Naresh & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

1 Bakkarwala 24 9.2003 Bakkarwal.a 17.6.2005 Mundka 25.2.1997 Mundka 21.3.2003

5 Mundka 17 6 2005

4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of. Delhi to the township of Rohtk in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka The difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of vl!age Mundka abuts NH-lU, that of village Bak'ka•rwala does not so abUt; being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka.

6 As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed fist, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kaar.

7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA.APP.784/2005 & connected pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.997 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 notification dated 213.2003 issued uhder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per, a\Aard 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 Acquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006-07. 'Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village ' Bàkkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24.9.2003 'issued uhder. 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, 17.6.2005 (t'he same notification under whih 1ands in village • ': Mundka were acquired) as per award No.1/2006-07.. In 'a nut ' shell,, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, With reference tothe minimum price for agricultural land as, notified by the Government of NCT Delhi. For clarity I may note that pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of,village Mundka were acq'.uired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from 1.4.1997@ Z10 lacs per acre' and since the dte of SectiOn 4 notification was anterior in poiflt of time, discounted ',LA.APP.784/2005' & connected ', Page 6'of 19 ' the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum This price was adopted for category A 1nds. 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 1.4.200.[1] and gaveno benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that.the fair market value ofthe lands to be determined was as of 21.3.200.[3] 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 estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundkaas 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..... •., ' 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 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 agriuttural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as • • was adopted by the Land Aquisition Collector under which the LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. • ' ' Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, buta against'theLnd 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 underSection 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. ' Thus,. for •category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for S.category B land the sme was determined @ 8,99,288/- per acre...... Pertaining to the notifications.dated 2 1.3.2003 and 24.9.2003 'whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village. Bakkarwa!a respectively were acquired, the Reference • '. Court took note of the fact that after the Government had • notified the minimum rates for agricultu.ral l'ands 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 ado.pt the value as of 1.4.2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21.3.2003 as also 24.9.2003;. Thereafter the Reference 'Court'.'took the value notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressingthe:sáme by 10%'per LA'.APP.784/2005 & connected. ' ' ' annum determined the suhi arrivedat as of 21.3.2003 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arnved at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003, which I note comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-). For the date 24.9.2003 the price determined was 20,41,000/- per acre.

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundkathe 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, ori account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-10 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 backdrop of the factual scenario in 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 hearing today.

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 /amna Vs. 00/ & Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in.LAApp.NQ.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 and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Muhdka was sold,as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,0001-. 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and cicuIated with reference thereto, land pride per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counseiwould urge that there is no reason not to hold that 'fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was • 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5.8.1996. Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price,' fai,r • m a rkef value needs to be determind as of 25.2.1993, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. the dates when notifications under S Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issUed pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the price, progressively, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10% per ahnum. It is urged thaton the same basis, land pricéshould be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since villages 'Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan s further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value ofthe land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19.12;2008 deciding a batch.of Land, Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No.193/2006 Pratap S/ngh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. IJO/asper.' 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 & connedted '. • (L[3]) and 1,73,500I- for category B land, Z[2],35,850 for category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850/- for category A land and 3,24,850I- 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 upon the sale deed Ex.P-i.

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOI would urge that the sale, price as per Ex.P-1 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 *A 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 is full of stones. At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is the example given. The second raso.n on which • learned counsel: 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" LA APP 784/2005 & connected 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 the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated. 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon 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 since value reflected therein is iess than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the minimum price notif'ed by the Government which is nearest to the point of tiine when the respective notifitations.were issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct.

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 tlis Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 Ia,' Singh Vs UQI 21 The decision in Jaisingh's case (supra) concerns itself wfth the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at fl,32,000!- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch as Petitions -foe 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/- er bigha the fair market Value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively 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 S

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 bisw.a of agricultural lend 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 25.2.199 7. It is a matter of coninion 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 number's 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 (121) acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcels 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 the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional S 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 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 in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this C o u rt in jL5IncIii case (supra) or Pratap Sincjh's case (supra)

25 The decision in j/ S,ncjh'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 would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 tiI.l the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, apparently onthe premisethat 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 Pratao 5inghs case (supra), the Division Bench: was concerned with aghcultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another •. adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under, Sectiofl 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:- • S.NO. Date • Village Price per Bigha 24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16.11.1995 •• A& 1,73,500I for • Block B land 11.06.1996 - Tikri Kaln & 2,35,815/- for Block. Ghevra • • A& 1,90,156/- for • Block B land 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block • •: A & 3,24,850/- for Block B land