Full Text
LA.APP.605/2009
PRAKASH MANGLA ""' Appellant
Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-l Mr.BankeY Bihari Sharma, Advocate
For DDA.
. CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
ORDER o/o 08.07.201L For orders, see LA.APP.No. 78412005.
-*-1{ PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULY 08, 2011 mm L 2011:DHC:13881 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JAMNA
ApPeltant Mr.U.B.Rai, Advocate, Mr.l.S.DahiYa, Advocate'
Mr, D.S.Lakra, Advocate' Ag nihotri, M r.Kun? I thg rlil*
Mi, s u tn u r S ethilTlflil'e,:?l uf t 1' Mr.K,5unil, Advocate'
. Mr.nnuj Bhandari, Advocate Vf t..Sf-''u'Oa m Fa rashat, Advocate
Mi. sioohafth Panda Advocates Mr,njaY Verma, M:'5,unlk-u-
Ms.ShoUhna Takiar and' Mr'Arun Birbal,'Advocates for DDA
BB0-88 U200s , Notification u/s Villagd Mundka)
LA,APP.
4 dated LA.Arr, rort Lwv J ' s' \" - ^ - 0, LA.App . 7g12010, LA.App. 606/2009, LA.AP P. 61012009, 7 41207
Throug h: uol & oRS
Through:
LA.APP. Bl gpoas , LA'APP' t2l.l2}O6, t43l2OO7 (Relating to
25.02.Igg7 & Award No'2/1999-2000' AND
I
LA.APP. 7LI2O1O, LA.APP. :I2:]I2OIO, LA.APP. 722I2OTO, LA.APP.
L2512010, LA.APP, l'6412010, LA.APP. 185/2010, LA'APP'
186/2010, LA. APP. 2OOl2o.r0, LA.APP. 23812010, LA'APP'
23gl20ro, LA.APP. 24312010, LA.APP. 24412010, LA'APP'
245|2010, LA'APP. ' 24] |2010,, LA.APP. 25],120]-0, LA.APP.
252:l2OtO, LA.APP.
.266120:l:0, LA.APP' 267 |2010, LA.APP.
273l2OrO, LA.APP. 27 4|TpLO, LA.APP. 27512q10_, LA'APP'
3l2l2olo, LA.APP. 324|2010, L'A. : APP' 326120]-0, LA.APP'
327 l2O1O, LA.APP. 329120]0, LA.APP. 330/2010, LA.APP'
33II2OLO, LA.APP. 33212010,. LA.APP. 333/2010 with CM APPL'
No' 5524120II, LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367 120]-0, LA.APP.
36812010, LA,APP. 36gl2oio, LA.APP. 371120:-0 & CM APPL.
No.2009 g|2oIo, LA.APP. 37 lzoLo, LAIAPP. 375120La, LA.APP.
377l2oIO, LA.APP. 37gl2ot0, LA.APP. 42312010, LA.APP.
452l2oro, LA.APP. 46112010, LA.APP., 47212010,_ LA'APP'
69412010, LA.APP. 69612010 & CM APPL. No' 6340120l-1, LA'APP'
697I2OTO, LA.APP. 698120T0 & CM APPL' T734I2OII, LA.APP.
706120]]0 & CM APPL.. ]72]52OIO, LA.APP. 707120l-0, LA.APP.
7O8I2OI0, LA.APP. 7O.9I2OIO, LA..APP. 7]-012010 with CM APPL'
No,2568 120l-1, LA.AP P. 71312010 with CM APPL ' No'7 473120L0, :'
LA.APP. 711512010, LA.A PP. 717.12010, LA'APP ' 71912010, LA'APP"
7 6612010,. LA.APP. 7 9612010, LA.APP.. 797 12010, LA'APP'
7}8I2OIO, LA.APP. 7ggI2OTO, LA,APP. B1B/2010, LA.APP.
BI}I2O1O, LA.APP. B2}I2OIO, LA.APP. 831/2010 & CM APPL.
95512011, LA.APP. B32I2OIO, LA.APP. 83312010 & ctvl APPL.
6392120ll,' LA'APP. B34l2oIO, LA.APP , 842|2010, ' LA.APP'
87U2070, LA.APP. 8141201a, LA.APP. 87512010, LA.APP.
87612010, LA.APP. 877I2OIO, LA,APP' 87BI2O7O, LA.APP.
87gI2OIO, LA,APP. BBO/2010, LA.APP. BB1/2010 & CM
APPL.650 5.12011, LA.APP, 88212010, LA.APP. BB3/2010, LA.APP'
BB4]2OLO, LA.APP. 886l2O7O, LA.APP. ',888/2010, LA'APP'
893/2010 & cM APPL. 67sOl2oII, LA.APP. 894120]-0 & cM
No.2335 3lZOtO, LA.APP' B9512O]-0, LA,APP' 89612010, LA'APP'
8g7 I2OLO & CM APPL. 72BI2OI7, LA,APP. 9O3I2O 10, LA.APP.
LA.APP.7 B4/zooi a conneited Page 2 of L9 ;1V
L go7j2QLO, LA,APP. 938/2010, LA.APP. 939120]-0, LA'APP'
1034/2010 & cM .APPL. 308612011, LA.APP. 104012010 & cM nppr. 5673120tI, LA.APP. :.|} Uzott), LA.APP. 7043120L0 , LA.APp. :104512010, LA.APP. tO46l2OtO, LA.APP. :_04812010 '
LA.APP. :1O4gl20to, LA.APP. 1050/2010, LA'APP. 1056/2010', LA.APP. 1060/2010, LA.APP. 1061/2010, LA,APP, t07ll20l0 '
LA,APP. 12512011, LA.APP. 12612011; LA'APP' 258l2OlI
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award
No.3/2005-06, Village-Mundka)
AND
LA.App. 600/2009, @LA.APP. 61s/2009, LA.App." 3l0l2lio, Ln.nPP.frlzoro, flpp ' 37612010, LA'APP'
I
383i2010, LA.APP. 3}4l2o:Jo, LA.APP. 385/2010, LA.APP. qiziboto, LA.APP. 4g2l2oro, LA.APP.586/2010, LA'APP'
5g7l2o:ro, LA.APP. 638120L0, LA.APP. 690/2010, LA'APP' ogiioto, LA.APP. ttrl2lro, LA.APP . 7r9l?919, LA'APP'
763,120L9, LA.APP. 872120l0, LA,APP. 87312010, -LA.APP.
885/2010, LA.APP. 887 :2O:lO, LA.APP. 89Il2O:-0, 'LA.APP' egzlzoto, LA.APP. 898/2010, LA,APP. 906120]-0 & cM APPL'
No.4443 t2o:ro, LA.APP. gZl lZOn & CM APPL' 2329912010, LA.APP. 101212010, LA.APP. t047 12010
.;
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated; 2I'03.2003 & Award
No.1/2005-06, Village-M undka)
AND
LA.APP.1003i2010,LA.APP.I0I7l2olo,.LA.APP.1019/2010, LA,APP. I}zzlzoto, LA.APP. IO23l2oI0, LA.APP.' 104412010 '
CM APPL. NO.5656I2OII, LA, APP, 1055/2010, LA.APP. ro57l2}ro, LA,APP. 1058/2010,' LA.APP. 1059/2010, LA'APP'
:r068j2OLO , LA.APP. to6gl2oto , LA.APP. :J,2ryzOI] , LA,APP.
'
L27l20rl, LA.APP . r28120t1, LA.APP ' 25912011
LA.APP.7 84/2005 & connected {Y (Relating to Notiiication uis 4 dated L7.06.2005 & Award
'"t No,13/20 06-07 , Village-Yundka)
AND.+LA.APP.4ol2oog&Crossobjections,LA.APP'426|2009, LA.APP. 428l2OOg, 44212009, LA.APP. 61u2009 ' LA'APP'
616 12009, LA.AP P. 27 Bl20r0 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24.09.2003 & Award
No.3/2004-05, Vi llage-Ba kka rwa la)
,' . I AND LA.APP. TO2gI2O:IO & CM NO.594B I2OIT, LA.APP.
1030i2010, LA.APP. 103U2010, LA.APP. 1033/2010 & CM f,lo.6645 I}OIL, LA.APP. IO62l2Ot0, ' 1063/2010 & CM
No.6943 l2OI]r, LA,APP. 106412010, LA.APP' 106612010, LA'APP'
LO67 12010, LA.APP. 1 l,12011, LA.APP. T22l20.rl
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 77 '06.2005 & Award
No. 1/200 6-07, Village-Ba kka rwala) coRAM, t"'o'=-L'crNNc'rv &'"
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may;be allowed to see the judgment? 4--,
2. To be referred to RePorter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I. (OrAI) n deciding the.above captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellarieous applications which are by way of cross o.bjections; all of which have been listed her;einabove. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected r.
2. The present dbcision concerns issue of fixation of fair market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala and. village Mundka
3. The dates on which fair market value of the land haS ' to be determined may be graphically iroted ii under:-. ' +N,
1.
2.
3. 4. 5, Name of Villaoe Bakkarwala Bakkarwalq Mundka Mundka Mundka Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act 24.9.2003. 17:6.2005 25.2.l-997 2r.3.2003 17.6,200s t
4. lt may be"highlighted that the notification at serial. No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to.village ?akkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were"acquired.in the revenue estate of Village Mundka; as per serial No.5 above. 5, Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi to the. township pf Rohtak in the state of Haryana, are villages Mundkp, Ghevra and rikri Kalan..Village Bakkarwala lies towards*the other side of the southern boundary of village Mundka. The difference between the topology of th'e two villages is; whereas the land of village Mundka.abuts r: NH-10, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on ilie other side of the southern boundary of revenue estate of viilage Mundka.
6. As we proceed from the city of Derhi to the township. of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then'village Tikri Kalan.
7. Agricultural lands in vilrage M'undka were'acquired LA.AP P'.[7] 8412005 & co n nected T \ pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.7997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/199912000. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village 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.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/2005-06' Further lands in the revenue estate of the Same village w.ere acquired pursuant to a notification date d 77.6.2005 issued under Sectign 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.13i2006-07'
8. Agricultural lands'in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24.g.2003 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as 'per Award No,3/200 4-05. Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuaht to a notification dated 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands i; village Mundka were acquired) as per award No,112006-07 '
9. In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition collector determined the fair market value of'the acquired lands, under all the awards,'with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi For clarity imay note that peitaining to the,,lfffi' 10. T notification dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands'in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition'Collector determined the fair markeL value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural lahd notified with effect from l'4.lgg[7] @ T10 lacs per acre'and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted ',:the price for one year @ ILs% per annum.. This price was adopted for category A lands. For lands in category B, the value was further discounted'by t90,000/- per acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated 2I.3.2003 and 24.9.2003, the'.Land Acquisition Collbctor relied gFon the notificatibn fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of \.4,2001 and gave no benefit of enhancem'ent with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined wds as of 2L[3].2003 and 24.g.2003. Even pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenle estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of I.7.6.2005.; the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing mininrum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 7.4.2001 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 the above 'captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair market value. \0 I o In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25.2,1997 vide which agricultural lands.in village Mundka We.re,acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same. notification as.. was adopted by the Land Acquisition collector under which the
12. LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected PageT of L[9] 'rf L' i Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the,minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4,7997, but as against the Land Acquisition collector depressing the price @ 11.5o/o for full one year; adopting the percentage 11.5, decreased 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.Igg[7]. This was the valu.e fixed for category A lands' and for category B lands; with.reference to the values for t category A land depressed the same by.t90,000/- 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 wa[5] determined @ t[8],99,2881- per acre. t[4]. 24.g.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 agqicultural lands in Delhi as of 1.4,2001 the next revision was as of 30.8.2005. Using the said dates and the minimLm 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 1.4.200r- ?nd increasing 'the same by l0% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21.3.2003 as also 24.9.2003. Thereafter the Reference CourL.took the' value notified as of -30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per Pertaining to the notifications dated 21,3.2003 and
15.
16. i which lhave penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing tod.ay. '17. With reference to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2 OO4'/amna Vs, UOl & Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in L[4] App.No.7B4l2005, which argument was adopted by othei learned counsel.who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-l whereunder 1 bigha \r' annum determined the sum arrived at as'of 2].3',2003 as also 24.g.2003. The two sums'arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure'as of 2L[3].2003, which I note comes to T15,92,083.33 per acre (ln som"e decisions I note the sum arrived at is <!5,92,215/-), For the date 24'9'2003 the price determined was {20,41,000i- per acre, 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 l-4.2001 and giving 4yr' increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respec.t to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-10 gave 5% more and deiermined the faii market valu'e as of 17'6.2005 in"sum oi T21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the pricq determined was <20,35,2551- per acre. ln the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenaiio in } and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village''Mundka was sold as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of {4,75,000i-' T38,000/- wai incurred towards sale duty and thus the price gf the land would be t[5],13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto,'land price per bigha would come to t[4],46,000/- as of 5.8'1996. Learned counsel.would urge that there is ho reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in villagg Mundka was T[4],46,000/-pe,rbighaasof[5].8.1996.Taki'ngtheargument forWard, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to 'be determined as of ZS.Z'1993, 2I.3.2003 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 pfi.u progressively, if not by i^2% per ainnum at least bv i10% per, annum. lt is urged that on the same basis, land price.should. be determined for the agr:ictj'lturil lands in village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since,villages 'Tikri Kalan, Mundka. and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further tQwards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in'the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakka.rwala with reference to the judgment and deCree dated 19.12.2008 decid'ing a batch of. Land Acquisition Appeals, ' lead matter being LA Appe'al 'No.193/2006 Pratan Sinoh (Deceasedt Thr. I-Rs Vs, uQl 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 lr'7.]22002 at t[2],!5,1641- for category A land // t t\ l,/ l,a I ti" \b and {1,73,5001-, for category B land; T[2],35,850 for category A land and T[1],90,150/- for category B land; '74'02'850/- for category A land and.<3,24,8501for category B land, respectively. lmay note here that in various land acquisition 18. 19, 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-1. per contra, sh.sanjay Poddar learned"counsel for the UOI would urgej. that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cann.ot 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 urge that if it has to be determined'whether what percentagq of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method. to pick onfy 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 conclusion that the bag is full of stones. At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a' repre,sentative sample, is- the example given. The second reason on which learned counsel would a'ttack 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 aicquisitions, are made, land in the area is iurveyed,. Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification -under Section 4 LA.APP.I 84/2005 & connected $ I of the.Land Acquisition Act. Learned coUnsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Codrt 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-l 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 that the four sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-4 referred.to in the decision of the learned Reference Coutt pertaining to sale deeds dateci 6.1.1995, 30,5.1997, 4.6,1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOI would show the actual market va!ue:of'.the land and'thus learned counsel would urg'e that the saidlfOur 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 which is nearest to the point of time when the respective' notifications weqe, 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
20061135) DLT 23I lai Sinoh Vs, UO/' The decision in lai Sinah's. case (supra) concerns itself 21. L,A. APP.[7] 84 /2005 & co n nected 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 T[1],32,OOOI- per bigha. Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch PagetZ of 19 I.:, \b as Petitions for special Leave to Appeal filed before the supre.me court by either: side have been dismissed. Learned counsql takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15'10'1993 at ' T[1],32,000/- per bigha, the fair inarket value should be ascertained by increasing the price. progressively by l0% 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 ipcational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.Igg[7],211.3.20b[3] and 17.6'2005, by giVing 5% increase.
22. WithrespecttothesaIedeedEx'P-l,whereunderl bigha and 3 bisWa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume impoitance that the sale is about 7 months prior to ihe date of.the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on
25.2. Igg[7]. lt is a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition.Act, survey's are"carried out with the object of determining'as to what lands, comprised in wfiich khasra numbers and'fields are required to be notified for the.proposed acquisition and when this happgns people in the area come to kn.ow that very soon there is every/ likelihood that the' lands would be acquired. ln Delhi, the larg,e scale acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates' a plot of devgloped residential land to the ones whose'lands 3re LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected..[4] dI '!* t'.vr acquiredandthus,itisnotuncommon''forpersonstopurchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place; these transactions aie speculative and cannot be !akentobearepresentativemeasureofthefairmarketvaIueof land as on the date of the sale. Further,'the principles of ratio andproportionaSalsotheprinciplesofaverages-andthe principlesofsamplingte|lmeth.attoberepresentativeofthe whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted' I ho|dthatEx'P-lcannotbegoodevidencew|rerefrommarket value of the land could be determined' There is an additional reasonnottorelyuponthesaidsaIedeed..ThesaIedeedsEx;RltoEx.R-,dat"d9'1'1995'30'5':':gg7'4'6'1997and8'9'Lgg[7] area|sopertainingtoVillageMundkaandreflectasa|eprice much|owerthanthesalepricerecordedinEx.P-l.lnfact,the sale price in the said 4 sale' deeds averages much less than eventheminimumpriceforagricutturaIlandinDelhinotifiedby the Government' ' lhe lands would be
23. Thus, the fair market value of the lanos w[9] requiredtobefixedeitherwilhreferenc€to!hedecisionofthis Court in.lai Sinoh'scase (supra) or Pratap Sinah's case (supra)' 24,lhighlightthatbothdecisions'pennedbytheDivision BenchofthisCourthavebeenuphe|dbytheSupremeCourt.
25. Thedecisionin|aisinah,scase(supra).determined.fairmarketval'ueoflandinVillageBakkarwalain.sumof {1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15'10'1993' and the 'perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page L[4] of 19.t \? would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, ' apparently on the premise tha.t being contiguous villagdrs, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining'villagbs would be indicative'of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala
26. ln Pratap Sinah's case (supra), the. Division Bench: was concerned with agiicultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various'. notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitlon A.ct determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:-
S. NO. Date Village Price per Bigha
1. 24.07.1995 & 16.11.1995.t Tikri Kalan T[2],15,l-601- for Block A & {1,73,5001- for Block B land,
2. 11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan & Ghevra {2,35,[8] 75/- for Block A & {1,90, 11561- for Block B land
3. 17.r[2].2002 Tikri Kalan <4,02,850/- for Block A & <3,24,8501- for Block B land
27. Following the judgment in Pratap Sinoh'scase (supra) I have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6.2.2003. in the batch of appeals being Land \E o.: AcquisitionAppea|No.4Bg|2oog,.Chiran.;i.Lalvs'tJnionof,|ndia& Anr,on2'6'2011.Ihavedeterminedthefairmarketvalueofthe |andsinVilIageGhevraat{4,03,425|-perbighaasof6'2.2003. on the issue of comparability of rand in village Bakkarwala with vi|lage Mundka,. Ghevra and Tikri Kalbn, 'it is no doubt true that whereasvillageBakkarwaladoesnotalutNH-10''asdothe other villages, but it has to be'highlighted that it is more proximatetotheurbanbreasofDelhivis-d-vis.GhevraandTikri Ka|anandtothatextent,quasaid2vil|ages,hasanadvantage' Since.exactnesscanrieverbeachievedinthemattersof assessingfaircompensation,itisthebroadprobabilitiesand similaritieswhichmatter.Thus,lhoIdaIl4viltagestobe. equiValent, unless qua some land special *i:"t::ti::: ill1l', s\'lr'rf v uf s' 'L' " ^ -;^ Aari<inr ' inoh', case '(supra)
28. Since the decision in Pratao St dea|swithnotificationsmoreproximateinpointoftimetothe.,, notificatiorrswithwhichlamconcerned,lamoftrieolln''::i: itwou|dbejust,fairandpropertodetermine,thefairmarket vaIueof.landswithwhichlamconcernedinretationtothefair ma,rketvalueoflandsdetermined-inPralapSinah'scase(supra).' AsperthedecisioninPratapsinah,scase(supra)forthedate 24.7.1995, for Category A lands iair com.pensation utt::ted was <2,!5,160l- per bigha and t[1] '73'5OOlpFr bigha for Category B land.Thefirstnotificationwithwhichlanconcernedis '25.2.Igg[1] whereunder lands in Village Mundka wgte acquired' ThetimeSpanSWee.pSlyearand2116daysi.e,5BTdays.|n Pratap liryoh'scase (supra) ease was determined to be LO% per annum (ftat)' Thus' pertaining to Category A LA.APP.784|2-OO[5] & connected Page 16 of'19 /.t lands, the fair market.value assessed is t[2],4g,4oB'75 per b'igha i.e. t11,[9] 7,1621- per acre and for Category B lands' l'assess the fair market value at T[2],01,I]r71- per bigha i'e' {9'65'361'60 per acre,
29. ThenextnotificationWithwhichlamconcernedis dated 21.3.2003 pertaining to village'Mundka. ln chira'nii Lal's o the same. PageLT ofL[9] "2 cas (supra), with reference to the decision i.n Pr.atap sinqh'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'{4,03,4251- per bigha. This. was unifdrmly 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 rnarket value of land ih'. Village Mundka. should be <4,03,425/- i.e. T19,36,440i- per acre' whlch I herebY fix. 30..l propose to deai with the nofificatio-n dated 24.g.2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17"6'2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala' 3l,Asnotedhereinabove,inChiraniiLal,scase.(supra), pertainingtothenotificationdated[6],2,2003,fairmarketvaIue assessed by me was {4,0 3,4251- per bigl'',u und thus, increasing thesameby:Io%for2yearsand13ldays,thefigurecomesto {4,98,5Bgl- per bigha, which comes to t23 '93'227 '20 per acre' 'The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundkb and Village Bakkarwala as of L[7] '6'2005' I decree
32. I am left with the notifica'tion dated 24'9'2003 require to be dismissed and I hereby 'dismiss the same' appealsfiIedbytheIandoWnersandthecross-objections by the land owners stands decreed as under:pertaining to Village Bakkarwala. and with reference to the fair market value assessed in Chlranii Lal's case, t wouiO require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days' the figure comes to <4,25,6411- per bigha i'e' {20'43'076'80 per acre, which ldetermine 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 lndia The filed i) For the land falllng in Category A land in Village fixed at is' Mundka the fair-market value is <2,4g,408.75 per bigha i'e' { 11,97 '1621-.per eicre and forCategoryBIands,thefairmarketvalueis.fixedat '{2,01r,i-,I71- per big[a i'e' {9,65'361'60 pelacre' as on 25. 02.lgg[7], ii).For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair' ' market value is fixed at t[4],03,4251- per.bigha i.e'. tl[9],36,4401- per acre, as on 2l.'03'2003' iii)FortheIandsituatedinVil|ageMundkathefair market value is fixed at {4,98,589/- per bigha i'e' t23,93,22J.20 per acre, as on 17 '06'2005' iv) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fai'r market value is fixed at {4,98,5891-'per bigha i'e' LA,APP.[7] 8412005 & connected o '' { l,i v) vi) <23,g[3],227.20 per acre, as on 17.06'ZbOS' For the land situated in Village Bakkdrwala,the fbir market valu'e is fixed at T[4],25,6411--per bigha i'e' t20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 24,09:2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also.be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and a[5] clarified'in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT s69 vs. [JO/, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced ' by the present judg.ment and decree. vii) The appellants. and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs' viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein. t i!' I ir. ' UU (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE o luLY 08, 2011 mm rl:t. fl