UOI v. Dharambir Singh & Anr.

4 I ncreasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per annum at 4 1 _ 1 '4 1 )aS,t by 4 lO% per annum ft is urged that on the same bais, lprice should be determined for tle agricultural jands in village Bakkarwale Alternatively, it was urged that siicê villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and BakkrwaIa, are contiguou )iIlages, and in fact village Tiki Kalan isfurther towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made irthe value of the I 14 land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with, reference to the; • judgment anddecree dated 19 12 420d[8] deciding batc of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs UQI as per whicEi fair market value of land, per bigha, vs determined in the revenue estate of viHge Tikri Kaan as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A ln,d LA APP 784/2005 & connected PS, 4 44 I 4 £ L•.:. ••'•• • • -. -...-.... -- --. --------------r--------. -.•• I \ f: and fl,73,5OOI- for category B land, 2,3,85O for categqry A !an 3 and 1,9O,15O/- for category B lnd, 4,O[2],85O/- for Eateory A land and 3,24,85O/- for cateo'ry B land, ' t espectively t,

18 I may, note here that in various land acquisition V references, variousparties have proved a number of sle deeds r * xecuted from time to time, but duripgarguments today before hie, learned counsel for the land owners l'iave only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i ' r

9 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learnd counsl for the ucN would urge that the sale price as pgr.Ex.P-i cnnot be adopted as the yardstickfor t h e reasop,to b,e a representatiVe w ' L amle of the whole, the sample must bear, som adequate: - * proportion to the whole For examJle, learned counsel would urge 4that if it has to be detrmined whether what percntage of. stones are rjuxed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe methdd, o pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the gran ofrice bn would lead to the conclusion that the b:ag is 100% full of rice ndcf that one grain happens to be a piec ofstone, one would reach to the conclusion that the bagis full oftones At least a t ( ) ftstfl should be lifted and then checked as a representative i sample, is the xampIe given The second reason on Wthch lea'rid counsel would attack the sale deed as not being "\ represerative of the price is the reasoq that people docome to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed, Without a survey it 'vould be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 LA APP 784/2005 & connected, I • •.••..r • •....•, • I • i flthe Laid Acquisition Act Learned courseb wouIcL concede Iv j fl I at the reasons given by thee learned Reference C9urt are nOt ound, but would urge that the two Gontentions advaned b' im should beconsidered by thisCourt asthé reasons as to why P-1 be not taken asthe basis to determine' the fair çparket t ¶. t alue of lands in village Mundka and akkarwala Thirdly,. j 2 lrned counsel would further urge t1atj te four saIedeeds Ex R-1 to R[4] referrd to in the decision f thee larned IV t Reference Court pertainin to sale ddeds iated 6 1 1995 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8,.[9] 1997 relied L/pon by UOlwouId how the actual market value of the lnd ard thus learned 4 1 2 coynl would urge that the said four alj deeds should be. t \ onsiç1ered 7 but hastens to add, that sin'e value reflected[4] therein is less than the minimum phc nottfied by the Government, the price fixation should be: with reference to the minimurin price notified by the Governmeht ihich is neaest to t'hé pqjnt of time when the respective notificatiohs were issued I I )V[1] nderSecion 4 of the Land Acquisition Ac i. ' An independent and alterratiie agurrent is also 120, d'anceèJ by learned counsel for theUnion Th same rests I I iself on e ecision of a Division Bench of ni Court reported as I •1 I 2006 135t DLT 231 /ai Singh Vs UQI I I V he decision in /a,Singh's case (supra) cqncens itself vqi•th the.dtermina•ti:on:of the fair market valu.e:.fr.iand rn.village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant, to a nit dted[4] 15 10 1993 at 1,2,OOO/- per bigha Leaçped counsel Joild[1] urge that the said decision has attaned finality ias,much i APP.784/2OO[5] & connected, V:.. Page 12 of,.9. •V II 'V I 'V

23 Thus, the fair market value ot tre ianos wuui.0 ie, F; reuired to be fixed either with reference to t he decision of this:co.'urf in / SinghcaSe (supra) or pratap /gcaSe (suprà). highlight that both dec15ionS penned by th Diviiofl Bench of this Court haveefl upheld by the Supreme Court. The decisiO in / 5/ng[5] case (su'praYdetemiñed fair rçiarket vae of land in Village' lu Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,OOO/perbigha a,s of, i[5].iO.1993, and the perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & connected, H i i • •. - I - — I t )\ ti • • •.. • • '...:. •.:i •;• • •:: •• ••.:•.: • I k woud show that the Court assessed tFe farr market aIiJe with •: r' reference to sale deeds executed betivèen the yearsi99O still f t1ie year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan pr \illage Mundka,. S apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale ) ' I tprice of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages vould be: sndicative of fair market value ofland ir Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Singhs case (sura), the Division Bench } twas concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan an,dandther. adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various noifications issued under Section 4ofthe Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value ofagricultual lands in Village. sTikriKalanand Ghevra as under- NO Date Village ' I Price per Bigha ? r-.......... j,......,..................,,,..... I i 24 07.1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,16O/-for B1ock I 16 11 1995 A &1,73,5OO/- for.. ? L - '.............. -..:. '...,. Block land,.. Tikri Kalan & B.............................. t J Q 11 06 1996 2-,35,815/- for Block J Ghevra I A & 1,9O,156/- for: BlockBland 3 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for 13,lock t 4 A & 3,24,85O/- for ).&: ' t Block B land

27 Following the judgment in Pratap Sincjh's case (supra) I have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, whicli was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6 2 2OO in the bati of appeals 1being Land.:.: OF LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 15of 19 •:,;:;, •,:•. •: •.•••: •I 4•,: •••,..:• '.:...::.•: • j[4]

2 I am left with the notifia1ofl dted 24 9 2003 I pertaiflifl,g to Viage Ba'kkrwala and with reference 10 the f1r t I value assessed in C/iiranii Lal's case, I would require to; market t appreoate the price by 10% per annumfor a period, of 201 days, F fhe figurecomesFto 4,25,641I- per bigha i e 2O,43,O76 80 per F cre, which I determine to be the firmrket value of lann c Village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 F F

33 Accordingly, the appeals fild by the Unio f lØia: require to be dismissed and I hereby dism:iss the same the appeals filed by t h e land owners and the cross-objections fiIed I bythe land owners stands decreed as undr F S F 9; For the land falling in CaegOry: A land in \jilge c-•fF FF A Mundka thel fair market value is fixed at is I 2,49,4O[8] 75 per bigha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, t h e fair marketyalue s fix at F 2,O[1],117/- per bigha i e 465,361 F pe acre,1S F I on 25 02 1997 \ For the land situated in sJillaga Mundka the fair ': market value is fixed at 1,63,425- p bigha 1e F 1936,44Or- per açre as on 21 03 2003 • F j: For the land situt4d in pillage Mundka the tair market value is fixe at 1,98,589/- per, bigha e 23,93,227 20 per act, as on 17 0 200 iv) For thFe land situatein ViHage Bakkarwalä the fair 1 market value is fixe& at 4,98,589I- per bigha i e F LA4PP784/2Oc5&connected Page18of1- • F iz F • • • •.•• • • • • F F F F F F F 4 I F F F F. I t; 23,93,227 20 per acre as on17O[6] 2Q05 ' 1 •. L: Fo.r the land situated in Villag Bakkarwalhe fair;:thrketilu..;is fixed. 4,;4.1'/ per; 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on24Q[9] 2003, i Appellants and cross-objectors whohave sceeded i would also be entitled to solatiLirr and interest as per, I statute and as clarified in the decision reported as t - 9k3( 2001 F) DLT 569 Sunder vs UQI, for the { compensation, paid originally' and as enhancçd by t 4 fe all on the sum enhanced the Rerence urt Co andfin ' by the present judgment and decree. t. ' L,vii) The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed I would also be entitled topropdrtionate costs I ' I viii) All pending applicationstand disposed of in termsof the prayers made therein ki t t (PRADEEP NANPRAJOG) ' -t I JUDGE c • • • •: • '.: ••:.....:....:• • •,. ••,,. JLYO[8], 20yL rnm Vp S I ç I i!A.4PP!784/20050 S connected..:... 4..,,.'Page 1of 19; A N • •... •.'•............ •••' •, I I I -