Full Text
LA.APP.1043/2010
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with, Ms.Deepika, Advocate
• Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA, CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
0807.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. rr11
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULY08, 2011 I mm I 2011:DHC:13604 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C/
Date ofDeciSLOI2 8t Lwf)9ll jAPP784J2OQ5 l JMNA
Appellant ' Through Mr L B Rai, Advocate, Mr I S Dahtya, Advocate, Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr K Sunil, Advocate, Mr Anuj Bhandafl, Advocate
Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate
ORDER
4 Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standing S Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawafli and f 1 Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika I Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sharma, 4J Ms Shobha Takiar and Mr Arun BirbaL Advocates for DDA AND + LA APP 879/2005, LA APP 880-881/2005, LA APP 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village Mundka) 0• -. •. -. - - -., O il • AND -... + LAAPP 583/2009, LAAPP 603/2009, LAAPP 604/2009[1] • • LAAPP..6-06/2009, LA.APP; 610/2-009, 74/2010, LA.AP.P. 78/2010',. •. • • LA,ApP.784/2005 &cônnected • • -.• -. -,. - • - - - • - - • -, •.. ' -. -- - - •0 • • 0 • • • • • -. - •. - -- • - • • - NIP LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAPR 125/2010, LA APP 164/2010, LA APP 185/2010, LA APP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LA APP 238/2010, LA APP 239/2010, LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP 245/2010, LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPP t 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010[1] LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPP 312/2010[1] LAAPP 324/2010, LA APIS 326/2010, LAAPP 327/2010[1] LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP 331/2010, LAAPP 33212010, LAI9PP 333/2010 with CM APPL No 5S24/2011, LAAPP 335/2010, LAAPP 367/2010, LA APP 368/2010, LA APP 369/2010, LA A PP 371/2010 & CM APPL No20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP 452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP l. 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011, LA APP. 4 697/2010, LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP APP 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LA APP 707/2010, LA 708/2010 LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with C APPL No 7473/2010, LA APP 715/2010, LAAPP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010, LA APP 766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010, LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010[1] LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL 95/2011,.LAAPP. 832/2010; LA.APP 833/2010,& CM APPL.. 6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAPP 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/2010, LAAPF 879/2010, LA APP 880/2010 1 LA APP 881/2010 & CM • APPL6505/2011, LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010, 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPP 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA APP 894/2010 & CM No 23353/2010, LA APP 895/2010, LA APP 896/2010, LA APP 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP LAAPP784/2005&corinected Pagezofl[9] H 90712010 LA APP 938/2010, LA APP 939/2010, LA APP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 308612011, LAAPP 4O42-Ocm j APPL 673/2O11, LAAPP 1041/2010, LAAPF 1Ol3!2O1O, LA APP 104512010, LA APP 1046/2010, 10 /2010, LAAPP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050!010, LAAPP 1056/2010, LA APP 1060/2010, LA APP 1061/2010, LA APP 1071/2010, LA APP 125/2011, LA APP 126/2011, LA APP 25812011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 3/2005-06, Village-Mundka) p. AND + LA APP 600/2009, LA APP 605/2009, LA APP 615/2009[1] LA.APP[3] 1 0/2010.LA.APP. 325/2010, LA.APP. 376/2010, LA.APP. 383/2010, LAAPP 384/2010[1] LAAPP 385/2010, LkAPP. 47312010, LAAPP 492/2010 1 LAAPP 586/2010, LAAPP.. 591/2010,.LA.APP. 638/2010; LA.APP.. 690/2010, LA.APP. 692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAFP 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/2010, LAAIP 885/2010, LAAPP 887/2010, LAAPP 891/2010, LAAPP 892/2010, LAAPP 898/2010, LAAPP 906/2010 & CM APL No4443/2010, LAAPP 937/2010 & CM APPL 23299/2010, LA APP 1042/20 10, LA APP 1047/20 10 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award N 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka)
AND LAAPP 1003/2010, LAAPP 1017/2010, LAAPP 1019/2010 1 LA APP 1022/2010, LA APP 1023/2010, LA APP 1044/2010, LA APP 051/2010, LA APP 1053/2010, LA APP 1054/2010 & CM APPL No 5656/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LA APP 1057/2010, LA APP 1058/2010, LA APP 1059/2010, LA APP 1068/2010, LA APP 1069/2010, LA APP 124/2011, LA APP 127/2011, LA APP 128/2011, LA APP 259/2011 LA APP 784/2005 & connected (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka) AND + LA APP 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA APP 426/2009, LAAPP 428/2009, 442/2009, LAAPP 611/2009, LAAPP 616/2009, LA APP 278/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24 09 2003 & Award No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No5948/2011,LAAPP 1030/2010, LAAPP 1031/2010, LAI'PP 1033/2010 & CM 4 496645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM No 6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/010, LAAPP 1066/2010, LAAIP 1067/2010, LA APP 11/2011, LA APP 122/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 1/2006-07 Village-Bakkarwala) CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
I to see the judgment[7]
2 To be referred to Reporter or not?
3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest 7 IN PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (Oral)
1 I am deciding the above captioned appeals ard relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of crpss objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove,
2 The present decfs:on concerns issue of fixation of f1r market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwata and viRage Mundka
3. The dates orj 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
4. Mundka 21 3 2003
4 It may be highlightedthat th notification at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining tovillage Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the re'ienue estate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-la, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikr: Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of 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 çloes not so abut, being on the other se of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundk
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 viage Tikri Kalan 7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired L[7] APP 784/2005 & connected V V -:, -- --the pnce for one year © 11 5% per ahnum This price was adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by, 90,000/- per acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the Lahd Acquisition CoUector rehed upon the notification fixing ttle minimum price of agricultural land as ijf 1 4 2001 and gave benefit of enhancement with 'reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21.12003. and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification datd 17 6 2005 which required fair market value of land to Ie determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala arid S village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collectbr determined the same with reference to the notification fixirg minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 arid gave no increase
11 Aggrieved by the determinations 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 Ahe above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took q corrective action, as per the view, of the Reference Court, and 4 enhancedthefajrmarketvajue 12 In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification datei 25 1997 vide which agricultural 1ands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which thç LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 7 df 19 and biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consiØeratin of 4,75,000I[7] 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the lard would be 5,1.3,000Y- and calculated, w i t h.,reference.th.eretp., land pi'c&,... ' per.bigha:wbuld come to 4,[4] 1 OOO/ as Of 5.8.1996. Learn?d: counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that faiç market value of agricultural lands in vilage 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 progressively, if not by 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 ir village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala arecontiguous villags, and in fact village Tikrt 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 decree dated 19 12 2 0 0 V dciding a batch of. Land Acquisition Appeals lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr. LR[5] Vs UQI as per whic[1] fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri K. as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land LA APPr784/2005 & connected acquired and thus, lit is not uncommon, for persons to purchase smafl 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 Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the principles of, averages and the principles of sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted,l hold that Ex P-i 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 sale deeds Ex R- 1to Ex R-4, dated 6.1.1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 ' 1997 and 8 9 1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averaeS much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified b the Government
23. Thus, the fair market value of he lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court inJiSit7gh'SCaSe (supra) or Pratap S,ncih's case (supra) g sions, perned by the Division 24 I highli ht that both deci
28 Since the decision lfl PrataP 5incjii[1] case (supr) 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 ad proper to determine the fair markt value of laiids with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in Pratap 5igjj case (supra As per the decision infratat-? 5ing/'. case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed ws 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73, 5O0I- per bigha for Category land The first notification with which I am concerned is Mu 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village 'ndka were acquir[4] The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 81 days in (supra) the annuI inaease was determined Pratap 5ingh' case to be 10% per annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Category A Page 16.of 19 LA APP 784/2005 &connected - -1 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at !4,25,6411- per bigha L e 20,43 076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 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 The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed wouldalso be entitled to proportionate costs All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein -
JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 I \) mm fi LAAPP784/2005&connected I Pagel9ofl[9]