Union of India v. Ishwar Singh & Ors.

4 It may be highlighted,at the notification at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, ts the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue este 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 viftages 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 NH-b, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village 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

7. Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA APP 784/2005 & connected •:',,.. H...ursua;ht to a notification dated 25.1997' 'issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award N 9.../1999/2000. Agricultural lands in the revenue estates of village Mundka were 'further acquired pursuant to a notifiation' 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 cquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006-07 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification da1d 24.9.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.3/2004-05. Further lands in the revehue estate of • th e, 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 Acquisitioh CollectOr determined the fair market value of the acquiredlands,. undr all the awards, with.reference • to the minimum price for aricuItural •.. "land as notified by'the Government of NCT Delhi. •' ',.. ', ' 10.' '. For clarit.y" I may n.ote that petainin,., to. the notification dated' 25.2.1997 under which agricultural iands in the revehue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned • ' • • Land Acquisition Collector determined the fairmaket valuewith reference to the 'minimum price for agricultural' liid notified with effed from 1.4.1997 @ T10 lacs per acre: ard since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time; discounted LA.APP.784/2005:&'connect'ed.. ' Pag&6 of19 ' S. the price for one. year@ 11.5% per annum. This price wa adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the vaIu was further discounted by 90,000I- 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 gaveno 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 Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Coflector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 arid gave no increase

11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Lend Acquisition Collector; the land owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 andon 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 1Tn a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 199j:de which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, he Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the L[1] •.... j[4] Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i e 1.4.1997, but as against the Land A'cquisiti.on collector depressing the price@ 11.5%'for full One' year, aiopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acqukition Act was 'dated 25.2.1997. This was the value fixed 4or 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. ' Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market.va.lu @'9,89,288i- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- per acre. ' ' •'. ';....' Pertaining to the notifications dated: 21.3.2003 and '24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village M.undka and village B'akkarwala respectively were acquired, 'the Reference, Court took note of the ffact that after, the Governrnent had..notified the minimum rates for agricultural' lands. in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 the next revision wa as of 30.8.2005. Using the said, 'dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of N'CT Delhi the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean verage. 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 to,ok' the 'value' notified as of 30.8.2005' and depressin'g the same by 10% per LA.APP.184/2005 & connected '. ' annum determined the sum arrived at as Qf 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 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 comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000I[7] per acre Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lancis werea,cquirec in village Bakk.ar.wala and Mundka the learned RéferenceCourt. adopted the minimum price for agricuftural lands hotified by I the • Government of NCT.Delhi with effect from 1.4\.201 and giving;. increase @10%. per annum determined th& value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational • advantage, being abutting NH-lU 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 v,iIlge Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,2551- per acre...... In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scen'ai10 in Which 'I have penned prpfiled the, reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Referepce Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today.

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs UQI & Ors, it was urged by Sh LB 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 €he learned. Trial. Judge, was r'ot justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.. Page9ofl[9]. • and 3 biswa of agricultural land in viriaé Mundka Was, sold'as of • 5.8.1996 for 'a sale consi.dfraion of 4,75,000I-. 38,000I- was •: incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the Ind would be 5,13,000/ and calculated with reference thereto, kand pic per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of 5.8.1996. Larned cpunsël would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,00O/- 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 •s of 25.2.1993, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. the dates when notificatiohs under Setion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasingthe price progressively, if not by 12% per annum at least, by 10% per annum. It is urged that on the same basis, l a nd 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 vi1lages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the vue of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the • " judgment and decree dated 19.122008 deciding a batch of, • L 1and Acquisition Appeals, lead matter.eing, LA ppeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr LR[5] Vs UOIas per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16.11.1995[1] 11.6.1996 and 1.7.12.2002 at 2,15,.164/ for category A land • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' •' _____ • • - f[7] and l,73,500/ for; category Bland;.2,35,85-0 for category.A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850I- for -. càtegor' - 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 prO'ed a nuriber of sale deeds- -. executed from time to time, but during arguments todaybefbre me, learned counsel for the land owners have only, relied upon. the sale deed Ex.P[4]. - - - -- - - -

19. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay- Pod.dar learned counsel for the UOl 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 whole, the sample must bear some, adequate S proportion to the whole. For example,- learned coUnsel would urge- that if it has to be determined whether what peçcentage 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 brain, of rice • - one,would lead to the conclusion that thebag is 100% full of rice -- and if that one grain happens to bea piece of stone, one would -reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of storkes. 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 - - - 5 - representative of the price is the reason that people d '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 Sect[Qn 4 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected -- - - 4f the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede tl?iat the, reasons given 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[4] 'be nof taken as the basis to determine thefainmarkét value of. lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala. Thirdly, learned 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. 6.1.199.5, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and.8.9.1997 relied 'upon by UOl would how the actual market value of the land and thUs learned 'dunsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be considered, but hastenls 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. oftime.when the respéctive.notifications wëre,issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition' Act.. An independent and alternative argument is also dvanced by,learned counsel for the Union The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) b LT 2,31 Jal 5/ngh Vs. UO/.. The ddcision in /aiSinqhs case (supra) conceris itself • /ith the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at 1,32,0001- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said deciion has attained finality inasmuch IC' as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismisse. Lear.nc counsel ' takes the arument forward, b urging hat by adopting the fair mãket value of land ip villa,ge Bak,karwala as of 15J1993 at 1,32,000I- per bigha, the fai.r ma'rkt vaILe should be ascertained by increasin'g 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 m'rket value of land in viIlae Mundka should be determined 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 soId in 'Village Mundka' as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance that the a!e is about 7 months prior to the date.of the ndtification issued 'under Section 4 of the Land Acqiisitibn Act, which was issdéd on 25.2.1997. 'It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding '.the publication of a 'notification 'un,der Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, surve's a're,carried' 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, •, know that. very soon, there is every likelihood'that the. lands would be acquired. In Delhi, the large sca.le acquisition policy enjoins upon the Go')ernment 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 0119, •,, acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase in areasw1ere acquistionS are likely to small parcels of lands 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 pf averages 'and the principles of samplih' tell me.thattO be'rereseflatiVe of the "hole, a' sample must bear at intelligible proportibfl. to' the: whoe. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned fe'rence Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noe, 'hdld that Ex.P-1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market, vlue o.te ''land could be determined.' There is an additional S reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- '1' to EcR-4, dated 6.1.1995[1] 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 arals'o pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much loner than the sale price recorded in' Ex.P[4]. 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 Goernment. ' • •. '. '. '.'. '.. ' Thus,.th fair market vlUe of the lands would,,be ' -' req uirëd to be fixed either with refernce to,the decision of this Court'inLShCase (supra) or pratap 5Inghs case (supra). ' I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of t hi[5] Court have been upheld by.the Supreme Cou't. - 25. ' The decision in J5ingh's case '(süpra) deterrnifld fair market valu,e of 'land in Village,Bakkarwala in' sum of' fl[2];000I- per bigha as of 15.10.1993, and the perusal thereof: • LA.APP'.784/2005 & connected,: • ' '. SNO. Date.Village • Price perBighâ.2407.1995 & Tikri,Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 11 1995 A & 1,73,500/7 for Block B land • 11.06J996 Tikri Ka!an & 2,35,815/-. forlok • • A & 1,90;156/- for Ghevra........ Block B. land 3 1712 2002 Tikri Kalan - 4,02,850/- for Block •......... A & 3,24,850/- for. Block B land • •'•'• Q[1] 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 MLfndka, 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 Pratap Sincyh's case (supra), the Division Bench..was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining. Village named Ghevra and petaining to. various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act • detrmined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra.sunder:- • •. •.j. 0- Acquisition AppeaL No 489/2009, QjiOJ' La! An on 2 6 2011 I have deter1nlfledthe fair market value of the lnd in ViUage Ghera at 4,03,425j-.per bigha as of: &.2.,2003. On the issue of comparabilitY of land in vi'lage BakkarWala with village Mundká, G.hevra and Tikri Kalan, it: is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not atut NH-10, as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi viS--VlS. Ghevr afld Tiri Kalan and to that extent, civa said 2 villages, has an advantage Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is the broad probabihtleS and similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be S equivalent, unless qua some land special features can be shown

28. Since th decision in Pratp. S/ngh' case (sipr) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in Pratap Sin cjjf case (supra) As per the decision inPra,taP 5incjh[5] case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was 2,1,160/- per bigha and I,73,500!- perhigha for Categ.Or B land The first notification with which I am concerned is 25.2.1997 whereunde.r lands lin Village Mundka Were acured. The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 181daYS In rtp 5/nghCaSe ( süpra) to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to CategcrY LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.... •,Q[3] lands, the fair market value asessd is 2,49,40835 per bigha e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess the I fair market value at 2,Q[1],1I7/-.per.bigha i.e. 9,65,61.60 per acre. •• The next 'notification with which 'I am concernedJ LS dated 22.3.2003 pertaining to ViHae Mundka. In Qi/ranhi Lais' cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra), for agricultural Jands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a • notifidation issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair marketvälue assessed was[4],03,425I per big ha This was unif6rmly applied. Since there is, a time gap of just a little over l month, I am of, the. opiniop that pertaining to • the notification dated 21.3.2003; fair market value of, land in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425/ i.e. T 19,36,440i- p r acre, which [hereby fix. ' • •. I propose to deal with the noificatiQn dated 4.9.2003, after dealing, with the notification dated 176.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural, lands were acqLiired in VilIae Mundka and Village Bakkarwla. •0 • 0 • As ndted hereinabove, in ch1'ra8Ii Lal's case (supra),. pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.203, fair market value assessed by, me was 4,03,425/- per bighf and thus, increasing the Same by 10% for 2 years and 131 day, the 1figure comes to S 4 1 98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 3,93,227.20 per acre. The same is held by me to be the fair rnrket value of land in Village Mundka and Villag.e akkarwala asof 17.6.2005. I dree the same. • • ' • 0 LA.APP.784/2005 & cn.nected •; •

32 I am left with the notificatipn dated 24 9.2003 pétaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to:the fair market value assess.ed in Ch/rani/ Lal's case, I would require to appreciate the price b10% per annum for a period of 201 days, the fiUre comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i.e. 20,43,076.80 per which i determine to be, the fair market value of land ih Village Bakàrwala as of 249.2003.:..

33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The als filed by the lafld owners and the cross-obje.ctipnS filed by e land owners stads.decreed as under:-.. For the land falling in Category A land in ViUa•e •..Mundka the fair market value is ixe[1] at is 2,4,9,4075 per bigha i.e. Z 11,97,162/- per 8cre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at ? 01 117/- per bigha i.e. 9,65.,361.60 peradre,. as on 25.02.1997...... ii). For. the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425I- per bigha i e 19,36,40/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003. For the lnd situated in Village Muñctka the fair market value is fixed at T[4] 1 98,589I- per bigha i;e. 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on. 17.06.200.. iv) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market vale is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha LA.APP384/2005 & connected.. Page 18 of:19: