Union of India v. Mange Ram & Anr.

1. I: am deciding the above. captioned appeals, and •. rèatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of crossobjection; all of which have been listed hereinabove. •..... LA.APP.784/2005 &connected.. • Page4of 19. • 1

2 The present decision concerns issueof fixation of fair market value of Ind in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwa[1] and village Mundka I 3 The dates on which ir market value of the land: has to be determined may be rap1cally noted as upder - S No Name of Village Date of, notification under Section 4 of the LA Act 1 1, Bakkarwala 24.9.2003.

2. •. Bakkawala. I MUndka. 252.1997. •.. Mundka •. 21.3.2003 Mundka 17.6.2005

4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the samet. pursuant whereto lands were acquired inthe revenue estate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above

5 Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of Delhi to the •: • •...• township pf Rohtakin the State of Ha.ryana,ar.eiIlages MUnd.kar Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary ofvillage Mundka. The difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut, being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mindka.

6. • As we proceed from te city of Delhi to the..tonship • of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by,village •G1ievra and then village Tikri Kalan.:. 7.... Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquiréd • LA:APP.784/2005 & conneçtéd • •. •. • • •.. I, prsuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of, the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of villag Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21 3 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.3/2005-06as also award No.1/2005-06. Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 issued under Sectior 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in the revehue estate of, village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 issued under. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No:3/2004-05. Further lands in ±he revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07

9. In a nut shell,. the Land,Acquisiion Collector determined the fair market valueOf.the acquired latds, uriderall the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land as rotified by the Government of NçTDelhi...•

10 For clarity, I may note that pertairiing to the '. notification dated 252..1997. under. whih agricuitural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ 10 lacs per acre and since the date of Sectior 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected: the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum This price was adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre. Prtaining 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 lahd as of 1.4.2001 and ga'ero. benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fir 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 • m deterined in the revenue estate of village 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 4 2001 ad gave no increase.

11 Aggrieved by the determination of ther fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the lani 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 u n d e challenge in the above captioned appeals, the Referenc& Court took corrective action, as per the view of the eferené. Court, and enhanced thefairmarketvajuè

12. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka.eré acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LAAPP.784/2005 &connected S 'Page 7of19 Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minirhum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.19.97, but as'agains..the Lnd Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by •.. only 34 days. inasmuch as the, date with reference wherto Government had notified the minimum value was 1.4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act v'ias dated 25.2.1997. This was the value fixed forcategory A 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 @ T[9],89,288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288I-. per acre. • •• •.. 14, Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwa!a respectively were acquired, the Referen1ce Court took note of the fact that after the Goernnient hd • notified the minimum rates for aricuItural lands in Delhi asof.1.4.2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by te Govrnment of Nh • • Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean.' • average. What the Reference Court did was to adept the value r as of 1.4.2001 and increasing •the same by 10%. per annum... determined the enhanced price as of 21.3.2003 • as. also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by, i0% per LA.AP.784/2005 & connectd •...... Page 8of 19 ' •' H annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24.9.2003,The two sums arrived at were added and divided Ey two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21 3 2003, which 1 note comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisipns I note the sum arrived at is 1,92,215/) For the date 24 9 2003 te price determined was 20,41,000/- per acre

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2O05 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village • • Bakkarwalà and Mundka the learned Refeten'ce Court adoptei • the minimum price for agricultural lands hotified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value nd with res pect to.the lands in village Mundk;. onaccount of 1ôcationl. advantage, beihg abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum df 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the pric determined was 20,35,255!- per acre

16. • In the aforesid.backdrop of the. factal scenaio ir which I havepenned profiled the reasoning of. the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I de!v into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today

17 With reference to the evidence led in LA •No384/2 004 Jamna Vs. 110/ & Ors,, it was urged i by Sh.L.B.Rai, 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 LAAPP784/2005&connected Page9ofl[9] • •• •• •.•... • and 3 bfsa ofagricltral land in viilge Munka was sbl.d as of.; 5 8 1996 for a sale consideratior of 4,75,000/- 38,000/- was inturred towards saie dutyand thus the price of the land o.uld. be 5,13,0001- and talculated with reference thereto, land priCe per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel would urge that there is horeason. not to lold that..fai. 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 a s of 25.2.1993 • 213.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. the dates when notifidationsunder 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 ured that on the same. basis, land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in j • ' village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since \/illages Tikri l(alan,l 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 decree dated 19.12.2008 decid.ing a...btch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No.193/2006 Pratap 5!ngh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs UOIas per.. ihich 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 2,15,164/- for category A land LA.APP.784/2005 & cônneted. •. • and U,73,500/- for category B• lahd 2,35,850 fár' category A land. and 190,150/- for category B land; 4,02,850! fOt categ.ory A land and '3,24,850/- for category B land, respectively. 18.: I may note here: that' ih various lan'd acuisitiod. references, various parties have proved a number of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today befor me, learned counsel for the land ô'whers have only relied upont the, sale deed Ex2-1..

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the, UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P.[1] cannot be adopted as the yardstick for th.e reason, to be a representative sample of, the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the whole. For example, learned counel would. urge that if it has to be determined whether what percèhtage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to.pick. only one grain, for if,it haens to be th& grain of rice one would iead 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 conclusion that the bag is full of stones. At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is the example given'. The second reaso'n on which ' learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being ' representative of the price is the reason that peopl'e do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a suvey it would be difficult to issue even the notification.unr Sedi.on 4 ' of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why ExP-1 be not taken' as the basis to' determir'e 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 wotild urge that the said four sale deeds should be considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected ' therein is less than te minimum price notified by. the G'6vërhrrent, the price, fixation should.'be, with 'referène to the minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued underSection 4 of the Lad Acquisition Act. ', An i,ndependent 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! Singh Vs UQI The decision.inLSihgh's case (supr) conerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village €akkarwala, which were acquired pursuant to a rtification dated 15 10 1993 at fl,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.. '., ', '.:' as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed befor 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 0f15JU.1993 at 1,32,000I- per bigha, the fair market valte should be ascertained 'by, increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of lnd in vi1lae BakkarwIa.as of 24.9.003 as alsb 17.6.2005. Léarned.couflSel • would urge that in view of the locational advaniage, of viIlae Mundka, fair market.vaiue of land' in village Mun'dka should be determined' as of 25.2.1997, '21.3.2003 and 17.6.21 005, by giving 5% increase.