Full Text
LA.APP.244/2010
DALIPO Appellant
Through: Mr. L.B.Rai, Advocate
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA
• HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG
08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.
PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J.
JULY 08, 2011 S mm 2011:DHC:13539 . . . .
I
, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELI-H AT NEW DELHI . . .
'1
Date ofDeçloi7: 8th/u!y,2011
. . . .. I.. • ...
. . . .
± . . . 78412005 •
.
. •; . . jAMNA Appeflant
Through Mr L B Rat, Advocate, Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, . . .
MrD.S.Lakra, Advocate, . ., .
Mr K Sunil, Advocate, Mr Anuj Bhandafl, Advocate
: • . Mr.Shada rn Farashat, Advocate .
. .
: • . . . . . . .
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . It I•
UOI & ORS Respondents .
Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standing W.
Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawafli and
Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika
Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Seth', Mr B B Sharma, Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun
Birbal, Advocates for DDA
•
AND 1 ± LA.APP. 879/2005. LA.APP; 880-88112QQ5, LA.APP..
121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated
2502.1997 & Award N o. 2/19992000 ; v11age Mundka)
• AND th
LA.APP. •
583/2009, .:LAAPP. 603/2009, LAAPP 604/2009, •
Pa8e 1 of 19 A W VR ilggl - I
• •, • • • •
Fl I
12/20l0; LA.AP?. 164/2010, 'LA.APP. 185/2010, LA.APP. •.
186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, L 2010,APP 239/2010, LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010 ~
LZA P P
245/2010., LA.APP. 247/2010, LA,APP. :251/2010, LA.APP
252/2010, LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. 26712010, LA.App*.:
273/2010, LA.APP. '274/2010, LA.APP. 275/2010, LA.APP.
• 312/2010; LA.APP. 3.24/2010, L.A. App; 326/2010., LA.APP
327/2010, LA;APP. 329/2010, '.LA.APP. 330/2010, LA.APP., 331/2010, LA.APP. 332/201, LA.APP. 333/2010 with CM AP'PL..
No. 5524/2011, LA.AP. 335/2010:, LA.APP. 367/2010, LA.APP.
368/2010, LA.AP'P. 369/2010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & CM APPL.
• No.20099/2010, LA.APP. 374/2010, LA.APP. 375/2010, LA.APP.
37712010, LA.APP. 379/2010, LA.APP. ' 423/2010, LA.APP.
452/2010, LA.APP. 461/2010, LA.APP. 472/2010, LA.APP.
694/2010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No. 6340/2011, LA.APP.
697/2010, LA.APP. 698/2010 & CM APPL.1734/2011,. LA.A.PP..
706/2010 & CM APPL. 17215/2010, LAAPP. 707/201.0, LA.APP.
708/2010, LA.APP; 709/2010, LAAPP. ' 710/210 with' CM APPL.: .
No.2568/2011, LAAPP. 713/2010 With' CMAPPLNo.7473/2010, LA.APP. 715/2010, LAAPP. 717/2010, LA.APP.71:9/2010, LA.APP
766/2010, LA.AP,P. .. 796/2010, LA.APP. .97/2010, LAAPP.
798/2010, LA.APP., 799/2010, LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.AP.
819/2010, LA.APP. 829/2010, LA.APP. .83112010 &CMAPPL.
955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 & CM APPL
6392/2011 1 LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAPP
871/2010, LA.APP. 874/2010, LA.AP. 875/2010, LA.APP.
876/2010,' LA.APP. 877/2010, LA.APP. 878/2010, LA.APP..
879/2010, LA.APP. 880/2010, LA.APP. 881/2010 & CM '
APPL6505j2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.AP. 883/2010, LA.APP, 884/2010, LA.APP. 886/2010, LA.APP. 888/2010, LA.APP.
889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LA.APP. 890/2010, LA.APP.
'893/2010 & CM APPL. 6750/201:1, LA.APP. 894/2010 & CM
No.23353/2010, LA.APP: 895/2010, LA.ARP. 896/2010, LA.AP. '
8971.2010 CM APPL728/20'11, LA.APP. 903/20101 LA.APP.
907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 932010, LAAPP
1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LAAPP 1040/2010 &tCM
• . , . H AP'PL. 5673/2011, LA.APP. 1041/2010, LA.AP.P. 1043120.101 , • '
LA,APP. 1045/2010, LA.APP. 1046/2010; LA.APP 1048a010, LAAPP. lO49/2O1O, L'A.APP. '1050/200; LA.APP. 106/2010, LA.APP. 1060/2010, LA.APP. 1061/2010, LA.AP. 1071/2010, LA.APP 125/2011, LA.APP. 126/2011; LA.APP 2587.'01't . .. ..•
(Relating to NoUfication u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award
No 3/2005-06, Village-Mundka)
• . ± LA.AP.P. 60Q/2009, LA.APP. 605/2,009, LA.APP. '615/2009, • LA.APP.'310I2Q.10, LA.APP. 325/2010,'LA.APP. 376/2010, LA.APP.
383/2010, . LA.APP.. •84/2010, LA.APP. '385/2010 LA.APP.
473/201.0; • LA.APP. 492/2010, • LA.APP. 586/20101 • LA..ApP: •
591/2010, •LA.APP; 638/2010, LAAPP. 690/20101 LA.APP.. •, •
692/2010, 'LA.APP. 711/2010; LAAPP. 'fl6/2010 LA.'APP
763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873(2010, LAAPP
• 885/2010, LAAPP 887/20101 LAAPP 891/010, LAAPP
892/2010, LA.APP. 898/2010, LA.APP. 906/2015 & CM •APPL.
No.4443/2010, LA.APP. 937/2010 &' CM APPL. 23299/2010, LA.APP. 10420010, LA.APP. 1047/2.010' . .. .. •;
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03 2003 & Award
No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka)
AND
' LA APP 1003/2010, LA APP 1017/2010, LA APP 1019/20101
CM. :APPL. No.5656/2011, LA. APP. 1055/2010, LAAPP. '
1057/2010, LA.APP.. 1058/2010, .LA.APP. 1059/2010, LA.APP. •, 1068/2010, LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. 124/2011, 'LA.APP. , 127/2011, LA.APP. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2.01.1 •• ,. '
ORDER
2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of f1ic market value of, land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarw.1a. and village Mundka.
3. The dates. on which fair mrkèt value ofthe land, has to be determined may be graphi4lly irioted as under- S.No. Name of Village,. Date of notification under. •edi'n 4 of,the LA Act 1 Bakkarwala 24 9 2003 2 Bakkarwala i[7].6.2. 005
4. '.. Mundka ': 21.3.2003. 5.... Mundka ',. 17.6.2005 4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial S No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of. Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-b, leading from the city of Delhi to the 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 s, whereas the 1and of vil'age Mundka abuts NH-10, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue è.state.'dfviilâge Mundká..•• '., •..
6 As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka Is crossed first, followed by viUaje Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan
7. Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquird LA.APP.84/2005 & connected H •',. '. 1• pursuant to a notiicatton dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award 1Jo.2I1999/2000. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification dted 21.3.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition At 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 No13/2006-07.. '. •, 8. Agricultural lands in the revenue etate. of. village Bakkarwala, were acqt.iired 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 inviIIae Mundka were aquired) as per, award No.1/2006-07..• ••
9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisitaon Collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the ninimumprice for agriculturaL land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi.,
10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired,the learned. Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with • reference, to the minimum price for agricultural laid notifid'' with effect from 1 4 1997 @ flO lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected..... I H the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum tTh\is price was adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further, discounted by 90,000/- per. acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 20 '03, 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 vâs s of 21.3.2063 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to t h e 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 1. 7.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of.agriultura,l lands in Delhi as of 1.42001 and gave no increase
11 Aggrieved by the determinatAon of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collctor, the lan.d • owners sought a reference under Section. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made; vid various judgmentsand decrees, which are undr challenge in ' the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Refererke Court, and • nhanced the fair market value. • •• • 12. In nut shell, pertaining to the noficati.on 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 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • •. ••• • • • Government of NCT Delhi had fixedthe miñimm value fdr agricultural lands in Delhi i. e 1.4.1997, but as against the Land AcquisitiOn Collector depressingthe 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 d•ated 25.2.1997. This was the value fixed for category A lands and for cateory B lands; with reference to the values •for category A land depressed the same by 90,000/r per acre.
13. Thtis, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- pet acre and for category,B land the same was determined @ Z[8],99 1,288/- per acre.....
14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi asf 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and therniniriiUmp.rice notified bytheGovernmentof1'J[1]. Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean • average. What the Reference Cou.rt did was to adopt the value • as of 1.4.2001 and increasing the same by 10% per anu determined the enhanced price as of 21.[3] 2003 as alsb 24.9.2003. Thereafter the Reference Court took the. valu notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% pe. ".'. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. annum determined the s u m. arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 2003 The tvo sums arrived at were addedand divided by twoto arrive at the mean figureas of 213 200, 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 deterrnined.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 Re.ference Court adopted the minimtjm price for agricultural Jands hotified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined he value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational 'advantage, being abutting NH-10 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 20,35,255/- per acre. •, • • • 16 In the aforesaid backdrop of,the factual scenario in 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 beforme during hearing tody.
17. With reference to • the evidence. led in LAC •. •, No 384/2004 /amna Vs 110/ & 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, appeaed for the Other a.pellants, that, the,iearped Trial Judge was n,t • justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 wheréunder 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],75,0O0i-. 38,Q00/ was 4 incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000!- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of 5 41996 Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to 4 hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was'. 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to thq 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 under •Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued. pursuant. Whereto agricultural lands were acquired in viMagé Mundka,by increasing the price progressively, 'f not by 12% per annum 'at' least by10%per annum. It is urged that on the same basis,':,.... land price should be determined for tie agricultural lands in, 'iillage Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala ae contiguous villages, and in fact vItage 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 Sin(-7h (Deceased) Thr. 4R[5] Vs; (JO! as per.: which fair market value': Of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of, 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 2,15,164/- for categor' and 17122002 at A land 4... H and 1,73,500I- for category B land, Z[2],35,1850 for category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850I- for category •A land' and 3,2•4,850i- for category B land, respectively;
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 befbre me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i
19. Per contra, SSnjay 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 reso.n,':'to be a; reprsentative:... sample of the whole, the sahiple '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 in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one 'grain, fo'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 hppens to be a piece of stone, one would: 'reach.to. the conclusion.that the bag is full of stones. At least a 'fistful shoud be lifted and then. checked asa representative... sample,' is- the example given. The second reason on wh..ch,. learned• counsel would attack the sale. deed as not being representhtive of the price is the reasop that' people.do come to: 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 41............................. •;. of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel woiId concede that the reasons given by the learned Referenc Court are not Dund, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by im should, be considered bythis Co'urt as the reasos asto why'... Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned coursel would futher urge that the four sle deeds. E.R-1 to R-4 referred to in the deciskn of the learned: Reference Court. pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995., 30:5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9,1997 relied upon b. UOl would show the actual 'market value of the land and thus learned
4. counsel would', urge that the said fo,ur 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.respecti,ve notifIcations were issued tinder 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, (135) D LT 23,[1] Ia! Singh Vs. UQI.
21 The decision in Ia! Sfrwyh's case (supra) coflcerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village B.akkarwala which' were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15.10.1993. at ?1,32,000/- per bigha. Learned counsel would urge thaf the said decision has attalped 'finality inasmuth LA.APP.74/2OO[5] & connected " '.. Pge 12 of 19 ' - - - I -:- -- - as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Suprem Court by either side have been dismissed Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair, market value of land in village Bakkarwata, a,s of 15.10.1993 at l32,000I- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market Value of. !apd in village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003 as also 17.6.2005.. Learned.couflsel.. would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be de.ermined as of 25.21997,.21.3.2003 and 17.6:2005, by iving ' 5% increase
22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 •. bigha and 3 bisw of agriultUral land was sold in Village. • Mundka s of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 months prior to the date of ndttfication issued • under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, w.hich was issued on 25.2.1997. It is a matteOf common knowledg, that péceding the publication of a notification under Segtion 4 of the Land • Acquisition Act, survey's are carried 04 with the object: detérmihing as to what lands, conirisd in which kharä numbers. and fields are required to be flotified fbr the proposd aquisition and when this happens people in the area 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 residential land to the ones whose lands are • acquired and thus, it is notUncomOn, for persons.to purchase. small parcels of lands in areas where acquistionsare.t1kelY. 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 priniples of ratio and propbriOfl as also the principles of..averges and: principles of sampling tell me that to be representative of th 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-i cannot be good evidence wherefro.rn market.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 30.5.1997,4.6.199 7 and 8..9.1997. are also pertaining to Villager Mundka and reflect a sale price' much lower than the ale price recprded in Ex.P-1.. ln 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......,.. Thus, the fair market value of the lnds would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this pratap5/ng1'sca5e(SUPra)... • 1 highlight that.both decisiOns, pe.nnedby the Division. Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court The decision in lal 51ng/3CaSe (supra) dterrnined • fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000/- per bigha as of. 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof..... • • • •..,•, •. • •. •• • would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the I years 1990 till the year. 1996 either in Village Tikri kialan r Villae Mundka, apparently On the premise that being con•. tg us villagers; sale:price of agricultural land in the[2]: adjd1flingviilages would be indicative.of•fir market value of land in Village Bakkarwala.
26 In Pratap S,ncjh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agMcultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named G.hevra and pettaining to various notifications issued under Sectiorj 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the farr market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - S.NO. Date Village Price per Big ha.24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan. 2,15,160/- for Block 16J[1].1995: A& 1,73,500/for BlockB Iad 11.06.1996 Tikd Kalan & 2,35,r815/ for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for BlockB land.3. 17.12.2002 Tkri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block • • • • • A & 324,850/- for Block B land Acquisition Appeal No 489/2009, Chtranji La/, vQjnPi./nQ2a& r. on 2.6.2011. I have.determined the fair markt"ValUe of the lnds in Village Ghevra at 4,03; 425/- per big.ha a of 6.2.2003. On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWa(a with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no dqut true that.,.wheeaS village BakkarWala does: ot abut NH-lU, as do the. other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more ' Delhi ViS- -VI[5] Ghevra 'and proximate to the urban ä eas of Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an advantage Since exactness can never be achiev ed in the matters of assessing fair compensation[7] it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be • equivalent[7] unless qua some lad special featureScan be shown;. • 28.' Since th. decision' in Pratp 5/ngh's cas -(su,pra. deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market 'value of lands wfth which I am concend ip relation to th fair • market value of lands determined in Praap 5/gj case (supra) As per the decision in..±rata,O 5/nqli[2] case (supra) for the date 24..1995, or Category A lands fair compen'satiO assessedWS '•J. 2,15,160Iper bigha and 1,73,500/- per bigha for Category B. • ' • land. The first notifition 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 te 581 days In Pratp 5inghs case (supra) the annual Jflçease was determIfle to be 10% per annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Category A '7 lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 per bigha i.e.11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess the fair market value at 2,O[1],117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per, acre
29 I The next notification with which am concernedj dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Qnh' Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Sincjji case (supra), for, agricultural lands in VillageGhevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was 4,03 1 425I- per bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of S.just'a little over, 1 month, I am of, the opinion that pertaining to the. notificatiop dated. 21.3.2003, fair market value f land. i ' fe Village Mundka 'should be 4,03,42/- i.e. 19,36 144Qr a cre which I hereby fix
30 I propose to deal with the notificatiot dateq 24 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17.6.2005. ursu.ant whereto agricultyral lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarala.. '.... 31, As noted hereinabove, in Chiranil Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.20Q.3, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425/- per bigha and thus, incresIflg the saeby[1],0% for 2 years ad 131 days,.the.figré comest 4,98,589i- per bigha, which domes to 23,93,227.20. per acre,, The same is held by me to be the'fai.r market alueof i. Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17 6 2005 I decree the same LA.APP.784/2005 &conrected Page 17of19 t I - T - -
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 Chiranil Lal's case, I would req uire 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 th fair market value of land in VilIaeBaka.rWaIa,aS of 24.9.2003....
33 Accordingly, jhe 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 cross-objections 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 11,97,162/- per acre and forCate'ory Blands, the fair market value is fixedaf. •.. 2,01,117I- per,bighá i.e. Z[9],65,361.60 per acre,, as on 25 02 1997 For the land situated in Village Mndká the fair market value is fixed at Z[4],03,425/- per bigha i e 19,36,440/- per acre, as oñ2l.03.2003.,. • For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha L e 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the' land situated h Village Bakkarwa the fair. rñarket value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per, bigh i..e.