Rajeev & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1 No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010[1] !1063/2010 & CM i.; No6943/2Oi[1], LAAPP 1064/2010,AP 1066/016 LAAPP J 1067/2010, LA APP 11/2011, LA APP 122/2011,.,..... (Relating to Notification u/s 4 datd 17O[6] 2005 & Award Nd 1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala) i............,::.......,:..: !It CORAM r ? HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADJEEP NANDRAJOG,...,.........::..,. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be aIIowed, I I to see the judgment?; s be refred to Repoer or not;2 To er

3 Whether the judgment should be eportéd in the Digest? I •PRADEEP NAN DFAJOG, I (Oral) 4

1 I am deciding the ?bo&et captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneos apIicatidns which are by wayof • cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove A LAkP784/2OO5&connected Page4of19, A 3 1 ( I.01 ' *:

2 The present decision conces Ssue f fixation pf market value of land in the revenue (estate qViIlage Bakrw and village Mundka: %, I 3 The dates on which fair market value of the land h 'to be dermined iay be graphically noted as un et der - S No Name of Village Date of ntificatJn 1under ? Setior4the LAAct It !

1 Bakkarwala[1] 24 9 2QO[3]

2 Bakkarwala 17 6 2005 3 Mundka 2 2 1997 4 4 Mundka 21 3 2003,

5 Mundka 17 6 2005 4 !

4 It maybe4highlighted that the notifica,tion at erl[4] iAl i No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to villae Bakkarwala, JS the am (. pursuant whereto lands were acquird n he revenue este f 1, Village Mundka, as per serial Np 5bve " t Abutting NH-b, leading forn the city of beihi to the - J township of Rohtak in the State of Hayapa,are villages Murdka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village9kkarwala lies towards th other side of the Southern boundari of village Mundka IThe T I \ differencebetieen the topology of te tw villages is, whreas ', the land of village Mundka abuts NH4L0, that of villag Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other side of the, Southern boundary of revenue estate of vlllage 1 Mundka

6 As wet proceed from the ciy of Delhi to th township 4 of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed fIrst,foJJowed by 'village Ghera 4and then village Tikri Kalan 7 Ariculturaj lands in village Muricik were acquired[1] LA APP 784/2005 & connected,.... j J - ( I 4 j I I I & 3 4.,.. --..,:•:•• • •: • • • H • •: •. •. • • - -: •. •••. •

1. •::..• •. tf annum determined the sum arived at as of 21 3 ) 2003 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and dividd by, tWo to arrive t the mean figure as of, 21 3 2003, which I note t comes to 15,92,p83 33 per acre (In some çlecisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 249 2003 the rice determined was Z20A,OOO/- per acre; i- Pertaining to the notification: dated 17 6 20t05 pursuarit whereto agricultural lands were acquired in vtl1ae Bakkrwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricuFtural lands notifie by 'the ( Goveçnrnent ofNCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving I increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to th e lands in village undka, on account oflocational •d• advantage, being abutting NH-hO gave 5% more and 1 determined th fair market valu as'of 17 6 2OO[5] ih sum of 21,37,O17 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the pre \ determined was 2O,35,255/ per ac; 16 In the aforesaid backdropof thelfadtual scenarioi,n vyhich I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Lhd cquisition Collector as also that of the Rference court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today I,

17. With reference to the evidence led in LAC I No 384/2004 tampa Vs (JO! & Ors, it was urge'd by Sh LB Ri, learned counsel for th appellant in I.A App tJo 784/2005 whRh argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for t h e other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not I tified iris ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i wheeunde 1 tbigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected " I I J _ ! f the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would (oncede l - 4 $iat the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not tound,but would urge that the two cbntentions advanced by T[1] should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to whys x P-1 e not taken as the basis to determine the fair mar1et ' aue lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala ThI?rdly, t F 4adied counsel would further urge that the four.sale 'deeds x R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned t feference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 l995,:o 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8,.9.1.[9] 97 relied upon by UOl would how the actual market yalue of the land and thus larned doünsel would urge that the said four sale deeds shoyld be. €onsidered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected ' therein is Jess than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be with reference Xo the minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to 4 e points of time when the respective notifications were issued iinder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act o An independent and alternative argument is also a. dvanced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests itself on a decision of, a Division Bench of this Court reported as OO6(135)DLT231/ai5inghVs 1101 i; 1 The decision inJ5ingh's case (supra) 'concerns itself withthe determination of the fair market value of land in village akkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 10 1993 at U,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel pouId urge that the said decision as a ttainedtfina l ity inasmuch LAAPP784/2005&connected Pagel2ofl[9] I ' I \ I,:

32 I am left with the notification dated 24 9 2003 I pertaini4flg o Viliage Bakkarwala and with referencetO the fair: market value assessed in ChiraniiLaI's case, I would thquire lo appreciate he price by 10% per annm u for aperiod of 201 days, the figure comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i e 2O,43,O76 80 per are, which I determine to be the fair market vaIue of land 'in Village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 I !

33 Accordrngly, the appeals filed by te Union of lrdia i disissed and I hereby disrhiss the same TK requireto be m appeals fild by the land owners and the cross-objections fiId by the landowners stands decreed as undera. I) For the land falling in Category A land in 'VilIae t MLindka the fair market value is fixed at is 2,49,4O[8] 75 per bigha i e 1 1,97,162/- per acre nd f for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed t t k 2,O[1],117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre as on 25 02 1997, t For, the land situated in Village Mundka the fair I market value is fixed at 4,O[3],42I- per bigI i e I 19,36,440I- per acre, as on 2 1.03 2003 I For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair ip F market value ts fixed at 4,98,589/- p&r big4ia i e 23,93,227 20 per acre, as o 17 06,2005 iv) F o r the land situated ip Village Bakkarwala th fair marke[1] va l ue is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha I e AP &conected Page180f19 LAP784/2OO[5]

7 A - - -- - - - -- -- } 23,93 227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 r v) s For the land situated in Village BakkarwaIa the pair i. rharket value is fixed #at 4,25,641/- per bigha i e ' I 2?43,O76 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have suceeded l would also be entitled to solatium and interet as per statute and as clarified in the detision reported as I 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs UQI, for the compensation, paid oriQinally and as enhanced by the Reference Court andfinally on thesum enhanced bythe presentjudgrnent and decree. The suçceed, vii) appellants and cross-objectors who would also be entitled to proportionate costs \ ViH) All pending applications stand disposed of in term of the prayers made therein t I (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG), JUDGE 4. •...... '............,,./........ 4 •.......,:. •,:..,........,,....... '. -,.. 1,.,.•: iijir O[8] 2Q11 / k •1............................................................................................ 4' 4 4 r 1 • LA APP 784)2OO[5] & corinected