Jile Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

14 Pertaining tO the notifications dated 21 3 2003 arid 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundk and ' village Bakkarwaia respectively were acquired, the pReference.. ',. -:.• •..:..... •.•............ c. Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates foragricultural 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 Rrinciple 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 determined the enh4anced price as of 21 3 20 03 as also[4] 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the Same by 10% per LA APP 784/2005 & connected PageS of 19 4 4 P. 44 4 1 4 4 4 1 the Land Acquisition Act Learnd counsel would concede tkat the reasos given by the. learned Reference Court are not sund, b u t would urge that the two contentions advanced by hm should be considered y this Court as the reasons as to, why Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine tIe fair market, value of lands in village Mundka and BakkawaIa Thirdly, larned counsel would further urge that the four sale deds E>R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, \j 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 89 1997 relied up ' on by UOl would show tfte actual market value of the land and thus learned A cownsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be i considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflectd theleln Is less than the minimupi 4jrice notified by the Government, the price fixatio should be with reference to the IV, minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to tle point of time when the respective notifications were issued uflçèr Section 4 of the Land AcquisItion Act

2 An independeit and alternative argument is aEso advanced by learned counsel for tFe Union The same rests itselflán a decision of Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006(35)DLT231IaiSiI7ghVS UQI a The decision in Jal Sincyhs case (supra) concerns itself • MJIth the determination of the fair market value of land in village alkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000I- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch 1A APP 784-12005 & connected 3 ) \j..as S ) 'tr. •.S.NO. Date Viflage:. Price per Bigha 1: 24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan. 2,15,l60/- for BlOck 16.11:1995.. A & 1;73,500/- for Block B land

2. 11.06.1996 Tikrit Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for Block B land. • 3. 17.12.2002 Tik..ri Kalan. 4.,O[2],85O/- for Block A &. 3,24,850/- for BlockB land -c.....,. - -- - - -------- -.. -.......,.: •,... •.':. •_• - -. 23,3,227 20e acre, as on 17 O62OO[5], Fothe Iand:.s.itü'ted,n. VII'Ie:..; market value s fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigh i e I 20,43,O76 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2O: vi) Appellants and crossobjectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest spr statute and as c'arified in the decision reported as J 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs UQI, for the, ) compensation, paid originallyand as enhaiced b the Reference Court and finally on the sum 2nhanced \ by, the presentudgment and decree r • 1 'vft) The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs viii) All pending applications stand dlsposEd of in terms of the prayers made thereir -i--- r- (PRADEEP 1NANDRAJOG) JLDGE J1Y 08, 2011 1 rrfl L APP 784/2005 & co n nected......