Full Text
LA.APP.906/2010 & CM No.444312010 (Cross Objections)
UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
Through: Mr.Sumer Sethi, Advocate for DDA
08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 78412005.
-'-*1t PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULY 08, 20L1 mm 2011:DHC:13999 t il 'i '144, Ii-rll{ii$ r:ii:;
I
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
/'
Date.of Decision: 8t! tulv 2011 IO' I o/o ,I 'i-
JAMNA
Through:
UOI & ORS
Through: i LA.APP. 87 gI2OO5 , LA.APP.
L2L]2OO6, !4312007 (Relating to " 25.02.t8g7 & Award No.2/1999-2000'
BBO-881 I2OO5,'LA.AP;P.
Notificatibn u/s 4 dated Village Mundl(a) t, LA.APP. 583/2009, LA.APP. 603/2009' LA'APP' 60412009, 'LA.F\rr. JeJlLvvJ ' s' r" r' ' ' io.orr.'oboizoog, LA.Ap p. 610120.09, 7 4lzo10, LA.App. 7.812010'
" LA.APB. 784/2Q0s APqellant M r. [. B. Rai, Adv-o'cate, M r.l.S. DahiYa, Adv'ocate'
M'r. D.S. t-akra, Advocate' M;.k.arnil, RduocAte, .
Mr.Anul Bhandari, Advocate Mr.Shabam Fatashat, Advocate
\ ... ResPondents' Mr.SanjaY Poddar, Standing counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi ,with rrtrlo"Fpiru ; ut.sachin Nawani and trlr. Siddharih Panda Advocates
' Mr.AjaY Verma,' Ms'Kanika Agnihotri, Mr.Kunal Sharma'.
UT.Sumer Sethi, Mr'B'B'Sharma' Ms,shobhna Takiar and Mr'Arun '
Birbal, Advocates for DDA '. ;
AND i - - t Ll LA.App. 7g12010,. LA.APP. tzitzo'to, LA.APP , r22l2olo, LA.APP. r2512010, LA.APP. l6412010, LA.APP. 185/2010; LA.APP.
186/2010, LA, App. 2OOl2O:rO, LA.APP. 23Bl20rQ,' ;LA.APP'
23gI2OLO, LA.APP. 243120tA; LA.APP , 24412010, LA'APP'
245I2OLO , LA,APP. 247 12010 , LA.APP'. , 25112010, ' .'LA.APP. '
25212010, LA.APP. 26612010, ,' LA.APP. 26712010, LA.APP.
27312070, LA.APP. 27 4l2OrO, LA,APP. 275120]-0,' LA.APP.
3I2/2OLO, LA.APP. 324I2OTO , L.A. APP. ' 326120T0, LA.APP.
32712010, LA.APP. 32912010, LA.APP. .33012010, LA.APP, .33112070, LA.APP. 332120l-0, LA.APP. 333/2010 with cM APPL.
No, 5524120l-I, LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 36712010, LA.APP.' :
36Bi2O1O, LA.APP. 369NATO, LA.APP. 37II2OIO & CM APPL.
No.2009 gl2OIO, LA.APP.. 37 412OIO , LA.APP. 37 5l2QI0, ' LA.APP.
377 l2OrO, LA.APP.. 37 912010 , LA.APP. 42312010 , . LA.APP.
452l2olo, LA.APP. 467120]0, LA.APP. 472120]-0, LA.APP.
69412010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL' No: 634012011, LA.APP'
697l2OlO, LA.APP. 69812010 & CM' APPL' 1734l20II; LA'APP'
706/2010 & CM APPL . :1721512010, LA.APP. 70712010, .LA.APP'
7OBl2q10, LA.APP. :/09|2OIO, LA.APP. 7I0120I0 with, cM APPL.
No,2 568/2011, LA.APP. 71312010' with CM APPL., No.7473120L0, ir
LA,APP. 71512010, LA,APP, 7t712010, LA.APP. 7191201.0, LA.APP. ,.
766/2ot},. LA.APP. 796120]-0., LA.APP. 79712010:, LA.APP.
79812010, LA.APP.799l20r0, LA.APP.8]-8/20l-0, LA.APP.
Btg:Z0IO, LA.APP. 82gl20IO, IA.APP. 83112070 & CM APPL.'
}55I2O!I, LA.APP. B32I2OIO, LA.APP. 833i2010 & CM APPL, 63g2l2}t], LA,APP. B34\2OIO, LA.APP. 842120]-0, LA.APP.,.
87:.I2OIO, LA.APP. 87 412010, LA.APP. . 875/2010, LA.APP.'
87 612010, LA.APP. B77l2OL0, LA.AIPP. 878120+p, LA.APP.
87gl2or}, LA.APP. 88012010, LA:APP. 88U2010 & cM
APPL.650 5.12011,, LA.APP. B82l2O\0, LA.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP.
884j20L0, LA.APP, 88612010, LA.APP'. '888/2010, .LA.APP. .
889/2010 & cM APPL.2249l20II, LA.APP, 890/201-0, LA.APP.
893/2010 & CM APPL, 6750120.II, LA.APP. 89412010 & cM
No.2335 3/2OIO, LA.APP. 89512010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP.
897 I2OIO & CM APPL.72B I2OI1, LA.APP. 9Q31,2010, LA.APP, LA.APP.7 8412005 & connected
'Page2of L9 i T, '!:' | ?.' /// ( go7l2oro, LA.APP. 938/2010, LA.APP. g392oro, ' LA'APP' ' ro34l2o7o & cM APPL. 3086/2011, LA,APP. ]-04012010 & cM
APPL. 5673120:lj-, LA.APP. IO4II2O]-0, LA.APP. TO$3I2OLO
'
LA.APP.IO45T2OIO,LA.APP..T04612010,LA.AP.P.TOASIZOLO, LA.APP , 104912010, LA.APP. 1050/2010, LA.APP. t056120L0, '
LA,APP. L0601201'0, LA.APP. 1b6U201,0, LA.APP. Ijv112010, LA.APP. 12512071, LA.APP , 12612011, LA.APP' 258120l-l-
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award
No.3/2005-06, Village-Mund ka)
AND
LA.APP.. 3TOI2O1O, LA.APP, 32512010, LA.APP. 37 612010, LA.APP.
383/2010, LA.APP. 38412010, LA.APP. 385/2010, LA.APP.
473l201O, LA.APP. 492l2OrO, LA.APP. 58612.010, LA.APP.
'}:*I2OIO, LA.APP. 638/2010, LA.APP. . 690120T0, LA.APP.
692120T0, LA.APP. 7III2OIO, LA.APP. 7L6I2O7O, LA.APP.
7 63120!9 , LA.APP. 872120]-0 , LA.APP. 87312010 , .lA.Alf .
885/2010, LA.APP.' B87l20r 'lr pp.Aggt2o1o,( LA.APP. 906l?910' &
6npp. e37l2 No.4443120 72oro, LA.APP. ro47 l2o7o
(Relating to Notificdtion u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award
No. 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka)
AND
LA.APP.' 1003/2010, LA.APP. t0r712010, LA.APP. r}rgl2o1:o, LA.APP. IO22I2.O:0, LA.APP. TO23I2OIO, LA.APP. IO44I2OIO, LA.App. ro5rl20L0, LA.APP. 1053/2010, LA.APP. 1054120L0 &
CM APPL. No.5 656/2OIt, LA. APP. ]-055/2010, LA.APP.
1057120l-0, LA.APP, 1058i2010, LA.APP. 1059/2010, LA.APP.
1068/2010, LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. 12412011; LA.APP' r2712011, LA.APP. r2gl20r1, LA.APP . 2591201r :
LA.APP.7 84/2005 & connected ,- -n i i (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated
No.13i20 06-07 , V.illage-Mundka)
:
AND
I
LA.APP. 4012009 & cross objection$, LA.APP. 42612009, LA.APP. 42812009, 44212009, ',LA.APP. 61U2009, LA.APP.
61612009, .LA.APP. 278120l.0' . i (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24.09.2003 '& Award
No.3/2004-05, Vi I lage-Ba kka rwa la )
AND
LA,APP. 102912010 & CM No.594B l20II, ..LA.APP'
1030/2010, LA.APP. t}3rlzoro, LA.APP. 1033/2010, & cM tJo,6645 12OI]-, LA,APP. 106212010, 1063/2010 & CM
No.6943 120L1, LA.APP. 106412010, LA.APP. 106612010, LA.APP.
106712010, LA.APP. 1112011, LA.APP. r22l20rl (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award
No. 1/200 6-07, Vi lla ge-Ba kka rwala ) 'ip, ':
]-7.06.2005 " t1 " l)
/ & Award .
3r I
ORDER
1. Whether the Reporters of,local papers may be,allowed:. to,see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment shouid be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, l. (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. r a.t. rrrj g,t' f,T rI t1'
2. The presen't decision concerns ibsue of fixation of fqi,g '":".' market value of land in tbe revenue estate of Villagp BaKkarwalg:' ' I and village Mundka
3. The dates on which fair market value of the land haq to be determined may'be graphically noted as Under:: I \ S.No. Name of Villaqe Date of notification unber Section 4' of the LA Act
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. A
7. Agricultural lan.ds, in village Mundka LA.API.[7] 84/2005 & iorinected
5. Abutting NH-10, leading from'the city of Delhi to the township pf Rohtak in the state of Haryana, are.villages lvlundkq, Ghevra, and Tikri Kalan. Village Bakkarwala. lies towa"rds-,!he other side of the southern boundary of village Mundka. Tn. difference between'the topology of the two villages is; whereas the {and of village,Mundka abuts,NH-10, that of viilage Bakkarwala do.eg not so abut; being on the.other side of,the southern bounda ry gf rev.enue estate of village Mundka..
6. As we proceed froin the city of De.lhi to the township ffi":':i;,Iifi [::-*1.;';";:ed firsr' fo"owed bv vi"ase ': It may be highlighted that the notification'at seriai the same estate of.were'. acquired t -1 t. 'i,, )f /t pursuant to a notification dated 2.5.2,1997 issued under Section 4 of the L'and Acquisition Act as per award No.2/19Qgl2OOO''. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mund.ka were further acquired pursuant to a notification.dated 21''3'2003 igsued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award' No.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/2005-06. Further land.s in the revenue estate'of the same village were acquired:pursuant to a notification date d 17.6,2005 issued under Section 4,of.thd Land Acquisition Act as per Award No. I3l2O06-Oi '
Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant.'to a notificatign dated 24.g.2003 issued und'er Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.3l2OO4-05. Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notificatiol dated l.7.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands i'nivillage Mundka were acquired) as per'award No '112006-07 ' g. In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, undef a,ll the awards, with reference to the minim'urn price for agricultural lind as notified by thb Government of NCT Delhi. For clarity I may' note that peitaininQ to the 10. LA,.APP.[7] 84/.2005 & connected 'l t notification dated 25.2.Igg[7] 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 agricultural lahd hotified with effect from I.4.I997 @ t10 lacs per acre'and since'the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted. 4.. Aggrieved.by the determination of the fair market l6' I:. the price for one year @ I'L.5;% per annum. This.price was adopted foi category A lands. For lands in category B, the value ' was further discounted by t90,Q00/- pei acre. 'Pertaining to the notifications dated 27.3.2003 and 24.9.2003, thg. Land Acquisition Collbctor relied gpon the hotification fixing the minimum. price of agricultural land as of I.4.2001 and gave,no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fairmarket value of the lan'ds to be determine'd waS as of 2f.f.2003 and 24.g.2003. Even pertaining,to the 'notification dated L[7].6.2005 which required fair market v'alue.of. la.nd to be determined in the revenue ebtate of village Bakkarwala and viflage Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value bf agricultural lands in'Qelhi as of t.+.ZOO[1] and gave no increase. value oT the lands by the land Acq.uisition collector, the tul[9], owners sought a reference under s.ection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ancj on the referbnce obing made, 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.: ' 12. 'ln a nut shell, pertaining to;the. notification dated 25,2JJ.gg[7] vide which agricultural lands in village Mundkd Were acquired, the Reference court adopted'the s.ame notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under whictr ttre'.
11. LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected DaoaT 6f!t,, '' l,, t* I r: l'/ Government.of NCT Delhi had fixed the;ninimum vAlue for' agricultural lands ih Delhi i.e. f.+.1997,'but as agbinst the Land Acquisition Collectoi 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 iefer'ence whereto Government had notified the m.inimurnrvalue v0as 1'4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the l-and Acquisitibn Act was dated 25.2.Igg[7]. This was the value fixed for category:'A lands and for category B lands; with rbference to the values fbr category A larid depressed the same by t90,000/- per acre. Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ t[9],89,2897- per acre and for category B land the same wa-s determined @ T[8],99,2881- per 1i. acre.
74. Pertaining to the notifications dated 27.3.2003 and ' 24,9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands'in village Mundka and village Bakkafwala r.espectively were acquired,'the Reference Court took note of thg fact that after the Government had notified the minimum, rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of I.4.2001 the next revision was as of 30.8.2005. Using the said 'dates and the minimum price nOtified ny tne.Government.of NCT Delhi, the Refbrence Court adopted thq pringiple. of.meah dv€rdg€,.What the Reference Couri did was to adopt the value. as oi r.4.2oor and,increasing the same by l0% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 2l*.3.2003 as also 24.9.2003. Thereafter the Reference CourL'took the value notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per I LA.APP.784/2005&connected I Page8oi19, lq,., 1,. annum determined the sum arrivbd a{ as of 2]-3.2003:as also '24,g.2003. Thg tWo sums'arrived at were added and divjded by two to arrive dt the mean figure'as of 2J,3,209,3, which I note comes to t15,g[2],083.3J per ucr.[9] (ln some dgc.isions I note the sum arrived at is T15,92,2151-). For the date 2.4'9'2003 the price determined was t20,41,000/- per a'cre.
15. Pertaining to the notification dated. 77,6.2005 pursqant whereto agricultural lands we.re acquired in village. Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted: the minimum price for agricultural lands ' notified; py thq: /-. r- - U Government of NCJ Delhi with effect from L[4]:2001 and giving;;01' increase @10% per annum determined the value arid with -l respect.to the lands in villag'e Mundka, on account of lbcational ' advantage, being abutting -'NH-10 gave 5% moie anq: determinbd the faii market value as of 17.6.2005 in'sum of T21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the pricq determined was <20,35,2551- per acre. In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in 16. T[7], which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the. Reference Cqurt, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing tod3y..i With reference to the d'vidence ' led' in LAC No.384/2 004 lamna Vs.' (JOl & Ors., it'was urged' by Sh.L.B'Raii learn,ed counsel for the appellant in,LA App.No.7841200f; which; argument was adopted by other iearned counsel who appear:ed for the pther appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in igndririg the sale deed Ex:P-1 whereunder 1 bigha l1',.and'3 biswa gf agricultural land in village Mundka Was s'old,as of..S.g.t'gg[6] for a sale consideratio n of 74.,75,000/-. {38,0O0/- was incurred towards sale duty and,thus the price of the land would.,l be t[5],13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, l'and price per bigha would come to T[4],46,000/- as of 5.8.1996, Learned',. counsel'would urge that there !t no reason not to hold that fbir market'value of agricultural lands in village Mundka waS. <4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5.8.1996. Taking the argurirent forward, it is urged that with referencq to the said price, fair. market value needs to.be determined as of 25.2.1993, ?L[3].2003 and 17.6,2005, i.e. the dates when notific'btions under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant. whereto agricultural lands were acquiied in village Mundka, by increasing the pricq progressively, if not by 12% pqr annum at. least.by IO% pu, #nrt. lt. is urged that on the same basis, land,price.should be determined for the agricrlltural lands. in.' village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since villages.Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous.. villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further toward's the, township of Rohtak, some increase be made in [he value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference'to the judgment and decree dated 1g.I[2],2008 decid.ing' a -batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being.'LA Appeal No-193/2006 Pratap Sinoh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs,'' tJOl as per' which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in '. the revenue estate of village. Tikri Kalan as of 16'11'1995,. 11.6.1996 and 17J22002 at 12,I[5],1641- for c'ategory A land: ) t l'|'riop !:uand tl,73,5b O/- for category B lahd;,t2r35,850 fbr.category A, land and. T[1],g0,150/- for category.
18. I may note here that in various land'a,cquisition references, various parties have p.roved a nu'mber of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments toddy'before; me, learned counsel for the land owners haVe gnly religd upon, the sale deed Ex.P-l. 'l
19. per contra, sh,sanjay Poddbr learned.counsel for the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-l cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a represeritative sample of the whole,..the sample must bear s.ome adequ'ate proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined.whether what percentage of, stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method. to pick oniy one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead to the conciusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one,would' reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of 'stones. At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative. sample, is.the example given. The second reason on which' learned counsel would attack the sal.[9] deed as' not'being repre'sentative of thb price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as. before.'a-cquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification.under Section 4' LA.APP.[7] 841200F & connected ',g.of the Land Acquisition A.!. Learned counsel would concede tthat the reasons givtin by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the:two contentiohs advanced by him should Qe considered by this Cou,rt as the ieasons as to why 'L".p-f be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in 'village Mundka and Bakkarwala.' Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge. that the four sale deeds.Ex.R-l 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,L997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by. UOI 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,. th.erein is less than. the minimum priEe notified by. "the Governmgnt, the price fixation should be with reference'to the. minimum.price notified by the Government *t^'i.t't 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 argument is also advanced by learnedi.cou,nsel for the Union. The Same rests itself on a decision of a DiVision Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 23I lai Slnah Vs. UO/' 2L. The decision in lai Srnah's case (supra) concerns itself with the deternrination of the fair market value of land in village Bgkkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated.15.10.1993 at T[1],p[2],000/- per bigha. Learned counsel 'would urge that the said decision has attained finalit'y inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 & connected: ge LZ of L9' i.;,.r?a': i. 'lv v I t,: as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed. before the Supreme Couit by,either side have been dismissed. ' Learned cgunsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair I marke[1] value of land in village SAkkarwala as of 15.10.1993 at T[1],32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by Io% per annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakk'a,rwala as of 24.g.2003 as also 17.6.2005, 'Learned counsel woUld urge that in view of the iocatio'nal advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in village wtunoka should be determined as of 25,2.!gg[7],li..3.2003 and 17.6.2005, by giving. 57o increase.
22. with respect to the sale deed Ex.P-1, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land ryas sold 'in'Villag,e. Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance that the sale iq about 7 months prior to the date of the notificati'on issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on
25.2. Igg[7]. lt iS a matter of comTon knowledge thgt preceding the puqlication of a nptification under Sectioh 4 of the Land Acquisition A:t, survey;s are carried out withi tlq" object of determining 'as to. what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers 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 largerscale acquisition poticy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre deterrhined rates, a plot of developed residential land to'the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005 & connected I;J., q, A, a).) L// acquired and thus,.it is not uncommon, for perso'ns to purchase 'i sma.ll parcels of leinds in areas where acquisitions are tikely 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 prihciples of averages and !h" ' priqcip|es.of sampling te|l nre that to be representative of t|e, whble,asampIe.mus!,bearatinte||igibleproportiontothe.. who|e,Thus,notforthereasoningadvancedbythe'gu'n11. Reference court, but fo'r the twin reason"ing hit[erto-fore noted' ] hold that Ex.P-l cannot be good evidencp wherefrom market va|ueoftheland.couldbedetermintjd.t'lnereisanadditiona|. reason not to rely upon the said sale deed. The sale deeds EX'R:, ltoEx.R-4,dated[9].1.,1995,30'5.!gg[7],4.6'1997and.8.9.1.997. are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect'a sale price ' much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex'f-1' tn faitl the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agricultural tand in Delhi noti'fied by I Court in lai Sinoh's case (supra) or Prata Sinqhscdse (SuPra). 24, I highlight that both decisions' penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been uphe|d by the sunr;m[1] Cgurt.
25. Thedecisioninlaisinah'scase(supig)-determined fair.market value of fano in Village, Bakkarwala in sum of {1,32,000/' per bigha as' of 15'10'1993' arJd. the 'perusai thereof the Government. 23, Thus, the requirbd to be fixed fair market vaiue 'of the lands would be either with reference to the decision of this Page L[4] of 19'.: t I I ix: I would show that the Court as'sessed the fair ma,rket valpg with reference to sale deeds executed between the;yeais 1990 tili the year 1996 eith.er in Village Tikri Kalan,.or Villagg Mundka, apparently on the premise.that being pontiguous. villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala. ln Pratap Sinah's case (supra), the Divislon Bench *as &ncerned with agiicultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoiriing Village named Ghevra and pqrtaini.ng to various notifications issued under Section 4 of t,he Land Acquisitiorr Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:- Following'the judgment in Pratap Sinqh's case (supra) I have decided the fair. market value for the. land situa.ted in.{ revenue estate of Village Ghevia, wl'tich,,was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6.,2.2003 in the batch of appeals being Land, LA.APP.[7] 84/2005 & connected, 26, 21. o
S. NO. Date Villbge Pr:ice per Bigha
2. 11,06.1996 Tikri Kalan & bnevra t[2],35,BI5/- for Block A & tl,90,156/-..for; Block.B land
3. 17.r[2].2002 Tikri Kalan <4,02,850/- for Block A' & 73,24,850/- for Block B land 'l/t, t-tnioo-fu Acquisition Appebl No.48g|2009,,Chiranii.I+aI vs, untort ut tttu,q Y. Anr. on 2.6.2011. I have determined the fair.lar:"^t:::: lt^[" u ffi;';;ir;" Ghevra at {4'03' 42st' per bisnu-u:.,ot fl'oo[1] Ontheissue'ofcomparabilitvoflandinvillaget:\o::i:l:*'tn vil|ageMundka,Ghevra'andTikriKalan,itisnodoubttruethat. whereasvillageBakkarwaladoes.notabu.tNH-10,asdothe othervillages,butithas.toOe:highlighted:l-titjs-more proximatetotheurbanbreasofDelhivis-d-vis.GhevraandTikri 'Kalanandtothatextent,quasaid2vi|lages,hasanadvantage. Sinceexactnesscanneverbeachievedinthe"mattersof. assessingfaircompensation,itis.thebroadprobabilitiesand' similaritieswhichmatter.Thus,lho|dall4villagestobe. equivalent, unless qua some land special feature:-ti:T t'llll; equf vcrtsrrL' "" 1-*;^ nloricinr 'nah's case'(supra) 28..Since the decjsion in Pratap Si G,. -- r^ *f^^ rre proximat'q in point o'f [im'e to the deals with n'otifications mc am of the opir.'ion that notificatiorrs with which'l arn concerned' I: it would be just, fair and pioper to determine'the fa-ir market valueoflandswithwhichIamconcernedinrelatigntqthefair market value of lands determined in Prata-p Sinah's case (iupra)' -^ r-,rnra\ fnr the date;;r"; tne oeci sion in'pratap Sinoh's case (supra) for the date
24. T.lgg[5],forCategoryAlandsfaircompensationassessedWas --, D {2,15,160l- per bigha and t1'73'500/- per bigha for Category B land. The first notification with which I af: conc:!::t is
25.2. Lgg[7] whereunder'lanos in Vitlage Mundka we[e acquired' The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 glacz-t'-e'-551 'days' In '.^:^^.{ Pratap Sinah'scase (supra) the annual inqrease was determined to be Io% per,annum'(flat). Tlrus, pertaining.to caleoo[1] n LA.APP.784!2O05 & connected.. a ':r ?1, lands, itre'tair market value assessed is t[2],49,408'75 per' b'igha ': i.e. T11,g[7],!621- per acre and for Category B lands' lassess the fair market value at {2,0 7,7I71- per bigha i'e',{9''65'361'60 per acre. The next notification with which I am concernedi dated 21.3.2003 pertaining to Village \lundka. ln" chiranii Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Sinahls case (supra)" Tor,agricultural"lands in Village Ghevrp pertaining to a notification issued under Sectio'n 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was"<4,03,425/- per bigha. This. was unifOrmly applied. Since there is 'a time gap of just a litfle over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaininO to the notificdtion dated 21.3.2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be t[4],03,4251- i.e' t19,36,4401- PPr acre' which I herebY fix' I propose to deai with the ' notificatiqn dated 29.
30.
31. the same.,.'l 24.g.2003, after dealing with the notification d'ated' L7"6'2005 acquired in Villa'ge pursuant whereto agricultural lands were Mundka and Village Bakkarwala' As noted her.einabove, in chiranti Lal's case (5upra), 'l pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.)OO:, fair market value' assessed by me was {4,03,4251- per bigha and thus, increasing' ' thesame,byl0%for2yearsan.d13ldays,thefigurecomesto t[4],98,589/- per bi9ha, which comes to t23 '93'2)'.J '20' per Acrei The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land'in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of:-7'6'2005' I dgcre-e ' FapPlTofLg I vDe -'..{.l,.: T[7]
32. I am left with 'the notific:ation Qqted ?4'?'2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair martcei value assessed. in Chiranti Ldl's case, I would requit: t: appreciate the price by 10% per annuih.for a period of 201 days'' the figure comes to t[4],25,64111- per bigr?e i.e. t20,43,076:80 per acre, which ldetermine to be the fair market va.lue of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9'2003
33. According|y, "the appeals fi|ed by the Union of lndia require to be dismissed ?nd I h.ereby dismiss the same' The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:- i: i) For the landl falling in category A land in. Village Mundka the fair -harket, value is fixed '. at is <2,4g,408.75 per bigha i;e' T II'g[7] '1621per aicre and ' for category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at 't[2],0 I|-I7l- per bigha i'e' {9,65'361'60,per acre' as on 25.02,1997 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair: market value is fixed at t[4],03,4251.- per bigha i'e; ir t19,36,440i- per acre, as on ?1'03'2003' ii) l '..' iii) For the ldlnd i. market vaiue {23,93,227.20,) situated in. Village MY.ndka. the fair ' is fixed at {4,98,5891- per rbigha' i.eper acre, as on 17.06.2005. iv) For the land situated in Villdge 'Bakkdrwala the {air. market value is fixed at {4;98,589/-'per bigha i.e, tl'nP P.l A+/2005 & con nectqd '.Page 18'Of 19..,J ' i:',..',< i. l,/_D <23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06'2005 v) For: the land. situated in Village Bakkdrwa{a'.the fair i,.t20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 24'0g.2003.J { vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have,succeedeb would also be entitled to solatium and inte.rest.as per statute uni a$ clariiied in the,decision rep'orted as 1,, e3(2oot;;; ';;;,oii the Pti' ' I compensation, paid originally and'as e,nhanced by: the Reference court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment ahO'decree'.: i '. 't ' vii) The appellants.and t'cross-objectors who succeed. ': Fwould also be entitled to proportionate costs. ' ' viii) All pending applications stan.d disposed of in terms of i the prayers made therein. ' It. tl i (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)