Full Text
LA.APP.325/2010
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate
Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Sumer Sethi, Advocate
For DDA.
08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.
PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J.
JULY 08, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:14012
: • . . . : • . . . . . , . . .,. j.
. . .. . . .; . . , . . : • •• . .
HIGH COURT OF DELHI o pate ofDc'/Qfl 8th Lu/y O1L
-- - /\APP 784J2005 JAMNA Appellant
Through Mr L B Rat, Advocate, Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, gi
Mr K Sunti, Advocate, Mr Anuj Bhandart, Advocate
Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate
Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with
S Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawani and Mr Siddharth Pandaj Advocates
Mr.Ajay Verma, MsKanika Agnihotri, Mr KunaiSharma, Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sharma, Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun
Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND di
121/2006, 14312007 (Relating to otificatiOn u/s 4 dated
25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, iIIage Mundka)
AND.....................................- . . .
LA APP 583/20091 LA APP 60312009, LA APP 604/2009, LA.APP. 606/2Q09, LA.APP.. 610/2009,. 74/2010, LA.APR 7.8/2010, LA APP 784/2005 & connected
• . ,. . pr
125/20101 LAAPP 164/2010, LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPP
186/2010., LA. APP: 200/2010, LA.AP•P. 238/20101 LPAPP:
239/2010. LA.APP: 243/2.010 LA.APP:: 244/2010; .LAAPP.
245/2010 LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPP
252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP
273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPP
312/2010, LAAPP 324/20101 LA APP 326/2010, LAAPP
327/2010 LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP
331/20101 LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 333/2010 with C.M.APPL
No. 5524/2011, LA.APR 335/2.010, LA.APP.. 367/2010, LAAPP.
368/2010, LAAPP 369/2010, LAAPP 371/2010 & CM APPL
No.2.0099/2010, LA.APP 374/2010, LA,APP, 375/2010, LA.APP..
37712010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP
452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP
694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/20 11, LA APP
697/2010, LA.APP. 698/2010 & CM APPL. 173412011, LA.APP.706/2010 & CMAPPL,17215/2010,LA.APP. 707/2010,LA.APP
708/2010, LAAPP. 709/2010, LA.APP... 710/2010 with 1 APPL.
No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LA APP 715/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010, LA APP
766/2010, LA.APR. 796/2010, LA.APP. 797/2010, LA PP. :
.798/2010, LA.APP.. 799/2010 LA:APP. . 818/2010; LA.APP.
819/2010 LA APP 829/2010, LA APP 831/2010 & CM APPL
95.5/2011, LA.APP: 832/2010, LA.APP. 833/2010 & CM APPL;
6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAPP
871/2010, LA.APP. 874/2010, LA.APP. 875/2010, LA•.APP.
876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/20101 LAAPP
879/2010, . LA.APP. 880/2010, .LA.AP. . 881/2010 &. . :CM
'884/2010, L.A.APP. 886/2010, LA.APP. 888/2010, 'LA.APP. .
S '889/2010 .& CM APPL2249/2011,. LA.APP. 890/2010;. LA.APP.
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
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 213.2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated
176.2905 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 gave no increase
ORDER
12 In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 vide which aricuttural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of Z[4] 1 75 1 600/- 38,000/7 was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000I- 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 1air market value of agricultural lands in \illage Mundka was 4,46,000I- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Tking the argument fórward,it is urged that with reference' to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25.2.1993, 21 3 2003 and 17.6.2005, i e the dates when notifications u n d e r. 5ection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant 'vhereto agricultural lands were acquired in village.Mundka, by' • •increasi.g tie 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 Tikrt Kalan isfurther towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwa!a 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 LIOl 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 2,15,164I- for category, A land................ S.NO. Date •. ViIlge.. Price pe.r Big ha.24.07.1995: & llkriKalan. •.•.2,15,160/ for Block 16 11 1995 A & 1,73,500/7 for Block B land 11.06.1996 Tiki Kalan &. 2,3.5,815/- forBlok Ghevra.. A & fl,90,156/- fOr Blbc.kB land.
3. 17.12.2002 Tikri,Kalan.,. 4,02,850/- for Block A & 3,24,850/- for, Block B land would show that the Court assessed the fair market valu..e with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village.Tikri KIan. 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 marketvalue of land in Villge.Bakkarwaa:.
26 In Pratap Sincyh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under -