UOI v. Ombvati & Ors.

4 AND I t I I I 4 1. LAAPP 1003/2010, LAAPP 1017/2010, LAAPP 10L9/200, LA APP 1022/2010, LA APP 1023/2010, LA APP 1044/0]J0, LAAPP 1051/2010, LAAPP 1053/2010, LAAPP 1054/2016& CM APPL No 566/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LAAIP 1057/2010, LAAPP 1058/2010, LAAPP 1059/2010 1 LAAIP 1068/2010, LAAPP 1069/2010, LAAPP 124/2011, LAAPP 127/2011 1 LAAPP 128/201 11,LAAPP 259/2011 I LA APP 784/2005 & connected 4 I 1... •. I. I 4 1 I I I I I I A....1'.,J.•. - I & ',;;! (ReIating to Nottfica4i u/s 4 dated 17 t[6] 2005 & Award No 1/20O607, ViUagundka) ANDI 'H! •: I / fr + LA APIS 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA AP? 426/2009, LAAPP 428/2009, 442/2009, LAAPP 611/2O, LAAPP 616/2009, LAAPP 278/2010 I (ReIating to Notification u/s 4 dted 24 09 003 & Award No 3/2004-05, Viflage-Bákkarwala),, JANDc I,r....;:•:'•: • )..-.... -......';....... LAAPP 1029/2010 & 4CM No5948/2011, LAAPP. 1030/2010, LAAPP 1031/2010[1] LAAPP 1033/2010 4 1 & CM No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM. No6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP 1066/2010, -....'.... t •k..............: •• LAAPP; 1067/2010,tAAPP 11/2011, LAAPPf22/2O11..,,.;..,..,..............; •..,.... (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarw&a). mw.

CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEP NANDRAJOG 4, 4, 4,.•,1.,.-........y...,. L Whether the Reporters of lol papçrs may be allowed '. to see the judgment?, To be referrd to Reporter or not 7 3 Whether the judgment should b reported in the Digest 1 % PMOEEP NANDRAJOG, J (Oral) 4, 4,

1 I am dciding the above captiothed appeals and relatable,civil miscellaneous applications whih are Iy, wyDf cross objections, all of whic1i have beii listed hereinabove 4 LA APP 784/2065 & connected 4, 4, I %: *

2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of t t: rnarket vIue of land in tie revenue estate bfYillage BakkrwM $ t:and village Mundka, 3 The dates on whichfairmarket value of the landha: to be deterHned may be graphically noted as under. - I S No Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1:, Bakkarwala ! 24 9 2003 2 Bakkarwa!a 17 6 2005

3 Mundka:: 25 2 1997,

4 Mundka 21 3 2003 I 5 Mundka I 17 6.[2] 005 I I:

4 It may be higThghted that the notification at seri: I I I No 2lhereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the sarn. pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the evenue estte Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 'Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of DeIhio the townshi.p of R,ohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mwika, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village.Bakkarwala lies towards jhe 4 4 other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka The I I differencebetween the topology of the two villages is, whereas, the land of village Mundka 'abiits NH-lO, that of v1illage Bakkarwala does not so abut, being on the other, side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of. village Mundka I I I

6 As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, villae Mundka is crossed first, followed by vilIage Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan I 7 Agricultural IanJs in village' Mundka were acuird LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 5 of. 19 4 1 I I I I Ii 'S I I I 4 4 I II 4 4 I 5' I I.,..S.. S •.............., L: i pursuant tá a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section: of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No II999I2QOO: I Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village MundIa vere;..... 4 -., t, •,. '.:.. •.... further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21 3 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as p e r award....' •,.:. •.•:.. e.••. No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands in the I revenue estate of the same village wer acqired purunt to a notification dated 17 6 2005 issued u n d e r Section 4 of the Lahd Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in th revenue? etate of, village Bakkarwala wee acquired pursunt to a notification, dated 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as I per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lards in the revenue estate of..- f... •....:,:•..............,:... the same village were acqi!iired pursuant to a notification dated 176 2005 (the same notification under which lands in vilIae tM un dka were acquired) as p e r; awardj No 1/2006-07 9 # In a nut shell, the Land Acquiition COIl eçtor determined the fair market,valueof the acquired'lands, under all the awards, with reference to tie minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NT Delhi 10, For clarity I may note that pertaining to the notiftioui dated 25 2 1997 under whi,ch a,g'riculturl lands in the revenu estate of villag Mundka were acquired, the leaned Land Acquisition Collector deterrnine'd the fair market value With referencel to the minimum price for agricultural land[3] notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ 1O lacs per acre and since the date I I 3 of Section 4 notification wa antenorin point of time, discounted LAAPP784/2005&connected ' Page6ofl[9] 3.. •. 3. •.,.%# 3 3 •.•... •... 3..... ••. 3'.

3. •..[3] I I 51' •3 '.5' •1.':5. 3'.::.........•.. 3. - - - - j ----- I 4- -'-,--. the price for bne year 11 5% per annurn This pri€e ws, adoptd for categ9ry A Ians For Inds in categry, the vaIu vas further discounted by 9OOOJI-per acre Prtaihing to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the Lard I f Acquisition Coflector relied upon the hotification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001 and, gave o benefit of enhancement with referece to the fact that the fair S ! " market value of• the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 2003,..:,..... -.... \ and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification darted, 17 6 2005 which required fair market value of land to Ie determined in the revenue estate of,village Bakkarwala and ) village Mundka as of 17 6 2005 the LendAcquisition Collector determined the ame with refernce t thea notification fixirg Pfd r nuninium value of agriculturaI lends in Delhi as of 1 42001 ard i I ave no increase (

11 Aggrieved by the deterriination of the fair market value of.the lands by the Land Acuisition Collector, the land owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and On t h ei reference being made, vide - •.:.. vanous judgments and decrees, wh 1ich are under challenge tn the above captioned appeals, th Reference Court took corrective ation, as per the view of, the Reference Court, and ' 1 enhanced thefalr4rnarketvajue 12, In a nut shell, pertain:ng to the notification dated 25 2 1997 vide which agncultulral lands rn village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adoted the same iotificationas was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the AAPP78472OO5&connected Page7ofl[9] • • • • '''.••,,•,. •.'....; 4 •4 4 4,... i.: • •:.. --•; fl it ini um vaILe f Government of NCT De!hi had fixed he m m agricu!tuI lands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997, but as against the Lahc 3 Acquisitior Collector depressingthe price 11 5% for full one ' r -...: •,....... year, adopting the perceritage115, decreaseJ thee value by } only, 34 days inasmuch as the date witp reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 ahd the notification tinder Secton 4 df tie Land AcqJisItIon Act was I k t r dated 25 21997 This was the va!u,e fixedfor category A lands and for category B land, with reference to the values or r category A land depressed ?the same by 9O,OOOI per. acre

13 Thus, for category. A lands the Reference Court determined the fair marked value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for category B lnd te saçne wasdeernined @ 8,9,288I- pen; c j

14 Pertaining to the notifictions dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village 4undka arid village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference t Court took not of the' fact that after the Goverriment hd T notified fhe minimum raes for gricultural lands in elhi s of 1 4 2001 the next revisiánçwas as of 30 8 2005 Usg the Said dates and the minimum price notified by the Governnt of NT ro Delhi, the Reference Court adopted t h e principl of me4n average What çhe Refererpce Court did was to adopt the valUe as of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% er antiu.Fn determined the enhanced price as 21 3 2003 as 1 ai86 124 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the vaiiiie 4 1, çnotified as of 30 8 2005and depressing the same by 10% pr LA APP 784/2005 & connected 1 ( I * j; IT Il t I I 1 I I.-.... • -...-,.. 1 F.. t..: I I ••:.:.: •....: •: •:: • •: %. t annum determined the surri arriyedat s of 21k[3] 203 as àI 24 9 2003 The tvo sJm rrI\ed at; wee added an 1,4divided bj I two to arrive t the mean figure as of 21 3 2003, wNich I note cdmes to 15,92,083 33 pr acre (In some de(isiors J note the sum arrive at is 15,92,15R) For the date,24 2003 the I !f price determined was 2O,41,OOO/- per acre 15 1 Pertaining to the otification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricu!tur& lands were acuire in viliage BakkarwaIaand Mundka tIie Iearned Reference4Court adopteçl the minimum price for agricu1tura lands notifi by the i Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 20p[1] nd givingp increase m @10% 1 per annu deferriindd the value' and wit respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of 16ati6ha[1].- advantage, being abutting, NH-10 ga\)e 5% rore r1d determined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 tn sum o 21,37,017 75 per acre rand for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255/- per acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of', the factual senario 41. 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 4 C No 384/2004 /amnà Vs 110/ & Ors, t was ured by, Sh LB Rai, ' learned counsel for the appellant in LA AppNo 74/2005, which fi argument was adopted by other iearned co)qO'selI, who appeared for the other appellants, that th learned Trial Judge was nqt justified in ignoring the safe deed x P-i whereunderl bigha Page 9of19'...,::• •. •.•••:••: • • • - -y:--T-I_._.'_ i • • -: • ••...: •.:.t;. •: •. L •: and 1,73,500/- for category B land, 235,85O for tegory A; land and T[1],9O,150I- fdr category B Iaid, 4,O285O/- for ' t c1ategory A' and and,24,85OI- for category B land, respectively

18 I may note here that in various land acquisitior references, various parties have provd a number of stale deeds executed from time to time,but durirg arguments today,before me, learnedcounsel for the' land pwners have only reliedupbn, the sale deed Ex P-i,

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counel for the uoI would dirge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be t adopted as the yrdstick fon the reason,to be a representative... k;;•s:ame. I I t of.the whole; th sarn.pl riiyst b*a(sme ad equate •..: w.. r: •. 6..• •., I proportion to the whole Fbr example, learned counsel woulçf urge that f it has to be determined whether what perdentage df stones are mixed na bag of rice it would not be a se r method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead tothe conçlusionthatthbag Js 100% full of rice U and f that o'ne grain happens to be pce of stone, 1one ould reach to the conclusion thatthe bag dS full of stones At least fistful should be lifted and 'then checked as a epresentatiye sample, is' the example given The second reason on whkh 'earned cunsel would attack the 'sle deed as not bein epresentatiye of the price is the reaspn that people d[9] come to I know about pendipgacquisition inasmuch as before acquisitioris are made, land in the areal is surveyed Without a 1 surveyit would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 LA APP 784/2005 & connected 1 Pag&11 of 19 I ', I 4 I