Naresh Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

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. I tA.APP.784/2005&connected Page4ofi[9]

2. The present decision cOncerns issue of fixation of fair market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala • and village Mundka;

3. The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under:- S.No. Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act • Bakkarwala. 24.9.2003 Bakkarwala ' 17.6.2005.3... Mundka 25.2.1997

4. •. It may be highlighted that the notification at érial No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same ____ • pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue'estate of • Village Mundka; as per serial No.5 above. • 5. Abutting NH-b, leading from the city of Delhi to the township pfRohtak in the State of Harya.a, are villages Mundka, • G.hevra and Tikri Kalan. Village. Bakkarwala lies tow&rds the. other side of the Southern bouhdaryof village Mundka. The difference between the topology of the two villages i; whereas the land of village Mundka 'abuts NH-lU, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut; being. on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka. • 6. As'we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then villageTikri Kfan. •. I. •. • Agricultural lands. in village Mundka were acquired •. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected •... Pages of 19,a 40' pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.1997 issued under Section of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/199.9/2000. Agricultural lands in the' revenue estate of village 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 17.6.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006-07. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakk,arwala were acquired pursuant 'to a notification dated, 24.9.2003 Jssued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as perAward 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.) asper award No.1/2006-07. In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for aricultural land as notified by the Government.of NCT Delhi.

10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Muhdka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural Ta"nd notified with effect from 14.1997 @ T10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.. the price for one yeEr@ 11.5% per annum. This price was adopted for category A fands. For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000!- per acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the ninimurn 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 land to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and village 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 • S gave no increase;.. Aggrieved by the determination, of the fair market value 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 reference being 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. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification datdd 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 Acquisitioh Collector under which the LA.APP.784/2005 & connected, ' S ' • ' f 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 Coflector 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. Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre andfor category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288I- per acre. 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 in Delhi as of 1.4.2001 the next revision was as of 30.8.2005. 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 1.4.2001 and increasing the same by 10% per- annum determined the enhanced price as of 213.2003 as also 24.9.2003. Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 1.0% per LA.APP.784/2005 & connected - / annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21.3.2003 as also 24;9.2003. The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003, which [note comes to '15,92;083.33 per acre (In' some decisions I.note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-). For the date 24.9.2003 the price determined was 20,41,000/- per acre. Pertaining to the notification dated 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 hotified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10%. 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 determined was 20,35,255/- per acre. In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land AcuisitionCollector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today. With reference to the evidence led in LAC No:384/2004 Jamna Vs. LIQI & 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-1 whereunder 1. bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & connected, ' o and 3,biswa of agricuftural 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 and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price Y per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- 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 reference to the said price, fair market \falue needs to be 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 on the same basis, land price should 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 village Tikri K'alan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the land in village Mundka and. Bakkarwala with reference to, the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding a.batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No.193/2006. Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. UQI 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 17.12.2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected and 1,73,500/ for category B land; Z[2],35,850 for category A land and.1,90,150I[7] for category B land; 4,02,850/- for category A land and 3,24,850I- for category B land, reS pe Ct iv ely. I 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[4]. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a, representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proport.ion 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 riceit would not be a safe method to pick only 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 ofstone, 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 sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisitioninasmuch as before acquisitioris are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey it b would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section a' o of the Land 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 him 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 value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala. 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, 46.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upoh 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 notificationwere 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) DLT 231 Ia! 5!ngh Vs., 1)01. The decision in Ia! 5!ncjh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pur'sUant to a notification dated 15.10.1993 at U,32,000/- per bigha. Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch • ci / • as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal 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 1,32,000I- 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 24.9003 as also 17.6.2005. Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka,'fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined asbf 25.2.1997, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, by giving 5% increase... 22.. With respect to the sale. deed: Ex.P-1, 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 1 Acquisition 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 numbers and fields are required to be notified for the 'proposd acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to know that very soon there is every likelihQod that the.' lands would be acquired. In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy enjoins upon the Governhent to allot, at pre determined rates a 'plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005 & connected '. • '.'. • Page 13of19 • •., •. acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for. persons to purohase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place; these transacio'nS are speccilative and cannot[1]. 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 ne 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 reasQniflg hitherto-fore no1ed, I hold that Ex.P-lcaflnot 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- 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 rcorded in Ex.P-L in fact, the d 4 sale deeds averages much less than sIe price in the sai even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government. Thu, the fair market value of the lands would be reuired to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court jnJ/ Singh's case (supra) or pp5fngh'ScaSe(sUPra). I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division - Behch of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court., The decision in 6L5/ngh'S case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala, in, sum of 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15.10.1993, and the perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & connected, would show that the Court assessed the fair marketvalue with reference to sale deeds. executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalán 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 Prataj' Singh'5 case (supra), the Division Bench was Concerned with aghcultural lands inTikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Sectiorj 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under: 48 SNO. Date Viflage Price per Bigha 24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 16.11.1995 A & 1,73,500/- for Block B land 11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block hevra A & 190,156/- for 17.12.2002 TikriKalan 4,02,850/- for Block A & 324,850/- fo(,

27. Following the judgment in Pratap 5!nghs case (supra) I have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6 2 2003 in the batch of appeals being Land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. Acquisition Appeal No.489/2009, Chfralla/ vs. Union Of on 2.6.2011. I have determined the fair market value of the àhds in Village Ghevra at 4,03,45!- per bigha as of 6.2.2003. On the issue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWa.la with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it Is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-lU, as do the other viLages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi visàvis.Ghevra and Tiri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an advantage Since exactneS can never be achievec in the matters of assessing fair compensation[1] it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villages tô be equivalent[1] unless qua some lard speciIfeatUres can be shown

28. Since the decision in PiatO Singh's case..(supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned,[1] am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine., the f.ir market value of lands with which 1 am concerned in relatio,n to the fair market value of lands determined in Pratap 5ig case (supra) As per the decision in Pratap,5/ngI?' cse (supra) for the date 24.7.1995, for CategorY A lands fair copeflsatiOfl assessed was 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73500/- per bigha for Category B land. The first notification with which I am. concerned is er lands in Village Mundka.wee acquired. 2 5.2.1997 whereund •The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 58.[1] days In Pratap 5inqh case (supra) the nu/Jnea5e was determifled tol.be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to Category A LAAPP.784/2005 & connected iands,the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. 11,97,162/- per acrèand for Category B lands, I assess the 'fair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. Z[9],65 i 361.60 per acre. The next notification with which I am concerned. dated 21.3.2003 pertaining to Vill age Mundka; in Chiranh! Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap 5/nq case (supa), for agricultural iands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Lend Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was 4,03,425I- per bigha. This was unifármly applied. Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to • the notification dated 21.12003,, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i.e. Z19,36,440I- pr acre, which I hereby fix. I propose to deal' with the notification dated 24.9.2003., after dealing 'with the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala. As noted hereinabove, in Chiran!! Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 62.2003, fair market value assessed by me was'4,03,425!- per bigha and thus, increang the Same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227.20 per pcre. The same is held by me to be the fair market value of Ia,nd,in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwla as of 17.6.2005. I decee the same. Pagel[7] of 19 LA.App.784/2005&connected. I am left with the notification dated 24.9.2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwla and withrefereflCe to the fair market value assessed in Chiranh/ LaIs case, I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days, the figure comes to 4,25,641I- perbigha i.e. t.. 20,43,076.80 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India reuire to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the sme. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:- • i) For the land falling in Category A land in Village Mundka the fair marker value is fixed at is 2,49,408.75 per big ha i.e. Z 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, the fair markt value is fixed at 2,01,117/- 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 4,03,425I- per bigha i.e. 19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21.032003. For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha i.e. 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 4,98,589/- per bigha i.e. 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 4,25,641/- per bigha i.e 20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 24.09.2003. Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be ehtitled to sOlatium and interest aS per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs 1101, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by • the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree. The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs • viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) • JUDGE IULY08, 2011 • mm