Rakesh v. Union of India & Ors.

1 Whether the Reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? 2s To be referred to Reporter or not?

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (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 LAAPP784/2005&connected Page4ofl[9]

2 The present decision concerns ise of fixation of fa market yalue of land in the revenue estate of'Villae B8kkarwa[1] 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 1Bakkarwala 24 9 2003 2 Bakkarwala 17 6 2005 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 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-10, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka The difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, that ofvillage Bakkarwala does not so abut, being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka S

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 village Tikri Kalan 7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired pursuant 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 revenue estate df 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 I 8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village 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 thvenue 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) as per award No 1(2006-07 9 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 minimumprice for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi

10 For clarity I may note that pettainingi to the notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned S Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural lahd notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ Z10 1 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted A APP 784/2005 & connected annum determined the sum arrived at s of 2 3 2003 as also 24 9 200 The two sums arrived at were added and 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 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000/- per acre

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in V11. Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified 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 ave 5% more and determined the fair market value as o 17 6 2005 in sum of 21 1 37 1 017 75 per acre and for, village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,2551- per acre

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profilep the reasoning of, the Land Acquisition C011ector, as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me durin g hea ring today

17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs 001 & Ors, it wa's urged by Sh L B Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which, argument was adopted by other learned }ounsel 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 and 3 biswa of agricultural 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 1 000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price 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 4,461000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fai 1r market value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993, 21.12003 2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuan 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 Alternati'iely, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan 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 S,ngh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs £10! 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 1 15 1 164/- for category A land and l,73,500I[7] for category B land, 2,35,850 for. category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850/- for category A land and 3,24,850I- for categOry B land, respectively.

18 I may note here th in various land acquisitioh references, various parties have 6roved,a number f sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have bnly relied upon the le deed Ex P-i

19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOI twould urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adoed as the yardstick for the reason, t be a representaive samp'e of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate propction to the whole For example, learned counsel would if, it has to be determined whether what percage of urgehat ent stons are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to plould k only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and i 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 sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition 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 of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the leard Reference Court re not sound, but would urge that the tv contentions advaned by, him should be considered by this Cciurt as the reasons as to why Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to detern-iine thie fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that t h e four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decisibn of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon 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 notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act