Union of India v. Nanak Singh & Anr.

3 I,... 1• •.,. ' (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka) AND + LA APP 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA APP 42/2009, LAAPP 428/2009, 442/2009[1] LAAPP 611/2009, LAAPP 616/2009[1] LA APP 278/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24 09 20d[3] Award No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No 5948/2011, ILAAPP 1030/2010, LAAPP 103112010, LAAPP 1033/20]4 & CM No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 CM No6943/201t[1], LAAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP 1066/2C[1], LAAPP • 1067/2010, LA APP 1112011, LAAPP 122/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 1/2006-07 CORAM HON 1 BLE MR JUflCE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

1 Whether the Reporters of locl papers may be allowed to see the judgmet

2 To be referred to Reporter or not?

3 Whether the judgrr1ient should be reported in the Diges[2] PRADEEPNANDRAJOGI,J (Oral)

1 I am deciding the abover captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections, all of 4which have been listed hereinabove H:. The present ecision concerns issue of fixation of fair market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwal t I and village Mundka

3 The dates on which fair mprket value of the land has to be determined maybe grapally noted as under - S No Name of Village Date of notification uxr Section 4 of the LA ACtI S •SS S

1 Bakkarwala,24 9.200 ' 2 Bakkarwala 17 6 2005 3 Mundka 25 2 1997 Mundka.:21.3.20O[3] M.uridka•.17.6.2005 1* S 4 It may be highhght that the notificationt serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining tc village Bakkarwala, is e same S pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue etate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-lU, leaclng from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towafds; the other side of, the Southern boupdary of village I4undka The difference between the topology of the two vilIags is,whereas the land of village Mundka buts NH-lU, that of,village Bakkarwaja does not so abut, being on theother side of the 'Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Murdka 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 LAAPP784/2005&connected Pagesofl[9],....,.......:- • • fl...: •,:......'...,...... j;..., I pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issièd under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 211999/2000 estate of age Mundka were Agricultural lands in the revenue vifl further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21.312003.....: ' isjd under section 4.f the Land Acquisiton Act. speaward..' No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/205-06 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 as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in the reventie estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estatd of the same village were acquired pursuant t a Fnotification dated 1T 6.2005 (the n same notificatio under wtuch lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 9 In a nut shell, the Land Acqijisitibn Collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lards, underall the awards., with reference to the minimum-pri.e for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi

10 For clarity I may note t h a t pertairin to the F noçification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in th e revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with F reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ 10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted IA APP 784/2005 k connected F F \ ihe price for one year @ 11 5% per annthn This rtce was adopted for category A lands For lands in cathgor B, the value ws further discounted by 9O,OOO/- per acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notificatioh fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001 sand gave no t j benefit of enhancement with reference to the factthat the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 2003 nd 24 9.2003. Even pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 which required fair market value of: land to be determrned in the revenue estate of. village Bakkarwalaand $ village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector, determined the same with reference to the notifiation fixing minimum value of agricultural lands inp Delhi as of 1 4 2001 and gave no increase

11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collectbr, the land owners ought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the referencebing made, vide r various judgments and decrees, which are under hallengein the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view, of the Referenc' el Court, and enhanced the fairmarket value 12, In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated k 25 2 1997 vide which agricultural landsin village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same nobftcation as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA APP 784/2005& connected, - - L.. •- I' o..: •......,..., H I I ! 3overnment of NCT Delhi had fixed the mtnimum[1] value for gricultural lands in Delhi I e 1 4 1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ L[1] for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by, only 34 days inasmuch as the date with refere,nce whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitiofl 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 90,000I- per acre

13 Thus, Jor category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ !989,28&j- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ 899,288/- per acre

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 249 2003 whereunder agricultural lands inviilageMundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court tbok note of the fact that after the Government had cu notified the minimum rates for agriltural lahds h Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said datest,and the minimum price notified by the Governmentpf NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the princiile of mean average What the Reference Court did was to ad9pt the value as o 14 2001 and increasing the same by10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the ReferenceCourt todk the value notified las of 30..8.2005 and depressing the sameby 10% per LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 8 of A[9] I I U...,....: •.• •:.•...• •.. •.:. -• ••-•...... V.:. ••,-.,*'..:;. / •. -.. ! ': •.:..., •. * annum deerm:ned the sum arrived at as of 21 3 O[3] s also 24 9 2003 ' The two sums arrived at were ad'ded 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 20,4l,000/- per acre

15 Pertaining to the notification, dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were adquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reerence Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on accountof loctional 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 village BkIçarwa,la the price de1ermined was 20,35,255/- per acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning df. the Land Acquisition 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 /amna Vs 110/ & Ors, it was urged 1$y Sh LB Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, whidh argument was adopted by other learned counel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 igha • • •.. • • • • •... ---. ---------.-----'----------•------------'------------and[1],73,500/7 for category B land, 2,35,85O forøategory A r land and Z 1,9O,15O/- for categor B land, for category, A arid and 3,24,85OI for category B land, respectively.

18 I may, note here that in various land. acquisition references, vrious parties have proved a number of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today befbre me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the JOlwould 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 smpIe must bear som adequate proportion to the whole For example, learned counsel wQuld urge that if it has to be determined whether what prcentaè of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not b4e a safe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead fo the conclusion that the bag i54OO°i(o full of rice and if that one rain 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 reiresentative sample, is the example given The second reasop on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as: not being representative of the price is the reason that peopledo come to knrw hiit nndinn rnt1i.citinn -i'nicmijch s before - acaulsiti-ons S - I:...: -,-H - -----•-------- --- --.--- - —:11---'-- i.