Union of India v. Naresh Ku Mar & Ors.

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.12003 2003 and. 4 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in villge Mundka and viflage Bakkarwa!a 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 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum etrmined the enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 Theàfter 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 2003 as aIso 24 9 2013[3] The two sums arrived at were added and diviided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21 3 2003, which I note comes to 15,92,083 33 per b cre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 92003 the ride determin ed was 20,4l,000/- per acre

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in viIIage Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Goernment o NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10°'o per 4nnurn determined the value 'and with respect to t h e lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and 6 2005 determined the fair market value as of 17 in sum of[1]; 21,37,07 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price 4 determined was Z20,35,255/- per acre 16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in w h i ch 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 hearing today

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAO No 384/2004 Jamna Vs 110/ & Ors, it w a s urged by Sh L. B Rai, learned counsel 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 LAAPP784/2005&conneted Page9of[1] •:.-•...-•.. H' as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the $tipreme Court by either side havez been dismissed Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the faiq market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should be scertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum. to determine the market value of land in villagd Bakkarwala aof 24.9.003 as also 17.6.2005. Learnd 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 ancj 17 6 2005; by,giving 5% increase.........

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold Jn Village 1undka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance thatt 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 o knowledge that 25 2 1997 It is a matter of common precedin the publication of a notification under Section 4 of. the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with they, object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasr numbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposed •.•. cquisftion and. when this happens people in.the ärèà comet 'the know that very soon there is every likelihood that lands would be acquired In Delhi, the large scIe acquisiti®n policy enjins upon the Goverrmerit to allot, at pre determined races, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands ar.. acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small prcels 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 proportion as also the principles of averages and the principles of sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the, whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by th& learned Reference Court, but fOr the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P 1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market vlue of the cduld be detérminCd There is an additional land reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 89 1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a saFe price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in eihi no ifed by the Government

23 Thus, the fair market value of the ands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the ) decision of this Court nj LngLLca (supra) or praapSingh'CaSe (supra) Se

25 The decision in JSingh's case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of, 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof £ • •: H would show that the Court assessed the fair market value witft reference to sale deeds executed between the years 19O tilE' the year. 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundk, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, saIe price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala •! l

26 In Pratap Sincjh's case (supra), the Division Bench • Was concerned with aghciltural lands inTikri KaJaR and anOther adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural Iarids in Village. Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:- • • Acquisition Appeal No 489/2009, La/V5Ufl10fba3& Anr. on 2 6 20fl I have determined the fair market v&ue of the lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425I- per bigh as of 6 2 2003 i... On the issue 'of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWla with t. village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt tue that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-10, as do the other villages but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi v is -a-vIs Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua 2 villageS, has an advantage said Since exactness can 'never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair cornpeflatiofl, it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villageS to be equivalent[1] unless qua some land special features can be shown 28, Since the decision ifl c SttigLi case ( supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of ti,me 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 relation to the fair market value of lands determined in Pratap case (supra) As per the decision in Pratap i7cj/5 case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assssed was 2,15,160/- per,bigha and 1,73,500I- per bigha for Category B land The first notification with which I am concerned is 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 581 days PraaQ 5,ng/ case (supra) thea7flIaI rease was[1] determIflec to be 10% pei annum (flat) to CategoçY Thus, pertaining A PBge 16 of

32 I am left with the notification dated 249 2003, pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair market value assessed ih Chirani' Lal's case, I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for, a period of 201 days, the figure comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i e 20,43,0760 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 require 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 Jn Catgory A land in Village: Mundka the fair market value is fixed at is 2,49,408 75 per bigha I e 11 1 97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at !2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as on 25 02 1997 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at Z[4],03,425/- per bigha i e 1936,440I- per acre, as on 21.012.001 For the land. Jn Village Mundka th(4 fair • market value, is fixed at 4,98,589I- pr bigha. Le; " 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwal the fair market value js fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i e LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 180f 19 23 193 1 227 20 per acre, a $1. on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value Js fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision repOrtd as 93(2001) OLT 56 Sunder vs (JO!, for the compensation, paid originally nd as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree vii The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed; voüldalso be entitled to proportionate costs.. viii) 'S All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of, the prayers made therein

JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 mm

5. •.. '. •.