Suresh Chand v. Union of India & Ors.

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.784/2005 & connected ' Page 4of 19 • 2 The present decision cOncerns issue of fixation of fair market value of land in the revenue sestate 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 Vil'age Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act

4 It may be highlighted that the notification at sriaI No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the sme pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estat of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of Delhi tolthe township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka The difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut, being on the other side of the 7 Southern boundary of revenue estate of v'llage Mundka

6 As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan 7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired • pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.1997 issued under Section 4 of. the Land Acquisition Act as per award. No.2/1999/2000. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka 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 issued 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 notification dated. • 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka ere.acquired) as per award. Nb1/2006-07. In a nut shell, • the Land Acquisition 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 Govern merit of NCT Delhi..., S...io. For clarity I may note that pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundká were acquired, the learned • LandAcquisitionColléctor determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural lahd notified S with effect from 1.4.1997 @ T10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum This price was adopted for category A lands For lands incategory B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 2.4.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 213.2003 and 24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the notificatibh dated. 17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined Jn 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 agricultural 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 Jani owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vid various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge iii. the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair market value 12.. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under, which the •..,..u,.,... -. -.,z....._ _..1t.s1q_4f' 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 price @ 11 5% for full one 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' fixed for category'A lands and for category B lands; With reference to the Values for' category A land depressed the same b90,000/- per acre. Thus, for.. category A lands the Reference Court dete'rmined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/2 per acre and for category.B land the same was determined @ 8,99288/- per • acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 nd 24.9.2003 whereUnder agricultural lands in village Mundka an village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took 'note of the fact that aft.er.the Government had notified the minimum rates fonagric.ultural lands in Delhi as of.1.4.2001 the next revisionwas as of 30.8.2005. Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by the.Government of NçT • Delhi; 'the' Reference: 'Court 'adopted the principle of men •. 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 21.3.20.03 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 '. ' ' 1: U ~3 annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24.9.2003. The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003, which I note comes to U[5],92,083.3.[3] 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 20,41,000/7 per a.cre. 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 va,lueI and with respect to'the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH 10 gave 5% more a.rid determined the fair market value as of 17.6.2005 insürn of. 21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the pride •. determined was 20,35,255/- per acre.. In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario i which I have, penned profiled the reasoning of. the. Lanb Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delVe into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today.. With reference to. the evidence, led in LAC No.384/2004 /amha Vs. UO/& Ors., it w a s urged by Sh.L.B.Raic... learned counsel for the appellant in.LA App.No.784/2005,which. argument was adopted byother learriedcounséL.who appeare for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge'was not justified in. ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereunder 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & connected... •.. and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village 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 price of the land would be 5,13,000I- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5. 18. 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 acquiredin 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[1] villages Trkri 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 judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr LR[5] Vs 1)0/ as per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of viflage Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11.6.1996 and 17.12.2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land I® and L73,500/- for category B land; Z[2],35,850 for category A land and 1,90,150/- for, category B land; 4,02,850/- for category A land and 3,24,850i- for category B land, resØectively....

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 sale deed Ex.P-L

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 adequate proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined,whether'what percentage of stones are mixed ii a bag of ric,e it would not be a safe rnethod, to pick only one grain for if it happens tobe the grain of rice one wold' lead to the condusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece 5 of stone, one would r,each 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 th'e example given. The second reason On which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come to j '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.APP5784/2005 & connected ' ' ' ' of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned cou'nsel would, concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two cdntentions. advanced by him should be considered by this.Court as the reasons as to why Ex.P-1 be not taken as the basisto determine the fair market value of lands in.viliage Mundka and Bakkarwala. Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale d eeds Ex.R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Referënçe Court pertaining to sale deeds. dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOl 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 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....,. 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 /a/Sinqh Vs. UQI. '. The decision inlaiSincjh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair m'arket value of land in viilage Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification,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.,,. as Petitions for Special 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 lair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at I,32,000I- 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.[2] 1005.Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997, 21 3 2003 and 1.7.6.2005, by giving 5% increase

22. With respect to the sale deed Ex.P-1, whereunder 3 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 25.2.1997..It is a matter of common knowledge that precedirig 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:j fl th e ares 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 residentil land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page[3] of 19 S acquired, and thus, it is not uncommon, for personS to purchase small parcels of lands in areas here.acquisitiOpS are likely to takepJace; these transáctioflS are speclatiVe and cannot be taken to.be a representative measureof the fair m'arke value of land as on the date of the sale. Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and the. principles of sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Referehce Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted,l hold that Ex.P-1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined; There is an additionl reason no to rly upon the said sale deed. The sale deeds Ex.R 1 to Ex.R-4, dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.199 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less thar • even the minimum price.for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government... •.•. • 23: Thus, the fair market value of the lands, would be required to be fixed eithr with reference to the decision of thi •. (supra) 0r atap5/gh'5ca5e (supra). b

24. I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division, Bench of this Court have ben upheld byth.e Suprerne Court.. - - 25.. The decision in lai (supra) determined fair market value of land in *Village Bakkarwala in syrn of fl,32,000/- per big ha as of 15.101993, and the perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.... •, would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with referén'ce to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till • the: year 1996 either in Village Tikri 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. • 26. In Prata10 Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agMcultural lands in Tikri Kalan a.nd another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining:'to various notifications issued under Sectior 4 of the, Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and dhevra as under:- S.NO Date. F Village. Price per Bigha 24.07.1995 & Tikri Kaln 2,15,160/- for Block 16.11.1995. A. & 1,73,500/- fOr Block B land • - 11.06.1996 •Tikri Kalan • & 2,35,8I5/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for Block B land 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan • 4,02,850/- for. Block •A & 3,24,850/- for Block B land 27.1Following the judgment inPiatapS!ngh'scse (supra) I have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuaht to notification dated 6 2 2003 in the batch of appeals being Land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. -. • Acq.uiSitfl Appeal No 489/2009, chJrnj/ Laiy.UfliQ0fi@_. on 2.6.2011. I have deterthined the fair market value of the lands in Village Ghevra at !4,03,4251- per bigha as of 6 2 2003 On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWalawth village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas ville BakkarWala dbes not abut NH-10, as do thb. other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more Delhi vi5-à-VIS Ghevra and Tikri proximate to the urban areas of Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of it Is the broad probabilities and assessing fair compensation, similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be equivalent, unless qua some land special features can be shown

28 Since the decision in Prataø Sincjif case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned I am of the opinion tht it would be just, fair and roper'tO determifl.,te fair markt value of lands with which I am concerned in to the fair market value of lands determined in PrataP Sin gJi case (supra) As per the decision inPrataP 5ingh case (supra) for the date 24.7.1995, for CategorY A lands fair compensation assessed was 2,1,160Iper bigha and 1,73,500/- per bigha for Category 13 land The first notification with which I am concerned is 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquire[9] The time span sweeps 1 year and 21 581 days In Pratap 5irgL7'. case (supra) theainJ/ increase was determined to be 10% pe annum (flat). Thus; pertaining to. CategOrY A LA.APP.784/20 05 & connected.... •1' lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, 1 assess the 'fair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. T[9],65,361.60 per acre,... '... • 29. The next notification with which I am concern'edJ dated 22.3.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. In h/ran!I Lal's cas ('suprâ), with reference to the decision in Pratap S/nqh'scae (supra), for agriculturáliands in Village Ghevr'pertaifling to a • notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was 4,Q[3],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, f&r narket value of land in Village Mundka 'should be 4,03,425I- i.e. 19,36,440I- 'per acre, which I hereby fix. •......

30 I propose to deal with the notification dated 24.9.003, after dealing with. the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Viliage • Mundka and Village Bakk'arwala. '

31. As noted heeinabove, in C'hiran/I Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425I- per bigha and thus, increasifl the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, thefigure comes to •4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227.20 per pere. The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in • 'Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as 'of 17.6.2005. I decree • the same............' • Page lTof 19 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. • '

I. am left with the notification dated 24.9.2003 pertaining to VilFage B'akkarw.ala andwith reference to the fair market Value assessed in Chiranji Lal's ease, i would requi're to appreciate the price by 10% per annum fora period of 201 days, the figure comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i.e. 20,43,.076.80 per acre, whichH determine to be thefair market value of land in, Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003...,......' Accordingly; hë appeals 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 cossobJection'S filed, by the land owners stands decreed as under:- 'For the land falling in Category A land.in Village Mundka the fair 'market value is fixed at is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. Z 11,97 1 162/- per acre and' for Category B lands', the fair market value is fixed at 2,01,117/- per bigha 'i.e. Z[9],,65,361.60 pe.r.acre, as on 2502.1997. ii)' For the land situated in:Me Mundka the fair market 'value, is fixed, at 4,03,45I- per bigha i.e. •19,36,440/- per acre, as On 21.03.2003. For the land situated in Village.Mundka the fair ? ' ' market 'value is fixed at Z[4],98,589/- per bigha i.e. 23,93,227.20 per acre, as'on 17062005' For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at Z[4],98,589I-.per bigha Le'. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. '