Union of India v. Brahamanand

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC.Jo 384/2004 lamna Vs UQI & Ors, it was urged by Sh L B Rai, f the Land Acquisition Act Learriqd counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are pot $ound, but would urge that the to contentions' advanced by hi should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why m Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair marke[4] ialue of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds x R-1 to R[4] referred to in the decision of the learned leference 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 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 r,eference 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 alternative, argumenit is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union The sa,me rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as (135) DLT 231 /aisingh Vs LIQI '

21 The decision in /aiSingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuaçit to a ntification iated 15 10 1993 at Z[1],32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA APP 784/2005 & connected ' as Petition for Special Leave to ppeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been'dismissed Le&red ounsel take, theargument forward by urging that by, adopting the fii market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,O00I- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per andum to determine the market value of land in:vi1lag Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantae 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. )) \AIH-h rnrtti-th-.cal P deed Ex.P-1.. whereunder 1:•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 measure of te fair market value of taken to be a representative 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 f the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reaso ning 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 There isan additional

1. reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds 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 Munqlka and reflect a sale price much lower than te sa price recorded in x P-i In f, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much le[4] than even the minimum price for agricultural land i n,'Delhi oti ied by the Government Thus, the fair market value of the lands wotild be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court injf5I/7gh'ScaSe45uPra) or Pratap Sinqh's case (supra)

25 The decision in k' 5,nghcaSe (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 LAAPP784/2005&connected Pagel4ofl[9] k would show that the Court assessed the fair marketvalue with 1 reference to sIe deeds executed between the years 1990 till t he year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land Jn t h e.-:.[2] adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village BkkarwaIa

26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural Inds in ikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to yarious notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in IilIage Tikri Kalan arGhevra as under - SNO Dat Village Price per Big ha 1 4% Of. & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16 11995 A & 1,73,59OI[7] for Block B land 2 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for I 3 1712,2002 Tikr: Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block A Z[3].,24,850/- for

27 Fopwing the judgment in Pratap Sin cih's case (supra) I have decidi th 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 bein Land LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 15of 19 lands, the fair market value assessed i 2,9,408 75 per bigha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B, lands, I assess the ir value at 2,01,117/- 'per bigha i e 9361 60 per eml<et

29 The next notification with which I am concered is dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chirani Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap 5inghs 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 uniformly applied Since there is a time ap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to e notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in rlIage Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i e 19,36,440I- per acre, which I hereby fix I propQse to deal with the notification dated 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 ursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Vil'age undka and Village Bakkarwala

31 As noted hereinabove, in Chirarni Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2p03, faifl marke value assessed by me was 4,03,425!- per bigha and thus, increasing 10% for s and 131 days, the figure comes to the same by 2 year 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 per ce The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Bakkaala as of 17 6 2005 ldecre Village Mundka and Village rw H thesame LAAPP784/2005&connected Pagel7ofl[9] I t 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For. the land situated in Villag,e akkarwaa the fair market value is fixed at 4,2,41/- per bigh i 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 interest as per statute and as clarified in the 4cision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs tb!, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree 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

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JULY08, 2011 mm -1 A APP 784/2005 & connected