Union of India v. Surender Kumar Sharma & Anr.

3 Mundka 25 2 1997

4 Mundka 21 3 2003

5 Mundka 17 6 2005

4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial[4] No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the Same pursuant whet eto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-10, leading from the city, of Delhi to t h e township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are vi,llages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwalalies towards the other side of the Southern bourdary of village Mundka The difference between the topology of the two villagesis, Whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-b, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other side of. the - Southern boundary of revenue estate of vi'lage Mundka

6. As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka Js crossed first, followed by viIlae,• Ghevra and then village Tikri,Kâlan..•.

7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. Page 5of19 p4ursuant 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 re4venue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21 1.12003 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 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of. the Land ACq,u.isftiofl Actas 'per Award No.13/2006-07.' 8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of, villaqe Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 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 wereacquired pursuant to a 'notification dated 17 2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundk were acquired) as per ward No 1/2006-07

9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisitioqi Collector kletermined the fair market val of the acquired lands, under all he awards, with reference to th minimum price for agricu1tu& land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi 10 rt ' For. clarity I may note that peaining 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 ariultural lahd nOtified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ 10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted A APP 784/2005 & connected anum determined the sum arrived at as of 21 2003 as also 24.9.2003.The two sums arrived at were addednd divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 2 1.1.20O which I note comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisns I note the um arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 4 9 2003 the rYrice determined was 20,41,000I- per acre

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005[1]. 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 overnment of NCT Delhi with effect from 14.2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mjndka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17 6 205 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 s also that of, the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today

17 With reference td the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs UQI & 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 otherappellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not jistified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha t LA APP 784/2005 & connected ii., 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, pparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural Iand J. the 2 adjoining villages would be idicative 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 narned Ghevra and prtaining to: various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalanand Ghevra as under -