Full Text
Objection)
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar & Ms.Deepika, Advocates
Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate for R-l'
08.07.201L For orders, see LA.APP.No. 78412005.
-*.=11 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULY 08, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:13589 I lIfir L1rf,, t:r'}tl'+..
4f1. ! ,!1";,.' 1' e/o HIGH COURT OF DELHI JAMN.A
Through:
RPPettant Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate' vri.f .s.PulriYa, Advocate' ; I
Mr.D.S.takra, Advbcate' ivl r.K,Sunii, Advocate, Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advoc.ate fuf t..Sf'u'Oa m Farashat' Advocate
Mi. siOO.t'tarth' Pa nda Advocates .Mr.RjaY'Verma, Ms'Kanika nonihotri, Mr,Kunal Sharqa'
' wti.Sum,er Sethi, Mr'B'B'Sharma' Ms.Shobhna Takiar and .Mr'Arun
Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND \ LA,APP. 87gl2oo1, LA'APP' 880-881120051 LA'APP'
L2U2oo6, t43l2oo7 t netatin g J9 f 9.:if icbtio n u/s '4 d ated :
25.O2.Lggl & Award No.2/1999-2'000' Viilage Mundkq)
,,:.ANP,.,,j
-60'412009 '
Through:
I,A.APP. 7sl29;-o, LA.APP. I2LlzoIo, LA'APP 122!2910, tt'l!!ii t25l2}r}, LA,APP, 16412010, LA.APP. 185/20+0, . LA.APP: '''
186/2010, LA. .APP. 200120:10, LA.APP:
' 2381201'0, ' LA'APP"I' 239t12010, LA.APP. 243120\0, LA.APP. 244l2oro, LA'APP;
', , 245l1dt1, LA.APP. 247 12OIO, LA.APP. 25Il2Q1-0, 'LA.APP'. ' '
)ii'troio' Io,ott. z'6tt2ord, Ln.app. ??Il?g*o^, LA'APP'
' zl3lzoto, LA.APP. 27 4l20lo, LA.APP. 275120l.0, LA.APP.
3I2l2OtO, LA.APP. 32412010 , L.A. APP. 326/20L0 ' LA'APP. '
32712010, . LA.APP. 32912010, LA.APP. 330/2010, LA.APP.
33I/2OIO, LA.APP. 332l2OlO, LA.APP. 333/2010 with CM APPL: '
No. 552412OII, LA.APP. 335/2010,' LA.APP. 367 l2AI0, LA.APP.
368/2010, LA.APP. 369l.20l0, LA.APP. 37I/2010 & cM APPL.
No.2009 gl2oI0, LA.APP. 37 4120]-0, LA.APP. 375pAI0, LA.APP'
377 ]2OLO, LA.APP. 37 gl2oro, LA.'APP. 423l2O]-O , LA.APP'
452I2OIO, LA.APP. 46U2OIA, LA.APP. 4,72/2OIO, LA.APP.
69412010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No. 6340120l-1, LA'APP' 1
697 i2OIO, LA.APP. 69812010; & CM APPL' ]-734I2OII' LA'APP' :
70612010 & cM APPL. r72t5l 7oB/2010. LA.4PP. 7o9l2oro, . ffits oa non/n.npP. 7r,312010 with cM.APPL. No.7473120L0i'.':, rj{Tffi01Q,LA.APP.7I7l2010,'LA'A?P,7L9l2010,LA,A|l
766120:10,. LA.APP. 7g6l2oto, LA.APP. 79712010, LA.APP.
7gBl2OIO, LA,APP.
' 7ggl2olo,. LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.APP. i' 819i2010, LA.APP. 82gl2oIO, LA.APP. 831/2010 & cM APPL..j g55I}OLL, LA.APP. B32l2OtO, LA.APP. 833/2010 & cM APPL'." .
63921201],, LA.APP. gzqlzoto, LA..APP. 842/2010, LA.APP'
87:1120L0, LA.APP. Bl4l2olo, LA.APP. 87512070, LA.APP.
87 612010 , LA.APP. 877 I2OIO ,' LA'APP, 87 8I2OT.O , LA.APP, B7gl2OIO, LA.APP. ' 88012010, LA.APP. 881/2010 & CM
APPL.65O 5]2OII, LA.APP. .B82I2OIO, LA.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP.
884j2OIO, LA.APP. 886i2010, LA.APP. 88812010, LA.APP.
889/2010 & cM APPL.22.49l2o7L, LA.APP. 8901201.0, LA.APP.
893/2010 & cM APPL. 675012017, LA.APP. 89412010 &. cM
No.2335 3l2OrO, LA,APP. Bg5l2O10, LA.APP. 896/20IA, LA.APP;
8g7I2OIO' & CM ,APPL.72Bl2OlI, LA.APP. 903/2010, LA.APP. :
LA.APP.7 84/2005 & ronnected "i ,.
T..., t r. r. , ( ? o go7lzouo, ' LA.APP. g3al20:!, LA.AP,P. gzglzoto, IA'APP'
1034/2010 & cM APPL' 3086/201'1' LA'APP' t0'4Q12010 & cM
APPL. 5673120:-I, LA.APP. to+tlzoto, 'LA.APP. 104312010'
LA.APP.IO45]2O10;LA.APP'704'6'/2.OtO'LA'APP']-0'48120l-0'
LA.APP,I04gl2oIO,LA.APP.1050/2010,IA.APP.]-05612010,..
LA.APP. r2512011, LA.APP. 72612011, LA.APP' 258120]-1
'
$ :
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 2L.03.2003 & Awdrd , No.3/2005-06,, Village-M undka)'
AND . .
;
LA,APP. 600/2009, LA.APP ' 60512009, 1A.APP..61512009, LA.APP.'31012010,LA.APP.32512010,LA,APP".37612010,LA'APP'
383/2010, LA.APP. 3B4l2Or0, LA'APP' 385/2010, LA'APP'
473l2OrO, LA.APP. 4g2l2oro, LA'APP. 586/2010, LA'All'
5gLl20lo, LA.APP, .638/2010, LA.APP. 69012010, LA.APP.' ogzlzoto, LA.APP. 71t2o:-o, [A.APP. 71612019, LA.APP.
7 63120t9, LA.APP. 87212010, LA.APP. 87312010, LA;APP.
885/2010, LA.APP.; 8B7I2O:rO, LA.APP: 891/2010, .'LA.APP.
8g2.l2OIO, LA.APP. BTB\2OIO, LA.APP. 906120L0 & cM APPL.
No.4443 l2O1O, LA.APP. 93712010 & CM APPL. 2329912010, LA.APP. IO,42I2O1O, LA.APP, LO47 I2OIO
:
(Relating . to Notification' u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Awaid'
No.1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) a Attto
LA.App. 105 U2010, LA.APP, 1053/2010, LA.APP. 705412010 &
CM " APPL, No.5 656/2011, LA, ,'APP, 1055/2010, LA.APP'
IO57l2oIO, LA.APP. 1058/2010, LA.APP'. 1059/2010, - LA.APP.
1068/2010, LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. I24|20II, LA.AP,P:. r27 12011, LA.APP. r28l20rt, LA.APP. 259120rI
LA.APP.784lzooi a con nected It Page 3 of 1i)
(Relating to Notification uis 4 dated 't,2.06'2005 & Award X .
No.13/20 06-07, Village-Mundka) L/ , AND : : :
LA.APP. 4Ol20Og & Cross Objbqtions., LA.APP. 42612009 '
LA.APP. 42812009, 44212009, LA.APP' ' 6:-112009, LA'APP'
6t6l2oo9,LA.APP.27Bl20r0 , I iRetating to ,Notifitation u/s 4:
No.3/200 4-05, Vi I lage-Ba kka rwa la )
AND.: dated 24.09.2003 & Award I :., LA.APP. ro2sl2}rc & cM No,594 8l2orr, ', 1030/2010, LA.APP.
' 103U20]-0, LA.APP. 1033/2010 tJo.6645l20ll-, LA.APP. .106212010,' 1063./2010
No.6943 I2OII, LA.APP. t06412970, LA.APP. t06612010,, LO67 I2O:-.O, LA.AP P , !T2O11, LA.A PP , T22I2OTI
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 &
No".1/200 6-07 , Village-Bakkarwala) .:
LA.APP.
&CM.:
&cM ,LA.APP..
. ' f} Awa rd f{r} I CQRAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
ORDER
1. Whether the RePofters of:local to see the judgment? papers may.be allowed
2. To be referred to Rdporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment shouid be reported in the Digest? '- PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. l. (Oral)
1. I am deciding the above' captioned appeals and' relatable civil miscellaneous applicatibns which are by way of cross objections; all of which have been, iisted hereinabove. LA.APp-.784/zoos & connected " o.r. 4 of L[9] t of fqlirr I.,] arwafp 't r.{ '.:
2. The present.decis'ion cbnceins issue'of fixation.i markgt value of land in the revenue estate of lillage BaJ<k and village Mundka. I i' '.''
3. The.dates on whi.ch fqir mbrket value,o,f the land has to be determined m.ay be graphically noted as un.der:i a,l I I
S. NO. 1. z.
3.
4. ",
5. 4.'. No.2. hereinabove, pertaining to -village Bakkarwala, is pursuant whereto lands were.acquired in the revenue Date of notification under S.ection 4'of the liA Act:' 24,9.2003 I 77.6.2005 25.2.1997 2r.3.2003 77.6.2005 ': at serial the same estate of Ndmb of Villaoe Bakkarwala Bakkarwala- Mundka Mundka Mundka It may be highlighted that the notification O Village.Mundka; as per serial No.5 above.
5. Abutting NH-t0,'.leading from the city of Delhi to the township pf Rohtak in the state of Harvbnu, arq villages Muncjka,' Ghevra and Tikri Kalan. Village Bakkarwala lies towards*tlre other side of the souitreqn boundary of viil,age Mundka. The difference between the topology of the two villageq is; whereas. the land of village Mundka abuts NH-10, t!at of Village. Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of thej southern boundary of revenue estate of viilage fvundka
6. As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed.first, followed by village.,Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan.:
7. Agricultural lahds' in village Mundka were., acquired LA,APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected,Page5of19. t L D e '...rtA pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.lggi issued qnder Sectibn )Lt 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per'award No.2/19'99/20O0. ii Agricultuial lands in the revenue estate of village Mundlca. were further acquired pursuant tp a notification dated.2I'3'2003 issuedunderSection4ofthe.LandAcquisitionActdSpe[:dward No.3/2005-06 as also award No,1/2005-06. Further lands. in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant io u notification dated 17.6.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land'. Acquisition Act as per Award No' 1312006:'-07 '
11. Aggrieved by the deterrmination of the ffir market. value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collectoii the land.owners sought a ieference under Section 18 'of, the Land. Acquisition Act' I8g[4] and. on the reference being rnade, vide.various judgments and decrees, which are un,der,challenge in 't ' the above pgptioned appeals, the Reference Court' took corrective action, as per the view. of the Reference Court, ald enhanced the fair market value,. ' 't f In a nut shell, pertaining to the notificatioh.dated.,., 25,2,Igg[7].vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference court adopted.the s.ame. notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition collector under which the t, I 12: LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected PageT oft[9] t.|,'.. Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for tt agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. l'4.7997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 1L5%;for.full one year; adopting the percentage 11,5, decreased the value by only 34 days inasmirch as the date with reference. whereto.Government had.notified the minimum value was'1.4.tr997 and the notification under,section 4 of the Land Acquisition'Act waS dated.25.2.Igg[7], This was the.value fixed for category A lands and Io, category lands;. with reference to the values for category R lahd depressed the same by t90,000/- per acre'
13. ' Thus, fgr category A, lands the Reference, court determined the fair market value @ {9,89,288^ pbr acle and for category B land the same wa-s determined @.18,99,2881- per:.. acre. i
14. ng'ftaining to the notifications.dated 2L.3.2003 and 24.g.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and '. villagb Bakkarwala respectively, were acluired' the'Reference.-' Court. took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Dethi'as ofr L.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. I t,' as of L[4].zoo[1] and inireasing th g the same by I0% Per annuin t' determined. the enhanced price as.of 21.3.2003 as, also 24.g.2003. Thereafter the Reference Cpurt took.the value'-. notified as of 30,8.2005 and depressinj the same by I0% per ' LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected. Paee 8 of 19 i c-t, f i', v annum determined the sum arrived at as of 2L'3,2003 as also ' 24.9.2003. The two sums'arfivedrat were addeQ and..divided by two to arrive at the mean figu.re'as of 2L[3].2003,'whph I note ',: acre (ln some detisio'ns I'inote the' comes to. t15,92,083.33 per acre (ln SOme Oec.lslo.ns I "IruL.,rrn,.arrived at is tLS,g[2].,215/-)' For the date 24'g'Poo: the' price deterrnined was {20,41,00b/- per acre'
15. Pertainin'g to the notification da[ed' 1.7'.6'2005 t' pursuant whereto agricultural lands we.re, acqUirgd A village:. Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Refe.rence Courtr adopted the minimum price for agricultural ' lands 'notified. by ttre. Government. of NCT Delhi with effect"from 1.4.'2001 arld giving;6+ increase @10% per annum determined the value ipnd with respect to the lands in villa.ge rurrnoka, on aciount of l$cational 'advantage, being abutting NH-10 gave 5% m{ie, til determined the faii market value as of 17.6'2005.inf qum of,'.., <2I,37,0I[7].75 per acre and'fof village'Bakkarwala the priqq determined was {20,35,2551.- per aFre 16, In the aforesaid backdrop of the.factual sce.riario'in.. which I have. penned profiled.the reasoning of t$re 'Land Acquisition Collector as a.lso that of the Reference,CouiB: t delve into the arguments advanced before me during heaiing;r.tpd3y' tt. ' With reference' to the evidencq led. in' LnC No.384/2 004 lAmna Vs. UOl & Ors., it was urged by Sh,'L.B.Rai, ' learned counsel for the app.ellant in LA App.No,78!12Q05, which J.argument was -adopted by other iebrned.counsel'who dppeared for the other appellants, that.the learned lrial'J4g",wdp not:, justified in ignoring tf e sale deed fxip-f whereunder: 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & conrlected ' Page 9 of i[9] '.:l i. )1 \: and 3 biswa of agricultural land in villa,ge Mundka was sold as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of {4,75;000/-.' {38'00bi"was incuired towards sale duty and thus.the price of the land would.. be T[5],13,000/- and calculated with reference th'ereto, land price per bigha Would come'to T[4],46,000/- as of 5.8.1996..' Learned counsel.would urge that there is ho reason not to hold that'fair' market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka *aq,'' T[4],46,000/- per big,ha 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, 2I.3.2003 and 17.6;2005, i,e. the dates when notificatiSns under'.,section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued p,ursuant".i 'whereto agrrcultural lands were acquirdd in village Mundka,'by increasing the price progressively, if not by 12%.p.er annum at leasq,by,I0o/o per annum.,lt is urg.o that 9n th[9] samq basis,'. t'ds in land price'should be dete.r:mined for the agr:icultural lar I village Bakkarwal.a. Alternatively, it was. urg,ed,that since villages.Tikri Kalan,, Mundka. and Bakkarwa.la are co.ntiguous.' villages, and in fact village Tikri t<'alan is further towards the township of iohta'k, some increase'be made in the value of the lAnd in village Mundka and Bakkarwala. with reference to tl". judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 decid.ing a'-batch of Land Acquisitioh Appeals, lead matter being: LA Appt3al No.193/ 2006 prdta Sinah (beceased' Thr. t-Rs Vs. l/9/. as per which fair mlrket 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 t[2],I[5],L641- for catego'ry'A land ' ' Piee ro 6f lg LA.APP.784/2005&conhected -: a:l t'r '14 and {1,73,500/- fqr category B land; 't[2],35.,.850 for cate.gory A" land ahd t[1],90,150/-' for category B land;.T[4],02,850/- for ca'tegory A land and <3,24,8.501- for category B,land,. respectively.
18. y. 'i I may note here that in.various. land acquisition references, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds..executedfromtimetotime,butduringargumentstqdaybefore:. rrt€, learned counsel for the land owners'have only relied upon the sale deed E*.F-l. 19, ' per contra,, Sh,Sanjay poOdar learned counsel for the UOI would urge.that the sale price as per Ex'P-,[1] cannot' be: adqpted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a represbntative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some, adequate proportion to the whole. Fo'r example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether yvhit perce.ptage of stones ur" r,*Jo;;;t or r,.. it woutd.noi o" a safe'meihod to pick oniy one grain, for if it happens to Oe the grain of rice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100%full of rice and if that oT" grain"happens to be a pibce of stone,'ohe would reach to the conclusion that the.bag is full of stohes' At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a reirresentative sample, is. the example given. The second rea'Son on Which i, i learned counsel 'wo.uld attack the sale deed as not being liepresentative of the price is the reason that peopl'e do tome td' ': know about pending a.cquisition inasmuch.as before a-Cquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed.' Without a'survey it ln tHe notititation 'under,section 4'; would be difficult to issue even the notlrlcat LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' Page 11Jof 19 " '..) b ti of the Land Acquisition Act. Learn.ed.cou'nsel woul'd conce'de: that the. reasons iiven 'by the learned Referencq Co;urt, are'.npt Sound, but would urge that the.two lontentions advanced by 'l.'. I I him should be considered'by this Court as the reasons as to why '. ''. I Ex,P-1 be not taken as the basis to detOrmine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka'and.Bakkarwala.. Thirdly, " I, learned counsel would further Yrg" that the four sale deeds' Fx.R-3- to R-4 referred.to in th[9] decision of the learned' t Reference Court pertaining to.sale deeds. datedi 6.1.1995,..,.
30.5. Igg[7], 4.6.Igg[7] and.8.g.lgg[7] relied upon by -Uol would show the actual market value of the land and'thus lebrned counsel would' urge that the said four salb deeds should be cgpsi$ered,,but.ha.stenstoadd.,,thatsinceva|ueref|ected therein is less than the miniinum price notified by- the Government, the price fiiation should be with reference. to the minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to ' ' the point of time when the respective notifications were- issu'ed underSection4oftheLandAcquisition.Act.,.:'
20. An independeht and alternative argument is' also. advanced by leArned coUnsel for the Union. The Same rests:,^-*^:' 'r,on of a Division Bench'of this court reported.as., '' itself on a decir 2006 (135) DLT 23I lai Srnoh Vs. UO/. Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant "!o a. notification dated 1{5.10.19?3 at tl,32,000/- per bigha. Learned counsel ',would urge tnat lhe said decision has attained finality inasmui:h LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected 'i t.,).,[1] f I,:.'.[1] i l.) /4 to fppeal filed 'before the'Suprern'e' Court fiy either side have been dismissed. Lea'rned counsel takes the arg,ument forward by urging that by adopting the faii.,l iand in viilage Bakkaryala as qf 15.10.1993 at, mar(et value ol land In vlllag T[1],32,000/- ' pet bi9ha, the fair market value ' should be ascertained by increa.sing the price'progiessively by r0% per ' annum to determine the market value of land '.in viilage Bakkarwala as of Zq.g.2O03 as also !7'6'?005' LearneQ counSel' '. i,ret in view of the iocation'al advantage of village would urge tr,.. Mu.ndka, fair market value of land'in village Mun.dka should be determined as of 25.2.Igg[7], 27.3.2003.and 17.6.2005, "by giving ' 5o/o increase
22. WithrespecttothesaledeedEx.P-l,whereunderl t-,a,^,i ^, ^.,r,.'rltt tral land /illage bigha and 3 bibwa of agricultural land wds;sold in \.; iL, Mundka as of 518.1996, it would assume impoitance' that the sale is about.T months prior to the date of the notification issued, under Section + oittre Land.Acquisition Act, which was [5sued on
25. Z.lgg[7]. lt is a matten bf common knowiedge that preceding rh'of a notification'under $gctioh.+ of tne tun[1], Acquisition.Act, surveyis are carried 9ut with the object of determining. as to what l'ands, cornprlsed in 'which khasra' numb.ers ahd fields are requifed t: be notified ior the proposed acquisition aryd when this happens people in the area'come tp know that "t'roon tfiere is every'likelihood that the' land! would be acQuired. In Delhi,'the large scale acquisitibn policy enjoins upon the Government to allot,'at pre'determined rates' a ': r 'l '!:- nes whose lands are ' plot of.devgloped residential lanQ to the o 'tp,.npp.leq/ ?-005 & connected '.. '.' page is oi rg q '"t _l.-L rl t t' ",,, '.'.,..::, acquired and thus', it is.not uncommon' for persons to purchasg small parcels of lands in a!'eas where acquisitions'are 'ikely to' takep|ace;tt..'"L".transactionsal,.especu!ativeandca1n"o..b"taken to be a representative measure ot'n: fair ma.rl-"t YuLut,.:t ' land as on the'date of:th'e sale' Further' the principles of ratio.' ' PrinciPles of averages " a'nd thb':' and proportion as also the prlnclples. {rl prin.ipr"s of sampling telt me that to be representative of the whble, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion,to, the "" whole. Thus, not fcjr the, reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for t$e twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted' I hold that Ex.P-1 canndt be-good'evidence w.h'erefrom market ",.,"ofthe|andcou|dbedetetmined..Therei9a,nadditional reasonnottorelyuponthesaidgaledeed.ThesaIedeeisEx.R. ltoEx.R-4,dated9'1'1995'30'l'Lgg7'4'6'],gg7and.!'9'1997.;",[}; o;r;;"rn'ro Virase 'u{$.,or.u and refrect a sare price' I;;.;;;*u,.,i-.;" sare or'." iil!.oro.d in Ex.P'l; tn ract, th€..t [l Llle )clrs '[-- '- t.].^thesaid4saleoe.eosaveragesrnuch|ess.than sale Prlce In '1--even,the minimum price ior agri&ttural tan$ in Delhi notified by ti the Government'
23. Thus, the fair market value of the lands *o'''1..0.: required to be fixed eilner; with reference to.the decision of this ' Court xn lai Sinah'scase (supra) ur Pratap'5inah','s case,(supra)' '
24. '' I highlight that both decisions' penned by the DiVision BenchofthisCourthavebeenuphe|dbytheSupreme'Court.
25. Thedecisionin|aisinah,scase(supra)'determined fair market value.of' land i.n Village Bakkarwala 't it:q:: T[1],32,'000/- per bigha as of '15'10'1993' and the 'perusal thereof T LA.APP.78412005 & connected; fage !4 of t[9]: i'. 'i t- I would,show"that the Cou$ assessed Fhe fair' n'rarket value with. reference to sale deeds"executed bEjtweefu the yearF L990 till.:., l'..i. L the year f dgO either in Village rTikri Kalan or Viliage Mundka, ' apparentl'y'on the premise that being contiguous yillagers, sale.aiprice of agricultural land in the 2 adjbining villages would be indicative of fair.market value of land in Villqge Bakkarwala'.
26. In Pratap Sinah's case (supra), the Division Bench'.:r was concerned Wittr agiicultural lands in Tikri Kalan,and aniothei. adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various noti,fications issued uF"t Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair mbrket value of agricultural lands in Village.: Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:-
S. NO. Date Village Price per Bigha,
2. 11.06.1996 Tikri Kblan & Ghevra t[2],35,815/- for'Block A & {1,90,1564 for Block B land ',.
3. T[7].72.2002 Tikri Kalan <4,02,8501- for Block A & {3,24,85 Ol- for Block B land::':, '.:
27. Following'the judgment in Pratap Sinahts case (supra) i I have decided the fair m.arket yalue fqr the' l:and sitrjated in' revenue estate of Villa.ge Ghevra, which Was acguired pursuant to notification dated 6.2.2003 in the batch of appeals bei'ng'Lahd LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected.; t.; i. < t -/ ) /rY (-/ Rcquisition Appe.al No'48912009' Ct,-;;..;;;;;l' t'u"" determined the t"',;,11-,T:H:t^:", lands in Viilage Ghevra at {4,03,4251- per bigrrg as, of 6'2'2003'; on the issue of comparabilitv.of land in villase t:*::i:': *'tn village Mundka, Ghevral and Tikri Kalan, it is'no dorgbt tiue that whereas village Bakkarwa|a does not.abut rrrH-r0,. aS,do th"..,. othervillages,butitha:tobe.highlightedthatitismore proximatetoth'eurbanbreasofDelhivis-d.vis.Ghevra,andTikri s, has an ad.van-!ug"' Kalanandtothatextent'quasaid2village: Since exactness can neve,r be achieved in the mattefs of assessingfaircompensation,itisthebroadprobabi|itiesand'. similarities which'matter'. Thus' I hold atl 4 ""'u?'u::1.^:: SllTlllclllLlEr vvr r '3ss qua some land special features ti.-l be shown' equivalent,un|esSqud:"':::^.:,,:^"";,-,;'nCt
28. since the decision in ry^:i:^t:L *n. zo, J||.|v.' proximate in point of.time to the deals with notifications more r of the opinion that. notificatiorrs with which |.u* concerned' I an it would be just, fair and proper to detertnin:, t:e^ -til::t::: lr wuurLr tJt- rv' 'l'relation to' the fair' value of lands with 'which I am concerned ir,, -Lr-.^;^^-r in DrareD Sinah[3] case (supra)' 'ned in PrataP Sinah's case' market value of lands determt Irrol NsL "-'-- -' ' ' Sinoh's case'(supra) for the date As per the decision in PrataP --!:^A ^.c6ccarl WaS::::'.:: "*, Js fair cornip€nsation assessed was 24,7.1995, for c.ategory o 'untrr,500/_ per bigha fo,r calegory B {2,15,1601- Per'bigha and {1';;;:';;; orr.-riotirication with which r an concerned isr zs,z'lgg[7] whereunder iands in Village Mundka Were acquired, The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 da'vs i'e' 58,[7] -llll^]l Itre Lrf rrs Jvq'r te annual increase ryu, determined, pratan Sinoh's case (supra) the annuat tnc.re.' to be L0% per annum (flat)" Tlrus' pertaininn:o'C'ut"g-:ry A Pbge 1.[6] of 19 A.APP.l Aq/2O05 & connected )t ^^ t-' t,': lands, the fair market value assessed is42,49,408'75 pqr b'igha i.e; t[1] !,97,1621- per acre and for categor:y B leinds, I assess the fair market value at {2,0 I,Il-7l- 'per bigha i'e' {9'65'361'60 per acre.: 29, The next notification with whith I am concern'ed is dated 21.3,2003 O"nt ning to Village Mundka ' tn.Chiranii 'td/;S cas(supra),withreferencetothedecision,inPratapsinah'|case., (supra), for agricultura,l.lands in Village Ghevra p'eftaining. to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Lan"d Acguisition Act' on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed wbs"<4,0.3,4,25/- per bigha. This. was unifdrmly ap.plied. Since there is a'time gap ol ' ')n that Pertaining to just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinic: the notification dated'. 21.3.2003, fair rnarket value of land in Village Mundka should be t[4],03,4251- i.e,. t19,36,4401- p'er acre' which I herebY fix.'
30. I propose to deai with the. n 'olificatio-n, dated 24"g.2003, after dealing.with the notification dated 17"6'2005 pursuantwheretoagriculturallandsWereacquirgdinVi||age.. Mundka and Village Bakkarwala' 31..As noted hereinabove, in Chiran.ii Lal,s case.,(s}rpra); pertaining to the notification dated 6,?'2003, fair m.a.rket.uu:u".' aSSessedoyme,WaST[4],03,425l-pe.rbighaand.thus,increasing. the same by Lo% for Zyears and 131.days, the figure comes to ' '. t[4],98,589/- per bigha, wirich comes to t23 '93'227'20 per Acfe' TheSameishe|dbymetobethefair.marketva|ueof|andin Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of L!'q'2005' I decree the sanle.: LA.APP.784/2oo5&connected.,,'..o,':L7of'Lg,,.*'.l.. Iamleftwilh'the'notiiication.dated,24,9i2003 l\ 32. perfaininE to Village B.ak(arwala and with reference to thb fair market value assessed in chiran.tli Lal's case, I would.re,qujre to appreciate the price by 10% per annum fo.[1] a period o;f:z}t days' the figure comes to <4,25,6411- per bigha'i.e. {20,43,076'80 per' acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village g'akkarwala as of 24'9'2003
33. AccordinglY,.the app.eEls filed by the Union. of''lndia require tb,be dismissed and l.hereby dismiss tl'1e sarhe' The' appeqls filed by the land.orynersi,and the cross,-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:i)ForthelandfallinginCategoryAIandinVil|age Mundka:the fair 'market value is ' fixed at is <2,4g,408.75 pdr. b'igha i'e' T.:11, 97 '!'621per flcre uld. for category B lalnds, the fai[4], market value ls'fixed at '{2,01,II71- per bigha i'e' T[9],65'361'60'per ac5"' 'i,: ) t '! t I [, I ! i,t{ t'if I i.'n 25.02.1997 vl | ' ii) For the land situated in Village Mundka th'e fair' ' markbt value is fixed at t4'03 '4251.per bigh'a i'e' {19,36,4401- per acre,, as ol 21'03'2003' iiii) For the land situated in Village Mundka;the fair ixed at 14,98,5891: Per bigha i'e' {23, 93,227":20 per acre, as on I[7] '06'20b5-" ' iv) For'the land situatedmarket value is fixed LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected r in Villaqe BakkarwPla the "t' at {4,98,589i: b'"t'bigha,, Ta tr t.€.: I t t I n. t23,93,,227.20 per.u.t:, as 9n 17:06.tq?f,'':,.:.t;,.,, v) For the land,situated in Village Bakkarw,ul-,the fbir ' ma rket va iu'e is fixed at 74,25';paU- tff big ha i'e' |' {20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 24,09.2003;. 'i "1: vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who hav[6] succedfled would also be entitled to solatium 'and interest bs per ' statute 'and.a[5] clarified in. the decision 1epor,!eQ' as. 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. (/O/,.fof' the compensation, paid originally and as'enhancbd by the Reference court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and d.ecree..;. i i' vii) The appeilants '.and cross-objectors who su'cceed ' 'L ',,woulda|sobeentit|edtopropoftionatecosts.,i.,.. 't applications stand disposed of in terms of t I t viii) All pending the Prayers made therein. ' ) -, r--xsr-sfle-4 ^A' I\ [] ':..w' (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDG.E.J lul-y [mm 08, 2011 ) il!' LA.APP.784/200F & connected I