Raj Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

13 Thus, for category A lancs the Reference Court determllned the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- peracre and for category B land the same was determined @ Z 8,99,288I- per acre

14 Pertaining to the notifications dlated 21:3 2003 and 24..9.2003 whereunder agricultural lancs in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference C6urt took note of the fact that after the Govenment:had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 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 a n h u deterMined t h e" sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 203 The two sums arrived t were added and dix'ided by two to arrive at the mean figure a of 2.1.3.2003, which I note ' comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24..9.2003.the price determined was 20,41,000/- 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 • 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 Bakkarwala the price determined was 20;35,255i per acre. H

16 In the aforesaid backdrop Of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the treasoning 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 JeO in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs 110/ & Ors, it was urged by, Sh L. B. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in UA App No 784/2005, which argument 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-i whereunder 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005:& connected; H. f the Lani Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede 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 P-i be not taken as the basis to determik the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four, sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned eference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, O 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOl would iiow the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sle deeds should be. onsidered,, 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 whrch 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 Union The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 Ia! Sincjh Vs 1101 21 The decision inJSIngh's case (supra) concerns itself withthe determination of the fair market value of land in village p- ------------would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years T990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous Ha. 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 5lngh'5 case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural ands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevr and pertaining to various • notifications isued• undr Sectio.r) 4 of the Land Acquisi.tidn A'cf determined the fair market value of agriulturaI lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under cquisitIofl Appeal No 489I009, Aaron 262011 Ihave determined the fair market ue of the lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,45!- per bigha as of 6 2 2003 On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-b, as do the other villages[1] but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-VLS Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, ha an. advantage., Since exactr\eSS can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is the broad probabilities ançi jrnilariti which matter. Thus, I hold al.l 4 villages to b • land' special features can e0uivalent[1] urtess qua some be shown

28 Since the decision in Pratap, 5ipqhS case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that tt would be er to determine the fair just, fair and prop market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair;mrket value Of landS determined in' /hh'5 case (supra). As per the decision in Patap 5ig/'5 case (supra for, the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73,500I per igha for Category B land The first notification with which I am concerned Is 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 81daYS In PrtaP 5inghs case (supra) the annua(!flaease was determined to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to CategorY A LA APP 784/2005 & connected S