UOI v. Jal Bhagwan & Ors.

1 Whether the Repotrs of local pap9rs may be allowed to seethe judgment 7 2.. To be referred to Reporter or not[7]

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest 7 • PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral) • 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 ' 1 $5 • •. • •. • •

2 The present decision concerns issue of fixton of r t market value of land in the revenue estate of Viflage Bkkarwat and village Mundka I

3 The dates on which fair, market value of the land has I to bedetermined may be graphically noted as under - I 4 \ S No Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act I I

1 Bakkarwala 24 9 2003 2 Bakkarwal 17 6 2005 3 Mundka.25.2.1997 r 4 MundIa 1 21 3 2003 I

5 Mundka 171 62005

4 It may be thlghlighted that the notification at seriaj No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is t h e. same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above

5. Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Muhdka I, Ghevra and Tikri KaIn Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other 1side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka The difference between the topology of the two viJlaes is, whereas the land ofvillage Mundka abuts NH-1O, that of viUa9e 1 Bakkarwaja does tnot so abut, beirg on the other, side of the outhern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka € As we proced from the city of Delhi to the townshi of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followedby vi1Iag hevra and then village Tikri Kalan I

7 Agricultural lands in villge Mundka were acquired LAAPP734/2005&coflflected Dage50fl[9] I I 1 I H: H' pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the LanI Acquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2000 Agricultural laflds in th 4e revenue estate of village Mundka were further, acquied pursuant to a notification dated 21 3 2003c issued under Setion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as p e r. award 3 No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a oifiatioi dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land I I\cqLnsition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 4 Aj Agricultural lands in t!he revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquiçed pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 issuei under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lapds in the revenue estate of S t h e same 'illage were acquired pursuant to a notification lated --- - - -.- -- 1r - j:L I Grnment of NCT DeIh had fixed the minimum value for aiItural lands in Delhi i e ]1 1997, but as against the Land ' p Acdisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 115, decreased the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto ' Goveçnment haçl notified the minimum \alue was 1 4 1997 and the nàtification under Section 4 of te Lahd Acquisition 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 cateory A land depressed the sameby 90,000l- per acre

13 Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for acre., •.•.::.,...... S category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- per, t..:

14 Pertaining tb the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2.003 whereuhder, agricCiltural lands in village Mundk and ' villagd Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Go\ernment had notified the minimum[1] rates for agriculturl lands in Delhi as of f. 1 4 2001 the next,revision was as of 308 2005 Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Referepce Court adopted the principle of mean average What thO Reference% Court dic was to adopt the value 1 as of 1 4 2001 1and increasing the 1 same by. 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 as also 2492003 Therafte'r the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30 82005 and depressinlg the same by,10% per VI g ft annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as aIso 24 9 2003 ThB two sums arrived at were added and di\ided by two to( arive at the mean figure as of 1 1.[2] which I hate co rn esr. to U[5],92,083 33 per acre (In some deciions I note the i ' sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24.9.2003 the 4 c price determined was 20,41,000/- per acre

15 Pertainirig to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in vallage BakkawaIa and Mündka the learned Reference Court adopted by the the minimumprice for agricultural lands notified Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving • =. '.... •.. increase @10% per annum deterthined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, lon account of locational.... advantage, bezng' abutting NH-10 gave 5% more and 4 4 4 determined t h e fair m4arket tvalue as of 17 6 2005 in sum of 5 4 721,37 1 017 75 per, acre and for village Bakkarwala the pric determined was 20,35,255/7 per4acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factul scenario Jn which I ha'e penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector asalso that of the Referericecourt, I delve into the arguments4advanced before me during hearing today.

17 With refernce to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs LIOl & Ors, it ias urged by Sh L B Rai,, learnedcounseI for, the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which............................................................................ argument was adopted by other learhed counsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial J u d g e was not ' justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 biha[1] 4 4 4 1A APP 784/2005 & connected 5 4 i;. ••.. •. •;.,..;. •. 4...'... 5 '. 1. '••.......... • 4.- • •,... 4 4.4.. •..1.. •.... 4•••. 1. - - - - _ - I (. as Petitions for Special Leave to ppa[1] filed before the Suprem j Court by either side have been dismissed Learned counsel I takes the argiiment forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 a 1,32,OOOI- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% pen & annum to determine the market value of lad in village ); c Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of viUage Mundka, fair market value of, land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25 2 1997, 21 3 20b and 17 6 2005, by giving: 5% increase

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P21, whereunder 1 S,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 ivas issued or...•.. 25 2 f997 It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding he publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquiition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of i determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are required,to be notified for the proposed acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to ( T know that very soon there is everylikelihood 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 of LA APP 784/20O[5] & conpected Page 13 19 • •... •. •,• • •,.,..' •.,...' •.•t, • •,. I • • •.:. •. •. •• • •.•••..ç. •. • • / I:o f ured and thus it is not uncommon, for persbns to purchase smafl parcels of lands in areas where acquisitiOflS are 'likely to take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be measure of the fair market value of taken to be a representative 'and as on the datepf the sale Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as aiso 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 he whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced L bY the learned Referene Court, but for the twin reasonIfl hitherto-fore noted, hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market ij 3 3 value of the land could be determined There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sle deed The sale deeds Ex - 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 197 and 8 9 1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale pricet much lower than 3 the sale price[3] recoded in Ex P-i In fact, the sale price in the said 1 sale deeds aveçageS much less than e''en the minimum pricç for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government,