Union of India v. Prakash Mangla

3. Whether thejudgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP.NAN DRAJO.G, J. (Oral). 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, LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • HI 2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of fair market value of landin the revenue estate Of Village.akkarwal • and village Mundka..

3. The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as unden- S.No. Name oflVifiage Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act

1. Bakkarwaia 24.9.2003.

2 Bakkarwäla 176.2005.. Mundka 25.2.1997. Mundka 21.3.2003 • 5. Mundka.17.6.2005 •. 4.. It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to:viHa.ge Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto.lands wereacquired in the revenue estate of ViHge Mundka; as per serial No.5 above. * 5 Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bat karwala lies towards the other side of the Southern bouhdary of villa ge Mundka. • The difference between the topolog of the two villages is; wheeas the land of vilIge Muhdka abuts NH-b, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue' estate of village Mundka. • As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, fbllowed by village Ghevra and then vi,IIae Tikri Kalan. • •. Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA.APP.784/005 & connected. •. Page 5of 19 S pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.199 7 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/1999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of villag'e 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 were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.62005 isued 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 o a nbtification dated 24.9.203 issued under Section 4 of the Land 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.112006-07. In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition C011ector 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.

10. For clarity.[1] may note that peaining to the notification dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acuired, the learned. Land Acquiition Collector determined the fair market value with rference to the minimum price for agricultural lahd notified with effect from 1.4.1997 @ Z10 lacs per acre and Since the date of Section.[4] notification was anteribr in oint of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected the pricejor one yea'r'@ 11.5% per annum. This price was adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further, discounted by 90,000/7 per acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification 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 was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 which required fair market value of lahd to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwaia and vThage 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 land's 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 tn 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 value for agricultural lands 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 Acquisition Act was dated 25 2 1997 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 90,000I- per acre..13. Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court. determined the fair, market value @ 9189,288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288I- per..[1] acre.

14. 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 Jn Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the muiirnum 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 enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 as also 24.9.2003... Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 2003 as also 24.9.2003. The two sums arrived at were added and dividd 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 15,92,215I-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000t per acre..

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in viIIge Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notiied by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving increase @1.0% per annum determined the value 'and,with 'respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU 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 village Bakkarwala the price determ'ined 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 meduring hearing today.

17. With reference to the evidence led, in LAC No.384/2004 Jamila Vs. 1101 & Ors.; it was urged by Sh.L,B.Rai,. learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, 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 I bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.,.., ' '' * 1%. and 3 bisw.a of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty ahd this the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with.: referenc.e thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- 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 referehce to the said price, fair market value needs tobe 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 pursuant 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 onthe sarhe basis, land priceshould 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 villag Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increaSe be made jn the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with, reference to the judgment and decree dated 19.12.200.[8] deciding abatch of. Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No.193/2 006 Pratap 5!nqh ('Deceased.) Thr. 2s Vs.U! as per which fair market value of land,perhigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16.11.1995,,. 11.6.1996 and 17.12.2002 at 2,1.5,164/- for category A land LA.APP.784/2005& connected... and Z[1],73,500/- for category B land, 2,35,850 for category A land. and 1,90,150/- for category B land;'. 4,02,850!- for. category A land and 3.,24,850!- for category B land, respectively.......

18 I may note here that in various land acquisition references, various partishave proved a number of sale deeds executed from time' to time, but during arguments today, befoe H'ie, learned counsel for the land owners 'h'av.e only relied upon the sale deed Ex.P[4]. ' '19. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P[4] cannot be adopted as the yrdstick for the reason,, to be a representatie sample of the whole, the sample 'must bear some, adequae proportion to the whble. For example, learned counsel would urge that if, it has to be determined whether what percentage ? stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe methdd to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice onewould lead tothe conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grai'n happens to be a piece of stone, one wouI reach to the conclusion that the,bag i full,of 'stones. At least fistfUl should be lifted and then checked as a representativ sample, is- the example given. The second reason on whick learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come tb know about pending a.cquisition inasmuch as before cqu'isitionL are made land in the area is surveyed Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section I of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel would concede that the reasohs given by the learned Reference Courtare not sound, but woild urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why ExF-lbe not taken as the basis to determine the fair maFket value of landsi in village M.jndka and 8akkarwala. 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 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 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 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 2006 (135) D LT 231 Ia! S/ngh V[5]. UO/. The decisio in Lal5!ngh's case (.supra) 'concerns itself' H with the determinationof the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala whicft 'were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15.10.1993 at 1,32,000/- per 'bigha. Learned counsel would urge that. the said decision' has attained finality' inarnüch LA.APP.784/2005 & connected " ': as Petitions for Special Leave to Appal 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 urgethat in view of the locatiohal advantage of.village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 252.1997, 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 sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquistion 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 nuhbers 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 Governmentto allot, at pre determined rate, a • plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • • • 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 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 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 vlue of the 'land could' be determined. There i an additional • 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 Mundka 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 than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government. Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this ou rt'inJ/5/flgcaSe (supra).or Pratap Singh's case (spra).

25. ' The decision in (supra) dtermifled fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000I- per biha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof 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 that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Singh'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 Village Tikri Kalan and Ghera as under:- S.NO. Date VHlage Price per Bigha 24.07.1995 & Ti'kri Ka.lan 2,15,160/- for Block 16.11.1995 A & !1,73,500/7 for Block B land 11.06.199.[6] - flkH Kalan & 2,35,815/- forBlodk Ghevra. A &.1,90,156/- for Block B land. 17.12.2002 - Tikri Kalan 4,O[2],850/- for Block 11 • A & 3,24,850/- for Block B land.27. Following the, jud.méht in Pratap 5Mgh scse (supra) I have decided the fair market value forthe. land situated in revenueestate of Village Ghevra, which, was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6 2 2003 in the batch of appeals being Land LA.APP.784/2005&conne'cted ';,. Pa'gelSofl[9] S S Ob, Acquisition Appeal No 48912009, Chirnj! La! vsJnIpfJL2f/a& Anr on 2 6 2011 I have determined the fair market alue of the lnds in villageGhevra at 4,03,425I per bighá as of 6.2.2003., tY of l an d in village BakkarWala with On the issue of comparabili villageMUfldka[1] Ghevra and TikrLKaIafl, it is no doubt tru that whereas 'village,BakkarWala does not abut NH-10 as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it Is more proximate to the uban areas Of Delhi vis--ViS Ghevra and Tiri Kalan and to that extent, q'ua said 2 villageS, has an advantage. Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation[1] it is the 'broad probabilitieS and similarities which matter. Thus, I hold alL 4 villageS to be equivalent, unles qua some lad special features can beshown.

28. ' Since the decision in' FcSii[2] case.(supra), deals with nOtifications more proximat I e in point of time to the • notifications with which I am concerned, I am ofthe opinion that it would be just, fair ad proper to 'determine. the fair market value of lands with whichi am concerned Inretatiofl to the fair market value of lands determined in Prat.Q Lfl11.' case (supra) As per the decisiOn in Prp Singh'S case (supra) for the date 24.7.1995, for Category A lands fair cornpnSatiOn assessed was 2,15,l60I- per bigha and 1,73,500!- per bigha for Category B land The first notification with which I am concerned is 25.2.1997 whereUflder lands in Village Mundka were acquired. The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 day.e591daYS In ptapjngh'a5e ( supra) the annua/inea5e was determined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to Category A LA.APP.784/2005 & cohnected S lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49408.35 per bigha i.e. 11,97,162/- per acre and'for Ctegpry B lands, [assess the • 'fair market value at Z[2],01,117/- per bigha i.e. 9,65,361.60 per acre