Union of India v. Ram Kanwar & Anr.

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment[7] To be referred to Reporter or not? • 3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? • PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (Oral)

1 I am deciding the above captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of coss objections, all of which have been listect hereinabove LAAPP784/2005&connected Page4ofl[9].[1] 1:•: L riculturat lands.in.the• reve.nur restate ot village lviunCKa were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21 3 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquiition Act as per award No 3/2005-06 as also aiard No 1/2005-06 Further, lands in the revenue estate of the same village were racqjire d 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 vilIge Bakkarvala were acquired pursuant to a notification zdated 24 9 2d03 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as. per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the rever?ue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 62005 (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 Collectok determined the fair market value of the acquird lards, nder an 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 that pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural Aands ir the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned O Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair markt value witFi 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 Pertair'iing to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003, he Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001 nd 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 df lani to be determined in the revenue, estate of viIlage'BaklarwaIa and village Mundka as of 1T.6.2005, the Land Acquisitibn ollecto determined the same with reference to the rpotification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 14 2001 and pave no increase 'L[1] Aggrieved by, the determination of the fair market ialue 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 agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notiftction as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the • S •..-,. -.....-.--. / Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minithum value for agricultural lands in Delhi e 1.4.1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% fo 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 141997 and tne no.ttrication unoer ection 4 Of LH,e LdFKJ /-kcqUlstuorI I-\LL Wd dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for category A lands and for category B lands, with referdnce to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000I- per acre

13 Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market vaLue © !9,89,288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ Z.8,:.99,28'8/-. per acre

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2'003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village 4 Murdka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acqwred, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultur& ioncls 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 determined the enhanced price as of 21'3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court[1] tcok the value notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same jby 10% per' LAAPP784/2005&connected 4 Page8ofl[9] ¶ • II annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21.3.2003, a s,,,also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at wre added nd 1ividd by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 3 2003, w?nch I note comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (mI srne,cecisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For it 4e, date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000I- per 6.cfe.

15 Pertaining t the notification dated: 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands er acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Rfernce Court adopted the minimum price f9r agricultual notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect fçom 1, 4 2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determini tI?e value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-10, v 5% more and determined the fair market value as 17 62005 in sum of, 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,2551- per acre A •

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual 1 scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning ot 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 LIQI & Ors, it was urged by Sh L B R a i, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/200, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who apeared • • •. • • • • •1 I.........• for the other appellants, that the learned Trial judge wa1s not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha, Page 9 0f[1] and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka wa sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75 1 000I- OI 38,00- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the priceof the land would be 5,13,000I[7] and calculated with reference thereto, land price per. bigha would come to 4,46,000/- as of 5 8 196 Learned counsl would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lends in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking thei argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993, 213 2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifications under 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 annum It is urged that on the same basis, land price should be determined for the agricultral lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since \/illages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are Lohtiqu.ou[8] villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is furtI'er towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the vlue of, the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the I & judment and i,decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding batch of Land Acquisiti.bh Appeals, lead matter being: LA Appeal No.1931[2].006Prata Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. 1101 s.:per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in he revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, Ii 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at '2,15,164I- for category A land • ':::. •.•:..... •i: S and l,73,5OO/- for category B land, 2,35,85O fdr category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4O[2],8OI- for category A land and 3,24,850I- for category B land, respectively il 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 ttie sale deed Ex P-i

19 Per. contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned càunsel for the 1 UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, Ao be a representative 1 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 hat percentage of t 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 graifl of ric&! one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 1O0 0/0 full of rice and if that ohe grain happensto be a piece of stone, one would!. ¶ reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stons Atleast a i. fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative i • sample,. is the exanple given.. The stond reason oft whichl, learned counsel wQuldi 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 notifcatton under Section 4 LAAPP784/2005&cornected • -.._-._._.--.:. H I of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede fhat the reasons given by the learned Reference Cgurt are not Sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasors as to why, Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the pair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwal Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the foursale deeds E R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of tie learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds datedj 6 1 1995, 30.5.997, 46.1997 and.. 8.9..1997 relied u.po.n 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 Fonsidered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by, the Government, the price,, fixation should be With referne to the. minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued under, Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

20 An independent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Uniqn The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006(135)DLT231/a/5InghV[5] 110/ 21 The decision in /a,Singh's case (supra) donceirns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at U,32,000/- per bigha Learned counel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuh LAAPP784/2005&connected - - 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 fain market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at l,32,000I- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land Jn village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 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 56/o 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 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, wich 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 khasrai 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 soon there is every likelihood that the lands would be aquiréd. In Delhi, the large., scale a'cquisitibn.:policy.... enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 13of19 acquired and thus, it is not uncon?mpfli for persOns to purct a s e máll parcels of lands in:areas wher[6] acvisi'iOflS are likely to' take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be measure of the fair market value of, taken to be a representative 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 anpling tell me that to be' repreefltiVe of the. whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the cle Thus, not for the reasoning advanced,by the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hltherto-f?re noted, I hold that Ex P[4] cannot be good evidence wherefrom marketi S value of the land could be determined There is an additional 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 pertang to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price ar also ini much lower 'than the sale price recorded in ExP-1 ln fact, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than k even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by! the Government I bet

23 Thus, the fair market value o the klands wud reuired to be fixed either with reference to th decision of thisj Court infaiS/flQL2ca5e (supra) or Pratap[5],nc1h'scaSe(5UPra)

24 I highlight that both decisions, penned by the DivisIOfl S Bench:of thi Court av been upheld by the Suprerne Cout

25 The decision i fat 5ingcaSe (supra) deterifled fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala, in sum of 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the persa! thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page l4of,1'9. i Ic •...,.'.. woJld show that lu the Court assessed the fatr market vae 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