Union of India v. Tara Chand & Ors.

2 To be referred to Reporter or not 2

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J (Oral)

1 I am deciding the above captioned appea,ls and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove. S

18 I may nte there that in various land acquisition references, various parties h a v e,,proved a n u m b e r of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have only, relied upon the sale 4deed Ex P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative • sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the vhole For example, learned counsf would...... uge that if it has to be determined whether w,hat percentage 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 grain of 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 reach to theconclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a

20 An independen[1] and alternative argument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union The same, rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231J 5i'ngh Vs 1)01 21 The decision inJjSingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village ' -7 as Petitions for Special eaveto Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000I per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing 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 vilIag Myndka 1 fair market value of land in village 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-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25 2 1997 It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are 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 wtie,n this happens people in the area come to know that very soon there is every likelihpod that the lands would be acquired In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy, enjoins upon the Government to allot,, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 13of 19 ' 1 acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persofl to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken tio b 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 of averages 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 Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market vue of the land couldbe determined: Therei.safl:add1ti0flal reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6 1 1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.199.[7] 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 pric for agricultural land in Delhi notified by' the Government

23 Thus, the fai4r market value of, the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court in Jj ngh's case (supra) or Pratap 5,ncih's case (supra)

24 I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division • Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25 The decision in J/ Sing/i 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 L APP 784/2005 &connected - -, -. '1- / -- (9' would show that the Court assessed the fair,mad<et value with reference to sle deds executed between the yars 1990 till the year 1996 e i t he'i in Villag, Tkri Kalan or, Vt1age Mundka, apparently on the premise that beiiig contiguous Milagers, sale price of gicultural land in the 2 adjoining vilIaes would be indictiveof fair rnarketvalue ofiand in Vilae Bakkarwala.

26 In Pratap Singh case (supra), the Dwision Bencft was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another a1jointng Village named Ghevra and pertaining to variou 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 - 32 I am left with the notification dated 24 9 2003 perining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair met value assessed Ch,ranii Lal's case, I would require to in apeciate the price by ]0% per annum for a period of 201 days, thefigure comes to 4,25,64U- per bigha e 20 1 43 1 076 80 pr acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village akkarwala as of24 9 2Q03 33 Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require o be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same The appeaIs filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under i) For the land falling in Category A land in Village I Mundka the fair market value is fied at is 2,49,408 75 per bigha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at 2,0117/- per bigha e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as,[1] on 25 02 1997 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425/- per bigha i e 19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21 03 2003 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair. market ivalue is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i e 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 iv) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair maçket value is fixed at T498,589/- per bigha i e LA APP 784/2005 & cçnnected...................................... 23 1 93 227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 v) For the land situated n Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixe& at 4,25,641/- per bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatiurn and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLTI 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 v1i) The appellant and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein - • • \j J

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JU[ 08, 2Q11 Wim ' S LA APP 84/2OO,[5] & connected -,