Sanjay Poddar v. Jas Want Sing H

1 V A LAAPP 79/201I0, LAAI?P 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAP[1] 125/2010, LA APP 164/2010, LA APP 185/2010, LA APP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LAAPP 238/2010, LAAPi 239/2010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010[1] LAAPP, 245/2010 LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPP 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 26772010, LAAPP 273/2010, LA.PP 274/2010, LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPP 312/2010, LAAPP 324/2010, L.A.APP 326/2010[1] LAAPP 327/2010 LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP 331/2010, LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 33312010 with CM APPL No 5524/2011, LAAPP 335/2010, LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP 368/2010k LA APP 369/2010, LA APP 371/2010 & CM APPL io20099f2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LA,APP 375/2Q10, LAAPP 77/2010, LA APP 379/2010, LA APP 423/201, LA APP 452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011, LA APP 697/2010; LA.APP. 68/2•010 & •CM APPL 1734/2011, LA.AP: 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010, LAAPP 708/2010, LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/2011, LAAPP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LA APP 715/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010, LA APP 766/2010,LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010, LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LAAPP 832/2010, LAAPP 833/2010 & CM APPL • 6392/2011; LA.APP. 834/20.10, LA.APP 842/201'O, LA.AP. 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/2010, LAAPP 879/2010, LAAPP 88012010, LAAPP 881/2010 & CM S APPL6505/2011, LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010, LAAPP 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPP 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA APP 894/2010 & CM No 23353/2010, LA APP 895/2010, LA APP 896/2010, LA APP 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected 1Päge 2 of 19 •. •.•. -•,•, •• • • •. the price for one:year 1 5% per annum This price was adopted,for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.0.2003, 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 24.92003.• Everi pertaining to the hbtfticationdàted 17 6 2005 which required fair market valueof land to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land AcquisitionCollector 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 vlue of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the refrence beingmade vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge 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 a. p and 1,78,500I- for category B land, 2,35,850 for category A land and U,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850I- for category, A land and 3,24,850I- for category B land, respectively.

18 P may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a number of 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-i

19 Per contra, S Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i 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 thatif tit has to be determined whether what percentage of stoes afe mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick nly one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one would raçh to the conclusion that the bag is 'ull of stones At least a fistful should be lifted and then checed as a repesentative sample, is the example given The second reason oç'i vhich learned counsel would attack the sale deed as n9t being rpresentative of the price is the reason that people do come to liow about pending acqJisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 4 • • • S • • L APP 784/2005 & connected •: •• acquired nd thus, it i not uncommon, for persons tp'purchase small parce's of lands in areas where acquisitions are lij<ely tp take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be measure of the fair market value of taken to be a representative land as on the date of the sale Further, the prin ciples of rati o 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 value of the land could be determined There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- I 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6.[1] 195, 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 eitKer with reference to the decision of this Court (supra) or Prataj Singh's case (supra)

24 I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court hav been upheld by the Supreme Court •.

25. The decisioh in jai.5/nQcae (supra) determifled. fair maçket value of 11and in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,0O0I- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusl thereof LA APP 784/2005 & connected • •.. ••.••. 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 thepremise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in t h e 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 Jn Tikri Kalan and another. adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various nptifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act deterrnined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Trkri Kalan and Ghevra as under -