Union of India v. Pratap Singh & Ors.

12 In a nut shell, pertaiijiing to the notification dated' 25 2 1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundkawere acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as wa adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the A APP 784/2005 & connected -- H • •,..-•• __ • • •• •,. ••.• - •. 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 percntage 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 @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for • category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- per acre

14 Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2001[3] whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and • vhlage Bakkàrwala respectk'él-y were acquired, the Reference Court took note - of the fact that after the Gbvernment had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lahds in Delhi as of 114 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 1 Using the said dates and the minimum 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 1A.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 LA.APP.784/2005& connected •• • Page8of19. - • • • -. • •-. --•

I. - - •-: 0.. 0 •... i, annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 3 003 a,8..also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added arid 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 15,921215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000I- per. acre

15 Pertaining tq the notification datpd 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 notitied by 01. Government of,NCT Delhi with effect from L 4 2001 and giving increas @10% per annum determined the: value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-iD 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 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 Nb 384/2004 Jamna Vs 110/ & Ors, it wasurged by Sh LB Rai, V 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 1 bigha of the iUnd Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by hm 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 valu e of lands in village Mundka and Ba<karwala Thirdly, 'earned counsel would further urge that le four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the leatrned,Reference. Court pertaining to sale deed.s dated 6.1.11995 1'. 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by.UOt would show the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should b onsidered, but hastens to add, that sirite value reflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by the Govenmeht, the price fixation should be with reference to the.: minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of tirme when the respective notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

20 An independent and alternative e argumnt is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests tself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 /ai5ingh Vs (JO!,21 The decision in Ia! Singh's case (supra) concerns itself wi t h the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at '1,32,000I- per bigha Learned 1 counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch,LA APP 784/2005 & connected •.:... _.__ ¶ As Petitions fOr Special Lev.é to Appal filed befo&P.rern Court by either side have been dismisse.d LØI. counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by ad thng the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwal as of 5, 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressiv&y b 10% per annum to determine the market value of lard in village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage bf village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be aesdeas of 25 2 1997, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005 by giving

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 thepublication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Aquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of dtermining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are required to be notified for the propoed acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to know that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands wouLd be aquired. In Delhi, the Iare scale. äcquisitih. policy.. enjoins upon the qovernment to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are...;. acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are dikoly to take plac, these transactions are speculative and cannot be measure of the fair market value of taken to be a repreentatiVe land as on the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio a n d 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. value of the land could be determined There is an additional reasn not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- 1 to x R-4, date 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 rice recorded in x 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 Py ll the Qovernment. Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of, this Court inJiSingiicaSe (supra) orPratay5lflQ'JYScaSe (supra) I: • 24. i.hihlight that.botb. decisions, penned by the.E2tviSiOfl Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25 The decision in /a' SjnghcaSe (supr) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwla in sum of 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof LA PP 784/2005 & connected A • • -• •• ••..• • - -. •.• whuld show that the Court assessed th fairmarket 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 Ghevra as under - 23,93 227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,25,6411- per bigha ie 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 decision reported as P' 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs (JO!, for the edy compensation, paid originally and as enhanc b the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree The appellants and cross-objectors who.suceed.. would also be entitled to proportionate costs viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein

(PRADEEP NANRAJOG)

JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 mm