Rakesh Garg v. Union of India & Ors.

1. • I am deciding the above captioned appeals and • relatable civil miscellaneous applications whicr are by way of cross objections; all of which have been listed hereinabove;. • • • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected., •. • • Page4ofI[9], •.. 2.. The present decision concerns issue of fjxation of fair •... market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala and villae Mundka........' 3: The dates on which fair market value of the land ha. to be determined may be graphically noted as under:- ' S.No. Name of VillaQe Date of notification under Section 4 of the 'LA Act Bakkarwala Bakkarwala. 17.6.2005 3.. '. Mundka.. '25.2.1997, Mundka 21.3.2003, Mundka 17.6.2005..lt may, be highlighted that the notification at sehal No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the sahie pursuant whereto lands were'ac'quired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka; as per seial NO.5 above. ' Abutting NH40, leading fro the cftyofDelhi to the township of Rohtak in th,e State' of Hrana, are iilagés Mundka, ' Ghevra and T:kri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the, other side of, the Southern bduhdary of village.Mundka. The difference between 'the topology of the two villages'is; where'as the land, of, village,Mundka abuts NH-la; that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut.; being on the other side of the Southern boundaryof revenue estate of village M'undka..6. As we proceed from the city of Delhi td the: township ' of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by, villae Ghevra and then village Tiki Kala..

7. Agricultural lands in village' Mundka Were acquired S LA.APP.784/2005 & cOnnected '. ' Page of 19 ' I pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2000 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 Actasper awar,d No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.2005 issued under Section 4 of. the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Lard 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, • detérminedthe fair ma.rket ilue 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

10 For clarity I may note that pertaining 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 price for agricultural land notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ Z10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted A APP 784/2005 & connected •••• i •. V the price for one year 11.5% per iannum. This price as adopted for category P lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertaining to the • notifications dated 21.32003 and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notificatidn 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 w 's a as, of 21.3.2003 • and 24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the notification dated • 17.6.2005 which reqUired, fair market. ialue of land to be determined, in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector • ••'. determined the, same with reference.to the notification. fixing minimum value of agricultural 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 Acquisi;tion Collector, the land owners sought a reference und.er Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 and on the reference.bein. 'made, vide various judgments and decrees, vhich are under chlJenge' 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 • • 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 LA.APP.784/2005 &'. connected.,. - Government of NCT Delhi had fixed, the minimum yalue for agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but -as against, the Land Acquisition Collector depresing the price @ 11.[5] 6/o for full one • - year; adopting the percenfage 11,5, decreased the,-value by ' only 34 days inasmuch, as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value.was:L4J997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was d,ated 25.[2] J997. This was the value fixed for category A lands', and fOr' category B lands;' with. reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre. - Thus, for category A. lands t h e Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for. categdr.y B land the same was determined @8;99,288i- per - acre. - Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and villaga,Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Go'ernment 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 mihinum 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 eHanced price as of.21.3.2003: as also ' 24.9.2003. T,hereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by, 10% per. LA.APP.784/2005& connected ' ' - Page 8 of-19 • ' annum determined the sum arred at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 The 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 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 price deterrnned was'20,41,0OO! 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 from 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in '.nllage Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fa'r market value as of 17 6 2005 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 /a'nna Vs (JO! & Ors, it was urged by Sh L. B. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784i'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-i whereunder 1 bigha V and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5.8.1996 for a sale consid?ration of 4,75,000/-. 38,000I was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000!- and calculated with reference theretd, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of.8.1996. Learned, counsel wouldurge that there is no reason notto hold that fir market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka 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, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act /were issued pursuaAt 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 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 towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala.with reference to th.e judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead. matter being LA Appeal No.193/2006 Pratap Sin(-7h (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs.UO/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 • • Page lOof 19 • • S " •'........ and fl,73,5001- for category B land, Z[2],35,830 for category A land and 1,9'0,150/- for categdry B land; 4,02,850I- for category A land and 3,24,850I- for category B land, respectively........ I may note, here that: in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a number o 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 fdr the UOI wôuld urge that the sale price, as per Ex.P-1 '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 urge that if.it has to be determinec wh.ether what'percentage Qf, stones are mixed in a bag of rice it' would not be a safe method.. S to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be. the grain of rice one would lead to the conclusion that the ba 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 fullof stones. At least a' fistful should be lifted and t,hen checked as a representative ' sample, is- the example given. The second reason on which' learned counsel would attack the sale deed 'a not being' representative of the price is the reasoh that people.do come to' ' know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. 'Without a survey it woufdbe difficuJt to issue even the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel would concede. • that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sdu.nd, b u t would urge that the two contentions advanced by • him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why.Ex.P-1 be not taken as the basis to' determine the fair market • value of lands in village' Mundka and Bakkarwala., Thirdl,'. 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 Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995,. 30 5 197 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOl would show t!e actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four 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 w lereJssued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act..

20. An independent and alternative argument is. also advanced by learned counsel for the Union. The samerests. itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 /a.í Singh Vs 1101 • 21.. The decision in /aiS/ngh's case (supra)concérn,s itself • • 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 1,32,000/7 per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained.finalfty inasmuth. • 1A APP 784/2005 & connected 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 1,32,000/- 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 would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25,.2.1997, 21.3.2.003 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 sale 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 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 policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose 1ands are 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 transaciOn[5] 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 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 ber' at intelligible propotiofl to the, whole'. Thus, not for, the reasoning advanced, by the learned • eference Court, but forthe twin reoning.hithe1t0f0r noted, I' hold that Ex;P-1 cannOt b,e good evidence wherefrom market vlue of the land could be determined. There is an additional, re,ason not to rely upon the said sale deed. The sale deeds Ex.R- 1 to Ex.R-4, dated 6.1.1995, 0.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 are also pertaining, to Village Mjñdka and reflect a sale price • • ' much lbwer than the sale price recorded ift ExP-1. in fact, the 'ale price in the said.[4] sale deeds averages much lss 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 to thedecisiOn of this Court inf5InghCa5e (supra) or Pratap S,ngh's case (sura) • 24. • ' I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court. • •• •,, 25. The decision in. i 5ihgh'case (supra) deemined fair maket value of land in yfllage' Bakkarwala in. sum of 1,32,000I- per bigha,as of 15.10.1993, and the perusal thereof • • • • LA.APP.784/2005 & coneted ' • • •,,', ' VIr • would show that the Court ssessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds excuted between the years 1990 AM the year 1996 either in Village T!kri Kalan or, Village Mundka, • apparently on the premise that being contigupus villagers, sale • price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining kiiliages would be indicative of fair market value of iand in Village Bakkarwala

26. In Pratap S/ngh's case (supra), the Division Bench. • was concerned with aghcultural lands in Tikri Kalan and anothé • adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining, to various notificationsissued under Sectio[4] of the Land Acqulition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:- • I S.NO. Date Village • - Phce per Big ha 24:07.1995 & Tikri Kalan. 2,15,160/- for Block 16.11.1995 • • A & •133,500/7 for Block B.•land 11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block •: Ghevra,. • A.& 1,90,I56/- for Block B !nd 1 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block • • • A & 324,850/- fon • •Block.B land b Acquisition Appeal No.489t2009, A on 2.6.2011. I have determifle the fair market alu of the lands in Village Gh'evra at 4,03,425I- per bigha as of.6.2.2003. On the issuéof comparabilitY of land in village Bkkarwäla with village Mundka, Ghevla and Tikri Kalan, 'it is no doubt true that does not abut NH-lU, as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to th urban areas of Delhi Vi5--ViS Ghev ra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an adv,antage Since exactness can never be ahieved in the matters of,, assessihg fair compensation[1] it is the broad probabilities and similarities which mttér. Thus, I hold. all '4 villageS,to be equialeflt, unes[5] qua some lad special fetureS can be shown.

28. ' Since the decision in Pratap. case.(supra) deals with notifications more proximate in poin of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine.. the fair market value of lands with which I' am concernd in relation to the fair market value of tands determined in pratap, 5g[5] case (supra). 'As per the decision inPrataP 5i2g[5] case,(sUpra) for the date, 24.7.1995, for Category A lands fair compeflSatiofl àssessd was 2,15,l60/'- per bigha and 1;73,00I pe bigha for CategOrY B land'. The' first notification with which I am concerned is 25.2.1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired. Thetime span sweepsj year and '216 581 days. 'In PrataP 5/n 7case (supra) the an,nuIflaa5e was determined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to Category A ' LA.APP.784/2005 & connected lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 per bigha i. e Th[1],97,162!- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess the fair market value at 2,01,.117/- per bigha i.e. 9,65,361.60 per acre.. The next notification with which I am concerne&.L[5] dated 2132003 pertaining to Village Mun.dka. In Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's c a s e (supra), for agricultural iands in Villge Ghevra pertaining to. a. notification issued under Section. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was Z[4],03,425/- per big ha 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 notificatipn. 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...... I propose to deal •with the notification dated 24.9.2003 after dealing with the notification dated 176.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquir?d i h Village Mundká and Village Bakkarwala... 0..

31 As noted hereinabove, in Chirani' Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003,.fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425I- per bigha and thus, increasing • the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure bmes to 4,98,589I- per bigha, which cornes to 23,93,22720 per pere. The same is held by me to be the fair market value of ta.d in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17.6.2005. 1 decree: the same. 0 0 • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • 0 •. 0. I 'am left with the notification dated 24.9.2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with referenc to' thefair • market value assessed in Chiranli La/5 case, I would require to • appreciate the price by 10% per annum fàra. period of 201 days; the figure comes to T[4],25,641I- per bigha i.e. t20,43,076.80 per acre, which I determine to be the fair maket vafte of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003.. Accordingly, he appeal.s filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land pwners stands decreed as under:- For the land falling in Category A land in Village 0 Mundka the fair market value is fixed at is • • 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. Z 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed a • • 2;01,117/-, Perbigha i.e. 9,65,361.60;per acre; as • • • •... •••. on2502.1997. • •. • •. • • •. L For the land situated in Village: Mundka the fai market value is fixed at 4,03,425I- per bigha i.el • • 19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003. • • • For the lend situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per biha i.e. • • • • • • 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005 • For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair • • hiarket value is fixed at 4,98589/- per, bigha i.e. • • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected •. • • age 18 of 19