Union of India v. Ramesh Chandra

2 The presentdecision concerns issue of fixation of fafr market vale of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwai and viltage Mundka

3 The dates on, which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under - S No Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act

1 Bakkarwala 244.2003 2 Bakkarwala 17 6 2005 1 Mundka.. 25:2.1997

4 Mundka 213.2003.

5. H •. Mundka. 17.6.2005..

4 It may be highlighted that 'the notification at serial S No 2 herinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenueestate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryaga, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundaryof village Mundka The difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of, village Mundka abuts NH-b, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut, being on the other side of the • Southern boundary of rvenue estate of village Mundka S 6 As we proceed from the city of, Delhi to the township of Rohtak, vilae Mundka is crossed ñrst, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan 7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA APP 784/2005&connected Page 5of19.1... •.,......-.--.. -. ---. Government of NCT Dethi had fixed the minimum v&ue 1or,•,•. •,,}. aricuItural lands in Deft i.eg. 1 4 1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depvessing the price © 11 5% for1full one year, adopting the peçntage 11 5, decreased the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notif!qc the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for categoryA 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 determined the fair market value © 9,89,288/- 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 241.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference the fact that aer the Government had Court took note of ft 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 10 as of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced pric1e as of, 21 12 as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Cout took th.[6] value I notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per, LAAPP784/2005&connected Page8f19 annum determined the sum arnved at as qf 211.[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 Z15,92,08333 per acre (Irt some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24.9. 2003 te price determined was 20,41,000I- per acre

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17,.,.61.2065. 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 a n d giving. increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in villageMundka, on account of locational S advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of, 17 6 2005 in sum of U[1],37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala thee price determined was 20,35,255/- 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:ri LA App No 784/2005, which argument was adopthd 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-i whereunder 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 9 of. 19 and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the pr'ice of the land would be 5,13,000I- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of 5.8.1996.[1] Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- 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, 21.12003 2003 and 17.6.2005, i e the dates when nqtifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant S 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 basi, land price should be determined for the agricultural Jands 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 Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment and decre dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of. • Land Acquisition Apea!s, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Sincjh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs LIQI as per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determir?ed in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at Z 2,15,164I- for.category A. land Af the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede t4iat the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be conidered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex P-i 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, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon 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 considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected C therein is less than the minimumprice notified by the Government, the price fixation 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 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

20 An independent and alternative argument is a1lso advanced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests itself on a decision of. a Division Bench of this Court reportqd as 2006 (135) DLT 231 Ia! S,'ngh V[5] (JO!

21 The decision in Ia! S,ngh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkar'wala which were acquired pursuant to, a notification dated 15 10 1993 at U 1 42,000/- per bigha Learned couçsel ould urge that the said cecision has attaind finality inasmuch • LA,APP784/2005 & conneted •. • • r A -• would show tt the Court assessed th fai'r marke vtue ba wish reference to sale deeds executed between the years' 99O till the yr 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 Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining tovarious notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 pr bigha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess th& 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 concernedj dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chiranli Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.200, the:fair market valuassessd was.4,03,425I- per bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of S 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- per acre, which I hérebyfix......'