Harish Chand Garg v. Union of India & Ors.

17 With reference to the evdnce led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs UQI & Ors, it was iurged by, Sh L B Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App N'o 784/2005, which argumeçt,was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared fQr 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 I Page9ofl[9] r /3 and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- 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 price per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of[5] 8 1996 Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair marketyalue of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,00OI- per bigha as of. 5.8.1906. 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 pursuart • whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by.................... increasing the price progressively, if not b) 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum It is urged that on the dame basis, land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguods yillages, 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 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Sincjh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs UQI as per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kaln as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land Page 10 of LA APP 784/2005 &connected 19 and 1,73,500/- for category B land, Z[2],35,80 for category A land and 1 90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850/- fo'r category A. land and 3,24,850/- for category B land, respectively

18 I may note here that in various land acquisition referenckes various parties have proved a number of sate deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon, the sale deed Ex P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learred counsel for the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative s3mple of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the whole For example, learned counsel would Lirge 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 peach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked s a representative sample, is the example given The second reason on whicF' learned counsel would attack the sale dieed 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 nptification under Section 4 Li If the Land Acquisitron Act Learned counsel would concede 4 that the reasons given by the learned Referene Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as1the 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 counsel would further urge tht 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, 305 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 Jhe 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 with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government w1nch 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) DLT 231 IaiStncih Vs (JO!

21 The decision in /a! Singh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant 'to a rotification dated 15.10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attaind finality inasmuch LAAPP 784/2005 & connected •....... IC as Petitions for Special Leave to ppeat filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed Learned counsel p takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000I- per bigha, the fair market, value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% pr lu annum to determire the market vae, of land in village Bakkarwala as of, 24.9. 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Nundka,, fairl market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1.99.7, 21.3.209.[3] and 17 f 2005, by giving 5% increase

22 With respect to the sal deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 581996, it would assume importance that te sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was isued on 25.2.1997.It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of te Land Accuisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are required t be flotified for the proposed acquisition and when this happen people in the area come to 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 pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lnds are 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 Further, the princip land as on the date of the sale les of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and thef principles of sampling tell me that to be represeflative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learne Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P 1 cnnot be good evi d ence wherefrom market - value of the land could be determined There is an additioflI reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- • 1 to Ex R-4, dated 61 1995, 3051997, 46 197 and 89 1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflct a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the e in the said 4 sale deeds avergeS much sale pric less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by. the Government Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be - • - - - - ••• required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court nj 5ingL case (supra) or p tapSngh'5CaSe (supra) I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division ' Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25 The decision in i 5ingh's caSe (supra) determined m f fair market value of land in Village akkarwala in su o 1,32,O00/- per big ha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof / • ••.• • - -----i -...,..,. •::•. • '.., •.:•. •• • •'...: • •. •............... lands, the fair.market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 p e r, bigha

V. i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess the fair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre

29 The next notification with which I am concernecLL dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In jniLat cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to notification issued under Section 4 of.the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was ?4,03,4251- 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 lhe notification datect, 21 30O[3], fair rnarlcr value land " • Village Mundka should be *,O[3],425I- i e U36,440I- per acre, which I hereby fix

30 I propose to ideal with the notificatOfl dated 24.9.2003, after dealing with the notificatifl dated ]7 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Viltage Mundka and Village Bakkarwala 31 As noted hereinbove, in Chiranh' aJcase (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market value assessed 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 20 per cre The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17 6.20 05 I decree the same LAAPP784/2005&Coflnected Page l7of 19 32 I am left with the notification dated 24 9 2003 pe rtaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair market value assessed in Chiranht Lal's case, I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days, the figure comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i e 2 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 33 Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same The appeals filed by the land owners and the crs-objectionS filed' by the land owners stands decreed as under i) For the land falling in Category A land in Village 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 i e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as on 25.02 1997 For the land situated in Village Mundka he fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425!- per bigha i e 19,36,440!- per acre, as on 21.03 2003 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per i bigha e 23,93 227 20 per acre, as on 1706 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i e Pa e 18 of 19 LAAPP 784/2005 & connected g II I 23 1 93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated rn Village Bakkarwala the fair market value js fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24.09 003 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 1.569 Sunder vs 1101, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Couit and finally on the sum enhanced 4 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 -c - \ ci (PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG)

JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 I -