UOI v. Smt. Bala & Anr.

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allow4ed to see thejudgment 2

2 To be referred to Reporter or not 7

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,.! (Oral)

1 I am deciding the above captioned )appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications vhich are by way of cross objections all of which have been listed hereinabove LA APP 784/2005 & connected:, •;., I.......,.....:4.j...... 4.. the price for one year, @ 11 5% per anhum 1hi price was adopted for category A lands For lands in cat'egory B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- p e r atre Peftaininto the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the nQtification flx)ng the p-unimum price of agricultural land as of 14 200] and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference tohe fat that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notif1cation dated 17 6 2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of viIlge Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17 62005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in DelIi as of[1] 4 2001 and gave no increase

11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market •; • alue of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land dwners sought a reference under Sectidn 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and -,00 'l the reference bei ng made, vide various judgments and decrees, which are ç under challenge in the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court toQk corrective action, as per the view of the Rferende Court, and enhancedthefairmarketvalue 1.2.. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.119.017 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 LAAPP 784/2005 & connected age 7 of 19 I....... - --........ 4... 1-.. 4 4 7. •..,. 'Government of NCT Delhi had fixed t!he minimum value for' agricultural lands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997 but as ag4airt the Land I Acquisition Collctor depressing the price @ 11 5% for foil one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased, th value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with refeerce wheretà.1•,...... Government had notified the minimum val1ue was 144,1997 nd the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisiton Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for, caegpry A lands and for category B lands; with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by Tslq,00Oi- per acre

13. Thus, ftr category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9189,288/- per acre and for 4 categkry B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- per acre......

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 a nd 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in viflago Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively,were acqLiired, the Reference Court-took note of the fact that after the Goiernrnent had notified the minimum rates for agriculturai landsin Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by th Govenment of NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean average What the Reference Court did was to aqopt the v. alue as of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 a[5] 4 also 24.9.2003. Thereàfterl the Reférence Cburt took the iaI-ue t. • 4, 1 • notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per.

LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 8 of A. 4 7 i.,,.. • •.••...•..• j annum determined the sum arrived at as bf 21 3 2003 as aIso 24 9 2q03 The two sums arrived at wre added an d di\ided by two toarriv at the meanfigure as of 21 3 2003, which I note comes to U[5],92,083 33 per acre (In sdmedecisions I note th sum amved at is 15,92,215/-) For thedate 249 2003 the price determined was 20,4l,000/- per

15 Pertaining to the notificatior datd 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala nd Mundka the learned Reference court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCTDèlhi with effect from:14.2001 and givihg increase @10% per annum determined he: value and witF respect to the lands in village Mundka, on accbunt of locationaf advantage, being abutting NH-10 ga\e 5°/ more and determined the fair market value as of 17 & 20b in sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was Z 20,351255/- per acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of.,the factul scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector, as also that of the Refrence Court, I delve into the agurnents advanced before me during hering tody. * * I

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 lamna Vs. UOI& Ors., it was urged.by Sh:LB.Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, wiiich a'rgument was adopted by other learne[1] counsel ho appeared for thef other appellants, that t h e lerred I TrialJdge was no tf justified ir ignoring the sale deed Ex P[4] yvhereunder 1 bigha S...'. •....: •.•:: •: nd 3 biswa of agriultu'ral land in villa9p ¶1iridka s sold as of

5. 18. 1996 for a sare consideration of 4,7,O0O/- 38,QO0/- was incurre[1] towards sale duty and thus the iç of the land would be 5,13,00/- and alculated with refeetce thereto, land price per bgha would come to 4,46,000I- a f 5 8196 Learned N counsel would urge that there is no reaso not to hold that fair j market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 6 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined 1as of} 25 2 1993, 21 3 2003 and 17.6.2005, i e the dates when notifithtions under Sction 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issud pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired Jn iilIageMundka, by increasing the price progressively, if not by per annum at lest by 10% per annum It is urged that on the jsame basis, land price should be determined for the aricultLiraI land in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since ' I villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka 1 and Bakkarwala are[1] contiguous, J viIlags, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is firther towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made?ln the fralue 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 Prata,o Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs[1] LiOl as per wiich fair market value of land per bigha, was determined Ifl the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan 4as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at Z 415,164/- for cateory. A land 1 1 r nd 1,73 1500!- for category B land, Z[2],35,85O for ctegory A category B nd, 4;O2M5OI- for land and 1,90,150/- for la category A land and 3,24,850/- for 1category B land, respectively.

18 I may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a nLmber f sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before A.. me, learned counsel for the land owners haie only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P- ti cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a rpresentative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate,