Union of India v. Joginder Singh & Ors

25 Q[2] 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village Mundka) Vv AND I + LAAPP 583/2009, LAAPP 603/2009, LAAPP 604/2009[1] LAAPP. 606/2009, ILA.APP. 610/2009,.74/20.10, LA.APP. 72/2010[1] 11 LA APP 784/2005 & connected. •.•.. •.• •.. •. • • • • •... • • •,. • •. • • •. • •.•...,.• • • • V • • • ••. •• • • • •:. • • •.•..... •.. •,.• LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010 LAAPP 122/2010, LAAPP 125/2010, LAAPP 164/2010, LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LA APP 238/2010, LA APP 239/2010, LAAPPb 243/2010, LAAPP 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 324/2010, LA APP 326/2010, Pl. 327/2010,. LA.APP... 329/2.10, LA.APP... 330/2010,. LA.APP. 331/2010, LA APP 33212010, LA APP 333/2010 with CM APPL No 5524/2, 335/20, LA APP 367/2010, LA.A.PPI. 368/2010, AAPP 369/2010 LAAPP 371/2010 & CM APPL NO..20099/2010, LA.'AP.P. 374/2010; LA.APP.:375/2010, LA;APP. 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010; LAAPP 452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP 694/2010, LAAPP 696/2010&CMAPPL No 6340/2011,LAAPP LA.AP•..' 697/2010, LA.APP. 698/2010.& CM. APPL. 1734/2011, 706/2010 & CM APL. 17215/2010, LA.APP..707/2010, LA.APP. 708/2010, LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/20 11, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LA APP 71512010, LA APP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010, LA APP 766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010, LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LAAPP 832/2010, LAAPP 833/2010 & CM APPL 6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 2/2010, LAAPP 871/2010, LA.APP. 874/2010, ' LA.APP'. ' 87:/2.010, LA.APP 876/2010, LAAPIb 877/2010, LAAPP 878/2010, LAAPP 879/2010 1 LA APP 880/2010, LA APP 881/2010 & CM 4. •AP'PL'65O[5];I2'011i LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP. I 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPP 893/2010 & CM.AP'PL. 6750/2011, LA.APP. 894'/200 &'CM' • No.23353/2010, LA.APP. 895/2010, LA.APP..896/2010, LA.APP. ' '•. 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP 907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 939/2010, LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM AP'PL 3086/2011, LA APP 1040/2010 & CM APPL 5673/2011, LAAPP 1041/2010, LAAPP 104312010 LAAPP 1045/2010, LAAPP 1046/2010, LAAPP 1048/2010, LAAPP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050/2010, LAAPP §1056/2010, LAAPP 1060/2010, LAAPP 1061/2010, LAAPP 1071/2010, LA APP 125/2011, LA APP 126/2011, LA APP 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 3/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND + LA APP 600/2009, LA APP 605/2009, LA APP 615/2009, LAAPP:.310/2010, LI:APP. 325/2010, LA.APP. 376/2010, LA.APP. 383/2010,::LAAPP. 384/20.10, LA.APP. 385/2010, LAAPP. 473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP. 586/2010, LA.APP 591/2010, LA APP 638/2010, LA APP 690/2010[1] LAAPP 692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010[1] LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/2010, LAAP 885/2010, LAAPP 887/2010, LAAPP 891/2010, LAA# 892/2010, LA.APP. 898/2010[1]. LA.APP. 906/2010 & CM AP... No.4443/2010, LA.APP..937/2010 & CM APPL.., 2329.9/201c LA APP 1042/2010, LA APP 1047/2010 (Relating to NOtification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND ' LA APP 1003/2010, LA APP 1017/2010, LA APP 1019/2010, LAAPP 1022/2010, LAAPP 1023/2010, LAAPP 1044/2010[1] LA.APP 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010, LA.APP...1054/2010. & CM APPL' No 5656/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LAAPP 1057/2010, LA APP 1058/2010, LA APP 1059/2010, LA APP 1068/2010, LAAPP 1069/2010, LAAPP 124/2011, LAAPP 127/2011,LAAPP 128/2011,LAAPP 259/2011 LA.APP:.784/2005 & connected •........ H pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award Nt2/1999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of villagMundka 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 Acqursition Act as per Award NQ 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands ip the revenue esate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notication dated 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acsition Act as per Award No 3/200405 Further lands in the renue estate of, the same village were acquired pursuant to a nofication dated 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which nds in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-

9 In a nut shell, the L a nd Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural 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 Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with, reference to the minimum price for agricultural, land notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ Z10 lacs per acre and since the date Of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of tirrie, discounted I A APP 784/2005 & connected Pace 6 of 19 I. $ the price for one year @ 11 5%per annum This price was adopted for category A lands For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 9cY,000/- per acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notificatiori 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 ws of 21.3.2003. and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 which required fair rnarket• value of land tO be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and village.Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquis.ition 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 Aggrieved by the deterHnation of; the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Colledtor, 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 Referehce' Court took corrective action, as per the 'iew,of the Referencé Court, and enhanced the fair market value. 1 12.. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 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 Acquisition Collector under which the LA APP 784/2005 & connected Iage 7 of 19 o.. ~ and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- 38,000I was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000I- and calculated With.réfeence theret, land, price per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- as of 5 8 1996 Learned ousel•would u.r.ge:that there is rio: reasori not to hold tht;fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000I- per bigha as of, 5 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25.2.1993, 2 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 Bãkkarwala. Altrnatively, it was urgec 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 • lahdin villag e. Mündka. and Bákkarwa!a with rëfernce,to the... judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being 1.1A Appeal No 193/006 pl-a tap Sincj'h (Deceased) Thr, LR[5] Vs (JO! 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 as PetitiQns for Special t.eve to Appeal ftle befe the Supreme.............................................................. Court by, either, side have been dismissed Larred counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adoptin the fair market value of land in viHage Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair lue should be market va ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of, land in village Bakkarv''ala as of. 24 9 2003 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 as of 25 2 1997, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, by giving 5% increase

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 kb ig ha 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 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 notifed,.for he. popose I H would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till, the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or VUlage Mundka, appareitly on the premise that being cntiguous villagers, sale price of agriculttiral land in the 2 adjoinirig villages would be indicative of fair(narket value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agM.cultural lands in Tikri Kalan and. another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Sectiorj 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the Or market value of agricultural lands in Village Tik.ri Kaln and Ghevra as undr. •.... S NO Date Village Price per Bigha

1. 24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,1..60./-for.BIock 16.11.19.95 A & 1,73,5OO/- for Block B land 2 11 06 1996 Tikri Kalan & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghevra A & 1 1 90,156/- for 17.12.2002 TikriKalan. 4,02,850/- for Block. A & 3,24,850/- for L_____.•.. I(OO;S........... Acquisition Appeal No 489/2009, chJraflj! La! viJifl,OOf_ /flQi-& Apj on 2 6 2011 1 ave determined the fair market vlue of the at 4,03,45I- per lapdsin VillageGhevra bigha as of 6.2.2003. On the issue of, comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWata with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that 1O whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-, do the as other villages but It has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-Vi Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an advantage Since xactneSS can never b& achiev2d in the matters of assessing fair compensation[1] it is the broad probabilities and. similarities which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be quivalent[1] unless qua some land special features can be shown

28 Since the decision in Sirgif case (supra) deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notification1s with which I am concerned, I a of, the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair, market value of lands determined in Praap Sing case (supra) As per the decisin in Prtap, 5igfl case (supra) for the date 24 1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was t. 2,15,160'- per bigha and 1,73,500I- per bigha for CtegrY B land The first notification with which I am concerned is - i;tt Miindk were acauired I 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 @6 2005, v) Fcxr the land situated in Village akkarwla the fair markt value is fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha ite 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 vi' Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs £10!, for the compensation,:paid Origin.11y and as. ehhanced 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 costsi. All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of theprayers made therein c (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG), JUDGE J&JLY 08, 2011 mm rA