Baljeet Singh v. UOl & Ors.

2 To be referred to Reporter or riot 2

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral) • 1' I am deciding the abovecaptioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of, cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove LAAPP784/2005&connected Page4ofl[9] _ - - -- ---. 4_..:: •............: •.. the price for one year @ 11 5% per a n n u m This pnce was adopted for category A. lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertaiing to the notifications dated 21 3.2003 and 24 9 2003, the Land Aquisition Collector relied upor the notificatio'n 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 9.2.003. Evenpertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of villag,e Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17.6.20.05, the Land Acquisition Collector detrmined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agrictltural lands in Delhi as of 1.[4] 2001 and gave no increase

11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land 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 under challenge in te above captioned appeals, the Reference Court tOok • corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and •.k • • • H • enhanced the fair market 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 the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LAAPP784/2005&connected Page7ofl[9] •: • •.,•.; • •: 4 • •: • • • • • •.......... •.[1] t...• •.....' •...,. ••• •i. •••.• I.•,•:: Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum Valu'&-foO. aricuIturaJ lands in Delhi i e 1 4 197, but as against the Land Acquisition Coflector depressing th price 11 5% for full one; J year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by only 34 days Jnasmuch as the date with ref ere' n c yyhefeto Government had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Lard Acquisition ct was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for categocy A land • •: and for. category B lands, with reference to the valties 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 @ 9,89,288/- pe acre aVi for category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288I per. acre.[4] •.;. ' A ••• •;

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and - village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference • '.. Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for aghcultural 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 vlue • as of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 213.2003 as lso 24 9 2003 Thereafter te Reference Court took the value notified as of 30 8 205 and dpressing the same by 10% per LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 8 of. 19 pw: ••• '. •:.. '.:: •• t annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2GQ[3] as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were aqded and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21 3.[2] 003, which I note comes to Z.15,92,083 33 per, acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For, the date.24.9.2003.,the 3rice determined was 20,41,000/- er acre 15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 62005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Cpurt adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving.. idcrease @10% per annum determined the value and with respect tta the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-b gave 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 akkarwla the price determined was 20,35,255/- p e r acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenarto which I have penned profiled the reasoning 6f the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hering today

17 With reference to the evidence Id in LAC No 34/20O[4] Jamna Vs 110/ & Ors, it ws urgedby Sh L E Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which • argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeard for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was dot 1 justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LAAPP784/2OO5&connected Page9ofl[9] -....,,-.- -.-.....--. •-- - •'t and 3 btswa of agricu!turaI land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,OOO/- 38,090/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with rference thereto, land price per bigha would come to Z[4],46,000J[7] as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel would urge that there isno reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was t 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 as of 25 2 1993, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifica'tions under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition,Act were issued pursuant S whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% pr,annum at least by 10% per annum It Js urged that on the same basis, land price should be determined for the agricultural lan1ds in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan ns further towards the township of Rohtak, some lincreaSe. be nade in the value of the land ill 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 f_atap Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs L/OI as per. wftch fair market value of land, peç 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 4 4 / c I ) 0q the Land Acquistion Act Learned counsel woud concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference C4irt are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions ath'anced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasor as to why;ExP-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair m arket value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale' deeds Ex ft-i to R-4 referred to in the decision of he 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 1: how the actual market value of the land and thus leaned ounsel would urge that the said four sale deeds hould be: considered,, but hastens to add, that since valu reflected. therein is less than the minimum price notified by the:Governmnt, the price fixation should be with reference to the inimum price notified by the Government which is nerest to he point of time when the re9pective notifications were issued nder 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 yn a decision of a Division Bench of this CQurt reported as

006135) DLT 231 Ia' Singh Vs UQI The decision in /aiSingh's case (supra) concrns itself N with the determination of t h e fair market value of land,in vi'llage Bakkrwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification datd 15 10 1993 at fl,32,000/- per, bigha Learred counsel 'voiild urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch A APP 784/2005 & connected 1 4 1.4. 1 ' - - -------- - - -- - 1. I ?....... • •H' •.;,... ••:; •......;: ••..:.•.-;:.. as Pettons for Special Leave to Appeal filed befothe Supreme: Court by either side have been dismissed Lrned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by, adopting the fair market value of land in viHage Bakk&wala 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 0/6 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 t h a t in view of the locatiohal aclvari6de 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 \!ith respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural lanwas sold in VillagB Mundka as of 5 8 1996, it would assun4importance that the sale is abotit 7 months prior to the date of The notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which as issued on 25i[2].1997.It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are cafried out with the object of ietermining as to what lards, comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are required to be notified for -1hel proposed acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to know that very soon there is every likelihood that the )ands would be acquired In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to aftot, atpre determined rates, a Iot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LAAPP784/2005&connected Page13of19 I I - I •:• •J • H.•:...:: •.:.= •'•.. •1.••.•'.. "... •.'•. '.....:.. ( I acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase I sniII 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 valu 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 the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the l,earned Rference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale eed The saledeeds 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 p'nce;. m fact, the uch lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than m m lhi notified by, ven the inimu price for agricultural hand in De the Government

23 Thus, the fair market value of the lands would, be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court injLL22tLcase (supra) or Pratap Sincjh's case (supra)

25 The decision in j 5,ngtcaSe (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.., • •• • •. • •. • • • •.• 3 1 1 I 3 would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with référence to sale deeds xecuted betwen the yas 1!990 till th year 1996 either in Vililage Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, k. apparently on the premise that being contiguoys villagers, sale price of.agricultural land in te 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land ii Village Bakkarwala

26 In, Pratap SIncyh'5 case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in TikrF Kalanand another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 4 of. the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - • • •

I. • I • -F.. • • '.........:. -: AcqltbOfl Appeal No 489/2009, ChLrnjI La! vs/jpjoJJi2dia& tOfl 2 6 2011 I hava determined the fair matket value of the lands in Village Ghevra 'at 4,O[3],425I- pe bigh as of 6 2 2003 } On the issue of comparability of land in village BakkarWala with vill doubt true that age Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no ' whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-10, as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-viS Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has ani, advantage Since exactness can never be achieved in the matterS of assessing fair compensation, it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages tobe S ' equivalent[1] unless qua some land special features can be shown 28, Since the decision in Pratap 5, I/gM case (supra) dals with notifications more proximate in poipt of time to the with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that notifications it wou'd be just, fair and proper to determine the fir market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands deermifled in Pratap Sin gh case (supra) As per the decision in fratap, 5incifj'. case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995 for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was 2,15,160/- per bigha a n d 1,73,500I- per bigha for Category B land The first notification with which I am concerhed s 25 2 1997 whereuflder lands in Village Mindka were acquireçl............................................... 'The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 days te 5.LdaYs In nLJaj increase was determined Prtap 5inghcase ( supra) the to be 10% per annum (f Thus, pertaining to Category A lat) LAAPP78412005&connected Page16of19...- '..'-- -•1, t,...;.......:., •• H•- •. •: • i. lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 per bigha fl i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess the fair rnarketvalue at 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre

29 The next notification with which I am concernedj dated 2132003 pertaining to Village Mundka In •Qjranii La/'s,cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap 5,ngh's case '(supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevr pertaining to a notificati9n issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6 2 2Q03, the fair market value assessed was ?4,03,42517 per bigla This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the oinion that pertaining to. the notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in Viliage Mund<a should be t[4],03,426I- i e 19,36 1440I- per acre, hich I hereby fix

30 I propose to deal with the notification dated 249 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 200 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Villag M undka and1Village Bakkarwala 31 As noted hereinabove, in Chiranii Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425I- p e r. bigha a n d thus, increasing i the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to S 1,98,589I per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 er cre The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 1716 2005 I d?cree the same LAAPP784/2005&Coflflected Pagel7ofl[9] I - - I 23,93,227 20 per acre, as o 7 06 2005 For, the land situated in Vile Bakkarwal the fair market value is fixed at 425,641/- per h1a e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interet as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. to.r the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by %t Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree 3 3 The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed A would also be entitled to proportionate costs I 3 vIi[4]) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein ---- (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) - JUDGE JUtY 08, 2011 mm •. 3.,..[3] kAAPP784/2005&connected 1 Pagel9ofl[9] S • •.• •:- 3- i,.:' I 1 3.. ••. • - • • •-