Union of India v. Narain Singh & Ors.

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 To be referred to Reporter or not 7

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? • PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral)

1 I am deciding the above captioned appeals and reIatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove LA APP 784/2005 & connected k • ••.--.•-.7.- Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the m inimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997, but as against te Lance Acquisition Collector depressingthe 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 a ndi. te notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for category, A lands and for category B lands, with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000I- per acre

13 Thus, for category, A lands the Reference Court determned the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- p er acre

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwa!a respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultjral lands in Delhi as of 14 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':'meah •." average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value 4 as of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21.12003 2003 as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30 8 2005and depressing the same by, 10 0/0 per annum Aetermined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 1he two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean fi9ure as of 21 3 2003, which I note comes to 15,92,083 33 pier acre (In some decisions I note the sum rrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000/- per acre

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minmum price for agricultural lands notified by. the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 a,nd 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-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255I- 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 UQI & Ors, it was urged by Sh LB Rai, learned counsel for the aooellant in LA Aoo No 784/2005 which 6nd 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was s6ld 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'Z 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, Fand price per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- 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 village Mundka was 4,461000/- 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 2.190341. 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, 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 byj 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 since villages 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 Mundka and Bakkarwak with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of • Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs 1101 as per which fair market 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 2,15,164/- for category A land LA APP 784/2005 &connected C I- LJ:_i::±:±L -.-.----. --------- Acquisition Appeal 1.io 4S9/2009, Chra pu La! vQpjQnLuii.diL& the fair market value of the Anr on 2 6 2011 I have determined lands in Viljage Ghevra at 4,03,425I- per bigha as of 6.2.20Q[1]. 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-10, as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-vls Ghevraafld Tikri IKalan a n d to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an advantage Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compens[7] it is the broad probabil ities and ation similarities which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be equivalent[7] unless qua some land special features can be shown ' 28 Since the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determihed in Pratap 5inq[5] case (supra) As per the decision in±rata 5inq case (supra) for the date m 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair copensation assessed was 2,15,160!- per bigha and 1,73,500I- per bigha for Ctegory,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 1 year and 216 days t e 5sLdays In (supra) theL7I7Ia/iI2aeaSe was determined Pratap 5inqh case to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, peaining to CategO A the notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425/- i e 19,36,44O/- per acre, which I hereby fix.310. I propose to deal wttI the notification dated 24 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17j[6] 2005 pursuant whereto agncultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Vil'age Bakkarwala