Union of India v. Mahavir Prasad & Anr.

14 Fjeftaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands In villageMundka and, iillage Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified t h ej minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 I 001 the next re4sion was of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates a3nq the minsmun price notified by the Goverrme1nt of NCT D&hi, the Reference Court adopted the princqle of mean. average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of 1 4 2p01 and increasing the sam by 10% per annum cleterrined 3 the enhanced price as of 21 3 2903 as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notifiet a of 3082005 and depressing the same[1] by'lO% per [AAPP 784/20051& connected Page8ofl[9] • • •'• 3 '. I • • • /•.•• I 1......::. ••.. ••' •.,.,: • ''., ( r;- t.:••, •.:.. I' t. i r •: • •.:. •'... •;,: • annum determined the sLim arrived at as of 21.3.20.03. asaI.., 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at wer&added arid divided by twotorriv at the mean figure as of21 3 2003, whch I hote l comes to i[5],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 cletern?Ined was 20,4i 3 OO0I- per acre

5. Pertaining to the notification dated 17 62005 pursuant whreto agricultural lads were acquired in 41Iage BakkarIvalaand Mundka the learLd Reference Curt adpted the minimum price for agncuftural lands notified by A. Government o NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and grIvihg increase @10N per annum determined the valiie and with. respect to4he Ian3ds in village Mundka, on accountof locational 1'.. advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave, 5%1 more arid determined the f a i r market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for. village Bakkarwa:la the prie determined was 20,35,255/7 per acre 16 lr the aforesaid backdrop of the factuaJ scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisitior Collector as also that of the 1Reference qourt, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today

17 With reference to the evidence ld in LAC o 384/2004 /amna Vs UO/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh L B Rai, • t Iarned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 7842005, which rgument was adopted by other learned counsel wo appeared fpr the other appellants, that the learçied Trial Judge was not justified in 6noring the sale deed Ex P-i whreunder 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 9.6f.19. 3 3 I j I I t I 1 3 • 0

0. 0' '0 -.'.. • 000. •0.: '',............0 '1:-,,.. 4:1i: •.3. j '3 4 3

I. 'I...,.. \....... -...: •• t.: • •• t k •,.: •... - -. nd 3 btswa of agricultural land invillage Mndka wa sold as of 16 for a sale consideration of Z 4.,75,00G/- 38,000I- was 8 q[9] incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the dand would. b~.e Z[5],13,000/7 and culated with reference thereto; land price.:• per biha iouId come to 4,46,OOI- as of 5 8 199 Learned sj; cotunse l woui'di urge that there is no reason not to hdld that fair ' 4 market 'value of, agricultural lands in viHage Myndka was 4,46,000I- per, bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the[4] argument foward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, f a i mrket valu e needs to be determined: as of 125.2.1993 1 21 3 2003 and 17.6.2005, i e the dates when notifications under Section of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant... whereto 1 agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by ' 1....... increasing the price progressiveiy, if not by 12% per an'num at least by 10%, per annum It is urged that on the same basis,; land price shouId be determined for the agriulturl lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged Ithat since 1 3 villages:Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are,kontiguous villages,and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further tpwards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the 4 4,.',... 1 land in Village, Mundka and Bakkarwala with referepce to the '. •1 judgment and décre dated 19.12.2008 deciding a batch of; fl.... H..[1] Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal. No 193/2006 lPratap Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs VOl as per' which fair mrket value of 1and, per bigha, was det'ermined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan' as of ]!6 11 1995, 116 196 antl 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for categbry A land ' APP784/2OO5&onnected Page lOof 19 I I S •:. Vfl and 1,73,5OO/- f category B land, Z[2],35,850 forcategory A lane and 1,9O,15O/- for category B land, 4,d[2],850/- for ' category A land and 3,24,85O/- for category B [and, çespectively

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

19 Per cor1itra, Sh Sanjay Poddar,learned counsel for the ¶ ',.*.,. 4. •1. upi would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-1 cannqt be •. • aopted as the yrdstick for the reason, to be a representative smple of,the whole, the sample must bear some adequate 4-, 1-k,ikrI Frr 1 rrr[1] riincl n,niiId •. I Li Li I L. IL) I I I.. U LI I V.V I IL I. I %JI L I' LI I I I fr' I '- - '- '- '-' - '-. '• urge tht if,Jt has to be determined whether what percentage of •• •.i.. stones remixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the drain 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 the corclusion that the bag is full 4of stones At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as 1a representtive sample, is tie example given The second eason on which larnd.; co.iseI would, attack the s,a.!e deed as not being.. representative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about ending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions.. • I •. • •1.•.:.-. • ae rnaJe, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey it if would be difficult to issue even the notification urder Section 4 I • •• • LAAPP.784/2005&conneted,...•- •.. •... Pägellofl[9]

25. The decision in (supra) determIfle f;r narktvalue of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of per bigha as of, 15 10 1993,' and the peusal thereof LAPP 784/2005 & connected Page IA of 19 0 0 JO •-. -I' 0• ---- - -- - - -n. i, •... I..... •..•,....... Vq...,...; wo show that the Court assessed the fair markt value witlp refenence to sale deeds executed between the yers 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale rice of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultral lands in Tkri Kalan iand another, djoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications1issued under Section 4 of th Land Acquisitiod Act deterrn1ined the fair market value of agricultural Iançs in Village Tikri Kajan and Ghëvra as SNO Date Village - Price per, Bigh.a

1. - 24:M[7].1995 -& Tikri-Kal-an. 2,15,160/ fOr Block 16 11 1995 A & 1,3,500/- for Block B land

2. 1 11:0-6.1996 -. TikI Klan &:. 2,35,815/LforBlock Ghevra A & 1,9O,156/- for Block B lnd 3 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block

31 As noted hereinabove, in Chirani' Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market value •. ssesèd by, me was 4,03425/- per bha and thu, increain the same by, 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figUre comes to O 4,.98;589/7 per bigha, vhichcomes to 23,93,22.7.20 per.cre. The same is held by,çne to be the fair market value of land in Village,Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as,of 17 6 2005 I decree the same & Fagel7of LAAPP784I2005&c0nnect l[9]..:.j •..., It - - - -----f--i 23,93,227t20 per acre, as on 17 062005 For the land situated in Village krkarwaia the fair market value is fixed at 4,25,641- per bigha i e 2O,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 5under vs 1iOIH for the 441, compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by theReferenceCourtandfinaltyonthsuhienhancd.: r by the present judgment and decre

0 The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed woUld also be entitled to proportionate costs. I All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein I I • • •(PRADEEPNAND.RAJOG)' • JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 A Mr • •