Ishwar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

4 I t24.9.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition.Ac as 'per Award No3/2004-05. Further lands i,n the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant tp a notificatipn dated 17.6.'2005 (th same.notifiation under, which lands in villäg'e Mundka were acquired) as per award No.1/2006-07.

9. In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition C011ectdr deterrnined the fair market value of the acquired lands, undëraII 'the awards, with reference to the rninimUn1price for agriulturàl land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi

10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to the notificatiori dated.25.2.1997 under which agricultural Ind in • 1h revenue estate of village Mundka wre acquired, the learned tand Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with eférence to fhe minimum rice for agricultural lahd notified with effect frohi 1.4.1997 @ flO lacs per acre nd since the date f Section 4 notifiction was anterior impoint oftime, discouhted LA.APP.784/2OO[5] &connected - 4. rf.,,. I, um arred at as of 21 3e2003 asIso ?annum determined the w 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and divied by; to arrie at the mean figures a of 21 3 2003, whichJl note omes to 15,92,O83 33 per, acre (In some decisions I note the ( t sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 9, 2003 the f ' I; pric&determirted was 2O,41,OOOI- per acre I

15 Pertaining to the notification dateJ 17.[6] 005::pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired ir village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted he minimum price for agncutturl lands notified by the 3overnment of NCT Delhi with effect from d. 4 2001 and giving ' ' increase @10% per annum determined the valJe nd with. respect to te lands in village Mpndka, on account of locational "1 advantage, being abutting NH-b ga/e 5% more and' 1etermined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum of, I 21,37,O17i[5] A per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 2O,35,255I- per acre I I; L[6] In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in ? cuich I hav penned profiled the rdasoning of. the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I dejve Ii the arguments advanced before me during hearing today 1nto

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC,..':.•. 384/2004 /amna Vs 1)0/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh LB Rai, 4 learned coUnsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which: argument wasadopted 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-I whereunder 1 bgha tA APP 784/2005 &copnected I Pa8e9of[1] 9 •'' t •..• I ' •.•.... •... • •.. •..... •:: f td 3 biswa of gricuIturaI land in vrllg i'1undla was sqld s of 1996 for a dale consideration of 4,15,OOOI- 38,OOOI- ws i[8] I incured towards sale dyty and thus the plce of t lend vjouId b 5 1 13 1060/- nd calculated with reference thereto, iani price r bgha would come to M,46,0901- as af 5 8 1996 Learned I counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair rParket value agricultural l ands in village Mundka was 'of ',[1] ( I VI,46,000I- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument f4rward, it is urged that with reference to the said prices, fair market value needs fo be determined as of 25 2 1993, 21 3 2003 a n d 17 6 i 2005, e thedates when notifications under,.Sction 4. of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant r J ( wheeth agricultural lands were acquired n village Mndka, by,$ increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per nnur at Ae least by 10% per annum It is urged thSt on the same basi, If ' land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in villa Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since ' L: viIlages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous \'illages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the laid in village Mundka and akkarwala with referenceto the )udgrpentL and 1ecree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of, [Land Acquisition Appeals, lead mattebeing LA Appeal. Nk 193/2006 Pratap Sincjh (Deceased) Thr LR[5] Vs LIOl as tlber which fair market value of land, per bigh, was determined in tEe revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 1 11 1995, ii 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164I- for category A land LA APP 784/2005 & connected........ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..; J C...,... ••: S. S NO Date Village Price per Bigha 1 24 07 '1995 & Tikri Kalan 415,160/- for Block 16 11 1995 A & tI,73,5OO/ fo Block B land 2 11 06 1996 - Tikri Kafan & 2 1 35,815/- for lock Gevra A 1,90,156/- for Block B land would show that the Court assessed the fair market Value with çeference to sale deeds executed between the 'years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or VlIage Mundka, pparently on the premise that being contigLious 'villagers, sale { price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala In,°ratap Singh's cases (supra), the Division Behch 1 was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another djoining Villge named Ghevra and pertaining to various iiiotijications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitiort Act, determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village I., r 1/ I n, ri A. ( k Ii\1, 0 a UIIUI....,..,.,.,.. •.JL.LUU. itici i.i.: wi pjc 4, I,, A & 3,24,850/- for Block Bland V..... -. -.: •• • •. '-'I.,'...... Ta-, tt I 1: 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 062005' t For the land situated in ViJiage Bakkarw4ia the, \ market value is fixed at 4,25,61/-per biha i e 1 r 20 1 43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 r t A I Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per t I statute nd as clarified in the decision reported as 1 I 9(2OO[1]) DLT 569 Sunder vs UOI, for the I: Co mpensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhaknced; I by thepresentjudgment and decree, The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed ' wouldalso be entitled to proportionate costs: ••: •: ' \ F AlJ pen.dingappIicatiori stand disposed of in trms:of;... ' I the prayers made therein I •....:. •.......•: •::.-..: •••,:.,::....... I (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) — JUDGE JJiLY tO[8], 2O11 mm I I ç _1t LA ADP 84/20O[5] & connected Page 19 of[4] 19 H 4 4 I 44