Union of India v. A* Kartar Singh & Ors.

12. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.1997 vide. which agricultural lands in village 'Mundka vere, acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as • was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • • _.----•------------1...... _..Government of NCT Delhi had- fixed the minimum -value for agricultural lands in Delhi i.e., 1.4.1997, but as against the Land 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 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25.2.1997. This was the value fixed for category A land-s and for category 13, lands; with reference to the Values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre.

11 Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/L per acre -and for category Bland the same was determined @8,99,288/- per, acre. - - - - 14. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and -24.9.2003 where-under agricultural lands in village- Mundka and village Bakkarwala 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 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 depressing the same by 10% per - - LA.APP.784/2005 & connected - - - J[3]. annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21-3.2003 as also 24.9.2003. The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive,at the mean figure as, of 21.3.2003,, which I note comes to Z15,92,083,33 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 20,41,000I- per acre.

15. Pertaining to the notification dated ' 17.62005 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-10 gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17.6..2005. insum of Z21,37,01-7.7-5 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,2551- 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. (JO! & Ors,, it was 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-1 whereunder 1 b'gha LA.APP.784/200& connected ' Page 9ofl[9] and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5.8.1996 for a.sale consideration of 4,75,000/-. 38,.000I- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000I- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bighã would come, to 4,46,000I- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel' would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair' market value of agricultural lands in vllage Mundka Was 4,46,000I- per bigha as of.5.8.1996. Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair. market value needs to be determined as of..25.2.1993., 21.3.2003 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 progresively, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum. It is urged that on the same basis, lad price should be determined for th. agricultural -lands in village Bákkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since villag,es 'Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the land in village Mun.dka and Bakkarwaia with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, led matter' being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs 110/ as per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tkri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11.6.196 and 17.12.2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A: land LA APP 784/2005 & connected IS -i.0 and. 1;73,500I for category B land; Z[2],35,850 for category A land and ' 1,90,150!- for category B land;. 4,02,850I- for category A land and 3,24,850i-' for category B land, respectiyeiy.......,

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-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 theyardstick for the reason, to. be a. representativesample 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 What percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method, td 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 cdnclusion 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 reason on Which•. learned counsel would attack the sale ded 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 Setioh 4 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. S ' ' of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Courtare not sound, but would urge that thetwo contentions 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, 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, 46.1997 and 8;9.1997 relied upon by UOI 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 less than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be with reference I to the, minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of timewhen 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 Union. The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this. Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 J5ingh Vs. UO/.

21 The decision in /aiSincjh's 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 big.ha. Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA.AP.P.784/2005 & connected (1as Peition.s 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 fair market value of land in village Bakkarwla as of 15.10.1993 at, 1,32,000I- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively. by 10% per. annum to determihe 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.

22. With.respect to the sale deed Ex.P[4], whereunder bigha and 3 bisw.a of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka a. 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 25.2.1997. It i s a matter of common knowledge that preceding' the publication of:a notification under Secion 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 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 tnpon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2OO5-& ton netted.. E • 14 k •,' if i not uncommon, for persons to purchase acquuU cI IU LI LU, I '- fl-' 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. Futher, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and the principles of sa'mplihg tell me that to be representative of the whole, sample must bear at intelFigible proportion to the whole. Ts, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court,'but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex.P-1 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 sal 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 refle ct a sale price much lower than the sale price 'recorded in Ex.P-L 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. 23; 'Thus, the fair market 'value of the lands would be..requred'to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court in S!ngh'5 Case (supra) or ratap5fngh'5Cae (supra).

24. I highlight that both decisions, penned by' the Division • Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court. -• 25. The decision in j5inqh'5 case (supra) determined fair market value of land. in Village Bakkarwala in sum, of 1,32,000I- er bigha as of 15.10.1993, and the perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' ', w.ould sh'ow that the Court assessed the fair market value 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

26. In Pra tap Singh's 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 Sectiorj 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 Big ha

1. 24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16.11.1995 A & !1,73,500/7 for BlockBland--

2. 11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra • A & 1,90,156/- for • Block B land

3. 17.12.2002 TikrJ Kalan • 4,02,850/- for Block A & 3,24,850/- for Block'B- land 27.:Following the judgment in Pratap Singh case (supra) • I have decided the fair market value for the !and situated in • revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant. • • to notification dated 6.2.2003 in the batch of appeals being Land • LA.APP.784/2005 & Connected Page 15 of, 19 2. Acquisition Appeal No 489/2009, Anr, on 2.6.2011. I have determined the fair, market value ofthé lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425/- 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-b, as 'do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximat to the urban areas of Delhi vI5--Vl[5] Ghevra an T' Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an advaflt9e. Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter. Thus, I hold al.I 4 villages to be equivalents unless qua some land special features can be shown

28. Since the decision in Pratp. 5/nghs case (supra) deals with notifications more proximat in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned,[1] am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine,the fair market value of lands with which I am concerne d in relation to the, fair market value of lands determined in case (supra). As per the decision in Pratp /7g/7i[5] case (supra) for the date 24.7.1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed 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 ] year and 216 y J.e. 581 days. In Pratap Singh case (supra) the annual Increase was determined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to category A LAAPP.784/2OO[5] & connected S '2- • lands, the fair market value, assessed is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. 11,97,162/-per acre and for CategOry Bländs, I assess the: fair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. 9,65,361.60 per acre.

29. The next notification with which I am concerned j dated 22.3.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. In C'h/ran/i La/'5. cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Sincjh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section.[4] of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003; the fair market value assessed was Z[4],03,425/- per bigha This was uniformly applied. Since there is, atime 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 in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i.e. 19,36,440i- pr acre, •which I hereby fix.

30 I propose to deal with the notification dated 24.9.2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17'..6.2005 pursuant 'whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala.

31. As noted hereinabove, in Chiranhi La/s case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425/- per bigha and thus, increasing, the sme by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589!- per bigh, which comes to 23,93,227.20 per pere; • The same is held by me to be the fair market value of lard in Village Mun'dka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17.6.2005. I decree the same. • LA.APP.784/2005 &connected 'S

I. pertaining to, Village 'Bakk.arwala and with reference, 'to the fair market value assessed in chiranhi La/s case,,l'wouid 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. -Z,20,43,076.80 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village BakkarWala as of 24.9.2003. • 33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the lard owners and the cross-objections filed • by the land owners stands decreed as under:- I) For the land falling in Category A land' in Village Mundk•a the fair 'market value is fixed at is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. T 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at '2,01,117I- 'per bigha i.e. 9,65,361.60 per acre,, as on 25.02.1997...' ii)' For 'the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value' is fixed at 4,03,4251- per bigha' i.e. 19,36,440I- per acre, as oh 21.03,2003. iii) For the land 'situated in Village Mundka 'the fair market value is fixed at 498,589/- per bigha i.e. 23,93,22720 per acre,, as on 17.06.2005; iv) - For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair -• market value is fixed at Z[4],98,589I-' per bigha Le. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' '. • 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 1706.2005; v,) For the land situated in Village Ba.kkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,25.641I- per bigha ' i.e. 20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 24.09.2003. vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT. 569 Sunder vs. UQI, for the compensation, paid originally and 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 would also be entitled to proportionate costs. viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein. (PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG) • JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 mm • o / LAAPP.784/2005 & connected