Deepika v. Rajender Singh

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 Court 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 minimumprice notified by the Government of NC1I Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mear 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 2003as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value of the Land Acquisition Act Learied counsel would concede hat the reasons given by te learned Reference Cqurt are pot bound, but would uge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why,............................................................................. I.. Ex P-i be not taken as th ee basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdiy, learnd 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 date 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOl would show the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be S considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected thrin ic icc fhn thp mintrnim rfififrJ by th would show that the Court assessed the fair mar1t valup, with referenceto sale deeds executqd between theyears 19O till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Vilagé l"1undk[4], a5parently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sa[1] pric of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages woLId L indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26. In Pratap 5inh's case (supra), the D.ivision Bendi was concerned with agriciltural lands in Tikri Kalan and apothr adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to v,riou notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Adt determined the fair maçket value of agricultural lands in Village' Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under -

S. NO Date Village Price per Big ha

1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 11 1995 A & 1,73,500/7 for Block B land 2 11 06 1996 - Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for •.'............:... Block B land 3 1712 2002 T;kri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block A & 3,24,85O/- for •:.. •... • S. Block B land • • H H_ •.: •;

27 Following the judgment in Pra'ap Sincjh's case (supra) I have decided t h e fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pusuan.to notification dated 6.2.2903..inthe batch of appeals being.Land S LA APP 784/2005 & connected Acquisition Appeal No 489/009, Ir!7IILPI v LTh/o/lofLfld/a& 2 6 2011 I have determined the fair markt value of the on lands in Village Ghevra at 4,Q[3],425!- per bigha as of 6 2 2003 comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWala with On the issue of village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-10, as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi visa-viS Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage Since exactness can never be acheved in the matters of assessing fair compensations it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be S euivalent, unless qua some land special features can be s how n

28 Since the decision in PratapLRc1h' case (supra) dalSwith notifications more roxirnte in point of time to'th notifications with which I arn.concerned, lam of the opinion tht it would be jst, fair and proper to determine the fair marks value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fali market value of lands determined in Praap Sig case (supra) As per the decision in PratapiflghS case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was. 2,15,160I- 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 span sweeps 1 year and 216 days I.e. 582da.yS. ñ ease was determifle Pratap Stngh's case (supra) the annI o be 10% pr annum (flat); ThUS, pertaining to Category A. Page 16°f19 LAApp784/2005&connected lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 per bigha I e Z11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lan I ds, assess the fair market value at 2,01,117/- per, bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per. acre

29 The next notification with which I am concrnedj dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chiranti La/'sl cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supa), for agricuftural Jands in Village Gheyra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6 2 2003, the fair market value assessed was 4 7 03,425I- per. bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be Z 4 1 03,425I- L e 19,36,440/- per acre,t which I hereby fix

30 I propose to deal with the notifiction dated 24 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala 31 As noted hereinabove, in Chiranti Lal's case (supra)i pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market valuel, assessed by me was 4,03,425!- per bigha and thus, increasing the same 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