Risalo & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to siee the judgment[7] 2.. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? t PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I. (Oral) I am decdjng theabove •captionedappals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections, all of which have been listed herinabove LA APP 784/2005 & connected 2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of f market value of land in the revenue estate of Village 8akkarw61 arid vilIa;ge.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, Sectioh 4 of the LAAct H

1. Bakkarwala 24.9.2003

Mündka 25:2.1997 Mundka 21.12003 • 5. Muhdka 17.6.2005 0 4 It may be highlighted that the notification at seri[1] • No.2 hereinabove, pertaining tovillage Bakkarwala, is tho sarn pursuant whereto lands were°acqui1red.in the revUe estate of • Village Mundka; asperseriali.jo.[5] above, 5 Abutting NH-b, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Ha.ryara, are villages 11.undka, Ghevra and Tikri Katan. Village Bakka,rwala lies towards the • other side of the Southern bou?idary of village •Mundka. • The difference betWeen th topology of the two viIägs is; wheeas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, that, of village Bakkarwala does not so abut being or the other side of the Southern boundary ofrevenue estate of village Mundka. % 6. As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township. • of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed 0 ' by'. village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan 7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA:APP:784/2005 & connected. I I pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 L997 issued und Section 4 of. the Land Acquisitio,n Act as per award No 2/192000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village 11un•dká• were further acquired pursuant to a nofification dated 2.1;3.20.03 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 acquiredursu?nt to a notification dated 17 6 2005 issu,ed under Section 4 of the Land Acq,uisftion Act as OerAwarq. No.13/200607.. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village akk.arwãla were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24.9.2093issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Aw4rd No.!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 invi.Ilge Muhdka were acquired) as per award No.1/2006-07... In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition •CollectQr determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with referënce to the minimum price for agricultural. larid as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi: For clarity I may note that peetaiq'ino ' '.tO the notification dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the reven.ue estate of village Mundka were acqured, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair mark& value with referéri4ce to the minimum price for agricultural lahd nQtified witheffect from 1.4.1997 @ T10 lacs per acre and since the, date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected... ' A(P the prtce for o n e year @ 11 5% per nnum This price was adopted for category A lands FOr lands in category B, the vale was further discounted y 90,0001- per acre. Pertaining tohe notifications dated 21.3.20,03 and 24.9.2003, the Lahd Acquisitiàn Collector relied upon the notification fixino the minimum price of agncuitural 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 bf 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the notification dated 17;6.2005 which rquired fair market value of land. to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala.. and village Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same vyith reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricltural lands in Delhi as of[1].4.200i 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 Land • Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vide various judgments and decrees, which are under ctia[1].ienge in I the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took •corrective action, as per the view of the ReferenceCdurt, and I % enhanced the fair market value.

12. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notifition dated 25.2.197 vide which agricuftural lands; in village Muñdka were acquired, the Rferehcë Court adopted the same noification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under whi,ch the •LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 7of 19 Goverrne.nt of NCT belhi 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 Lãd 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 depresed the same by' 90,000/-per 'acre.. Thus, for cateory A lands the eference CoUrt: • determined the fair market value'@ !9,891288/- per acre and for •. category B land the same was determined ' 8,99,2881- per acre. •... Peraining to the.notifictions dated 21.3.2003 and.24.9.2.003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mubdka and • village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the •Refe'çerce Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultjral lands in ?eJhi as of • 1.4.2001 the next revision was as of 30.8'.200. Usirg'the said' dates and the minimum price notified' b,y the Govern'men 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.deterrnined the sum arrived a as of 21.3.29.03 as aIo. 24 9 2003 iThe two sums arrived at were added and divided ty two to rrive at the mean figure as of 21 32003, which I note • comes to Z15,9.2,083.33 per acre (in some decision I. note the 's.urn arrived at. is 15,92,215/-). For the date 24.9:2003 the price determined was 20,41,000/- per acre Pertainingo the notifjcatiön dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agriuIturaI lands were acquired in village. Bakkarwala and Münd the learned Reference Court.adoptéd.. the minimum price r agricultural lands hotifie by the • Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.2001 and giving • increase @10%. per annum deçermined the value. and yvith • respect to the lands in village MJndka, on account of.locatinal • advantage,. being abutting N-i-10 gave 5% more. determined the fair mrket, value as of 17.6.2005 instim 21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bkkarwala the, price determined was 20,35,2551- per acre.. '. In the aforesaid backdrop of the fac!tual scenario in • • which I have penned profiled the reasoning of. the Land Acquisition Cpllector as also that of the Reference Court, I. delve:into the arguments advanced before me during hearing•tôd:äy;.. With reference. to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 /amna Vs. UQI & Ors., it was urged by.Sh.L.B.Rai, • learned counsel for the appellant in LA 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 thesale deed Ex'.P-1 whéreunderl bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page.[9] of[1].. and 3 biswa of agricultural land ir village Mundka ias sold as o 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,0OQ/- 38,O00/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of, the land would be 5,13,000I- and calculated with reference thereto, 11nd price per bigha would come to[4],46,000/- as of 5.8.1996. rLearned counsel' woUld urge that there is 'ho reason not.to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as o,f 5.8.1996. Taking the argument. forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determhned as of 25 2 1993, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act weçe issued pursuant whereto agricuftural lands were acquired in iillage 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, priceshould be determined for the agricultural lands village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further. towards the 't.ownshi'of Robtak, some increase be made in the value of'the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the )udgment 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. LR5' Vs. 110/ as per which fair market value of' land, rr biha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Ttkri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11.6.1996 and 17.12.2002 at,2,5,164/- for category A land.A 4PP 784/2005 & connected • • and 1,73,500I- for category B land;2,3,3,85Q for category. land and 1,90,150/- for category B land; 4,02,850I- for. category A land and 3,24,850I- for category •B land.,' resectiely.

18 I may note here that in vanous land acquisition references, various parties have provd a number of sale deed exeuted from time to time, but during aguments today before me, learned counsel for the land. owners have' only relied UpOn the sale'deed Ex.P-1. S..• '. 19., Per contra, Sh..Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOI would urge that the sale price as per.EcP-1. cannot be adoptédaS the yardstick for thereason, to be a,. representative • '. sample of the whole, th.e sample must bear some adequate S proportion to the whole For, example, learned couns& would urge that if it has to be determined whether what perentage of. •,.' tonesàie mixed in a bagof'rice it wduld not be asafe 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 apiece of stone, one would 'rach to the conclusionthat the bag is full of'stones. At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative smple, is- the example given. The 'second reasOn' on:whjch learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not bein • ' S ', repesenttive of the price is the r.easpn that peole do come to: kn, about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acq'uisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey it be difficult to isue even the notification under Sédtion 4 LA.JP.784/2005&connected ' Pae11of19 the Land Acquisition Act,.. Learned counsel Would corcede that the reasons givenby the learned Refeence Court are: n.ot sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by • him soul be consideed by this Court as the reasons as to Why Ex.P.-1 be not taken as the basis to determine thefair market vlue of lands in village Mundka. and Bakkarwala.. Thirdly, • arned counsel 'would further urge that the fou,r sale deeds lii. 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; 46.1997 and 89.1997 relied upon by JOl 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 reflectd • herein is less 'than, the minimum price notified by. the Government, the price fixaion should be with referen'ce to the. rçi.inimJm price notifiedy'the Government which is nearest to the pdint of time when the respective notifications wereJssued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. An independent and alternative argument is' also dvanced by learned counsel for the Union. The 'same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as • 2006 (135) D LT 231 Jat Singh Vs. UQI.: ' '• •,,, ' • • The decision inJa/S!ngh's ca'se (supra) concerns 'itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15.10.1993 at fl,32,000/- per bigha.' Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA.APP784/2005 & connected'.:' ' as PetitiOns fqr Special;Leave to Apeal. filed b.efore.the; Suprei Court by either side have been dismissed Learned counsel takes the 1 argument forward by irging that 'by ad'dpting.thfait market value of land in village Bakka,rwala as of 15.10.193 at 1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by inc;reasing the price progressively by 10% pr annum to determine, the market value of land in viIIae Bákkarwala as of 24.9.?003 as also 17.6.2005. Learned,counse would urge that in view of the locational advantage of vilIag • Mundka, fair market vaFe of land in village Mundka 'sh.ould be determined as of 25.2.1997, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, byE giving 5%increae. •. 22. With respectto the sale deed:Ex.P-1, whereunder • bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land wa sold in Village Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 mohths pribrto the dateof the notificatioi issued nderSection 4 of theLand AcquisitionAct, whichwas isued on. 25.2.1997. It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding • the publication of a notification under Sectin 4of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which..k.hasra ' numbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposed • acquisition 'nd.whep this happens pe,ol3Ie in the area come.tb " ' know that very soon there is every likelihood that. the.. lands would be acquired. In Delhi, the large scale acquisitiOn policy enjoins upQn the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed resiéntia.l land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005&cOrihected. Page13of19.,.....: •..:'.• •. •.' acquired and thus, it is not uncommOfl for persons to purchase saU parcels; o lands. in areas where acqyisitions are likely, to m. take place; these tra n I sactions. are speculative and cannot be, taken to be a representatiVe rr\easure of the fair market vaIu Of:land as on th 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 ofthe whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex.P-1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market vlue of the land cbuld be determined. There isan additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed. The sale deeds Ex..R- • Lto.Ex;R-4, dated[6].1.1995, 30.5.1997,4.6.199 7 and 8.9.1997.:. are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price rcorded n Ex.P-1. In fact, the. sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than 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 either with reference to the decision of this CourtinjLSiflh'5 case (sura).or p-atap.5ingh'5 case (supra)..[1] highlight thatboth decisions, penrd by the Diyision Bench of thi Court have been upheld by ie Supreme Court. (supra)determifled. The decision in / 5/ngh'cas fair market value of land Jn Village akkarwala in sum of 1 32 000/- per bigha a of15.10.193 and the perusal thereof. LA.APP784/2005 & connected. Page 146f 19 would show that the Court assessed the fair niar1ket value with reference to sale deeds executed between the yer1990tiil the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, ppãrently or• the prerñise.that beihg contiguois villaers; sälë • 'price of.agricultura.l land in.th.e 2 adjoining villages would be • indicative of fair market Value of land in Village BakkarWala.

26. In Prata,o Singhs case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with aghculturai lands in Tikri Kalan, and: aflother adjoining Village named Ghevra and pe'rtaining to various • notifications issued under Sectiofl 4 of the Land Acquisition Act • determined the fairmarkt value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and GheVraas under:- •. • • • S.NO. Date Village •: Price per Bigha

1. 2407.1995 &. Tikri Kalañ T[2],15,16.0/- for Block 16.11.1995 •; A & 1,73,500/- fOr •. •, - •. •• BlockBJand.2. 11.06.1996 •tikri • Kalan & 2,.35,8I5/- for Blok Ghevra • • A & 1,9O,156/- for Block.B land: I 1 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block A & 3,24,850/-: for' •... Block.B land.' • ---. cquiSttiOfl Appeal No 489/2009, hirpi La VLQnOfia&

28. Since the,deci,siofl in Patap S/ngh case(5Upra) deals with notifications more proximat in point of time.tO the: notificatidriS with which I am concerned, I am of th'e opiniOn that it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relatipn to the fair market value of landdéterm1ned in pratap5/acaSe. (5u Pr As per the decision inpraaP 5ingh case (supra) for the date 24.7.1995, for 'Category A lands fair compensation assesed was 2,15,160F per bigha and 1,73,500I- per bigha for Category B ' land. The first notifictiOfl' with which I an concerned i,s ' 25.2.19,97: w h e reunder lands in Village Mündka were acquired. The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 581 days. In' o be 10% per annum, (flat). Thus, pertaining to CategqrY A LA PP 784/2005 & connected A lands, the fair markétaI•u'e a.sessed is•2;49,408.[5] per bi'gha i. e 11,97,162/- per aCre and for Category Iand, I assess the fair market value at per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per • acre... • 29.. The next notification with which. I am concrnd_L dated 21.32003.pertaning to Village Mundka. In ChirM#.La/'s tas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap jinqh's case. (supra), for agricultural.lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued uncer Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act or 6.2.2003 the fair nir'ketvàIue assesSed was 4,03,425/-pe bigha. This was unifárrnly applied. Since, there is a time gap of just a little over 1 moth, I am of the opinion that pertaihing to' the notification dated 21.3.2003, fair market value of land in •, Village Mundka should be 4,03,425/- i.e. 19,36,440/- pr acre 1 hich.[1] hereby fix....

30 I propose to deal with the notificatiori dated 24.9.2003, after dealing with the notification' dated 17.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired' in Village Mundka andVillagë Bakarwala. ' •' 31 As noted hereinabove, ri C'hirani' La/'s case (supra), pertaining to the notif'icatiofl date'd 6.2.2003, fair maketválUe a'sessed by me was 4,,03,425!- per bigha and thu, increáSing the 'same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589t- per' big'ha,'wiCh comes to 23,93,227.20 percrè., The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village F'indka and Village BakkarwaI as of 17 6 2005 I decree the same LA APP 784/OO[5] & connected 32 I am left with the notification dated 24 9 2003 pertaining to -Village Bakkarwala and with reference: to.the fair market v1alue assessed in Chiranti L/'s case, I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days, the figure comes tb 4,25,;641/- per- biha i.e. 20,43,076.80. per, - - acre, -which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bkkarwala as of 24.9.2003. - -. - - 33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the - Union-Qf India. - require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The - - -, appeals filed by the lafld ownersand- the c-ross-objections fid by the land owners stands decreed as under:- - For the land, - falling in Catego-ry A land in Village Mdk the fair market value is fixed--at is 2,49,408 75 per bigha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and - - - -. for Category-B 1nds, the fair market -value is fid at - - - 2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. 9,65,361.60 per aàre, as -. - - on 25:02.1997. - - ii) - For the land -situated in.Vi-IIae MLilndka the fair- - -- - market value, is fixed at 4,03,425/- per bigha i.e. - - 19,36,440/- per acre, as or 21.03.2-001 - iii),' For the land situated in - Villge - Mundka the fair market Value is fixed at - 4,98,589I- per bigha i.e.. -, - 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 1706.2005; - iv) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market val.ue is fixed at 4,98,589/- - per bighà i.e. - - - LA.A[4].784/2005 & connected -. - as 23,93 227 20 per acre, on 17 06 2005 v For the land situated in Vflláge.Bakkàrw thé.-fáir market value is fixed at 4,25,641/- per,-big.ha.... • 20,43,0 76.80 per acre; as on 24.09.2003.. - vi) Appellants and cross-objecto.rs who have succeeded -, -- - would alo be entitled to solatium and interest as per - - - - statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(200-1) DLT - 56-9 Sunder. vs.. UQI, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by -:- the Reference Court and-finally- on thesum enhanced •. • by the present judgment and decree. •, 0 vii-) -The appellants. an cross-objectors vyh[6] succeed - S would 'also be entitled to -proportionate costs.' viii.) All pending applications stand disposed, of in terms of - - thé.prayers made therein. - (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG). 'JUDGE Jt!JLY 08, 2011 ñm-.• iA •., - - ' L.APP.784/2005& cbnneced - - ' - ' - - Pagé:19 Of[9] -