Union of India v. Ramanand & Anr

8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired fDursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 isued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as. per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of, the same village were acquiredpursuart to a notification dted 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which lands in vi1$ge Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07

9 In a nut shell, the Land Mquisition ColIctor determined the fair market value of the acquireq lands, under all the awards, 1 with reference to the minimm price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of 1iCT Delhi

10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to the • • • notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultur lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, e learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market;alue with[5] reference to the minimum price for agricultural la notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ Z10 lacs per acre and sin€ the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum Thisprice was adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000I- per acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the 'notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated '17.6.2005 which required fair market Value of land to be:determiried in the revenue estate of fllage Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.42001 and gave no increase

11. Aggrieved by t.he determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the,land ownrs souht.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 toOk corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and 'enhanced the fãirrnarket.value.

12. '., In. a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted tjii same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agnculturai lands in Delhi e 1.4.1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price © 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, dcreased the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1.4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for category A lads and for category B lands, with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre.13..Thus, for cateory A lands the Reference Cdurt determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre andfor. category B land the same was determined © 8,99,288I- per acre

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 2.4.9.2003 /vhereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were accured, the Refererce Court took 'note of the fact that after the Government had notified the 4 minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi asof 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Usingthe said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle bf mean average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 213.2003 as also • 24.9.2003. Thereafter the, Reference Court took the value; • notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 1 0 % per LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.age 8'of 19 ' annum determined the sum arrived at as of 213.2010[3] as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrivq at the mean figure as of 21 3 2003, which I note comes to ZI[5],92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 003 the price determined was 20,41,000I- 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 minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and 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 gae 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 20,35,255/- per acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in • which I have penned profiled the reasoning of. the Lan.d Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing oday r.

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC • No.384/2004 /amna Vs. UO1' Ors, ik was urged. by Sh,.L.B.Ra.i, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which argument was adopted 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 4onnected and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka 'vas sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000I- 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land pric per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- as of 5 8 1996 Learne counselwould urge that there is no reason not to hold that far market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argumen forward, it is urged that with reference to' the said price, fi market value needs to be determined as of 25.2.1993, 21 3 2003 and 17.6.2005, i e the dates when notifications unde Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, b increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10% per anhum. It is ür.ed that on the same basis.J land price:shouid be determinedfor the. ar1cultural lands in viIlag 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 townhip of Rohtak, sorne increase be made in the alue of the • • • • land in village Mundka and Bäkka'rwala with reference to the. 1:, judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals lead matter being LA Appeal • • No.193/2006 Pratap 51ngh Deceased Thr.;LRs Vs. L/OI 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 2,15,164I[7] for category A land and[1],73,500/- for category B land, Z[2],351 850 forl category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850I- for cateory A lard and 3,24,850I- for category B land, respectivety

18 I may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds executed from time to time,. but during argments tbday befoe' me, learned counsel for the land owners have onlyrelied upon the sale deed Ex.P-1... 'I. •....

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 caflnot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of the whole, the sample must b1ear some adequate proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether 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 piece of stone, one would reach to the concluiOn that the bg is fullôfstones. AIleast a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is the example given The second reason on which learned counsel, would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions,, • are made, land in the, area is surveyed.. Without:.a sUrvey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 ol of the Land Acqui.sftion Act. Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by, the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the twp contentions advanced by him should be considered 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 coi.psel would further urge that the four sale deeds. Ex.R-1 tb 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 therein is less than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be withreference 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 also, advanced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests — itself on a decision of a Division Bench of, this Court reported as 2006 (.135')' DLI 231 Ia! S!ngh Vs.' UQI;'.., i........ 21.. The decision inJSIngh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15.10.1993 at 1,32,000/- per; bigha. Learned counsel would urge that the said detisioh ha 'a'ttained,finalfty 'inashi.uch LA APP 784/2005 & conneted as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side 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 1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value' should be ascertained 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 would urge that in view of the lotationali advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25 2 1997, 21 3 2003 and 17.6.2005, by giving 5% increase

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, wherunder. 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka' as of '5.8.1996, it would asSume' importance 'that the sale k about 7 hionths prior to the' date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on • • ' 25.2.1997. It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding, the publication of' a notification under Section 4. of the Lahd Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra • numbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposed acquisition and when this happens people in the area come know that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands • would be acquired. In Delhi, the large scale acquisition, policy' ' enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pe determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are • • • ' • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • • • ' • • • • ' • acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons 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 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 th whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learneçl Reference Court, but for the twin reasQning hitherto-fore poted,I hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidenc wherefrom markdt value of the land could be determined There is an additionl reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1 to Ex.R-4, dated 6.1.19.95, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.19.97 are also ertining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale pric much lower than the sle price recorded in Ex.P[4]. In fact the. sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less that even the minihmm price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by '. the Government

23. Thus; th fair rnrket value of the lands would be.., req uiréd to be fixed efther with reference, to the decision of thi, Court inL inL7h'sCaSe (supra) or Pratap Singh'S case (supra)

25. The decision in Singhs case (supra) determifled fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwal in sum: 0f. 1,32,000I- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof. would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the yars 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village F1undka, apparently on the premise tht being conti4JoUs villagers,sle price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of, fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala