Full Text
LA.APP.1045/2010
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Ms.Deepika, Advocate
Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA
08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.
ORDER
4 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. I JULY 08, 2011 • mm 2011:DHC:13501 • •V IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of DecVLsIPfl 8th Jul, 201L 4- 0 LAA78.4/.QO.- JAMNA...• Appellant • Thnough: Mr.LB.Rai,Advqcate, V V V Mr.IV.S.DahiYa, Advocate, Mr.D.S.Lakra, Advocate, V V Mr.K.SufliL Advocate, V •• Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate V V Mr.Shadarn Farashat, Advocate V V
VERSUS
V U01 & ORS Respondents • V Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing, • V Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with V • Ms.Deepika; Mr$achin Nawani and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates V V Mr.Ajay Vërma MS.Kanika • V Agnihotri, Mr.Kunal Sharma, V Mr.Sumer.Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharma, Ms.Shobhfla Takiar and Mr.Arufl V Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND V ± LA:APP. 8791/2005, LA.APP: 880-881/2005, LA.APP; 121/2006, 143/2007 (Re l ati ng to Notification u/s 4 dated ç
25. 02. 1997 &Award NO2!1999-2000, \Jillagë Mundka) AND • • V + LA.APPS 583/2009, LA.PP. 603/2009, LA.APP. 604/2009, LAAPP. 606/2009, LA.APP. 610/2009, 74/2010,LA. APP. 78/2010, LA.APP784/2005 V& connected • V • LAAPP. 79/2010, LA.APP, 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010 k LA.APP. 125/2010, LA.APP..: 164/2010, LA.APP. 185/2010, LA.APP. 186/2010, LA, APP. 200/2010, LA.APP, 238/2010,: LA.APP. 239/2010, LA.APP. '243/2010, LA.APP. 244/2010, LA.APP: 245/2010, LA.APP. 247/2010, LA.APP. 251/2010, LAAPP.• 252/2010, LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP.: 267/2010, LA.APP. 273/2010, LA.APP. 274/2010, LA.APP. 275/2010, LA.APP. 31.2/2010, LA.APP; 324/2010, L.A. APP. 326/2010, LA.APP. 327/2010, LA.APP. 329/2010, LA.APP 330/2010.,. LA.APP..331/2010, LA.APP. 332/2010, LA.APP333/201O with CM APPL. Nb. 5524/2011, LA.APR'. 335/2010; LA.APP. 367/2010,. LA.APP. 368/2010, LA.APP. 369/2010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & CM APPL. No.20099/2010, LA.APP 374/2010, LA.APP; 375/2010, LA.APP. 377/2010, 'LA.APP. 379/2010; LA.APP. 423/2010, LA.APP. 452/2010, LA.APP. 461/2010, LA.APP. 472/2010, LA.APP. 694/2010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No. 6340/2011, LA.APP. 697/2010, LA.APP.. 698/2010 & CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APP. 706/2010 & CM APPL. 17215/2010, LA.APP. 707/2010, LA.APP, 708/2010 LAA.PP. 709/2010, LA.APP. 710/2010 wit.h CM APPL. No.2568/2011, LA.AP. 7.13/,2010 with CM APPL. No.74.73/2010, LA.APP715/2010, LA.APP. 717/2010, LA.APP. 719/2010', LA.APP. • 766/2010, LA.APP. 796/2010, LA.APP. 797/2010, LA.APP. 798/2010, LA.APP. 799/2010, LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.APP. 819/2010, LA.APP; 829/2010, LA.APP. 831/2010 •& CM APPL. 955/2011, LA.APP. 832/2010, LA.APP. 833/2010 & CM APPL; 6392/2011, LA.APP. 834/2010,.LA.APP. 842/2010, LA.APP. 871/2010, LA.APP. 874/2010, LA.APP. 875/2010, LA.APP. 876/2010, LA.APP. 877/2010,,LA.APP. 878/2010, LA.APP. 879/2010, LA.APP. 880/2010, LA.APP. 881/2010 & CM APPL.650572011, LA.APP; 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/2010., LA.APP. 884/2010, LA.APP. 886/2010, LA.APP. '888/201.0,, LA.APP. 889/2010 & CM APPL.2249/2011, 'LA.APP. 890/2010, LA.APP. 893/2010 & CM APPL. 6750/2011, LA.APP. 894/2010 & CM No.23353/2010, LA.APP. 895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP. •897/2010 & CM APPL.728/2011, LA.APP. 90312010, LA.APP. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.. ', / 5- 907/2010, LA.APP. 938/2010, LA.APP. 939/2010, LA.APP. 1034/2010 &. CMAPz/2011, LA.APP. 1040/2010 & CM PL 5673/2011 1041/2010, LA APP 1043/2010, LA.APP. 1045/2010 1046/2010, LA.APP. 1048/2010, • LA.APP. 1049/2010, LA.APP. 1050/2010; LA.APP. 1056/2010, LA.APP. 1060/2010, LA.APP. 10600101 L'A.APP. 1071/2010, • LA.APP.. 125/2011, LA.APP. 126/2011; LA.APP..258/2011 (Relatig to Noificatibn u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award• • No.3/2005-06, ViHage-M'unka). • AND ± LA.APP. 600/2009, LA.APP. 605/2009, LA.APP. 615/2009, LA.APP.' 310/2010, LA.APP. 325/2010, LA.APP. 376/2010, LA.APP: 383/2010,. LA.APP...384/2010, LA.APP. 385/2010, •LA.APP. 473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP, 586/2010, LA.APP, 591/2010, LA.APP. 638/2010, LA.APP. 690/2010, LA.APP. 692/2010, 'LA.APP. 711/2010, LA.AP:P. '716/2010, LA.APP. 763/2010[1] LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/2010, LAAPP 885/2010,. LA.APP.' 887/2010[1] LA.APP. 891/2010,. LA.APP..892/2010, LA.APP..898/2010, LA.APP. 906/2010 & CM APPL No.4443/2010, LA.APP. 937/2010 & CM APPL. 23299/2010; LA.APP. 1042/2010, LA.APP. 1047/2010 •,. ~7 (Relating to Notificatio.n /s 4 dated 21.0.3.2003 & Award No.1/2005-06, Village-'Mu,ndka)... AND. LA.APP. 1003/2010, LA.APP. 1017/2010, LA.APP. 1019/2010, LA.APP. 1022/2010, LAAPP. 1023/2010,' LA.APP. 1044/2010, LA.APP. 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010,.LA.APP. 1054/2010 & CM APPL. ' No.5656/2011, LA. APP. 1055/2010, LA.APP. 1057/2010, LA.APP. 1058/2010, LA.APP. 1059/2010, LA.APP. 1068/2010, LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. 124/2011, LA.APP. 127/2011, LA.APP.128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2.01.1, LA.A0.784/2005 & connected..,....
7. (Relating to Notification u/s. 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award No.13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka)' AND + LA APP 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA APP 426/2009, LA.APP. 428/2009, 442/2009, LA.APP. 611/2009, LA.APP. 616/2.009, LA.APP. 278/2010.... (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24.09.2003 & Award No.3/2004-05,Village-'Bakkarwala)....' AND..... + LA.APP. 1029/2010 & CM No.5948/2011, LAAPP; 1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, LA.APP. 1033/2010 & CM No.6645/2011, LA.APP. 1062/2010, ':1063/2010 & CM No.6943/2011, LA.APP. 1064/2010,LA.APP. 1066/2010, LA.APP. 1067/2010, LA.APP. 11/201, LA.APP. 122/2011 (Relating 'to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award S No 1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala) CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG.. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Tobereferredtoeportérornot? Whether the judgment should be reported in theDiges?: '.. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. ''.[1] 'am deciding the, above captioned appeals, and relatable civil misceHaneous applications which are' by Way of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove LA.APP.784/2005 & connected,,. ' àè S
2. The present decision concns issue of fixation of fair market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala and village Mundka.
3. The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under:- S.No. Name of Village Date of notification under Section.[4] of the LA Act Bakkarwala 24.9.2003 Bakkarwala 17.6.2005.3. Myndka 25.2.1997
4. Mundka 21.3.2003. 5.. Mundka 17.6.2005
4. It may be highlighted that the noification at serial No.2 hereinabove 1 pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the sane pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of •.Villae MuHdka..apererjl No.5 above:
5 Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi to the towship of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are vilIagesMuhdka. Ghevra and Tikri Kalan. Village. Bakkarwala lies towafdsthe, other side of the Southern bouhdary of village Mundka, The difference between the topology of the wo villages is; whereas the land of viHage Mundka abuts NH-b, that of.viIlge Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka.
6. As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the townsh 1ip of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by viflae • • Ghevra and then village TikiKalan...
7. • • 'Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA APP 784/2005 & connected pursuaht to a notification dated 25.2.1997 issued under Section' 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No2/1999/2000. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mudka.were further acquired pursuant. 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.1/2005-06. 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 AgricultUral lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24.9.2003.isued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant 'to a notificadon dated 17.6.2005 (the same notification 'under which lands in' village Mu'ndka were acquired)s per award No.1/2006-07. lh a Out shell, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair rharket 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 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 CoHctor determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum' price for agicultural laid notified with effect from 1.4.1997 @ T10 lacs per acre and since the date. of Section 4 notification was anterior in pointoftie, discounted LA.APP784/2005& connected ' ' Page 6.bf 19 I.,i[3] the: price for one year © 11.5% per annum. This price Was adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by90,000/- per acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisifion Collector relied upon the notification, fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1.4.2001 and gave ino benefit ofenhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 which required fair market 'alue of land. to be determined in the revenue estate of 'iiflage Bakkarwa and v'illge Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition CoUctor determined the same with reference to the notificaton fixihg. minimum value ofgricultural 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 of the.,Lan Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vid,various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge irp the above: captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of. th.e Reference Curt, and enhanced the fair market value.
12. ln.a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 1 25.2.1997vjde which 'agricultural lands in village Mundkaere acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP.784/2005 & connected '• - -. '•)_ -- _- - L,.:rLC'.fl' GOvernment 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 pride © 11.5% for full o'ne year; adopting the percentage 11.5, decreased the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with - reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1.4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25.2.1997.- This, was the value - fb<ed for category - A lards - - - - and for category B ands,; with reference to the values for - category A land depresseci the same by 90,000I per acre. - Thus, for categ.ory 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. - Pertaining to the -notificatiohs dated 21.3.2003 and - - - - 24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village. Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the -Reference Court took note of the fact that after the. Government had - - notified the minimum rates for agi'cultural lands in Delhi asdf - 1.4.2001 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 the principle of, mean -average. What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of 1.4.2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21.3.2003 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.784/2005 & connected annum determined the sum arrived, at as of 21.3.2003 as also 24.9.2003. The two sumsarñved at wereadded and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21 3 2003, which I note comesto 15,92,083.33 pr acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24.9.2003, the price determined was 20,41,000I- per acre. 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 hotified 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 advantage, being. abutting. NH-lU 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 Bakkarwalathe,prie determined was 20,35,255/ per acre 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, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today.
17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 /amna Vs. 110/ & Ors. it was urged by Sh.L.B..Ra, 'learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeare for the other appellants, that the learned Trial'judge was no justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P[4] whereunder 1 bigh LA.APP.784/2005 & connected..: and 3 biswa of agricultural land invil!age Mundka was sold as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/-. 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the priceofthé land would. be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land pric per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- asof 5.8.1996. Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in villaE. Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha ãs of 5.8.1996; Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25.2.1993., 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. the dates when notifications unde 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 same basis, land price 'should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since \/illages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judgmeht and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding a batch of' Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal' No.193/2006 Pratap S!ngh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs UQI 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 at 2;15,164i- for category A land LA APP 784/2005 & connected H •.
1. and 1,73,500I- for category B land; 2,.35,850 for category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land; 4,02,850I- for, category A land and 3,24,850I-, for category B land, respectively.. • ' 18. I may note here that in 'various land acquisition 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 only relied upon the saledeed Ex.P-1.
19. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl '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 adequa'te proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage of stdnes 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,reaso,n 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 acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. ' Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' ' i -. of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be cpnsidered by this Courtas the reasons as to why Ex,P-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would lurther Urge that the four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6J997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOi would sho.w the actual riarket 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 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 als. advanced by le.arned counsel for the Union. The same rests • itself on a decision Of a Division Bench of.this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLI 231aiSing17 Vs UQI • 21. • The decision i n JSinh's case (supra) concerns itself • with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a, nhtification dated 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch •LA.APP.784/2005 &connected • o as Petitions forSpeciaL Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed; Learned counsel. takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwaia 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 24.9.003 as also 17.6.2005. 'Learned counsel • 'would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determinec as of 25. 2.1997, 21 3 2003 and 11.6.2005, by giving 5% increase..
22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 'biswa of agricultural land, was sold n Village 'Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance that the sale isabout 7 months prioto the date of the notification.issd under Section 4 of the'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 landsl ' cornrised in,which khasra' numbers and fields are required to be hotified for the proposed acquisition and when this happens peo:ple 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, ', ', ' 0, acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchae small parcels of lands 'in areas whre acquisitions are likely to: take place; these transadions. are speculative and cannot be taken to be a representatiV.e measure of the fair market value of land as on the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the prindples of averages and the priciples of sampling telL me that tobe representative. of the whole, a samlë must be,r at intelligible proportion to the whole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-f0r noted; I hold that Ex.P-1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market vIue of the land could be determined. There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed. The sale dees Ex.R- 1 to Ex.R-4, dated 6.1.1995, 305.1997; 4.6.1997 and 8,9.1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex.P-1. In fact, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages, much less than even the miimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notifid. by, the Goverhm.eflt. •' Thus, the fair market value of.the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court in!n 'Case(SUPra) 0pratap5iflgcaSe (supra).' I hightiht that both decisions, penned by the bivisiOn Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court '25. The decision in La! 5!ng/caSe (supra) "determined fair market value. of land in Village B.akkarwala in sum of 1,32,OOOI- per big ha as. of 15J0.1993, and the perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' •.tt '5 would show that theCourt assessed the fairmarket value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mu.ndk.a, apparently on the premisethat 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.
26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench wasconcerned with aghcultural lands inTikri Kalan and another adjoining Village rimed Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Sectiorj 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan'and Ghevra as under:-
S. NO. 1.
Date 24.07.1995 & T Village flkri Kalan - Price per Bigha 2,15,160/- for Block 16.11.1995.. A & Z[1],73,500/7 for BlockB land 2j11.06J996 flkKalan& 2,35,815 1- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156I- for Bldck Bland
3. 17.12.2002 Ti kriKalan. 4,02,850/- for Block A & 324,850/- for BlockBlahd
27. Following the judgment in..L Sincjh's case (supra) I have deCided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6.2.2003in the batch of appeals beingLand LA.APP..784/2005 & connected.. Acquisition Appeal No 489/2009, Anr, on 2.6.2011. I have determined the fair market value of the lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425I- per bigha as of 6.2.2003., On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village Bakkarwala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan[1] it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-lU, as do the other villages[1] but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vj5--ViS. Ghevra and Tiri Kalan and tothat extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage. Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation[1] it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be equivalent[1] unless qua some lad special features can be shown. • 28. Since the decision in Pratap 5ingh ca s e.(supra') deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the • hotificatiOfls with which lam concerfled, I am of the opinion tht it would be just, fair and proper to determine,the fair market value of Inds with which I am concerhed in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in Pratap 5ig case (supra) As per the decision in Pratap5iflg/?'5 case (supra) for the date 24.7.1995, for CateorY A lands fair compepSatiOn assessed wa. 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73,500/- per bigha for Category land. The first notification with which I am concerned is 25.2.1997 whereuflder lands in Village Mindka were acquired. The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 jJ.e; 581 days. In Pratap 5ingh case (supra) the ana/ /naease was determined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to Category A LA.APP.784/2005 & connected •.1. b lands, the fair market vale assessed is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e T11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess the fair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. 9,65,361;60 per a c re
29. The next hotificatiqfl with which I am concerned is dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Qjranhi Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision inPratáp 5!ngh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Sedion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on[6].2.2003,'the fair market value assessed was 4.03,425I- per bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21.3.2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundl<a should be 4,03,425!- i.e. 19,36,440I- pr acre, which I hereby fix. I propose to deal with t-he notification dated 24.9.2003, fter dealing with the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant:whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundkaand Village.BakkrWal.
31. As noted hereinabove, in ch/ranILLa/_case' ( supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003, fair market vaIu assessed by me was T[4],03,425I- per bigha and thus, increasing the Same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589I- per bigha which coms to 23,93,227.20 per ocre. The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Villge Mundka and Village Bakkarwaia S 0f17.6.200 I decree the same Page 17 of LA.APP.784/2005 & connected tD •... I am left with the notification dated 24.9.2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to.the fair market value assessed in Chlranll Lal's case, I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days, the figure comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i.e. 20,43,076.80 pqr acre, which I determine to be the fair maket value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003.. Accordingly, 'the appels filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners 'and the cross-objectiops filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:- • i) For the land falling in Category land in Villag,e • Mundka the fair 'market value is fixed at is 2,49,408.75per bigha Le. T 11,97,I62/- per acre' and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at 2,01,117/- per bigha 'i.e. 9,65,361.60. per acre,, as on 25.02.1997.. •..... ii) For the land situated in Vjllage Mundka the 'fair 'market \/alue is fixed at Z[4],03,425!- per bigha i.e. 19,36,440!- per acre, as on21.03.2003. • iii) For the land situated in Village Munka the fair market value is. fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i.. 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005. iv) For the land situated in 'Village Bakkarwala the fair market value'is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i.e. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. • 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005. v,) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha i.e. 20,43,076.80 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 Sunder vs. 110/, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree. The, appellants and 'coss-objetors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs. * All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein., (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) -' JUDGE • • jULY08, 2011 • •, mm ' • • LA.APP.784/2005.& connected • •. •