Inder Singh alias Indal Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

4 LA.APP. 784- 200,[5] I ) J{1NA Appellant Thrçgh Mr L B Rai, qvate, ' Mr I S Dahiya, dvocte, Mr 0 S Lakra, Advocate Mr ic SunI, Advocate, Mr AnuJ Bhandarl, Advocate I j Mr Shadam Fãnashat, Adv®cate I..;... •:.•.• '...........,.: • • •

VERSUS

Mll * ? J;UOI &JORS: 1;.,... Resp,ondenS A Tht'ough Mr Snjay podciar, Standing ' j' Counsel (LA), GNCT r.eIhi with w: Ms Deepika, Mr Sachitit Nawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kank,, Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Shrm, Mr Sumer Seth, Mr B Sharma, Ms Shobhna Takiar an Mr Arun Birbal, Advocates fo dDA. •:: H•:: '.• •.... t,...... •:•:j$ ( t I AND I I i I 1 I: LAAPP 879/2005, LAAPP 88O-.881/2O[5], LAI1PP 121/2OO[6], 143/2007 (Relating to NotifcatiOfl t u/s 41, dated 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, VillgeMunk). I A N D.:.,.•4: •'•'. ( 4 t I.. 5.. }+ LAAPP 583/2009, LAAPP 603/2009, LAAPP 604200, LA•P:6a6/2009; LAAPP..60/2009, 74/2010[1] LA.APP 7820I01..

LA APP 784/2005 & connected ir.::.• •. H[1]......:....•..:......: ',' • •. •:... LA APP 79/2010, LA APP 121/2010, 1LA APP 122/2010, LA,API 1 125/2010 0 LA APP 164/2010, LA APP 185/2010, LAAP. 186/2010, LA APP 20012010, LAAPP 23812010, LAAPP, 239/2010, LAAPP 24312010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP J '• 1. • •'' • ". 245/2O1O,......-..,. LAAPP 247/2010, LAPP 251/2010, LAAPP 252/2010,.: LA.AP... fiPP. 267/2O.1O,:. 273/2010, LAAP[1] 274/2010 LAAPP ?7!2010, LAAPP: 312/2010, LA APP 324/2010, L. A. APP 326/2O1O, LA j....I • 327/2010; LA.APJ. 329/2010, •LA.APP. 3:o/2oo,. LAAP 4 331/2010, LAAPP 332/2010, LAAPP 333/2O1?O with 'M APPL N,o 5524/2011, LAAPP 335/201O, LAAPP 3367/2010, LAAPP 368/2010, LA APP 369/2010, LA APPI 371t2d10 & CM APPL; No 20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, L4APP 3fr5/2O1O, LAAPP ' 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP42,3/2O1O, LAAPP 452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010 LAAPP 472/2010, LAAP[9] 694/2010, LA APP 96/2O1O & CM APP No 634O/2O11, LA APP. 697/2010[1] LAAPP 698/2010 & CM IPPL 1734/2011, LAAPP 1 706/2010 & CM ARPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 7p7/2010, LAAPP 708/2010 LAAPP 709/2010, LAAPP 1O/2b]JO with Cfvl APPLY I No2568/2011, LAAPP 713/2010 withCM APPL No7473/2010, LA APP 715/2010, kA APP 717/2010, LA APPL 19/2010, LA APP 766/2O1O, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 79V/2010, LAAPR, ' 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 81/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LA APP 829/2010, LA APP 831/2qlo & CM APPL 955/2011, LAAPP 832/2010, LAAPP 1 833/2Q10 & CMAPPL, 6392/2011, LAAP 834/2010, LAAPP 42/2010, LAAPP 4 p871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 87/2O10, LA APP 877/2010, LA APP 878/2010, LA APP 879/2010, FLAAPP 880/2010, LAAPP 881/2010 CM. APPL65O5/2011, LAAPP 882/2010, L1kA1PP883I20lO, LAAPP 884/2010, LAAPPt 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP' 889/2010 & CM A P P L 224912011, LA AIP 4890/2010, LA APP 893/2010 & cM APPL 6750/2011, LA APP:894/2010 'CM[4] No 23353/2010? LAPP ä95/2010, LAAPP 896/2010, LAAPP 87/2010 & M APPL728/2011, LA'APP 903/2010, LAAPP, LAAPP?84/2OO5&conneqted Pagezofi[9]:1 J[4] I r 4 'I

8 Agricultural lands in the r'nue testate of vi Uage 4 Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant te a notification dätedi 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the 4Land Acquisiti(in Act a I Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands Jim the evenue estate of[1]. ? the same village wre acquired pursuant to a notifiation dated 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which lands in viIIage t Mundka were acquired) asper award No )/2006-07 i 9 In a nut shell, the Land 4 Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value of the aquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the mnirnum price for agricuIturah land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi

10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to the notification dated 25.2J997 under which agricultural lands in 3 the revenue estate of village Mundka were acqnred, the learned • 1 Lar.d Acquiition Collector determined the fair rnrket vaRe with 4reference to the mintmuin price for agricultural land notIfied wit4ji effect from 1 4.19 97 @ 10 lacs per acre and since the date of ction 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted LA APP784/2QO[5] & connected Page 6 o 19 I I 4 4

'I. I - I I 4 4 t Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the ri-iinimum value for agricultural iands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997, but as against the 4 Land on Acquisition Collector iepressingthe price @ II 5% for full e \t year, adopting the percntage ii 5, decreased the value by ( only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference wheretp Government had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and,; I the notification under Sedtion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for category A lnds and for category B lands, with reference to the value for I ategory A land depressed the same by 9O,OOOI- per aère, t 13 Thus, for category A lands th Reference Cout determined the fair market value @ !9,89,288/ per acre and for r.. category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- per acre t Pertainig to te notifications dad 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural landsin village Mundka nd village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Referc Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimym rates for gricultural lands in Delhi a of 1 4 2001 the next revi-sioh was as of 3fl 8 2005 Using t hei id I:dates and the minimum pice notified y the Government 6f NC1T..,. Delhi. the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean average What th Refernce Court did vas to adopt the value • as of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as df 21.`3 2003 as also

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in E which I have peqnei prnfiled the reasoning of the Land } I Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve I intothe arguments advanced before me during hearing today 1 17 With rference to the evidenc led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs 110/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh L B Rai, • learned counsel forthe appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which argument was adopted Ly other learned counsel who appeared for the other appelklants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 9 191 • • H • •,J, • • it: -i,• •.•..•..;• r.. I I. ••. H •I:•.... •... ••,..,',•..•,•,..H.:•,. - - V • V VV •. • •.. V, V,,. V V V•..,',V, I ! 6hd 3 bsa of agricufturl land in village udka was sold a of I; 58 1996 for a sale considertion of 4,75OOOI- 38,OOO/- was curred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would: be 5,13,OOOf- and calculaled with reference Thereto, land price t per, bigha would come to 4,46,OOOI- as of 5 8 1996 Learned dounsei would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair j tharket value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was " I 4,46,OOOJ- per biga as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, itis urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993, l 21,32003 and 17 6 2005, i & the dates whn[1] notifications udder '

1 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuart,. I whereto aricuItural,lands were acquired in village Mundka, by j increasinglthe price progressively, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum It is urged that on the same basis, l,nd price should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was ured that since illages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala re contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further toward the • ?....... V... tbwnsip of Rohtak, some increase be p-lade in the value f the la1nd in village Mundka anJBakkarwala with reference to the )Ligrnent and decree dated 19 12 2008 decidipg a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs 1101 as per which fair market value of, land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 16 1996 3and 17 1 2002 at T[2],15,164/- for category A land • VVV V. •'. '. V V V V• I I tAAPP784/2005&connected PagelOofl[9] I I V •.. V V.... •••.• V V • V • I k..,VV• •V••.. VV V I I 1, I. V... V. I. V VV•S V V....:.: •. • •........ r • •. I: 3 and i,73,5O0I- forcategory B land, 2,35,85O for categoy A ! land and 1,9O,15Q/- for category B land, 4,O[2],85OI- for ' category A land and 3,24,85O/- for category B land, respectively * 18 ' I may note here that in various lnd acquisition 1 references, various 1artIes have proved a number of sale deeds J ' executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me,learred counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i t t 19 Per coi$ra, Sh Sanjay oddar learned,counsel for the I would urge that the sale price as pe Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative. sample f the whole, the sample must bear some adequate ' proportfojr to the whole For example, learned counsel woul I urge tht 1if it has to be determined whether what percentage of tones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe methpd to pick oly one gain, for if it happens to be the grain rice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one would readh to the conclusion that the bag is full of st9nes At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is th example given The second rëason on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisiion inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in t1he area is surveyed Withput a survey it,ouId bedifftcult toiissue even the notification under Section 4 \ I LAAPP784/2005&conected Page litof 19 ri I 'I ' - -,1z the Land Acquin Act Learped counst wo3uid corede hat the reasons giii by the learned Reference Cout are not 'pLind, but would tirge that the two contentions advnced by '4m should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to wh x P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market ''aIue of Jands in village Mundka and Bakkarwa!a Thirdly, learned counsl would further urge that the fqur sale ded's xR-1' to R-4 referred to J,n the decictian of the lerred leerence Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995,:o 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOI 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 t herein is less than the minimum price notified by the * oiernment, the price fixation should be with refrence tç th'e rninimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to 1he point of time when the respective notifications were issued nder Sectidn 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

20 An independent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned ounsel for the Union The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Couçt reprted as 2006(135)DLT231/aiSinghVs £101 The decision in Ia! S,ngh's case (supra) concerns itself Aiiti the determination of the fair market vc lue of lnd in village akkarwala which were acqired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at U,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would jrge that the said decision has attained finality 064T.

LA APP 784/2005 & connected Iage 12 of 19 I • - 1 NO Date Village Price pBgh4a l 1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,16OJ- for BlOck 16 11 1995 A &' 1,73,5O0/- for Block B land 1 2 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for Block B land 3 17 12.2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,85O/- for Block A & !3,24,850/- or I 13loc[1] B land Following the judgment in Pratap Sinqh'scas (supra) ' I have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Gevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6 2 2003 in the batch of appeals being Land •1 -.. 1• I ) - 1 II. •l;, • -it t S. •. • S... •.-.. S..... --,..:...-.........•...-..' 1 1 'S '1 would show that the Cpurt assessed th fur maet value with reference to sale deeds executed between the yrs 19O till 1 the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kal1an or Vige Mundka,[1] apparently on the premise that being corftiguoys iflagers, sale pric of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining vilFas would be[1] indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakrwa!a 26 In Pratap Singh's case (supr), the Divion Bnch was concerned with agricuftural lands in Tikri Ka1annd another adjoining Village named Ghevra and 1pertaining to variOus notiftcations issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquision Act 1determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan nd Ghevra as under, -;....... I Fands, the fair mar<et v'alue assessed s 2,49,4Oe per biha I e 1i,97,162/- per àe and for Category B Iand assess the fair, market value at 2O[1],117/- per bigha i e,361.[6] 0 per:Cr: •....,.../.:• •.::: I 9 The next notifiction with which I am oncernedis bated 21 3 2003 pertaining to Village Mundka In iraii Lal's' as(supra), with reference to the decision in Prata5ingh'S case ! tsura), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a potficatiofl issued, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.. I 6 2 2003, the fair market value assessed wa 4,O[3],425/- per pn bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of ion 'jst a little over i month, lam of the opin that pertainingto S thec notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be 4,O[3],45/- i e 19,36,44OI- per acre, w. hich I hereby ix

1. I I propose to deal with the notification dated k24 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2OO[5] 'I pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mupdka and Village Bad<karwala 31 As noted hereinabove, in C'hirapi Lal's case (supra),' pertaining to the notiflcati9fl dated 6 2 2003, fair market va)uet 'assessed by nie was 4,03i,425I- per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to • 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 per pere The same is held by me, be the fair market value of land in to I Vill'ageMundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17 6 2005 I decree the same I, I I I thefigure qomes to 4,25,641!- per bigha I e 2O,43,O76 80 peru acre, which I determine tobe the fair market value of land in VilIageakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 33 Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India; require to be dsmisd and I hereby dismiss the same The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under - '; p For the land falling in Category A land in Village ': Mundka the fair market value is fixed at is 2,49,40 5 perbigha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and: for Category B lands, the fair rnarket value is fixed at: 2,01,117/- per ig Fi e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as on25021997 1iFor the land situated in Village Mundka the fain market value is fixed at 4,O[3],425I- per bigha i e 19,36,440I- per acre, as on 21 03 2003 I t I iii) For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha ie ( 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 1706 2005 /4 iv) For the land situated in Village Bkkarwala the fair market value is fixed atZ[4].,98,589/- per bigha i e LAAPP784!2005&connected Page 18o[1] 19 4 4 1. i statute and as clarified n he decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs UQI, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by I the Reference Court and finaily on the sum enhced by the present judgment and decree;..,... •: •' ••..: • • '. •: • •:: • •:: •.,: • ••• •..,;,..:. w: •: The appeflants and crossobjectors who succeed c would also be entitled to proportionate costs All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of I I, the prayers made therein I I I t (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) ( JUDGE I SULYP[8],2011 I, mm l S t L: LAAP784/2OO5&connected Page l9of 19 I