Union of India v. Devinder Singh

2 The present decision concerns issçie of fixation tof fatt' market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwal and village Mundka

3 The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under:- ' S.Np., Name of Village.Dteofnbtjfiation'ud.erI Section 4oftheLAAct

1 Bakkarwala 1, 244.2003

2. Bakkarwala 17.6.2.005.3.. Mundka. 2.2.1997.. 21.3.2003. 5.. Mundka.. 17.6:2005'..

4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-b, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka The difference between the topology of the two villages is whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, that of village Bakkarwala does not 'so abut bein.g on, the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka S 6 As we proceed from the otyof. Delhi to the township of Rohtak village Mundka is crossed first, followed by, village Ghevra and. then village Tikri Kala... ',.......,. 7........ Agricultural lands in village. Mundka were acquired Pages of 19 Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural hands in Delhi i e 1.4.1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price © 11 5% 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 Acquisitior Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for categor' A lands and for category B lands, with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000/-. per acre.

13 Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value © 9,89,288/- per acre and for. category B land the same was determined © Z[8],,99,288/- per tre

1.4. 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 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 Governmer'it of NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean average. What the Réferencé Court did was to adopt the value. as of 11.4.20.01 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of, 21 3 200 as also 24.9.200.3.. Thereafter the Reference Court took'thë value notified as.of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per annum determiçied the sum arrived at as of 21.12003 2003 as also.24.9.2003,The two sums arrrved at were addeç and divided b' two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21 3 203, which I nose comes to Z15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note t[1] sum arrivedat is 15,92,2I5/). FOr the date 24.9.2003 tfe price determined was 20,41,000I- per acre

15 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 frorn 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in villae Mundk, oaccount of locatiofld.i. advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of, 17.6.2.005 in sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255/- per acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual 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 before me during hearing today

17. With reference to the evidence, led In LAC ' No.384/2004 /amna Vs. 110/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai,. learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.•No.784/2005, whih argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared,for the other appellants, that the learhed Trial JUdge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder, 11 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of Z[4],[7] 5,000/- 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000I- and calculated with reference thereto, land prce 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 market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 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 of25.2J993,,. 213.2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant S whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing theprice 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 village Bakkarwala Alternatively, Jit was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkirwal ar cbnguous villages, 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 refeience to the judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of

5 Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr. LR[5] Vs 110/ 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 of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would corkede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two cQntentions 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, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex ft-i to R-4 referred to in the decision of the 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 show the actual market value of the land and thus learned couriel would urge that the said fOur sale deeds shoul be S 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 were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

20. An independent and alternätive arumeflt 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 Ia' Singh Vs UQI 21 The decision in /ai Singh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwal.a which were acquired pursuant to a. notification dated 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000I- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed befOre the Supreme Court by either side' have been dismissed. Learned, counsel 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% per nnun' to determine. the market valud of land in viIlage Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in villae Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997, 21 3 2003 and 17.6.2001 5, by giving.. 5% icrease:...

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land j. was sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Secti.on 4 of the L.nd Acq.isition Act, whiàh was issued n 25.2.1997. It i s a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification upd.er Section 4. of the Lahd Acquisition Act, surveys are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numb?rs and fields are required to be notified for the proposed,. acquisition and when this happens 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 poIRy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates,48 plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005 & connected... Page 13of 19 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 land as on the date of the sale. Further, the pri.ndples of rati. and proportion as also the principles 'of averages and the tell me that to be representative of the principles of sampling whole, a sample must bear at intelligible propçrtiOn to the whole. Thus, not for, the reaoning ad.vancd 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 There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sal deeds Ex R- 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4.6.1.997 and 89 1997 are also pertaining to Village Mindka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the. sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less thab even the minimum price for agricultural land 1h Delhi notified by the Government

23 Thus, the fair market value of the lands would b required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of thi Court in JI 5/nq cas.e (supra) or La. Sinqh's case (supra).

24 I highlight that both decisions, peflned b y the,DivisiOfl Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25 The decision in Jai SIng/17's case (supra) determiflecl fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwa!a in sum of 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & tonnected would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed betwen the years 1990.ti11 the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village 1'1undka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, dale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala