Union of India v. Rukshmani & Anr.

1. Bakkarwala 24.92003... 2; Bakkarwala. 17.6.2005. 3.. Mundka ' 25.2.1997 4.. Mundka. 213.2003.

4. It may be highlighted that the notification at éril. No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to viiiage Bakkarwala, is the sarnè; pursuant whereto Fands were acuired in the revenue estate of, Village MUndka; as per serial No.5 abo.e.

5 Abutting NH-10 1 leading from the city of Delhi to the township pfRohtak in the State of, Haryana, are villages MUndk, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village. Bakkvala lies tbwardsthe other side of. the Southern boundary of vAllage Munçka The difference be.tween the topology of the twO villages k; whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-b, that of village akkarwIa does not, so abut; being on the.dtbr side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mu'ndká.., As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, viflage Mundka is. crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan. •',.. Agricultural lands in village Mundk vIere:acquired LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.... Page[5] of 19 •• '• pursuant' to a"notifiation dated 25.21997 issued under SectiOn. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.211999/ 2 000. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a 'notificatiod dated 21.3.2003 issued under Section' 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.3/2005-06 as also award'No.1/2005-06. Further lands in the revenue estate of the.sarne village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land • ' ' Acquisition Act as per'AwardN'o.1312006-07.

8. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a 'nàtification dated 24..9.2003 issued under Section 40f the Land' Acquisition Act as per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of •.. the sarre village were acquired pursu.nt to a notification dated,. •. 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in village' • Muhdka Were acquired) aper award No.1/2006-07. ' • • 9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, 'with reference to the minimum price 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 reven.ue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned • Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair' market value.with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from 14.1997 @ T10 lacs per acre' and since the date of Sectibn 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted L4APP.784/2005 &'connected ' • •Page6ofl[9]...... the price for one year © 11 5% per annum This 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 24.9.2003, theLnd 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 wasäs of 21.3.2003 nd 24.9.20.03. 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 S village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector, determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of. 1 4 2001 and gave no increase.. • •. • • •• •.. •• • Aggrieved by the detemintion of the fair rnarkt value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land Owners sought a reference under Sectiofl 18 of the Land • Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in the above captioned appeals, the Reference. Co.Lirt toOk corrective, action, as pe the view of the Reference Court, an& enhanced the fair market value •.. In a nut shell', pertaining to the notifiatio•n d'ated 2.5.2.1997. vide which agricultijral 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.734/2005 & connected '. ' •• • • Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but asagainst the Land Acquisition Coflector depressing the price @. 11.5% for fuft one year; adopting the percentage 11.5, decreased the value by only '34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto S Government had notified the minimum value was:1.4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of. the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for category A lands and for category B lands;.with. reference tQ, the values fOr category A land depressed the same by 90,000I- per acre

13 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,@ Z[8],99,.288/-.per acre.

14. Pertaining to the notifications dated 2,1.3.2003 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 as of 1.4.2001 the next revisio.n was as of 30.8.2005. Using the said, dates and the minimum prcé 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 valU.. ' 1.4.2001 increasing the by 10%.[5] as of and,same per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 as also 24.9.2003. Thereaftr'the Reference', Court took the value notified'as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the 'same by 110% per ' LA;APP.784/2005 & connected,, ' ' annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at iwere added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.12003, which I note comes to 15,92,083.33 per acre (In some decisions [note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000I- per acre Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village • Bakkarwal.a and Mundka, the learned Refernca Court adopted S the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to.the lands invillage Muridka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and 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 are. In the aforesaid backdrop ofthe factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the eaSoning bf, the Land. Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve • into the arguments advanced before me during hearin,tody.. With reference to the evidence, led in LAC Cl No.38412004 /amna Vs. 110/ & Ors, it was urged by. Sh.LB.Rai 4 learned counsel fOr the appellant in LA App.o'.784i2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the.learned Trial Jdge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunderi l., 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 4,75,000I[7] 38,000I- was '1 incurred.towar1s sale duty and thus the price of the land would •. be 5,13,000/2.and. ca Iculate,d with reference thereto, land price 'H • ' per bigha wold come to[4],46,0OOI- asof[5]...'8.1996. 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.5.8J996.. Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with, reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25.2.1993.,,, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. the'daes when notifications under Section 4 of the Land. Acquisition Act were issuéd pursuant whereto agriculturallands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the pice progressively, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum. It is urged that on the same basis, land price should be determined for the 'agricultural lands in ' • village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since • villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and aakkarwala 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 Bakka.rwala with reference to the • " judgment ad decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter. being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratar' Sincyh (Deceased) Thr, LR[5] Vs UQI 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 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land LA.APP.784/2005 & cdnnected •. ' • •, -... and Z[1],73,500/- for category B land, 2,35,850 for category A land and 1,9O.,15O./- for category B. land; 4,02,850/- for category 'A land and 3,24,850i- for category B land; resectively. I may note here that in various, land acquisition references, various parties have proved a numbe,r of sal.e deeds executed from time to rime, but during arguments today before.me; lea red counsel for the land owners have only, relied upori the sale deed Ex.P-L........ Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl wo.uld urge that the sale price a.s per' Ex.P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a represertative sample:,. of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate! proportion to the vhole. For example, learned counsel woul&' 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, for 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 happens to be..a piece.of'stone, one would. ' 'reach to the.,conclusion that the bag isfUli.ofstones. At leastà fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is- the example given. The second 'reason. on which learned counsel would attack the sale. deed as not being representative of the price is the reason t,hat people 'do come to know about pending acquisiton 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 4 of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are' not sound, but Would urge that the two contentions advanced by ' him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to 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 counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex.R-•1 to R-4. referred to in, the decision of jhe learned.. Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 L 1995, 30.5.19.97, 4.6.19.97 and 8.9.1997 relied upo.n: by UOl would show the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four, sale' deeds should be' considered, but hastens to add., that snce 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 pdin't of time when the respective notifications were_ issued 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 200'6 (i[5]) DLT 231 /a/5/ngh Vs UQI.

21 The decision in /aiSincjh's case (supra) concerns itself withthedeterrnination of thefair market value of land in village ' Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to '.a notification dated 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme 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 Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at fl,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price pogressivel by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24.[9] 003 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 importance that the sale is about 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 notified for the proposed acquisition 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 acqufted and thus, it is nt uncommOn, f,r persons to purchaSe small arcels 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 ratio and proportioh as also the.p•rinciples of averageS and the, l me that to be representative of the principles of sampling tel whole, a sample must bear at intelligibte proportion to the whole. Thus,.not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hithertO-fore.n0ted I hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom 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 E.R-4, dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price. much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the sale price ir the said 4 sale deeds averages 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 required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Courtinhh'5 case (supra) or Prata 5/ngh's cse(upra). I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Cpurt...

25. The decision in 5/nghcaS ( supra) determifled H. iair market vlüe of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of fl,32,000/ per big ha as of 15.10.1993, and., the perusal thereof. would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with referençe.to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Villge Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarvala..26. In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agMcultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another, S adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various • S • hotifi.catiors issued under.Sect.ior).[4] Of the Land Aquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - S.NO. Date •. • Village S S • Price per Bigha 24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan • 2,15,160/- forBiock 16.11.1995 •. A & 1,73,500/7 fOr Block B land. • 1106.1996 -• Tikri Kalan & 2;35,15/- for Block • • Ghevra • • A. & 1,90,I56/- for • S • • • Block B Iafld • 17.12.2002 • Tikri Kalan. 4,02,850/- for Block • S • S A & 3 1 24,850/- for. S • H Block Bland Acquisition Appeal No.489/2009, An on 2.6.2011. I have determined the fair, market value of the r lands in Village Ghevra at,4,03,425I- per bigha as of 6.2.2003. On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWa(a with village Mundk, GheVr[6] and.T•ikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that • whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-lU, as 'do the othe highlighted that. it r villages, but it has to be is more ' proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-Vis Ghevra and Tikri Ki'an and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage. Since exactness can never be achieved n the matters of assessing fair compensation[1] it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villageS to be equivalent, unless qua some 1ad special features can be shown.

28. Since the deciSin in Pratap Sing' ase(5UPr deals, ith notifications more proximat 'in point of time to the notifCatiOflS with which I am concerned I am of the opinion that it wduld be just, fair and proper to determin.'the fair market.' value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in Eratap Sgcase (supra). As per the decision in Prap !ngh' case (spra) for the date s fair compensation assessed was 24.7.1995, for CategorY A land 2,15,160!- per bigh'a and 1,73,500!- per bigha for Category, B land. The first notification with' which I • am concerned i' 25 2 1997 whereurlder lands in Village Mundka were acquired The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 In Pratap L7h 's case (supra) the annu!/flQea5e was determined to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Category A LA.APP.784/20 5 & connected H H H lands,the fair market value assessd is 2.;4,408.75 per bigha. i.e. 11.,97,16/- per acre and for Category B lands,.[1] assess the fair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha e 9,65,361 60 per acre..29. The next notificatiOn with which lam cohcerned. dated 22.3.2003 pertainip.g to Village Mndka. In iranll Lal's ca (supra), With reference to the decision in Pratap S/nih'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 maket value assessed was 4 1 03,425/ 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 valu'e of land in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i.e. 19,36 1 440/- 'per acre,, hich I hereby fix... • 30. I propose to deal with the oificatiQn dated 24.9.2003, aTter dealing with the otifi.ctiOi dated 176.2OO 5 l lands were acquired in Village pursuant whereto agricultura • Mundka and Village Bakkarwala..

31. As noted hereinabove, in Chiranhi Lal's case (supra),, notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market value pertaining to the assessed by me was 4,03,425I- per bigha and thus, increasiflg. the sae by 10% for 2 years a nd 131 days, the fiure comes to 4,98,589/- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227.20 per çre.[1] The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village MUndka and Villag Bakkarwala as of 17.6.2005 J dcree the.same... LAAPP.784/2005& cQnnected...... I am left with the notification:date. 24.92003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to he fairj market value assessed in Chiranhi Lal's case, I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days, per bigh the figure comes to 4,25,641I- a i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of.24.9.2001:...... Accordingly, appeals filed by the Union of India req uire 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 fir market value is fixed at. is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. 11,97,162/-pr..cre and • for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at.: 2,01,117I- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as on 25.02.1997......, ii) For the land situated in Village Mundka thefair market value is fixed at 4,03,425I- per bigha i e 19,36,440I- per acre, as on 21.03.2003 1. hI) For the land s.ituate,d in Vili.ge Mudka the fair •. market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i.e. 23,93,22720 Per acre, as on 17.06.2005.. iv) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value i fixed at T[4].,98,589I- per bigha i.e. • LAAPP.784/2005 & connected •. • •