Union of India v. Ravi Raj & Ors.

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? • '3. Whether the judgment should be repbrted in the Digest? ^ PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I. (Oral): 1... I am deciding the above captioned 'appeals and,, relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of •i • ' •. ' I ".., •, cross objections; all of which have been listed hereifiabove. • ••LA.APP.784/2005 &connected • ' % 2... The pFesent decisipn co'ncems issue of fi}<ation of f%ff market value of land.in the revenue estate,of Vi'll|g| Ba,l<i<arw,§|a. and viifag.e Mundka.t ? I. V'? •3. The dptes,on which fair m^rl^et value of the land has to be determined- may be graphically aoted as under:- • S.No. Name of \^illaae Date.of n0tificati;0h under:,. Se,cti.fn 4 of the LAIAct

1. '.Bakkarwala. -. 24,9.2003 •

2. Bakkarwala ' 17/6.2005 ' ' 3: Mundka: 25l[2].lfe97.• 4.- Mundka'. 2l!3.2b03 5.' jviundka ';. 17;6.20'05 4.- It may be highlighted, that the notification at serial /Nb.[2] hereinabove, pertaining to.village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were 'acquifed in the revenue estate o.f 'VJHage'Muridka; as per serial No.5 above. ' '5'.. Abutting NH-10., leading from the city,of Delhi to the' township pf Rohtak in.the State of Haryana, are-villages Mundka, ''' Ghevra.and Tikri Kalan. Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other s:i|de of the Southeirn boundary (of village Mundka. The y. •. • ' difference between the topology of the; two villages is; whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-IO, that of village Bakkarwala., does not so abut; being pn the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Miindka. proceed from! the city of D;.eil,hi to the township of Rohtak, vtllage Mundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri-Kalan.,.: • 7., Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acqulrecl LA.APP,784/2005, &connected Page 5of19;' pursuant to a notification dated. 25l.2:i997 issuied.under Section 4 of;the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/1;999/2000. ' ' •, Agricultural, lands in the revenue estate of'village Mundka w,ere further; acquired pursua,nt to a notification' dated 21.3.2003,. issued' under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition-Act as per aWard No.3/2005-06 as also award No.l/2005-p[6].,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 Land Acq^uisition Act as 0; per A,ward No:.3/2004-C)5. Further lands in the revenue estate of the sanne village were a|:quired pursuant to a notification dated 17!6.2005 (the same notification under which,lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award N-o.1/2006-07.. • 9; In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition, Collector determined ithe fair market value of the acquired lands, under all:, the awards; with reference to the minimum price for aigritultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi.

10. For clarity I may.note that pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to.the minimum price for agricultural land notified ' with' effect from 1.4.1997 @ ^10 lacs per acre'and since the,date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted •.l'a.'APP.784/2005 &connected. '; Rage 6 of19 % % the-price for one year @ 11.5%' per annum/ This price wa^ adopted for category A lands. Foriands in category B, the valae was.further discounted by ^90,00Q/- per acre. Pertaining to the. ndtifitations dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1.4.2001 and gave'no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that jthe fair market value of the 'tends to be determined was as of 21.3.2003 and ^4.9.2003. E^/en pertaining to the notification,dated 17,;6.2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in the. revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and • village Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the La,nd' Acquisition Collector' determined the same'with reference to the notification fixing ' minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi, as. of 1.4.2001 and gave no increase.

11. Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market • value of the lands by the Land Acquisition• Collector, the land; owners sought a reference under Section 18 pf the Land, Acquisition Act 1894 and.on the reference being made, vide various judgments and. decrees, which are under.challenge in the.above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court,, and. enhanced the fair market value. 12., In a nut shell-, pertaining tO;. the notification dated •25.2.1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka:we,re acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted.by-the Land Acquisition Collector under which the ' LA.APP.784/2005 &connected '. Page 7of19 ' ' • • % GDvemment of NCT Delhi had fixed the. minimum; value; for agricultural lands in. Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but as, against the Land Acquisition! Collector depressing the'[^f:if:e @.11.5% for full, one y^ar; adopting the percentage 11.5, decrgasefi. the, value.by pnly. 34' diays- inasmuch as the date with, reference wheretq Government had notified the minimum value was 1.4.1997 and. ' the notification under Section 4. of the Land Acquisition Act was.; 'f:.. ' dated 25.2.1997, This was the val:iie fixed for category A lands and for. category,B lands; with reference to the values for • category Aland depressed the same by ^90,000/- per acre.

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

14. Pertaining to the, notifications dated 21.3.2005 and • 24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mijndka and..;, village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference: • -Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural 'lands-in Delhi as of, i;.4.'200i the.next revision, was as of,30.8.2005. Using the said dates and"the minimum price notified." by the Goverhment.of NCT • Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle - of. mean average. What the Reference Court did.was to adopt the valueas of, 1.4.2001 and increasing the same by 10% per.annum, determined the. enhanced [Drice as of 21.3.200k as also 2.4.9.2003.: Thereafter, the Reference^ Court tobk, the value. notified as of,30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per LA.APP.784/2G05 &connected. Page'8 of 19 % annum determined the sum arrived at.as'of 21.3;2003 as also • 24.9.2003. The two. sunns arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003,' which 1 note / • comes to^l[5],92,083.33 per acre (In, some decisions il note the sunn arrived at is ?15,92,215/-)- For the date 24.9;.2003 the price determined was ^2p,41,000/-per acre.,

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 1.4.2001 and giving increase @10% per annum, determined-the value;and /with respect.to the lands in village Mundka, on account of,locational advahtage,', being abutting IMH-IO gave 5% more and determined the fair, market value as of 17.6.2005 in "sum of. ^21,37,017.75 per acre -and for village.Ba.kkarwala the, price • determined,w.as^20,35,255/- par.acre. • ' 16., In the aforesaid backdrop of'the factual scenario in, which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land- Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court,' \ delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearipg tod.ay.'

17. With reference tb the evidence led. in-, LAC N0.384/2004 lamna l/s.. UO! & Ors.. it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, ilearned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/2005,; which. argunieht was adopted by other learned counsel, who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial judge was not.. justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereunder 1 bigha LA.APP.7^4/f005 &connected. 'Page-9ofi[9] %;|Bnd 3 biswa of•agricu'lturaMand in village Mundka was sold ias of.; 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of.?4,75,000/-. ?38,000A was ^ ' incurred towards sale duty and' thus the price of the land vyould be ^5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price '. per bigha would come to ?4,46,000/- as pf 5.'8,.1996. Learned..poijnsel 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, fain.,. market value needs to be. determined as, of 25,2.1993,;. 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. the dates when.notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the.price progressively, if not by 12% per annum at ?: least by 10%.per annum. It is urged that on the sarne basis,.; lan:d. price-should be.deternhined for the a:gricultural Jands invillage Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka., and Bakkarwala, are contiguous ^ villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalah.is further towards, the. township of Rohtak, some increase be made ip the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the • judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding;, a -batch, of Land Acquisition.Appeals, lead matter being •LA Appeal Pratao Sinah (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. UOI^s per which.-fair market value of land, per bigha, was deterrpined in.the revenue,, estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16.11.1995, • •11.6.1996 and 17,12.2002 at T[2],15,164/-tor category A land. • LA.APP.784/2005 &connected. Page 10of19 i % and fl,73,500/.- for category 'B land; ri,35,85© for category A, • land and n,.90,150/- for category B land;.^4,02,850/- for category A land and ^3,24,850/- for ^ategpry B;land>; respectively...

18. 1 may note here that irt various land acquisition references, various parties have'proved a num.ber of sale deeds executed from time to ti,me, but during arguments today before: me, learned counsel for the, land owners have only,relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-1. 1^., Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel f9r the UOI 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 proportio.n to the whole. For example, learned counsel, would ut;ge'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 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 "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 would attack the sale deed ^as not being, representative of the price is the reason that people do-come to know about pending acq.uisition inasmuch as before a'cquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey it, • would be difficult to isSue even the notification,,under Section ^ 'lA;APP.784/2005 &connected, • • - •. Page 11 of19, % ff the Land Acquisition,Act. Learned counsel would conc^ede ithat the reasons given, by the learned Reference-Court are not spund, but would urge.that the two contentions advanced by bim should be considered; by this Court as the reasons as to why.:Ex.P-l be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and- Bakkarwalav. Thirdly,:learned counsel would further urge that the. four sale deeds.Ex3-1 to R-4 referred,to in the decision of the learned lileference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997,- 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOI would 5;how 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 •therein is. less than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the, minimum, price notified by the Governriient which is nearest to the pojnt of time when the' respective notifications were, issued under Section 4 of.the Land Acquisition Act., 2,0. • • An independent a^nd.'alternative argument is also:ad,yanced by learned counsel for the.Union. The same rests i.tself on a decision of a.Division Bench of this. Court reported as ?nnfi (T35) PIT 231 /a/S/noh 1/5. UP/. 21., The decision in /a/Singh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair, market value of land in village Bakkarwala 'which were acquired.pursuant to a notification i^jiated 15.10.1993 at fl,32,00;0/- per bigha. Learned counsel yvoul;d urge that the ^aid decision has attained.fi,nalit-y inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 &connected Page 12 of19 as Petitions ^6r Special Leave to Ap;peal filed before, the,5wprem^, Court by either side have been dismissed. Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of larid in village Bakkarwala.as of 15.10.1993 at,^1,32,000/- 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 village Mundka, fair: market'i/alue of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997, j21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, by giving,;5% increase.' ^.

22. With respect to the sale deed Ex.P-1, 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 ofthe 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 khasranumlDers and fields are required to be notified for the. proposed acquisition 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 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 •LA.APP,784/2005 &connected ' ^Pagel3ofl[9] ' ii: r •i. acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase •' small Rarcels of larfds-in areas where acquisitions are likely to;:take place; these tra'nsactions are speculatiye.and cannot be •taken to be arepresentative measure of the fairmarket 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 thp whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the:Whole. Thus, itiot for the; reasoning advanced by -the'learned '• Reference Court, but fort|ie twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex.M cannot be good evidence wherefrom marl<et 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-: I'to Ex.R-4,.dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6-.1997 dnd 8.9.1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price -much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex,P-l-. In fact, the: saie pried-in the said 4sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum 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, c-nnrt in /,9/5OTg/>'5case (supra) or Pratap S/nqh'sssse (supra).,

24. • ' l.highlightthat both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court,,25. • The decision in tai Singh's case (supra) 'determined; fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of n,32,000/-' per bigha as of 15-.10.1993, and:the.perusal thereof • •, -, • Page'l[4] of 19 LA.APP.784/2005 '& connected ~ i V. wQuid show: that the.i^ourt assessed the fair market vaIu;^ witln refjereraGe to sale deeds executed betvyeen the years, 19,90 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kato or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise,;that being conjtiguous villagers, sale •price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining vjllages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Vlllage Bakkarwala. 2,6., In PraiaD Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalah- and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under,Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair mat^ket value of agricultural lands jn Village Tikri Kalan.and Ghevra as under:s.:no., •Date Village Price per Big ha., 1• 24,07:1995 16.11.1995 • Tikri Kalan ^2,15,160/- for Block A & ^1,73,500/,-, for.; Block B'land

2. •• 'f.,11.06.1996., Tikri -Kalan Ghevra. T[2],35,815/-ifor, Block A & ^i;90,i56/- for Block B land 3. I ' 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan ' ^4,02,850/- for Block A & ^3'>24,850/- for. Block B land

27. Fc^|owing the judghnent in Pratap Singh's..case (supra) 1have idecid^ the fair market value for the. land situated in revenue esta,te of Village Ghevra,, which was acquired pursuant to notificatipnsdated 6.2.2003 in the batch of appeals b^ing Land,LA.APP.784/2005 &4onnected ' P.ageliBofig I —i • • J Acquisition App.eai No.489/2009, • 2.6.2011. Ihave deternnined the lands in Village Ghevra at ^4,03,425/- per bigha as of 65 200 on,|e issue of comparability of land in village Bak.arwala »th •vlllSe Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it Is no doubt t^ue tte; whereas village Bakkarwala does-not abut NH-10,.as.do •other Villages, but it.has to be: highlighted that rt.s; proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-v,sGhevra and T k: Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2villages, has an advantage Since exactness can never-be achieved in the matters of •assessing fair compensation, it is the broad pro,babilit,es and • sirr,ilarities which' matter. Thus,. Ihold.1) 4 villages to be equivalent, unless qua some land special features can be shown

28 Since the decision in case.(supra) deals with notifications ^more proximate.in point of time to the • notifications witii which Iam concerned, Iam of the opjnio • it would be just, fair and proper to determine,th,e fair market.: value of lands with which Iam concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in Pmtap Singh's,case (supra. AS per the decision in_a3Sfi-«^22^ case (supra) for the date ^ 24 7ids, for category A.^ands fair compensation assessed was « 15 160/- per bigha and n,73,500/- per tigha for Category B land The first notification with which 1 am concerned is 25219^7 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired.. The time span sweeps 1year and 216 c^i^^e^clays. In. • case (supra) rtei™7iWia£reasewas determined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to Category A LA.APP.784/2005 &connected •' • ' ' lands, the fair market value assessed is ^2,49,408.75 per bigha, i.e. ^11,97,162/- per aere and for Category Blands,. 1assess the.: fair'market value at ^2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. ?9,65,361.60 per ' acre,;,•29, Th.e next notification with which I am concerned.^' dated 21.3.20Q[3] pertaining to Village Mundka. In Ojiranji Lais cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Sinqh's case; (supra), for. agriculturaljands in Village Ghevra pertaining tq a^ notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act •rf I ' ' ' ' ' on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed waS'^4,03,425/- per • bigha. This was unifdrmly applied. Since there, is a time gap of, ' jijst a little over 1 month, 1am of the opinion that pertaining to A ' the notification dated 21.3:2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be ^4,03,425/- i..e. n[9];36,440/-p.er acre,. • which I hereby, fix. • 3D. I propose to deal vyith the notification dated 24.9.2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17.6.2p05 pursuant whereto agriculturaV lands w.ere acquired in Village • Mundka and Village Bakkarwala.,; 3]^ - As noted hereinabove, in Chiranii LaTs c^se (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 5.2,2003, fairniarkef value ' assessed by me was ?4,03,425/- per bigina and tiius, increasing the' same by 10% for 2years and 131 d^ys, the figure comes to ?4,98,589/- per bigha, which comes to ?23,93,227.20-per sere. ' ' The same is held by rae to be the fair market value of land in •village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17.6.2005. Idecree the same. Paee l[7] of 19 • lA.APP.784/2005 &connected.., \' i •I •i. >J; h-, rfn- 'left:|fith ttie; njptificatioh: cfate# ^.9;:2^ -f[,:^rt?ringR0:;¥itla9fe;Bakka«al^:.;: 'r|atiet yalije:assessed in Ippreciatethe price:by:i:0% per:annum ipra'p^ •: Ihe figut-e•comes to ^4,25.641/- per Mfha i.6.:*20,^,076.80^er i acre,.which Idetermine to:be the faij" market Val|ie of ^nd in, • Village Bakkarwala as of:24.9.2G03. ^ ^, /; 33. ^ "^ ':AcGordmgiy, ithe appeals filed by the; i f-eijuire to be disrtiiss^ci andU here^ same.,:the:• appeals.^filed by the.(arid Owners and the crossrobjections filed^ •by the land owners, starids decreed as Qn;den-,.:y., i): ' -For'the'land:la(nd.:in Yill,age. I'Mi:mdka: -the^ fair^^ valiJfe;:js.;'v;;V ?2:y,408^75^ ^11,97,0:62/-per^cre^a^ Vy:r.fo? Category 'B lands, the.fair m NAajue is fixed at;:,. '• i•^2>0i,117/- per bigha,:i.'e. <?9,65,361.60;per acre, as/ ' •: •oa^25:02.1997; •' v-'","' liv • 1 For the land situated in,Viliage., ivi^r|dka the.fair-:f: ';market vaIus is fixed at ^4,03,425/- per bigh^- lie. i.; X" ^ ••; ^19;36>44Q/^pe;.,;, ' iii.): For the (and situated in Village;MiUridka^ the'fa^^ m^rket valtie is;fixed..at per Sjl^ina.:i.e.. re,,; as on: 17vO[6];.2Q05v.. -" / ':. ivyr;.For the iknd^^situated in'Village Balkkarwal^./ market valueJS'fixed /at ^4,98,58#-per,ybigto^^^ LA;/Vl^P.784j/2005 &connected' " -:,.Pa,ge:18 qtf 19, "IV % % >r ^23,9:3,227,20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005. ]/) • for the land situated in Village Bakkarwala'the fai^r market value is fixed, at ^4,25,641/- per bigh-a i.e. ?20,43,075.80 per acre, as on 24.09.2003.. •vi) Appellants and cr0ss:0bject0rs who have succeeded would also be,entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(20.01) DLT. 569 Sunder i/5. UOL for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhancedby the present judgment and decree.. •..; •; _ • • • viiy The appellants 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. |ULY 08, 2011 'mm.LA.APP.78.4/2005 & connected M • (PRADEE-P NANDRAJOG) JUDGE