Full Text
LA.APP.897/2010 & CM No.728/2011 (Cross Objections)
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Sumer Sethi, Advocate for DDA
S CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULY 08, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:13528
.. . . . . ., . : • . : . ,, . .
. .
: • ••
H•. •
C' •••
HIGH COURT OF DELHI oo Date ofDci5OI7 8t/u/y, 2Ojj , lIj
/ i..AApp784/2OO.. .
0 . .
JAMNA
Appellant
Through Mr L B Ral, Advocate, Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr K SunI, Advocate, Mr Anuj Bhanda, Advocate fl
Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate
/ . . : • . V , V V
V
I
V V
•V
V•
?
.
Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawefli and
Mr Sddharth Panda Advocates Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika .-
AgnihOtri, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr.Sum.er Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharrna, Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun
VV
V
V • • V
V
BirbaI,VAdvocates for DDA V
V • V
•V
V V• V V • c
UN
V V •
V
! • V
121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to NotificatOfl u/s 4 dated
25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, VilLage Mundka)
. AND V V V :
,V V V :.
V • •
V
V • V
V
V•VV
,LA.APP. 583/2009, LAPP. 603/2009, LA.APP. 604/2009, .A V
V
V V
V
V . V •
V ••
.
V
V
V •
V
V•
V V , V V V •
. V V •
V V • • V
'
V
V V , V V •
V V V V • V V
' V V
V .
V
V •
I
I
JL ,i.
LA.APP: 79/2010, LA.:AP': 121/2010, LA.APP. 12212010,, LA.MP.
125/20I0 LA.APP. 1,64/2010, ,LA.AP:P. 185/2010, LA,.APP.
186/2010, LA. APR 200/2010,. LA.APP. 238/2010, LA.AP.
:239/2010, LA.APP. 243/2010, LA.APP. 244/2010, LA.APP.
245/201:0, LA.APP 247/2010, LA.APR 251/2010, LA.APP.
252/2010, LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. 267/2010, :
LA.APP.
273/2010, LA.APP. 274/2010, LA.APP. 275/2010, LA.APP;
312/2010, LA.APP. 324/2010, L.A. APP. 32612010, LA.APP.
327/2010 LA.APP. 329/2010, LA.APP. .330/2010, .LAAPP.
331/2010, LA.APP. 332/2010,..LA.APP. 333/2010 with CM. APPL:
No. 5524/2011, LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367/2010; LA.APP.
368/2010, LA..AP. 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. 472/20101 LA.APR
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. 707/2010W; LA.APP.
708/2010, LA.APP. 709/2010, LA.APP. 710/2.010 with CM APPL.
• No.2568/2011, LA.APP. 713/2010 with CM APPL. No4.73/2010, LA.APP. 715/2010, LA.APP. 717/2010, LA.APP. 719/20.10, LA.APP.
• 766/2010, LA.APP. 796/2010, LA.APP. 797/2010 1 : LA.APR
798/2010, LA.APP. 799/2010, LA.APP. 818/2010, 'LA.APP.
819/2010k LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL
955/2011, LA.APP. 832/2010, LA.APP. 83312010& CM APPL., • 6392/2011, LA.APP. 834/2010, LA.APP. :842/2010,: LA.A'P.
871/2010,. LA.APP. 874/2010, LA.APP. • 75/2 10 •:LA.APP.
876/2010, LA.APP. 877/2010, L .APP. 878/2010 LA.APP.
879/2010, LA.APP 880/2010, LA.APP. :881/2010• & CM •''
89/2010 & CM APPL.2249/2011, LA.APP.' 890/2010, .'LA.APP. •
893/2010 &. CM APPL. 6750/2011, LA.APP. 894/2010. & CM o23453/2010 LA.APP. 895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP.
•97/2OiO & CM APPL7'8 • LA.APP: 903/20101 LA.APP. t.A.APP..784/2005 & connected A •
907/2010, LA.APP.• 938/2010, LA.APP. 939/2010, LA.APR.
1034/2010 & CM APPL. 3086/2011, LA.APP. 1040/2010 & CM
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03:2003 &: Award
No.3/2005-06, Village-Mundka) ., . .
AND
383/2010, LA.APP. 384/2010, LA.APP. 385/2010, 1
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.APP.. . 716/2010, :LA.APP.
• 763/2010, LA.APP. 872/2010, LA.APP. 873/201,0,: LA.APP.
• .• 885/2010, LA.AP'P. .887/2010, LA.APP. 891/2010, LA.AP.
892/2010, LA.APP. 898/2010, LA.APP. 906/2010 &, CM. APPL.
No.4443/2010, LA.APP. 937/2010 & CM APPL. 2299/2010., . .
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 &. Award.
• . . No.1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) • . . .
• • • AND: • • .
•LA.APP. 1003/2010, LA.APP. 1.017/201:0, LA.APP.. 1019/2010, • .
LA.APP: 1022/2010, LA.APP. 1023/2010, LA.APP. 1044/20.10, LA.APP. 1051/2010; LA.APP. 1053/2010, .LA.APP. 1054/2010 & •
CM • APPL. No.56.56/2011, LA. APP. 1055/2010, LA.APP.
'1057/2010, LA.APP. 1058/2010, LA.APP. 1059/2010, • LA.APP.
• .. 1068120101 LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. •124/2011,: .APP.
127/2011,LA.APP. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2.011 .
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 .& Award•
No 13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka)
AND
616/20091 LA APP 278/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24 09 2003 & Award
No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala)
AND
1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, LA.APP. 1033/2010 & C'1
No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM
• No.694/2011, LA.APP. 1064/2010, LA.APP. 1066/2010., LA.AFP.
1067/2010,LAAPP 11/2011,LAAPP 122/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award
/\J o 1/200607, Village-Bakkarwala)
ORDER
1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be aWowed to see the judgment
2 To be referred to Reporter or not?
3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral)
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
2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of fair market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwal and villãe Mundka.
3 The dates on which fair market value of th land has to bedeterminednay be graphically noted as under:- S.No. Name of Vtlage Date of notification uer,Sectibn'4theLAA[4] 1... Bakkarw'.ajà. 24.9.2.003 2.,, Bakkarwal..17.6.2005.... Mundka 25.2.1997 '., Mundk,.•. 21.3.2003 Mundk, 17.6.2005'.
4 It may be highlighted that the lfttKicatim at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Baklarwala, is)ie same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Villa Mundka; as per aerial No.5 above. 5." Abutting NH-lU, leading,from the' city of Delhi toth township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies toards 4the dther 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-iD, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the' SQuthern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka.'
6 As we proceçd 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' acqiired. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Sectforl 4 of the Land •Acquisiion Act as per award No.2/1999/2000. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of vlage. Mud<a were further acquird Pu•rsnt to• a notificati[9] dated 21.3.2903 issued under Section 4'of the Land Acquisibi 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 ccired pursuant to a. • notification dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land AEquisftjoçi Act as per, Award No. 13/200,6-07.
8. AgricuJturl lands in the révenu estate of village. Bakkaräla 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 th, revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to notification dated 17 6 2005 (the same notification under. whh lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award N0J/2006-07..
9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with refrence to the minimum price for aricuItural land as notified by the Government of NCT Dlhi... io.. For clarity I may note that pertaining. to the. notification dated 25.2.1997 undr which agricultural lands. in * the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, th learned Land Acquisition. Collector determined the fai.r'market vakie with reference to the minImum price for agriculçural la'hd ntified with effect from 1.4.1997 @.10 la.cs per acre &hd since the date. of Sectioh 4 notification was anteor in point.of'ti'me, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.... S the price for ope year @ 11.[3] p'er annum This price was adopted for category A lands Ftit land in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,0/- per acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.12003 2003 and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001 and gave no 'behefit of, enhancement with reference..to the fact that the 'fair
I. market value of the lands to be determiied was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 which required 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 with refeice to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural ls in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 and I gave no increase.
11 Aggrieved by the drmination of the fair market An value of the lands by the LandAcquisition Collector, the land owners sought a reference uier Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on te reference being made, vide various judgments and decrees', iich are unàer challenge in the above captioned appeal, the Reference Court 'took' corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Càurt, and' enhanced the fair market value
12 In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25..2.1997 vide which agricultural 'ands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' ' ' ' Government of NCT Dlhi had fixed the minimum value fo agricultural lands in Delhi e 1 4 1997, but a$ against the Land AcquisitLon 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 valué.was 1.4.1997 and • the notification under Section 41of the Land Acquisition. Act was dated 25.2.1997. This was the value fixed for categori. A lands:and for category B lands; with, reference to the, va.l:ues for, category Aland depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre. Thus, for category, 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 1 99,288/- per acre... Pertaining to the inotifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003 wherèunder agricultal lands in villge Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectivell were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the facttat after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Dlhi as of xv.1.4.2001 the next revision was:äs 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 24.92003. Thereafter the Reference, Court took the value 'notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 1.0% p.ér annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arriv at were adèd and divided lpy two;to arrive at the mean figur*'as of 21.32003,, which.[1] note comes to 1592,0'83.33 per acre (In sme decisions I ploto the, sum.arrived at is't15,92;2151-). Forthe date 24.9.2003 the price deterrnined.was 20,41,000I-per acre. • 15. ' Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.20O[5] pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village • Bakkarwala and Mundk'a 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 S respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% 'moçe a.nd determined the fair market value as of 17.6.2005' insurn Of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255/- per acre
16. • In the aforesaid, backdrop of the factual 'scenario'in which I have penned profiled the reasoning,, of the Land. Acquisftion Collector asalsothat of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments.advanced before meduring hearingtod,ay. 17; ' With reference '€o the evidnce led•, in LAC 'No.384/2004 /amna Vs. 1)0/ &Ors., it was urged by. Sh.LB.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 justified4n ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. ' Page 9•of 19" rd 3 biswa of agric'ulturl land in viflage MUnØka was sol.01 as.f. 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- 38,0001- was incurred towards sale duty.and thus the price of the land would be 15,13,000I- and calculated with reference thereto, land pride' per bigha would come to 4,46,000[- as of 5..199,6. Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000I- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, falrl..: market value needs to be determined 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 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, lnd price should be determined for the agricultural lands in vifiage. Bakkarwala. Alternatively, Jt was surged that since • villages "Tk.kri Kalan, Mundka and B.àkkarwala 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 th judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008' dedd.ing a,.batch of ' • Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being L Ap'peai • No 193/2Q06 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs LIQI as p e r which fair market value of land, per bigha, was det'ernhined, in " the rvenue estate of village Tikri Kala.n as of 16.11.1.995, ' 11.6.1996 and 17.12.2002 at 215,164/- fo r categoy A land. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected,.. PagiO of 19. -. and 1,73,500/- 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 3,24,850/- for category. B land, respectively..18. I May note here, that in various land. acquisition. • ' referenc.es various parties have proved a number of sle,.deecs 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 U01...woi4d urge that the sale price as per.Ex.P-1, cannotbe,.. 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, learnd counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage of stones are hiixed in a bag of rice it Would not:be a safe methd to, pick only one grain, for if, it happens to be the grain of ric,e one would lead to the conclusion that the bag i.s 100% full of rice. and 'ifthat one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one wotd' • reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a represertative sample, is- the éxamiie given. The second reason on'.whici learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being S representative of the price is the reason that people do come to know aboUt pending acquisition inasmuch as before 5 acqiiiisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed Without asurvey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 I Pf the Land Acquisition Act:. Leared counsel. Would conçedé hat the reasons given by the learrd Reference Court are not sound, but would urge: that the two.coitentions advanced by hirn.shouid be considered by this Court as.the reasons as to Why 'x.P-1 be not taken as the basis to detrmine the fair Tarket. alue 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, 0.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied';' upon by UOl would how the actual market value of the land and thus learned 'courisel would urge that the said fOur sale deeds should be' considered, but hastens to add, that since.vaftie yeflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by the povernmen't, the price fixation shoul'd be with reference to the: • ' 'inini•mum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the pointof time When the respective notifications.wereissued' '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 006 '(.135) D LT 231 là! Sin gh Vs UQI. • • " '. The decision in/a! S!ngh's case (supra) concerns'itse1f with the determination of the fair market Value of land in village • BakkarWala which were acquired pursuant to 'a notification • ' ated' 15.10.1993 at 1,32,0'Q0/- per bigha. Learned counsel' • yvould urge' that the said 'decision has attained finality inasmuch ' '• LA.APP'.784/2005 & onnécted, Page 12 of.19 3' 1: • •" ' • '.3... •. ' pg as Petitions for Special Leve to.Appeal filed before th. Sppreme court by •either side have been.disrnssed. Learned coune,l takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the 'pair maret value of.land in vilIage Ba.kkarwala asof 15.10.993 at.13;o'ooI- per bigha, th. fair market value should, be ascertaine.d by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakk'arwla as of 24.9.2003 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 determined as of 25.2.1997, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, 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 in Village Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume irnprtanCe that the sale is ab6ut 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 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 lands. comprised in which, khasra numbers and fields are required to be not'fied for the proposed' acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to know that very spon there, is every likelihOod that the, lands would be acquir[9] In Delhi, the large sare acquisition policy ',enjoins upon the qovernment to allot, at, pe determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose 'lands are LA.APP.784/2005,& connected,, loll • acuired' nd thus, it is not unommOn, for person$ to purcha.s. mall arce'ls of lands in areas where acquisitiOns are likely, to take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of land as on the date of the sale. Further, the principles of ratiØ and proportio'h as also, the •prindiples of averages and, th 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 Reference Court, but for' the twin reasoning hitherto-fore: noted, I' hold that Ex.P-1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom maet value of the land could be determined. There is an additional reasOn not to rely upon 'the said sale deed. The sale deeds Ex.R- 1 to Ex.R-4, dated 6.1.1995, 305.1997,4.6.1997 and 8..1997 are also pertaining to Village' Mundka and reflect a 'sale price mch loerthanthe sale price recorded in Ex:P-1. In fact, the sale prce in the said 4 sale deeds avrags 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 reqyired to be fixed either with reference to he decisin of this (supra) or pr tap 56igh's case (supra)..
24 I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division • ech of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme dourt. 25., " The dedsion in J/ Sinqh's case (supra) dermifled fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000I- per bigha,as of 15.10.1993, and the perusal' thereof " LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ', would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sal& deeds executed betiveen the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise tha[1] being contiguous. villagers,sle • price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be • indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwalà. • 26. In Pratap S!nghis case (supra), the Division Bench • was concerned with aghcultural lands in Tikri Kaan and another adjoining Village named Ghvra and, pertaining to.vari9us notifications issued under Sectior) 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, determined the fair market value of agriculturallands in. Village •. Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:-....• Block B land S.NO. 'Date • Village. Price per Bigha 24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block. 16.11.1995. A & 1,7,5b0/.or 11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan &,35,815/- for Block Ghevra • A& 1,90•0 156/- for 17.122002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block • •• •A & 3,24,850/- for. •........- _ - T •------: Acquisition Appeal No.489I2Q0,9,.I' India.. •on 2.6.2U11 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,.it is' no doubt true thá 'whereas village.BakkarW.ala 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 visàvis.GheVra ad Tiri Kalan and to that 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 probabikitiS and • 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 Pratap S,nghs case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with -which I am.conérned, I am-of the opinion that it ould be just, fair and proper to determiflthe fir 'rnarket • value of lands with which I am cncernd in relation to the fair market vatue of lands determined in PrataQ 5incIL[7] case (supra) As per the decision in, ratp,ifla case (supra) for the date 24.7.1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was,215,160/- per bigha and L73;500I- per.biha for CategorY B I land. The first notification With which I am conc?rned- is 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 days i e 581 days In (supra) thnI2L49IIncease was determined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, prtainflg.toCtegOry A •.• Page connected.. - •,, 16 of 19 lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 per bigh i.e. Z 11,97.',1.62/- per acre and for Category. B lands,:1. assess th fir market value a•2,O[1],117/- per bigha i.e. 9,65,3.6160 per acre
29. The next notification with which I am concenedLLs dated 21.3.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. lnhiranh/Lat'5 cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra), for agricultural Jands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003,.thè 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 Mundka shoul.d be 4,03,425I- i.e. 19,36,440I- pr acé, which I hereby fix.........
30 I propose to deal With the notification dated •24.9..2Q03, after dealing with, the notificatiofl dated 17.6.20Q[5]. pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Ba•kkarwa]a......
31. As notedhereinabove, in Ch/ranhi Lal's case ('sup(a), • petaining to the nOtification dated, 6.2.2003, fair marké valLe assessed by me was 4,03,425I- per bigha and thus, inreasing. • the same by. 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589I- per bigha, which cprnes to 23,93,227.20 per pere.. The same is held by me to be the fair market value of Jand in • Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17.6.2005 I decree the same... ••. oY[3]
32 I am left with the notification dated 24 9 2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair market value assessed in Chirani 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 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market vaIue of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 - 33.- Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of. India require to be dismissed and I 'hereby dismiss the same. The- - a-ppaIs filed by the land owne:r-s and the cross-objections fiId by the land owners stands decreed as under:i) For the land falling in Category A land in Village 'market- is Mundka the fair valu-.e is fixed at - 2,49,408..75 per bigha i.e. t -11,97,I62I- per re and -. - - for Category B lands, the fair market v&u is fixed at - 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as - -. -- - -. -. on 25.02.1997. -- - - - - - --: -ii) F.or. the land situated in Village.Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425/- per bigha L e 19,36,440/- -p-er acre, as on 2-1.03.2-003.' - - - - - -- iii) For the land situated in Village -Mundka the - fair • - - market value- is 'fixed at 4,98,589I- per bi'gha. ': - - - - 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 - -, iv-) For the land situated in Village BakkarWala the- fai--r market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i e -- - -- age-18pf 19 LAAP.784/2OO5-&.bnneCted -. - - - - P - - 3,93122720 per are,• as on 17.062005 For the land, situated in, 'Village Bakkrwala:th:e: fair •.. market vlu is fixed at 4,25,641F per bigh.á i.e. '20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 24.09.2003. Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would alsobe entitleJ to solatiurn an'd.interst aser statute and as clariied. in the decisip.n reported as •,.93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder, vs.. •UO/, for the., 0" compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by: the Refererce Court and finally on the sum ephanced.. by the present judgrhent and decree.. 1', • The appellants and cross-objectors who isucceed would also be entitled to proportionate costs All pending applications stand diposed of'internisof the' prayers made therein. IN -r
JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 mm' S 0 ',. 0 ', • '0 0, LA.APP.74/2OO[5] & connected 0 ' page 19'6f.19