Shakuntla Aggarwal v. Union of India & Ors.

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment[7]

2 To be referred to Reporter or not[7]

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral)

1 I am deciding the above captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by, way of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove s p •1, Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i & 1 4 1997, but as against the, Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 115, 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 Acquisition Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for. category A lands and for.category B lands, with reference to thee values for, category A land depressed the same by 90,000I- per acre

13 Thus, for category A Iands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for category. B. land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- per acre

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21'3 2003 and.24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands In village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference curt took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Reference Curt adopted the principle of mean \J average 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 took the value notified as of 30 8 2Q05 anddepressing the same by 10% per LAAPP784/2005&connected Page8ofl[9]............... • 0...,..... annum determined the s u m arrived at as of 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 2kJ03 the price determined was 20,4l,000I- per acre

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and g'iVin' 9PI I increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational • advantage, being abutting NH-10 gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as oø 17 6 2005 in sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255/- per acre

16 In the aforesaid bac<drop of the factual scenario in which J. have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land •Acquisiton 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 led in LAC No 384/2004 Jamna Vs 1101 & Ors, it was urged by Sh LB Rai,. learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, whict argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial judge was not justified in IgnOring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1bigha LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 9of19 acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitinS are likely to take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be measure of te fair market value of taken to be a representative land as on the date of the sale Further, the principles f ratio and proportion as also the principles of veragS 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 Referenc Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale dee[1] The sale deeds Ex R- 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6.1.1095, 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

23 Thus the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court in at nh'scase (supra) or Pratap Singh's case (supra) I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division • Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25 T h e decision in J/ 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 perusal thereof • •..• would show, that the Court assessed the fair market value with.,•...:4.... reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Ialan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of gricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Singh'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 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - 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 14,25,641/- per bigha L e 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 '93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs (JO!, for, the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein. - -

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE ' LY 08, 2011 • ?rn 1 • 7' • • LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 19 of, 19