Sanjay Poddar v. Parvesh Sing Hal

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Munda and village Bakkarwala respectvety were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of 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 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 10% per:. annum determined the sum arrived at as of 213.[2] 003 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived atwere added and divided by two to arrive 3 at the mean figure as of 21 2003, which I note comes to t15 1 92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the' sum arrived at is i[5],92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000/- per acre

15 Pertaining to the notificationr dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Refernce Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural jands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 4 2J01 and giving increase @10% per annum determined te value and With fi respect to the lands in village Mundka, on a'ccouint of rocational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5%.[1] more and determined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum of 21,37 1 017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwa4a the price Jetermined was 20,35,255/- per acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in whicEt I have penned profiled the reas6ning of. t h e,'. Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced befoe me during hearing today

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 Jamna Vs 110/ & 0rs it was urged 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-iwhereunder 1 biha LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 9of19 i.... -... \,,... -'.,...: ••• •:: • • and 3 biswa of agricultural Ind in village Mundks sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- S[8],0p0Ir was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price ofhe land would be 5t,13000/ and calculated with eference thto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel vould urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair mrket value of agricultural lands in village Mundl<a 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 3.200 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 in vi,ifaget 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 in the value of the t land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference, to the judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, Ied matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr L'Rs Vs £10! as per, which fir market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as 9f 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land[1] LA PPP 784/2005 & connected •' and Z 1515001- fr category B, lan,-d;l Z 2,35,850 for category A land ad 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850/- for category A land and 3,24,850I- for category B land, respectively. 1 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 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 learned 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 sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the whole For example, learned counsel would m f urge that if it has to be deterined whether what percentage o Stb,nesi 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, on el ould 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 reason on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price i the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as beforacq&iisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey 1,t would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 LAAPP784/2005&connected t tc f the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Cburt 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 Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, earned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds x R-i to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned jt 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 ou el would urg•.e that the aid four sale deeds hoUld be but hasths to dd that sinceHvatue 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 which is nearest to thepoint of time when the respective notifications were issued under. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

20 An independent and alternative argument is also dvanced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006(135)DLT231/aiStnghV[5] UQI 21 The decision i nJjSingh's case (supra) concerns itself ith the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at fl,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LAAPP784/2005&connected 4.. acqired and thus, it is not uncommOfl, for persops tourchaS smat parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are lik&y to take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of t. land as on the date of the sa(e Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and the principles of s mpling tell me that to be representative of the a whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportiOr to the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but or the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P 1 cannot be g'ood evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sate deeds Ex R- 1 to 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 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

23 Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference tothe decision of this Court i nai5inghcase (supra) or prataps,ngh's case (supra)

25 The decision in al 5Ingh'5 case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000!- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof S NO Date Village Price per Big ha 1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 ill 1995 A & 1,73,500/- for Block B IancL

2. 11.06.1996 Tilr Kalan &.2,35,8I5/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for Block B land 3 17 12 2002 Tikri Kalan Z[4],02,850/- for Block A & 3,24,850/- for Block B land 1k,

26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to varrous notifications issued under Sectiorj 4 of the Land AcquisitiOn Act deterrnined the fair market value of agricultural land's ip Ville j Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as urder oo lands, the f a i r market value assessed is 2,49,[8] 75 per bigha I e fll,97,162/- per acre and for Category B I assess the fair mark'et value at 2,01,117/- per bigha i e,9,65,361 60 per acre

29 The next notification with which I am concernedj dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chiranii Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Prataø Sin gh'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 value assessed was 4,03,425/- 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 notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i e 19,36,440I- per acre, which I hereby fix

30 I propose to deal with the notification dated 24 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala 31 As noted hereinabove, in Chiranti Lal's case (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 acre The ame is held by me to be the fair.market value of land in Village* Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17 6 2005 I. decree the same

I. For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425/- pe bigha i e 19,36,440I- per acre, as on 21 03 2003 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per b'i g h81 L e 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha i e LA APP 784/2005 & connected, - r - •.•••. 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala te fair market value is fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who hav4e 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 (JO!, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reterence Court and finally on the sum enhanced decree by thJ present judgment and the appellants anl cross-objectos who succeed would also be entitldd to proportionate costs All pending applications stand disposed of in tçrms of the prayers made therein -.