Union of India v. Dalipo

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be aHowed to see th judgment[7]

2 To be referred to Reporter or not 2

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? j. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, L (Oral) S 1 I am deciding the above captioned appeals and relatable civilmiscellaneous applications ivhich are by way of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 4of 19 f the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum Thisprice was adopted for category Ajands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertaining to tte notifications dated 21 3 2003 nd 24 9 2003, tI?e Land Acquisition Collector rehed upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 14 2001 and gave rio benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fir market value of the lands to be determined, wa as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated i. 17 6 2005 which required fair market vlue of land to be ­,d.ete,rrnihe,d[1] in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala add village Mundka a s of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to te notification fixing 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 land owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court todk corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Coprt, and nhanced the fir market value

12 In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 vide which agricultural Inds in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as as adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which th lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 per bigha i e 11,97,162/ per acre and for Category B lands, I assess the fair market \'alue 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 VilIge Mundka In Chiranhi La/ cas (supra), with reference to the deosion in Pratap Sincjh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to notification issued under Section 4 of the Lland AcqutsitiOn Ac on.6.2.20.03, the fair market value assessed was 4,03,425I- pe1r 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 Village Mundka should 4,03,425/- 9,36,440I- per acre, be i e which I hereby. fix

30 I propose to deal with the' notificatiofl datei 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 Chiranh' Lal's case(supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425I- per bigha and thus, tncreasIg the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes o 4,98,589I- per bigha which comes to T23,93,227 20 per pere. The same[1] is held by me to b the fair market value of land in Village v1undka and Village Bakkarwala as f 17 6 2005 I decree the same Page 17 of. 19 • •.....:, •. 23,93 227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the Jand situated in Vil(age Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha L e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who have succ 1eeded 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 (JO!, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhnced by the present judgment and decree The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein

(PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG)

JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 mm I I LA APP 784/2005 &.connectedl Page 19of 19