefrom market value of tie land could be determined There is an additional reson not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6 1.199 5, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 apd 8 9 1997 ar also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price mdch lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the sake price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than evn the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government

23 Thus, the fair market value of the land?swouldbe reuired to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court 1n i[5],ngh'5case (supra) or pratap 5inghs case (supra) decisions, pened by the Division 24 I highlight that both n ' B4nch of this Court have been upheld by the SupremeCOurt 25, The decision in J, 5ingflcaSe (supra), determined faIr market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum o i,32,000I- bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof per LA APP 784/2005 & connected i.: I t (I tc\: •......,...,...: •'.: •,•••,•.. would shoW that the Court assessed the fair marketvalue with: reference 0 9I deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tkri Kalan or Villge Mundka, i... '.. apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale: price of agnculturaI lang in thea aqoning villages would be I inicative offair market value ofland in Village Bakkarwala 26 In Prtap Singh's case (supra), the EJivrsion Bench ws concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan 4and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various nctifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fa ii market value of agricultural land in Village S TilrilalanndGhevra asunder- NO Date Village Price per, Bigha 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 11 1995 A & 1,73,500/- for •. BlockB land,,•...:,•... 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2358151r for Block Ghevra A & l,90,156/- for BlokBland • • I. • • •.•. •

13. 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan Z[4],02,850/- for Block A Z 3,24,850/- for I • Block B land;! ------ - ----______ _______________ 27! Following the judgment in Pratap S,ngh's case (supra) I Have decided the fair market value for the land situated in reenue 4estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant to potification dated 6 2 203 in the batch of appeals bing Land 'I Page 15of 19 LAPP784/2OO5&connected •.., 4.... •. •.••. •. •.••... 1 I I t • H 0 •• Acquisition Appeal No 49/2009, Ak on 2 6 2011 I have determined the fair market vIue of the lands in VilIag Ghevra at 4,03,425I per igha as of 6 2 2003 On he isue of comparabilitY of land in v1ilage Bakkarwala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whreaS village BakkarWal does not abut NI1-10, as do the othr vilAageS but it has to be highlighted that it is more proimat to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-vis Ghevra and Tkri KaIn and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage Sine exactness can never be achieved in the matterS of asesSIflg fair compensation[1] it is the broad probabilities and II A,iiic tne. c •.: j...... ) ). S •.....:- •,,. ---.. -._-_•_•_•_;- ' t ':.,.....: •: ! • ( I Iands, th,e fair market vaIuassessed is 2,49,4O[8] 75 per bigha 1 e 1,97,1621- per acre sand for Category B lands, I ssess the; fai marketvalue at 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65361 60 per acre

29 The next notification with which I am concerne&j[2] dated 21 32003 pertaining to VilIage Mundka In Chirani' Lal's caS (supra), with reference to tte decision in Pratap Sin gh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghvra perta'ining to a noificatin issued under Section 4 bf the Land Acquisition Act on[6] 2 2003, fhe fair market value assessed was 4,03,425I- per higha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of jut a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to th notificatitn dated, 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in Vilage Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i e 19,36,440/- per acre, wlich I hereby fix