Union of India v. Kailashwati & Anr.

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers maybe alloid to see the judgment?.,.....

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, 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. LA.APP..784/2005 &;connected..

2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of fa market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwal and vifiage Mundka •: 3. The dates on which fair market vlue of the lnd has to be determined, maybe graphically noted as under:- SNo; Name of Village Date of notification under. Section4oftheLAAct 1: Bakkarwala. 24..2003.... Bakkarwala 17.6.2005.• Mundka 25.2.1997 4 ' Mundka. 21.3.2003... ' 5.,. Mundka.. 17.6.2005 4.[1] It may be highlighted that' the'notifica'tionat'.sériaI Nb.[2] hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is he same. pursuart whereto, lands Were'acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka; asper serial No.5 above. •....

5 Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikr: Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mu.ndka. The ' difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-b, that ofvillage •. Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other. Side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village' Muhdka. •, '

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 vill,a,ge.Tikri Kalan.

7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA,APP.784/2005 & connected Page 5of 19, p'uuant th a notification dated 25.2.1997 issued undet Sectiop of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/1999/2000. AgriculturaLlands in the revenue estate of village Muhdka were,furher acquired pursuaht to a notification dated 21.3.2003 issd uider Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.3/2005-06 a.s also award No.1/2005-06. 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 revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24.9.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Lard Acquisition At as per. Award No.3/2004-05. Further lands in the, revenue estate of, the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which lands in village •Muhdka were acq ed) as per a.ward No.1/2006,-07. ' In a nut shell,, the Land Acquisition Collector determined, the fair market value of the acquired lands,,under all the awards. with reference to the mini'rnum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi. For clarity I may note.th.at peftaining to the notifidätion dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learne •,' Land Acquisition Collector'determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricuftural la'hd notified with effect from 1.4.1997 @ 10 lacs per acre' and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in oint of time, discounted LAAPP.784/2005&conected ', ' Page'6of19 ti the price fork one year @ 11 5% per annum This price was adopted for category A lands for lands in category B, the value was further discounted by90;000/- per acre. Pertainihg to the notifictions dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Coflector relied upon the notification fixing the mihimum price of agricultural !and as of[1].4.2001 and gave no be,nefit of enhancement with refe.rence tothe fact tht the fir. market value of the lands to be determined was as of[1].3.2O03 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notificatjon dated 17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land to be ' determined in the revenue estate ofvillage Bakkarwala and vilge Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition. CollectOr determined the same.with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 nd gave no increase. Aggrieved by the determination: of the fair market value of th 6 lands by the Land Acquisition Colector,the land owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vid various judgments and decree, which are under challenge in • the above captioned appeals, the Reference CoLirt took corrective action, as per the view of the' Reference Court, and I• enhanced the fair market value. • ', In a nut shell, pertaining to the 'no.tifictidn dated 25.2J997 vide which agricultural lands in village MLindka Were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same'nojfjcatjon as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under wh,ich the LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.. • Page 7.pf 19 Goernment of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for • agcultural lands in pe.lhi i.e. 1.4.1997 1 but as,againstthe'Landl Acquisition Collector depressing the: price @ 11.5% for full one. year; 'adopting the percentage 11.5,.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 noiflcation under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value 1ixed for category A lands and for category B lands; with reference to the values for category A land depresse' the same by 90,000I- per acre.

13. Thus, for category A lands the Reference COurt determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/7 per acre and for. ' category 'B land the same was determined @8,99,2881- per' ' acre. •...

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands. in village' Mur'idka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired',' the Referen'ce 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 re'ision was as of 30.8.2005. Using the said.:..' ' dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of 1.4.2001 and increasin.g 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 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per LA.AP'P.784/2005 & connected •, ',. • ", 'annrn determined the sum arrived at. as Of 213.2003 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 Z15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisiois I note the sum arrived at Js 15,92,215/) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 2041,000/'peracre. 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 1.4.2.001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value..and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of. 17 6 2005 in sum of U[1],37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255/- per acre: In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual' scenario in which J have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today. With reference to the evidence led ' ir LAC No.384/2004 /amna Vs. UQI & Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.B.RL ' learned counsel for the appellant in LA App o 784/2005, which argumentwas adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for the other appellants; that the learned T.ril Judge, was rjOt justitied in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected JV a and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- 38,000I- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of 5 8 1996 Learned ' counsel.would urge that there is.ho reason not to hold, that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of'5.8.1996. Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair, market value needs to be determined as of 25.2.1993, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. th dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant wherto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per annum at 'least, by 10% pr annum. It is urged that on the same, basis, land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since villages 'Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkaçwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the towns'hip of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the )udgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs VOl 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, 11 6.1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/ for category, A land [Cl.. •,.,.. H and 1 1 73,500/ for category B land, Z[2],35 1 850 for category A land and 1,90,150I- for category B lhd;..4,Q[2],850!- for category A land and 3,24,850!- for category B tnd, repedively. S I may note here that in various land ac.uisition references, various parties. have proved' a number of, sa!e deeds • execUted from time to time, but during "rguments t'oday befOre me, learned' counsel for the land, owners have only relied upon, • the sale deed Ex.P[1]..... 'Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Podda larned counseJ for the UOl 'would 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 sample must bear some adequate proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel wouId urge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe, method to hick n1y'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 thatone grain 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 representative sample, is the example given. The second reason on which learned counsel wduld 'attack the sale deed as not being represeritative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch' as beforedquisiti'oh, are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey.it'. 'would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4', LA.AP'P.784/2005 & connected ' " ' ' S, ' '. -.."v. iL If the ar1d'Acquisition Act. Learned comisel ''vould concede at the reasons given by the lerned Reference Court are not und,' but wouli urge that the two contentions advancd by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why cP[1] be'not taken ps the bais to determine the fair rnarkt value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala. T.irdly, learned counsel would further urge that th.e four sale deeds Ex.R-1. to R-4 referred to jn the decision of the larned • Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds. dated 6.1:1995, 30.5.1997, 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 • considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected • herei.n is less than the minimum price, notified by the..overnment, the price.'fixatibn should be with reference to the. minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of time whn. the respective notifications were 1sued Under Section 4• of the Land Acquisition Act..... 20 •. • ' An independent and, alternative argument 'is also dvanced by learned courrel for. the Union'.' 'The same rests,. itself on a decision of a. Di'Jision Bench of this Courtreported as 2006 (135) D LT 231 /a/ 5/ngh Vs. 1101.

21. The decision infa/Singh's case (supra) concerns itself

4 Miith the determination of the fair market value of land in village kkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notifiation dated 15.10.1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigJa. Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attainéØ finality inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 & connected......, '.. Pc' as Petition.s for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme ' Court,by either side have been disrissed. Learned counsel,. takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land i village Bakkarwala as of 15.10.1993 at 1,32,000I- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by"increasing the price progrëssiyelyby. 10% per annum, to determine the market value o '.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 village Mundka, fair market value of land ip villae 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'.PJ, whereunder, 1 bigha 'and 3 biswã of agricultural land was sold in Village Müidka as of 5.8.1996[1] it would assume importance that the.' sale is about 7 months priorto the date of the nOtification issued under Section 4 of thLand Acquisition Act,.which was, issued on 25.2.1997. It k a' matter of common knowledge that precedin,g the publication of a notification, under Section 4 of,the' Land. cquisition Act, survey's are carried 'oUt with,the oject of',z determining 'as to what lands, comprised in which' khasra' numbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposed ' acq'uisition:and when this happens people in the area come to know that'very soon there is every likelihood that the lands would be acquired. In Delhi, the large scalle acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to"àllot, at pre determined rates, a plot of' developed residential land to the ones whose, lands' are H Page of 19 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected * acquired and thus, M, is not uncommon, for persons to pjrchase mall parcels of lans in areas where acquisrt1oflS are likely to takeplCe these thactiOfls are speculative ancl ca:nnot be taken to be a representative measure of, the fair market value of land 4as 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 reasonihg 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 deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1 to Ex.R-4, dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much lower than th sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the salk price in the, said 4 sale deeds averages. much less than even the minImurfl 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 /ai SIz7cLh'5 case (supra) or pratatj Sincih's case (supra)

25 The decision in j5tngh's case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 142,000I- per bigha as of. 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof would show,that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the yeans 1990 till the year 1996 either in Viflage Tikri Kalan or Villag Mundka,.aparertly on the premIse that being contiuous vjJ.lgers, sale pric of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village akkarwala

26. ' In Pratap 5!nghs case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another ajoini.ng Village h,amed Ghevra and pertaining to vaçious nOtifications issçjed under Secti&Q 4 of the Land AcquisitioriAtt, determined the fair market 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