Union of India v. Baldev Singh & Ors.

1 WhMher the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment[2]

2 To be referred to Reporter or not?

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? • PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral) 4 • •• •. •.•.•' • • •. ••..

4.

1 I am deciding the • above captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove •. •..,,.••. •• pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2,']Q99/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village F'1undka were further acquired pursuant to a notif cation dated 2 3 00 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition ct as per award S.•••;. No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquiredpursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 issued under SectiOni 4 of the Land 'Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07.

I. 5... S.

8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24.942003 issued under Section 4 of the La'nd Acquisition Act as per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the 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 Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum' price for agricultural iand as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi

10 For clarity I may note that pertainin to the 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 market value with reference to the minimum pricq t for agricultural land notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ T10 acs per acre and since the date 5..........,... 'S.......,..[5] of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted IAAPP784/2005&connected Page6ofl[9] annum determined the sum arnved at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24.9.200.. 3The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21 3 2003, which I note comes to U[5],92,083 33 per acre (In sorrie deisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the de 24 9 2003 the price determined was 2D,41,000!- er acre

15 Pertaining to the notification date,d. 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were 4aquired )n v'illage Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by. the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the* value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational dvantage, being abutting NH-10 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 v1illage Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255/- per acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the fctuaI scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of. the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced beford me during hearing today H nd 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Muçdka was sold as of,[8] 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,7S,000/- 38,000i[7] was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000I- acid calculated with reference thereto, l,and price per bigha would come to Z[4],46,000/- as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market viue of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,0O9I- 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 f 25 2 1993,.2I.3.2003 and 17.62005., i.e. the dateswhenno.tificatio1un.de • Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant wEereto agricultural lands were acquired in 'village Muñdka, 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, laç'id price should be determined fbr the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tkri 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 Singh (L7eceased) Thr. LRs Vs 00/ 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 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land LA APP 784/2005 &connected H'.•. as Petitions for $pecial Leav'eto Appeal filebefor Suprem Court by, either side have been dismissed Learied couns& takes the argument forward by urging that by, a'dqpting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala 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% per annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel riould urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of Jand in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, by giving 5% increase

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 1996, it would assume'importanCe that the kale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25 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 carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers and fieds are required to be notified for the proposed • r acqutsi tion and when this happens people in the area come to know that very soon there is every likçlihood that the lands would be acquired In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rites, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase i sniall parcels of lands in areas where acquisitiOns are likely to ta}<e place, these transactions are speculative and dannot be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of land as on the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio and proportiofl as also the principles of averages and the principles of samphng tell me that to be' rejresentative of the 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 hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined Thre is an additional rçason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex Rito 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 i Ex P-i In fact, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than the minimum price for agricultJral land in Delhi notified by even the Government Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with refrenC to the decision of this • case (supra) or I highlight that both decisions, pepned by the Division Bench, of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court

25 The decision in JaiSIncLh'S 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 Pagel4ofl[9] LAAPP784/2005&C0flCt would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Ialan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoinipg villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Sincjh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and 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 ViHage Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under -

S. NO Date Village Price per Big ha

1 24 07 1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 11 1995 f\ & T[1],73,500/7 for Block B land 2 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalan & T235,8151- for Block iI: - - Acquisition Appeal No 489/2009, Chiranit La!,5jgjof/n1- 2.[6] 2011 I have detrmined the fair market value of the Anr. on nds' in Village Ghevra at 4,b[3],425J- per bigha as of 6.[2] 2003 On the issue of comparabilitY of land' in village Bakkarwala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-lU, as do the otrer villages, but i hs to be highlighted that it i more proximate to the urbn areas of Delhi vis-a-vis Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an 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 to be equivaieflt, unless qua some land special feaureS can be shown