Union of India v. Rohtash Aggarwal

7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per 'award No 2/1999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notifiction 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 lards in the revenue estate of the same village werd acquired pursuant to. a notification dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village akkarwala were acquired pusUant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 3/2004-0 5 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 in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Co 1 lector 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 tEat 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 Iand notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ T10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted

V. LA.APP.784/2005 & conected........:.: 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, 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 was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated • 17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land, to be determined in the revenue estateof village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 176 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

11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought a reference under Section 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 captiohed appeals, the Reference Court tOok corrective action, as pier 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 were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector uner which the • LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 7 0f 19 Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the 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 dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for category A lands and for category B lands; with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000!- per acre

13 Thus, for category. A lands the Reference Court determined th fair market value @ 9,89,288I- per acre and for,., category, B land the'same was determined @ 8,99,288I- 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 as of. 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the minimum price 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 value as of 1.42001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum'.. determined •the: enhanced price as of.21.3.2003 as...álo 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 200 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003, which I tote comes to fl[5],92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrivedat is 15,92,215/-) For the date.24.9.2003 the price determined was 20,41000I- per acre

15 Pertaining to the notification, dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands w&e acquired M. village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted 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 in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU 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 b.akdrop of the factãl sceñarFoin'.. 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 before me during haring today

17 With reference tQ the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs 110/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh L B Rai, El learned.couhsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/2005, which. argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha "LA.APP.784/2005&connected Page9ofl9',... and Z 1,73,500I- for category B land, 2,35,850 for category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850I[7] for category A land and fl,24,8501- 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 before me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied uon the sale deed Ex P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl'I 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 adeqLate •

20 An independent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Unior The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 /aiStncyh Vs UQI 21 The decision in /a' Singh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village • Bakkarala which were. jacquired..pursuant to. a notification • • dated 15 10 1993 at '1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel • 'vould urge that the said decision has attained finality. inasmuch as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal fRed before the Supreme Court by either side hve been dismissed Léarned ouns[1] takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at l,32,000I- per bigha, the fair market value should e ascertained by Jncreasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market vairue of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17.612005.,Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Muridka, 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 mohths 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 soonthere is every likehhood 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 reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year. 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village 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 Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bnch was concerned with agricultural lands in TIkrI Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notificatiçrns issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - Acquisition Appeal No 489/2009, Chi,aflhI Anr. on 2 6 2011 I have determined the fair market value of the la!nds n village.hevra at 4,0,425I- per bigha as of, 6.2.200. 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-10, as do the Qther villages but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-VlS Ghevra and Tikn Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage Since exactness can never be achieved in 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[7] unless qua some land special features can be shown