Union of India v. Savitri Devi & Anr.

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC r!%lo 34I2004 /amna Vs UQI & Ors, it was urged by Sb L B Rai, • learned counsel for the appellant in iA App No 784/2005, which:• argument ws adopted by other Ieartied counsel who 'appeared fbr the othr appellants, that the learned Trial Juge was not jistifed in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunde 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 &connectect.[1] c andl 3 'biswaof agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000- 38,000/- was incurred toWarO sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with referehce thereto, land price per bigha vo'uld come to 4,46,000/- as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsi would urge that there is no reason not to hdld that fair market val of agricultural lands in village 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, 2T 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issue[1] pursuant wh&reto 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 in •; •• viIlage 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 i the value of the lafld in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to the jgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of ud • Land Acquisi4tion Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal N 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs 110/ 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, 116 196 nEi 17 122002 at 2,15,164/- for categoryA land LA APP 784/2OO5connected ' Page lOof 19 and fl,73,500/- for category B land, 2,35,85O for category A land and 1,9O,15O/- for category B land, 4,O[2],85OI- for category. A land and 3,24,850/2 for, category B land, respectively ip I may note here that in various land acquisition t references, arious parties have proved a number[1] of sale deeds executed froii time to time, but during arguments today, befor me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar le1arned counsel for the UOJ would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative smple of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the whole For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whethr what percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one grain for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a niece of stone, one would l. reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a fitful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is tie example given The second reasoh onwhich learned couflsel would attack the sale ded as not being representative of the price Js the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions ae made, land Jn the area is surveyed Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 L4APP784/2005&connected P6ge11ofl[9] a 4 • n f the Land Acquisition Act Learned copnsel would concede that the reasons given by the 1erned Reference Court are not pound, but would rge that the two contentions advanced by him[1] should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex P-i be not taken a the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in vilfa. Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel iould further urge that the four sale deeds Ex.R-1 ito R-4 referred to in the decision of the[1] learned }.eference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 16 1 1995, 30.5.1997., 4.[6] 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOI would show the acual market value of the land and thus learned couhsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be cpnsidered, bu hastens to add, that since value reflected

I. •'• • 1.... •:,..: therein is les than the minimum price notified by the I Government, the 1price fixation should be with reference to the rn:nimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued under Section4of the Land Acquisition Act

20. An independent and alternative argument is also 4 dvnced by Iarned counsel for, the Union The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as I I -- - - -: Petitipns for Special ave to AppI filed beforethe Supreme ourt y ether sjde have been dismissed Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair' market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 11 32,000I- per bigha, the fair market value should be scertined by increasing the price progressively,by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land in village bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17..6. 2005 Learned counsel rbould urge that in view of the locational advantage of village vlundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25f.2.1997, 21 3 2003 and 17.6.20.05, by giving increase 4' ' t T Ex -i, whereunder, 1 \Vith respect to the sale deed P bigha 'end 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5.8. 1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 months priorto the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquiition Act, which was issued on 25.2.199T,It is a matter of common kiowledge that prceding the piliblicapon of a ntification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbçrs an,d fields are required to be notified for the proposed acqisition bnd when this happefls peop in the area come to knov that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands would te aquired In Delhi, the large scale acquisitl'on policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA APP 784/2005 & connected I L - I t acuird an hus, it is not uncommon, for perons to purchase small 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 '4 land as on e date of the sale Further, the princip,les 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, I hld that ExP 1 canflot be good evidence wherefçom market vlue of the land could be determined There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sate deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1to Ex R-4, dated 6.1.1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8..9.1997 aealS. prfaining to ViltageMu'ndka and reflect a le price much lower than the sale price recorded in E P-i In fact, the sle price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government

24 I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division t • Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25 The decision in Jat 5,ngh's case (supra) determined fir market,value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,d00/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof jAApp78/2OO5&connected Pagel4Ofl[9] 1 I. ould show that the Court assessed the fair market val4e with efererke to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the 'ear 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, pparetIy dn the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agncultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fairnarket vakue of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench vas concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri, Kaln and another djoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various rotifi1cations issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitior Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - S__r[4],, O,"-' ~ '-DaI[6] Village Price per Bigha 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 1995 A & 1,73,500/- fo Block B land 2 11 06 1996 Tikri Kafan & !2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A T[1],0,156/- for. I Block B land 3 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block A & 3,24,850/- for Block B land.[1] •i.. - ___.--. •. i''.... ' v No 489I2OO[9], çhranj' La! vpjgnfj2dia& $.ave the fir nket value of the on 2 2O11 I determined lands in Vilage Ghevra at 4,03,425I- per bigha as of 6 2 2003 On the isse of co4mparabilltY of land in village BakkarWala with village Mundka[1] Glevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that wereaS village BakkarWala does not abut NH-10,aS do the other 1 vi Lage, but it has to be highhghted 4that;it is more proximate to he urban areas of Delhi vis-a-viS Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has anadvantae Since exactnS[5] can never be achieved in the matterS of assessing fair compensation[1] it is the broad 'proba4bilities and similarities which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be e ehuivalent[1] upless qua some land special features can be shown Since the decisiofl in 5iijcLL? case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to thel notifiCaioflS with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it oul be just, fair and proper to determine thee fair market alue df lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair' market value of lands determined in Prp inq case (supra) As per the decision in_iataq 5/flqJf case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, for Category A lards fair compensation assessed was 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73,500I- per bigha for Category BI Ind 1he first notification with whih I am concerned is 25 2197 hereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired the time span sweeps 1 year and 216 s te 58day mt Pr tap5J7g/?caSe (supra) the anua/flaeaSe was determIflçd o b,e 10% per annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Category A LAAp784/2qo5t&connected Pagel6ofl[9] f 4 I,[1] • 1 --.. -- •..°.. -..: ¶ - -...:-.-,: ' -'. -. - ----... • -. ¶. 14nds, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 per bigh i e 11,97,1q2!- per acre and for Category, B lands, i assess the fir market value at 2 1 01,117/ per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre 29 the 4 next notification with which I am concerned is ciaed 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In tL/ranhI La/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 2003,'the fair market alue asses5ed was 4p342SI- per 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 notifcation dated 21.3.2.003, fair market value of landAr H, •Vill.agéMundka shbuldb,e 4,03,425I-i.e. 19,36,4401 prcr?i H which 11hereLy fix

30 I propose to deal with the notification dated 24 9 2003,fter dealing with the notification dated 17 6 205I pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala 31 As noted hereinabove, in Chiranh' Lal's case (supra), ertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market valiJe ssessed by me was 4,03,425!- per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 per acre The same js held by me to be the fair market value of land in VillageMundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17.6..2005.,[3] decree' thesame Page 17of19 AAPP784/2005&C0flnect... y •c..... '1 f •1.., 1.....1: •..• •.....

4. •., ••.. •....,.,. 4.. 4.. ••-..,•• ' •.. \. 1, I,

32 I am left with the notification dated 24 9 2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair arktvalu assessed in Chiranhi Lal's ase, i would require to aprecite tIé price by 10% per annum for a period pf 201 days, the figure comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, hic.h I determine to be the fair..arket vlue. of land n Village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 33 Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Urpon of India if require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land dwners stands decreed as under i) For the land falling in Category A land in Village 1110 Mundka the fair market value is fixed at is 2,49,408 75 per bigha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at 2,01,117/- per bigha e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as on 25 02 1997 S ii) For' the Land situated in Vllage Mundka the fair narket value is fixed at 4,3,425/- pr bigha i e 19,36,440I- per acre, as on 2103 2003 iii) For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair, market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha i e • I... i.....- 23,93227.20 per acre, as on 17062095'.. H': •....... i) For, the land situated in Villag Ba)<karwala the fair'.. market value is fixed at Z[4],98,589/- per b i g ha i e LA APP 784/2005 & connected -.....•. I I • •