Union of India v. Subodh Jindal & Anr.

3. Whether the judgment should bereported. in the. Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I. (Oral)... 1..1, am deciding the above, captioned appeals. and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections; all of which have been listed herinabove.. - LA.APP.74/2005 &cnnected........ The present decision concerns issue of fixatibn of fair market value ofland inthe revenue, estate of VillageBakkarwala and village Mundka The dates On which fair market value of the land has tobedetermined may be graphically noted asunder:-. S.No. Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act Bakkarwala 24.9.20.03 Bakkarwala 17.6.2005 Mundka. '. 252.1997. MUndka,. 2112003. Mun'dka. 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 estat of Viflage Mundka; asper serial No.5 above..........

5 Abutting NH-b, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages i1un'dka., Ghevra and T:kri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern bouhdary of villge Mundka. 'The diffrence between the topology of the to iillaes is; whereas the land of village Mundka àbuts.NH-10, that of village • •• Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue' estate of villageMundka. As we prgceed fromthe city of Delhi to the township • of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village ' Ghevra and then village TUri 'Kalar. •.• I ' 7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired •. LA.APP.784/2005 & cdnnected • •. • Pages of 19 pursuant to a notification dated 2.5.2.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award, No.2/ 1 999/2000. Agricultural lands in.the revenu'e estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21.3.2003 isued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award Nb.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/20.05-06. Futher Ianis in the revenue estate of the sarile village were acquied pursuant to a • notification dated 17.6.2.005. 'issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006-07. •. 8.. Agricultural lands in, the revenue, estate of.villàge Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a not ification dated. 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per 'Award No.3/2004-05. Furtherlarids in. the revenue estate, of the same village were acquired purSuant to a.notifica'tiQn daed •. 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which' lands in village - Muhdka Were acquired) as per aard'No.1/2006-07.... In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Colletor determined the fair market value, of the acquired lands, undleit, al,l the awards, with reference to the mininum pricefor agri'cultiral. land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi. ' • •..' For clarity I may note that petainin tb 'th: -: notification dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural '.land$' in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acuisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural la'hd notified With effect from 1.4.1997 @ 10 lacs per acre and since the dat • of Section 4 notificatiOn was anterior in point of time, discounted • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. •, •., ' • 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 f.urher 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 th.e minimUm price of agricultural land as of 1.4.2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the thir market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21.3.200.[3] and 24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the notification datd 17.6.2005. which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collecor determined the same with reference to the notification fixiig 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 Iad owners sought a reference under Sectiorn:18 of the Land' Acquisition Act 1894 and, on the reference being made,. vie '. • various judgments and decrees, which are under' challenge lin the ' ab,ove captioned • appeals, the Reference' Court took corrective actiOn, as per the view of the' Referene "Court, and S 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 CbUector uflder which L, • LA.A'PP.784/2005 & connected '. '.,. ' ' - - -. _ - - - Government of NCT beihi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997; but as against the Land- 'Acuisition 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 'ialue was' 1.4.1997 and- - the notification under Section 4 of the Lahd Acquisition Act vs/as - - dated 25.2.1997. This was the value - fixed for-category Alands • and for ctegory B lands; with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,0001- per acre. -

1.3. Thus-, for catgory;A lands the - Reference- Cpurt •- determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/ peracre and for category 8. land the same was determihed @.8,99,288/- per - - acre.

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated, 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarvala respectively-were acquired, the Referec - - 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.rice notified b' the Government of -CT - Delhi, the Reference Court adopted - the principle of man average. What the RefernceCdurt 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, took the value- notified as Of 30.8.2005 and depressig the same by 10% per •. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected - - - -. -- • annum determined the sum arrived at as of 213.2003 as also 24.9.2003. The two sums árrivedat wereadded and divided by • two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.12003, which I note come's:to 15,92,083.33 per acre. (In some decisions t note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24.9.2003 the price determined as 20,41,000./ peracre.. Pertaining to•• • the notification dated 176.2005. pursuant whereto agricultural lands, were acquired in 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-JO.gave 5%. more and determined the fair market value as of 17.6.2005 insum of 21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the pice determined was 20,35,2551 per.acre.. In the. aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have 'enned profiled the 'reasoning, of the Land Acquisition Collector a also that of the Reference Court, ld&ve intdthe arguments advacedbefore m.eduringhearing tod,a. ' With reference to the evidence led, in LAC NO.384/2004 Jamna Vs. LIQI & Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, o learned counsel for,the appellant in LA. App.No.784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appered. for.the other appellants, that the learned Trial judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereunder 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & connected •. • and 3 biswa of ariculual land in villagMudka was sQld as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration Of 4,75,000I-. 38,000I- was incurred towrds sale duty 'arid thus the price of the lnd would •. be 5,13,000I- and calculated Wfth. reference thereto, land price per, bigha would come to 4,46,000I as of 5 7 8.1996 Learned counsel'wQuld urge that there is ho reason not to hold t.hat.fair •... market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka wa ' •. 4,4600OI- per bigha as of 5.8.1996. Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fai market value needs to be determined as 'of.25.2.1993, 21.3.2003 and 1.7.6.2005, i.e. the dates when notifications under Section 4 'of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pusuan whereto agricultural lands were acquired Jn 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 agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it 'was urged that sincr villages 'Tikri Kalan,. Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguou villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the •township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the 'ialu,e of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference.tothe judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of • Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter, being LA Appe?!.. No.193/2006 Pratap Sihgh Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs..001 a's per which fair market value of land, per, bigh; was determined in, the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11.6:1996 and 17.1.2002 at 2',15,164/- for category A• lànd LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. '.' Page.10of19, ' ard 1,73,500/ for category B land; 2,35,850 for category A • land and U,90,150/- for category B land;.4,02,850I-. for, category A land and 3,24,850I- for category B land, respectively..........'. • 18. I may. •note here that in various land 'acquition 'references, various paties'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 E.P-1...'..•.

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 urge that if it has to be determind 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 th.e conclusion that the bag is •fulI of 'stones. At leasta fistful should be lifted and then 'checked as a representative sample, is- the example. given. The second reason on which • learned counsel would. attack the sale. deed as not. beirg • representative of the price is the reaso.n 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 & éonnected'. ' of, the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not spünd; but would uge that.the.two contehtions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex.P-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, lea'rned 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 daçed 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997 P 4;6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOl would show the actual market value of the !nd and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be. considered, but hastens to add., that since, value reflected H • therein is less than. the 'minirhum price notified by. the Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to; • • •th,e point of time when the' respective notifications were, issued', uflder Section 4of the Land Acquisition Act.

20. • • An independent. and,alternative argument is also • • advanced 'by learned coLinsel•for the Union. The, same rests itself on a decision of a Division.Benh of, this Court reported as 1 H • 2006 (135) DLT231/ai5Ingh Vs. UQI. •... •. • 21 The decision lal case (supra) concerns 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 1,32 000/- per bigha Learned counsel •. 'would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch A.APP.784/2005 & copneted • •..: • • •. • as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismfSsed. Learned: counsel takes the argument foward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15.10.1993.t 32,000/- er bigha, the fair, market value. should be. ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% pr annum to deterine' the market value. of land in viIlae ' Bakkarwala 'as of 24.9003 as also. 17.6.2005. Learned coune would urge that in view of the locational advantage of viIlae Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka shoild..e determined as of 252.1997, 213.2003 and 17.6.00'5, by giving 5% increase....... 22. With respect to thesale deedEx.P-.1, whereunder 1 ' bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was• sold in ViIlge Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance that t h e sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification ssied under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was ssuedon 25.2.1997.It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication o a notifi'cat,ion under Sectio.n 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 reuired to be ndtified for the propoed acquisition and whep this happens 'people in.the are come to S 'know that very soon' there is every li.elihood:that the. lads.would be acquired. In Delhi, the large,scale. a'cqisition poIicy 'enjoins upon the Governmnt to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential.land to theones whose lands are LA.APP.'784/,2005 & connected' '' '.., acquired and thus, it Is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where a"cquisitiOflS 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. 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 Court in JjSingiLca5e ( supra) or ftai[9] SIngh'5ca5e ( supra) I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court

25 The decision in j j Singhca5e ( 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, S.1'JO. Date Village..• Price per'Bigha 24.07J995 & Tikri Kalan 2•,15,1601- for Block 16.11.1995.... A&•1,7;5oo/ for Block B land 11.06.1996 Ti.kri Kalan &2,35,815I- forBlok G h èv ra A & 1; 90, 156/. fo -...... BlockBlarid..: 17.12.2002. Tikri Kalan.. !4102,850/- for Block A & Z32.4,850/- fOr Block B land would show that the court assessd the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 199 till the year 1996 either, in Villge Tikri Kalari or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise tiat being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages w9yld' be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwalp.

26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Beflch was concerned With agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and anotier adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to van?us notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition hAct determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in ViIlge Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - Acquisition Appeal No 489A2009, Ch on 2 6 2011 I have determined the fair market value of the Aor. lands in Village Ghera at 4,03,425I- per bigha as of 6 2 2003 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-lU, as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more areas of Delhi vis-a-VIS Ghevra and proximate to the urban Tikri 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 be similarities which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages to equivalent[1] unless qua some land special features can be shown

28 Since the decision in Pratap inq/7i. case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of. time to the notifications with whichi am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to d-etermine,the. fair market m concerned in relation to the fair value of lands with which I a market value of lands determined in Pratap 5igL case (supra) As per the decision inPratap 5IngJf case (supra) for the date

24. 7. 1995, for Category A lands fair, compensation assessed was 2,15,160Iper bigha and.1,73,500/- per bighaforCategorYB land. The first notification with which. I m concerned Is 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired The time spah sweeps 1 year and 216 dai.e. 581 days. In Prata 5ingh case (supra) the anuI in rease was determifld to be 10% per annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Ctegory A lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 per btgha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category,B lands, I assess the fair tharket value at 201,117/- per bigha i.e. 9,65,361.60 per • acre..

29. The next notification with which. I am concerned_Ls dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In ChiraaLLLaL I S cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.21003, thefair market valUe assessed was 4,03,425/- per bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21.3.2003, fair market value of land jin Village Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i e 19,36,440I- per ace, • • which I hereby fix: • 30: I • propose to deal with the noificatiOh datbd 24.9.2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 l lapds were acquired in Village pUrsuant whereto agricultura • Muhdka and Village Bakkarwala.. • 31 As noted hereinabove, in Ch,ran,/La/'5 case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425I- per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure come to 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 per ocre. The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17.6.2005. I dc,ree thesame. •. LA:APP.784/2005 & connected • e[3] I am left with the notification dated 24 9 2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair • market ialue assessed in h!rai7ii Lal's case, I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days, the figure comes to T[4],25,641I per bigha i.e. 20,4,076.80 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003.

33. AccordinglY 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 deceed as under:- For the land falling in Category A land in Village Mundka tN[2] fair market value is fixed at is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. 11,97,16I- 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 or the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425/- per bigha i e 19,36,440I- per acre, as on 21.03.2Q03.. • iii) FOr the land situated in Village.Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha i.e. • 23,93,227 20 per acre, ason17.O[6].2005 iv) For the land situated. in Village Bakkarwala the fair • market value is fixed at 4,98.,589I- per bigha i.e. •