Union of India v. Dhir Singh & Ors.

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to seek the judgment?

2 To be referred to Reporter or not?

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? • PRADEEP NNDRAJOG, 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 ci. S pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2/199/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification 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 same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitioh Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands n the revenue estate of, village Bakkarwala 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 the revenue estate of • the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated

17.6. 120.05 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07

11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market valye of the lands by the Land Acquisition ollector, the land owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the referience being mad, vidë' various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in the above captioned appeals, the Reference' Court, took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair market value 12 in a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka t were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as • was'adopted by the Land Acquisftion Collector under which the' ' ' • ' and fl,73,5001- for category B land, 2,35,850 for category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850I- for category A land and 3,24,850!- for category, B land, respectively.

18 I may n o te here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a nurber of sale dees executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have 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-i cannot be 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, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage of stones ar mixed in 'a bag 'Of rice it woul not be a. sate method: to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the drain 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 At lest a. fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is tthe example given The second reason on which learned dounsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason 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 4........ 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 n village Bakkarwata as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000!- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the rnarket value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would, urge that in viw 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 w a s sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 1996, it would assume importance that th e, 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 deterrnining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposed aciuisition 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 would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with referene to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village M'undka, 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 Divisiop Bench was concerned with aghcultural lands in Tikri Kàlan and' another'( adjoining Village named GFevra and pertaining to various notifications issued und'r SetioQ.[4] of.thë Lnd Acquisition Act. 1; determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - S.NO. Date Village. Price per Bigha. 4.p[7].1995. & Tikrilalan ',. 2,,15,16U!2 fQ Block Aiii 1995 A & 1,73,500/- fyr Block B land. '. 2 11O[6] 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1 90,156/- for (} 1AcquisiOr ppeal No 4892009, iraflj/ LaIy- 1i2/QQfb2QYa the fair market vMue of t1e Apj on 2 62011 I have determined 4,0325I- per bigha as of 6 2 2003 lands in Vifla,ge Ghevra at,[4] On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala 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 vts-a-vls Ghevra and Tikri Kalan andto that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage,

28 Since the decision in Pratat.[2] 5ingh's case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to thq notifications 'with wtch 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 conernd in relation to the fair value of lands determined fLtaQ 5/nqcaSe (supra) i[1] market As per the decision in Pratap 5inciJf case (supra) for the date A lands fair coçnpeflSatlon assessed was 24 7 1995, for CategorY

29 The next notification W. which I am concerned...j dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chiranli Lal's cas(supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's Case (supra), for agricultural lans in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under, Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.[2] 2003, the fair marketvalue assessed was ?4,03,425/- per, bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of just a little over, 1 5pnth 1 I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21 3 2003, fair rarket value of land tn Village Mundka should e 4,03,425I- i e 19,36,440I- per acre, which I hereby fix