Full Text
Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA
08.07.20L1 For orders, see LA.APP.N o.78412005.
-^*xl PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULY 08, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:13492 O r1- :.:."':l t l f.i f,l':, ' i.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
.
JAMNA
Through:
UOI & ORS
Through:
LA.APP.7 84/2005 & connected LA.APP. 87'I2OO5, LA.APP'
L2U2OO6, \4312007 (Relating to 25.02.Igg7 & Award No'2/199'9-2000'
880-8811200b ' Notification u/s Village Mundka)
LA'APP' 60412009 ', LA.APP. 606/2009, LA.AP P ' 6:I}12009 ', 7'412010', LA'APP' 7Bl20ro', Page t of t9
M r. L. B. Rai, Advoia,", o'oo""t n' M r.l.S.DahiYa, A$Yoca,te'
Mr. D.S.takra, Advocate' Mr.K,Sunil, Advocate'
" Mi.nnuj Bhdndari, Advocate Vf t.'Snu'Oam Farashat' Advocate
'
Mi. sioor'''arth Panda Advocates Mr.njaY Verma, Ms'Kanika
Agnihotri, Mr.Kunal Sharma' Mi,srt.r Sethi, Mr'B'B'Sharma'
Mt,sr'lonhna Takiar and Mr'Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA
AND
LA.APP.
4 dated.
LA.APP. Tgizl:r}; LA.APP . 12I]2OIO, LA'APP' :r22I2OI9' !n'n1t' t25]2Ol:O, LA.APP. 16412010, LA.APP. 185/2010,'LA.APP.
186/2010, LA. AlP. 20ol2o1o, LA.APP. 23812010, LA.APP.
23gl2oro, LA.APP. 243l2olo, LA.APP. 244120l-0 ' f fll, 245l2OrO, LA,APP. 247 l2O1,O, , LA.APP. 25r12',010, LA'APP'
252l2OlO, LA,APP. 26612010, . LA.APP. 26i 120]-0, LA'APP'
273|20!q, LA'APP. 27 4|2olo, LA,APP. 275|2o]o, LA'AP!.
3l2l2ot0, LA.APP. 324l2olo, L.A. APP.
' 326120]-0, LA.APP' 327 |2oLo, LA.APP. 32gl2ol0, .
LA:APP. 330/2010, LA.APP.
33U2}LO, LA.APP. 33212070, LA.APP. 33312010 with cM APPL'
No, 5524120II, LA,APP. 335/2010, LA.APP' 36712010, LA'APP'
36812010, LA.APP. 36912010, LA.APP, 37TI2OIO & CM APPL.
No.2009 gl2OI0, LA.APP. 37 4l2ol0, LA.APP. 37512010, LA'APP'
377I2OIO, LA.APP. 37gI2OIO, LA.APP. 42312070, LA.APP.
452l2OrO, LA.APP. 46U2OLO, LA.APP. 47212010, LA'APP'
69412010, ,LA.APP. 696/2010 & cM APPL. No. 634012011, LA.APP'
697 l2OrO, LA.APP. 698/2010 & cM APPL' r734120!L, LA'APP'
7O6t2OtO & CM APPL.'I72t5l2OIO, LA.APP. '7O7l2OlO, LA'APP'
-7OB]2OLO, LA.APP. 7OP\TOLO, LA'APP' 7L0120t0 with CM APPL'
No.2568 l2o|1, LA.APP. 71312010 with cM APPL. No.7473120L0, LA.APP. 7T5I2O1O, LA.APP, 7L7]2OTO, LA'APP. 7T9I2OIO, LA.APP'
76612010,. LA.APP. 796120:j, LA.APP. 7g7l2o]o, LA.APP'
79812010, LA,APP. 7gg]2O:rO, LA.APP. lIBl2OiO, LA.APP'
}55I2OTI', LA.APP. .B32I2OTA, LA.APP. 833/2010 & CM APPL.
6392120II, LA,APP. B34l2O'lO, LA.APP. 842120]-0,. LA'APP'
87I]2O]:O, LA.APP. 87 4l20IO, LA.APP. 875120]-0 '
'LA.APP.
87 612010 , LA.APP. 877 I2OIO, LA.APP. B78I2OIO , LA.APP' q7g721110, LA.ApP. 8'goizoto, LA.APP. 88U2010 & CM
APPL.650 5.l2olt, LA.APP. BB2I2O:IO, LA.APP. 883/2010' !-A'APP'
8}4l20to, LA.APP. 886/2010, LA.APP. '888/2010, LA'APP'
893/2010 & CM APPL. 6750;12017, LA.APP. 89412010 & CM
No,2335 3l2O1O, LA.APP. Bg5l2OIO, LA'APP' 89612010 ' LA'APP'
8g7 l20lo & cM APPL.728I20IL, LA.APP. 90312010 , LA'APP'
;; gO7;2OIO, LA.APP. 9 j8/ZOtO, LA.APP. ' gZgitZOtO, LA.APP. ro34l2}r} & CM APPL, 3086/2011, LA'APP' L04012010' & cM
APPL. 56731,20l,1,, LA,APP. LO4LI2OLO, LA:APP. IO43I2OIO, LA.APP.IO45l2o10,.LA.APP.104612010,LA.APP;I048120L0, LA,APP,r}4gl2O1O,LA.APP.1O50/2010,1A.APP.1056/2010, LA.APP. 1060/2010, LA,APP. 106U2010, LA.APP.' I07ll20l0;
LA.APP. L25I2OI], LA.APP. 12612011, LA.APP. 258I2OIT
(Relating to Nbtification u/s 4 No.3/2005-06, ViIlage-Mundka)
,' dated 2L,03.2003 & Awaid . AND
383/2010, LA.APP.38412010, LA.APP.385/2010, LA.APP.
47312070, LA.APP. 4g2l2oIo, LA.APP. 58612010, ', LA.APP.
5grl2olo, LA.APP. 638l2OtA, LA.APP. ' 690120t0, LA.APP. ogz.lzoto, LA.APP. 7III2O]O, LA.APP. 71612070, - LA.APP.
7 ffi:l2OIg, LA.ApP. B72120IO, 'LA.APP. 8.7312010, -.LA.APP.
885/2010, LA.APP.' 887 I2OIO, LA.APP. 89I/2OTO, .LA.APP.
8g2l2ol}, LA.APP. 898/20,10, LA.APP. 90612010 & cM APPL.
No.4443 I2OIO, LA.APP. 93712010 & CM APPL. 2329912010, LA.App. 70.4212010, LA.APP. 1047 12010
(Relating to No.1/2005-06, Notification u/s 4 dated 27.03.2003 & Award
Village-Mundka)
,/--_\ TND'
L/-1./L'\F f . LWlJ-l 4\JLWt h.nl 1". LvJJftL vav, 'Ye 't-- '
CM APPL. No.5656 /2017, LA. APP. 1055/2010, LA.APP.
LO5712OLO, LA.APP. 1058/2010, LA.APP. 1059/2010, . LA.APP.
1068/2010, LA.APP. 1069120]-0, LA.APP. . 124/20rr, LA.APP.
L2712011, LA.APP. t29l20r7, LA.APP. 259120]-1
LA.APP. 1023120t0 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005
No. 13/20 06-07, Village-M und ka )
AND
LA.APP. 40l2OOg & Cross Objections, LA'APP' 42612009 '
LA.APP. 42812009, 44212009, LA.APP. 6tu2009, ' LA'APP'
6L612009; LA.APP. 27 Bl20r0 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24.09.2003 & Award
No.3/2004-05, Vi I lage;Ba kkarwa la)
AND
& Awa rd LA.APP.
&cM &cM LA.APP, Award s-' r::l LA.App. tozgizoto & cM No.59adt20Lr, 1030/2010, LA.APP. 103 Llzoro, LA.APP. 1033/2010
P,|o.6645 l20]-L, ' LA.APP. 106212010, 1063/2010
No.6943 I2O:J,L, LA.APP, 1064120:!0, LA.APP. 1066/2010, 1067 12010, LA.APP. .1 t12011, LA.APP. r22l20rl
(Rdlating to Notification u/s 4 dated :-7.06.2005 &
No. 1/2 006-07,. Vi llage-Ba kkarwala)
ORDER
2. To be referred to RePoiter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, l. (O,ral) t tn
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 /2OOS & connected ' T S.NO. 1. 2.,
3.
4.
5.
4.
2. The present market value of land in and village Mundka.
3. The dates on which fair market to be determined may be graphically noted Name of Villaqe Bakkarwala Bakkarwala Mundka Mundka Mundka Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan.
7. Agricultural lands in village LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & con nected decision concbrns issue of fixation of fair the revenue estate.of Village Bakkarwala value of the land has as unoer:- 24.9.2003 17.6,2005 25,2.]-997 2L.3,[2] 0 03 17.6.2005.at serial the same estate of It may be highlighted that the notification. No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to -village Bakkarwala, is pursuant whereto lands were'acquired.in the revenue Village Mundka; as per serial No.5 above.
5. Abutting NH-10, ieaOing from the city of Delhi to the township.of Rohtak in the state of Hary'ana, are.vil'lages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan. Village Bakkarwala lies towa:rds*the other side of the southern boundary of village.Mundka. ih. difference between the topology of the two villages is; yuhereas. the land of village Mundka abuts NH-10, that of village.Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the southern bcjunda ry of revenue estate of villagq Mundka..
6. As we proceed from the city of Delhi tp the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed 'by village MundKa were acquired, Section 4 of the LA Act q pursuant to a notification dated 25.2;1997 issued und€r Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as'per award No.2/199912000' Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 2I.'3'2003 issued untJer Sectitn 4 of the Landi,AcQuisition Act a[1] per award No.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/2005:06. Further lbnds in the revenue estate of the Same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.2005 issued under section 4 0f. the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006-07'
8. Agricultuial lands in the rdvenue estate of.village Bakkarwala.were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24.g.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as " per Award No.312004-05. Further lands in the revenue estate of,**H,. ihe same village were acquired pursuant to a. notification dated - '$dirjt ' 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No.f/20Q6-07 g.' In a nui shell, the Land Acquisiti.on Collector ' determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural. land as notified by the GoVernment of NCT Delhi. 10. For clarity | ' may note that peitaining to the ''' notification dated 25.2.Igg[7] 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 fo'r.a.gricultural lahd. notlfied- " with effect from I.4.Igg[7] @ t10 lacs pei' acre'and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of tit.ne, discounted 'i LA.APP.784|.2OO[5] & connected Page,[6] of 19 the price for one year @ 1J5% per,pnnum. This price was adopteci for category A lands. For landi' in category B,'the value was further discounted by T90,000/- per acre, Pertaining to the.. notifications dated 2I.3.2003 ' and 24.9.2003, the Land, Acquisition Collbctor relied gpon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of I.4.2001 and gave. no. benefit of enhancem€nt with reference to the fact that the fair.. market value of the lands to be determined wds as'of 2L 3.2003.. and 24.9.2003, Even 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 Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value. of a!ricultural lands in Delhi as of I.4.2001 and. gave no increase.
11. Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisitio.n Collector, th'e land owners sought. a reference under Section 18 of the t-and Acquisition Act I8g[4] 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 feir market value.
12. In a nut shell, pertainirrg to the notificatlon dated 25.2,Igg[7] vide Which agricultural. lands in village Mundka we.re gcquired; the Reference court a.dopted the same notificaLion as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the: LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected PageT of!9 I Government of NCT. Oeitri had fixed the minimum value'for agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector,depressing'the price @ 11 '5%o for full' one year; 'adopting the percentage 11.5, decreased the valUe by only 34 days.inasmuch as the date with 'reference whereto Governme,nt had notified the minimum value was 1 '4'1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25.2.Lgg[7]. This was the value fixed for category A lands and for category B lahds; with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by t90,000/- per acre.
13. Thus, for category A lancl,s the Reference Court determined the fair market vatub @ {9,89,289/- per acre and for category B land the same wa-s determined @.T[8],99,2881- per acre. L[4], Pertaining to the notifications dated 2L.3.2003 and 24,g.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and yillaOe Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of 'the fact that after the GoVernment had noti,fied the.minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of ' "I.,4.2001 the next revision 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,h," prinbiple.of mean average. What the Reference Court did.was to adopt the value as of I.4.2OOL and increasing.the same by I0%. per.annum determined the en,hanced price as of 2I.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.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected Page 8 of,19 Y annum determined the sum arrived at as of 2L3'2003 as also 24,g,2003. The two sums arrived at were added and dividdd.by two.to arrive at the mean figure'as of 2L.3p2003, which I note comes to t15,g[2],083.33 per acre (ln some decisions i note the sum arrived at is tLS,92,2151-). For the date 24'9'2803 the price determined was T20,41,000/- per acre' Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural Iands were acquired in village. 'Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Referenc.e CoUrt adopted the minimum price ' for agricultural lands notified by the. Government of NCT Delhi with effect frorh I.4.2001 and giving 453 increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting 'NH-10. gave 5% more and determinbd the faii market value as of 17.6.2005 in'sum oi <2I,37,0I[7].75 per acre and for vil,lage Bakkarwala the pricq determined was {20,35,2551.- per acre ln the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in
15.
16.
17. No.384/2 004 lamna vs. tJol & ors., it was urged by sh.L.B'Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.7B412005, which argument was adopted by other iearned counsel who appea;ed for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Jud$e,was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereunder 1 bigha '," which I 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'todav' With reference to the evidencq led - in LAC and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of 74,75,000/-' t38,000/- was i,ncurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be {5,13,000/- and calculated with,referencb thereto, land price per bigha would come to T[4],46,0d0/- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel.would urge that there is ho reason not to hold that fair market vplue of, agricultural lands in villagg Mundka was t[4],46,000/-perbighaaSof[5]..8.1996..Takingtheargument... forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to 6e determined as of 25..2.1993, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Ldnd Acquisition Act.were.issued pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundkd, by increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per annum ai least by IO% per annum. lt is urged that on the same basis, land price-should be determined for the agr:icrjltural lands in village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since villages 'Tikri Kalan, Mundka ald Bakkarwala are contiguous villages,. and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value.bt'ttre land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment and decree dated:rg.12.2008 'deciding a -batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead mattei being LA Appeal Nb.193/2006 PrataP Sinah -_AAI 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 dt tz,]-,5,'\641- for category A land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 10 of.19 i \\ 'and T[1],73,5001- for category B land; T[2],35,850 for category A' land and {1,90,150/- for category land t. '74,02'850/: for. category A land and <3,24,8501- for category B land, respectivelY. i
18. I may note here that in various.,land acqulsition' references, various parties have proved. a number of sale deeds, ' executed from time to time, but during arguments today, before me, learned counsel for the land owners have. gnly relied upon, the sale deed Ex,P-1 19.. Per contra, sh,sanjay Poddar learned"counsel for the ' UOI would urge that the sale price as per fx.P-t 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 wholei. For example, learned counsel would. 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 pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the gFain of rice one would lead. to the conclusion that the bbg i[5] 100% full of rice ' and if that one grain happens to be a pibce of stone,.ohe would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of 'stones. At leasf a. fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is.the example given. The Setond reason on which Iearned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people'do come to know about pehding acquisition inasmuch as before dcquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey it. would be difficult to issue even the notification.under Seciion + Y: of the,Land Acquisition Act. Learned cou'nsel would concede tllat the reasonS given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but.would urge that the two contentions advanced by him 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' Bakkarwala. Thirdly' learned counsel woulC further urge that the four sale deeds Ex.R-1.. to R-4 referred.to in the decision of' the lear:ned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1'.1995, 30.5.lgg[7], 4.6.1991 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 therein 'is less than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be vuith reference to the. minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were-issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act' 20... An independent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Unign. The same iests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2qb[6] (13s) DLT 23r lai sinah vs. uo/. 2L, The decision in lai.Sinah'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 dated 15.10.1993.at {1,32,0.00/- per bigha' Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch a.nPP.i aq/2005 & connected Page L[2] of t[9] ^( \\ / as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme court by either side have been dismi;s'ed. 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 {1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair markbt value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively. by l0% pFr annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24.g.2003 as also 77 '6'2005' Learned counsel would urge that in view of the iocational ddvantage of villagb Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1gg[7],2!.3.2003 and 17.6'2005, by givihg 5% increase. 22,Withrespecttothesa|ede€dEx'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 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on
25.2. Igg[7]. lt 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 when this happens people in the area'come to know.that very soon there is every I'ikelihood that the lands would be acquired. ln Delhi, the large scble acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates' a plot of developed residential land to the ones'whose lands dre LA.APP.[7] 8412005 & connected q[4] q - t acquired'arid'thus,itisnotuncommon'forpo'rsonstopurchase' small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place; these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken'to be a representative measure of the fair'market value of |andasonthedateofthesa|e.Further,theprinciplesofratio and,'proportionaSa|sotheprinciplesofaverageSandthe, principlesofsamp|ingte|lmethattoberepresentativeofthe,whole, a sample must bear at,intelligible'proportion to the whole.Thus,notforthereasoning.'advancedbythelearned Refei.enceCourt,butforthetwinreasoninghithgrto-forenoted,I holdthatEx.P.lcannotbegoodevidencew.herefrommarket.value of the land coultl be determined. There is an additional reaSonnottorelyuponthesaidsaledeed.ThesaledeedsEx.RltoEx.R-4,datud9'1'1995'30'5':lgg7'4'6"Lgg7and8'g'lgg[7] arealsopertainingtoVillageMundkaand'ref|ectasaleprice muchlowerthanthesalepricerecordedinEx.P-l.lnfact,the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds avgrages muchi less than eventheminimumpriceforagriculturaIlan.dinDelhinotifiedby the Government'
23. Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be requiredtobefixedeitherwithreferencetothedecisionofthis I vYvr ' -a) or Pratap.Sinqh's case (supra)' '' court in lai Sinah's case (supra) oI rtdLap':J'tIY""'!.. --.. '-^"..,-,^.^ 24.lhightightthatbothdecisibns'pennedbytheDivisioh g"n.nofthisCourthavebeenuphe|dbytheSupremeCourt..
25. Thedecisionin|aisinoh,scase(supra)'determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of tl,32,000/- per'bigha as of 15'10'1993' and i6s"perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & conneCted Page L4ofL[9] -F.tF lt[1] \'/ / would show that the Court assessed the fair market value With reference to sale deeds executed between the years, 1990 till the year 1996 either in VillaEe iit<ri Kalan or Village Mundka, apparently on'the premise..that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala. ln PratAp Sinah's case (supra), ih". Division Bench 26. o was concerned with agiicultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra ando pertaining to various notifications issued under Sectioq 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined'the fair market value of. agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:-
S. NO. Date Village Price per Bigha
1. 24.07.1995 & 16.11.1995 Tikri Kalan T[2],15,1601- for Block A & {1,73,500/- for Block B land
2. 11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan & Ghevra {2,35,8I51- for Block A & t[1],90,]-561-. for,.
3. t[7]:r[2].2002 Tikri Kalan <4,02,850/- for Block A & t[3];24,850/- for
21. Followihg the judgment in Pratap Srnah's case (supra) I have decided the fair market value fpr the. land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was QcQuired pursuant to notification dated O,Z.ZOOZ in the batch of appeals being Land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected page fs oifg \g AcquisitionAppeaINo.48g|2oog,ChiraniiLaIvs'tJnionof|ndia&.. Anr.on[2].6.2011'lhavedeterminedthefqi.'.t-tketvalueofthe IandsinVilIageGhevraat{4,03,425|-perbighaasof[6],2.2003. on the issue of comparability of rand in village Bakkarwala with viIlageMundka,GhevraandTikriKalan,itisno,doubttrueth.at whereasvillageBakkarwa|adoesnotabutNH-10,asdothe. othervillages,butithastobe-highlightedthatitismore proximate.totheurbanbreasofDelhivis'b-vis.GhevraandTikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, ha[9] an advantage.: Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessingfaircompensation,itisthebroadprobabilitiesand similaritieswhichmatter'Thus'lholdalJ'4viltagestobe eqlivalent, unless qua some land special tti:tt::-ti::^" illll; equrvorE'L' ""'^ -";: rtoricinr tnqh's case'(su'pra)
28. Since the decision in PrataP 5t ^ Sha
28. )lrrL deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notificatiorrswithwhichIamconcerned,|.amoftheopinionthat ^ nlza|. itwouldbejust,fairandpropertodetermine.thefa.irmarket valueof|andswithwhichIamconcerhedinrelationtothefair market vatue of tands determined in Pra'iap Sinah's.t:t"-:t:pra)' O ffi;;;"; sion i n Pratap sinah's case (supra) for the date 24.7.1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was ^^, Q;;;;;;;;-;"' bisha and {1'73's00i- ner fioha ror catesory B land.Thefirstnotificationwithwlrichlarconcernedis.25,2,lggTwhereunderlandsinVillageMundkaWereacquired. Thetimespansweepslyearand2]16da'vsi'e'5Bldays'ln -: ^^..[1] ')*o""r,rrrlrcase (supra) ease was determined io be \o% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining"to ca'tegory A LA.APP.78412-005 & connected \"1 t|ile lands, the fair marlcet'val'ue assessed is {2'49' 408'75 per b'igha i.e. tl !,g[7],1621- per acre and for Category B lands' 'l pssess the. fair market value at {2,01,lr171- per'bigha i'e' {9:65'361'60 per acre, 29, The next notification with which l am ccincerned is dated 21.3.2003 pertaining to Village. Mundka ' ln.Chiranii Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Sinah's case,(supra), for agricultural.lands in Village Ghevra'pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Acf on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was:{4,03,4251- per bigha, This. was.unifiirmly applied. since, there is a time gap of just a little over l month, lam of.the opinion that pertaining to the notification'dated'27.3.2003, faif market value of land in Village Mundka should be <4,03,4251- i,e. tl[9],36,4401- per acre' ll]"' 1"':o:l["r" to deai with the noriricatio-n dated 24.g.2003, after dealing with the notification dated L7"6'2005 pursuantwheretoagricu|turalIandsWereacquiredinViIlage Mundka and Village BakkarWala' 3l,Asnotedhereinabove,inChiraniiLal,scase.(supra), pertainingtothenotificationdated[6],2'2003,fairmarketvaIue assessed by me was {4,03,425|- per bigha and thus, increasihg " the Same ny ro% for Zyears and,131 days, the figure comds to t[4],98,58g1- per bigha, which comes to t23 '93'227 '20 per Acre' Thesameishe|dbymetobethefairma;ketva|ueoflandin Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of:-7'6'2005' I dgcree the same. PagetT.of L[9] i:,t u, t r ^./ ( 32.lamleftwith.thenotificationdated24,9.2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair rfrarket value assessed in chiranii Lal's case, I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum flf u period of ZOL days' the figure comes to t[4],25,641|. per bigtra i.e. <20,43,076,80 per acre, which ldetermine to be the fair market value of land'in Viltage Ba"kkarwala as of 24'9'2003
33. Acgordingly, "the appeals fil'ed by the'Union of India requiretobedismissedandtherebydismissthesame.The,appeals filed by the land owners. and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:i) For the tand falling in category A land in Village Mundkathefair.marketvalueis,fixedatis <2,4g,408.75 per bigha i'e' T lI'97 '7621per eicre and forCategoryBlands,thefairmarketvaIueisfixedat '{2,0I,II71- per bigha i'e' {9'65'361t60 per acre' as on 25.02.L997 ii)Forthe|andsituatedinVillageMundkathefair marketva|ueisfixedatt[4],03,425l..perbighai.e. {19,36,[4] 40l- per.aci'e,. as on 2]-'03'2003 iii)Forthelandsituatedin.VillageMundkathefair market value is fixed at T[4],98 '5891per bigha i'e' T23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17'06'2005-. ' iv) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair. market value is fixed at {4,98,5891--per bigha i'e' LA. APP.[7] 84/2005 & co nnected 'v' O I\ {23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005. v) For the land situated in Village Bakkdrwala: the fbir market valu'e is'fixed at t[4],25,64U- qer 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 solatium and interest as per statute and a$ clarified in the decision reported as,F, 93(2001) DLT 569 sunder vs. 'UO/, for the Fti'' compensation, paid originaliy and as enhanced by ' the Reference court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment ahd decree. i vii) The appellants and -cross-objbctors who -succeed. would also be entitled to proportionate costs. ' viii) All pending appf ications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein. r -r:.--<rr--s1c{ UU:l 'it ' t. JULY 08, 2011 mm' LA.AP P.[7] 84/2005 &. connecte d (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE