Union of India v. Ishwar Singh & Anr.

18 I may note here that in various lanai acquisition references, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during argurnents tday before me', learned counsel for the land owners have only:reled upon the sale deed Ex P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned couhsei for the uoi would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-1 cannot be adopted as the iardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of th whole the sample must bear som adequate proportion to the whole For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether what pe,rcentpge of stones re mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the g,rajn of rice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of, stones 1 At least a fistful should be lifted and,then checked as a representative sample, is the example given The secondi reaoh on which learned counsel would attack the sale ded as not being representative of the price is the reason that peope do come to knw about pending acquisition inasmuch asbefop cquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed \IIitFout a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 LA APP 784/2005 & connected Pae 11 of 19 a a of 06 Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel W-_,-OuIdi.donce[1],de tiat the reasns given by the 4earnedReferenth, Cout are not; c c3und, bu v4uld urge that te two contentiqns advanced b>F ( "tt m shoulconsidered by this Court as the reasons as to wh 4y E'x.P-1 beôt taken as the basis to determin tlIe fair market value of 1nd's in village Mundka and Bakkrwala ' Thirdly, learned counsel would. further urge that the four sale deeds Ex.R-1 to: R[4] 'refeéd' to Ifl: the decision, of: the learned ' F F.eference Cpurt pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 0 5 1997, 46 1997 and 89 1997 relied updn by U0l would showthe actual market value of the land and' thu leared counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds, sfiould be considered, but hastens to add, that since: valu reflected •,:.•, therein is less than the minimum pr1ce potified by the Government, jhe price fixation should be with reference to the minirrum price notified by the Government wh'ich is narest to the paint of time when the respective notifications wee issued underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

20 An independent and alternative: agumenç is also advaced by learned 'counsel 'for theUnion.:T1e sa[ne rests' itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as.''. i'•,'..'.. 2006 (135) DLT 231 Ia,' Sincih Vs UQI 21 The decision injjSingh's case (suprá) concerns itself wvith the determination of the fair market value of land in 'village akkarwalawhich were acquired pursuant to a notificaton 'I'' ' 1.. dated 15 10 199 at 1,32,000/- per bigha Lea rnd coursel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' ' ' ' ', ' 1; F, ' ••. I o I i...:- •... - -.---. a Petitions for Special Leave to Apeàl fiIedbefore he Stipreme Qourt by either side have been di smissed Leaned 6-dutisell takes the argument forward by urging that;by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkacwala as of, f[5] 10 1993 at 1,32,000I- per bigha, the fair m a rketi., value should be ascertained by increasing the price rogressively by 10% per anum to determine the market value tof ln in village Bakkarwala as of 24 0. 2003 as also 17 6 2 0 052 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational a"dvantae of village Mundka, fair,market value of, land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25 2 1997, 21 3 2003 and 7 6 2005, by. giving 5% increase

22 With respect to the sale ded Ex P-i, hereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sojd in Villag& Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume imortapce tat t h e' sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued uider Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,whicftvas issued on 25 2 1997 It 1is a matter of common knowledge that preceding I the publicatidn of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the oject of\ d9termining as to what Iapds, compris;d in which khasra numbers and fields are required to be notified for the. proposed acquisition and when this happens people in the rea come to know that very soon there is every likeliIiood that the lands would be acquired In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre, deternined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LAAPP 784/2005 & connected H; wøuld show that he prt sse's ¶he f6itr m rke at wIth reference to sale deeds executedbtween 1 the years 1$9O tjlI the y e a r 1996 either in ytliage Tin Kalan or Village Mt±indka, apparently on the premise that contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkrwala

26 In Pratap 5inghs case (supra), t h e DI\jlsIon Bench was Concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan nd another adjoining Village named Ghevra and petainirg to various noifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value o agricultural lnJs in Village 'iL'ri VIn nnrl mc iirrlcr -.... -..v r AcqisitIOfl Appeal No 489/2009, L(.J' L/ LOflOf 1a' t A7LOfl 2 6 2011 1 have determined the fair narket vlue of the landis in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425I- pr bigha as o 6 2 2003 On the issue of comparabilitY of, land in village BakkrWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikr; Kalan, it Is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-lU, as do the other villages, but it has to b highlighted that it is more proximate to the irban areas of 4Deihi Vis-à-ViS Gheva and Tikri Kalan and to that etent, qua said 2 villages, has an dvantage Since exactness can never be achieved in he matters of assessing fair compensation[1] it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villageS to be equivalent[1] unless qua sotT1e land special features can be shown

28 Since the decision in Prap Singh's, case (supa) 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 with which I am concerned in reiatioh to the fair market value of lands determined in Pratp 5in ase (supra) As per the decision inJ'raaP 5ing/7 case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compenatOfl assessed was 2,15,160I- per bigha and 1,73,500I- per bigha for Category B land The first notification with which I, am cncerned is 252.1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka wre acquired The time span sweeps 1 year. and 216 sieldaYS In PrataPUlQh'caSe (supra) thenL/aIIflcea5e was determined to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, pertaining tot Category. A Page 16of19 LAApp784/2005&connected I It..,t..7. -....... i• •_ •.. lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,40875 per bigha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B,lands, I assess the fair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha t e 9,65,361 60 per acre

29 The next notification with which I am concerned is daed 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Qijranii Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in ftap.ingh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on'6 2 2003, the fair market value assessed was 4,O[3],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 thaf pertaining to the notification d ated 2,13 2003, fair market valu of 1and in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i e 19,36,440I- per acre, which lhérebyfiX.. •..:

30 I propose to deal with the notification dated 249 2003, after dealing with the notificati on datei 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala 31 As noted hereinabove, in Chirani' Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market va lue asessed by me was 4,03,425! per igha nd thug, inceasing the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the fgure comes to 498,589I[7] per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 0 pr acre The same is held by me to be thq fair market value of land in Viage Mundka and Village Bakkar\(vala as of17 6 2005 I decree thit same LApp784/2OO5&connected Page i[7]:f 19 - -- -

32 I am left with the notification dated: 24 9 2003 pertain'ing to Village Bakkarwala arid with reference to the fair market value assessed in Chirani' /4a/'s case, I would require to apreciate the m price by 10% per annu for a tperiod of 20i days, thejigure comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, which I 'determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 33 Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India rec'fuire to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same The appeals filed by the land owners and the coss-objcttonS filed bythe land owners stands decreed as under For the land falling in Category A land in illage Mundka the fair, market value Js fixed at is L... 2,49,408 75 per bigha I e 11 0 97 162!- per acre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fb<ed at 2,01,117/- per bigha e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as i on 25.0 2 1997 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,3,42I- pr bigha ie 19,36 1 440/- per acre, as on 21 03 2003 t For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at T[4],98,589/- per bigha i e 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 200 iv) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed 4,98,589/- pr bigha i e at LAAPP784/2005&conflected Page l8of 19 1.................. '•l S