Rishi Prakash Vats v. Union of India & Anr.

1. Whether the eporters of local papers may be aliowed. to see the judgment?..,. • 2. Tb be referred to Reporter or not? •3 Whether thejudgment.should be reported in the Dgést? •*.PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I (Oral). 1... I am deciding the above captioned appeals and elatabIe civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections; all of which have been listed hereinabove.. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 4,of 19 *,. I, I •' f. •. 1• •/ The present decision concerns 'issue of'ftx•tion market.value of land in tl]e revenue estte o Village akkàr.w.aa and village Mundka. ' The dates on which pair market vlueof the land h to be determined may be graphically noted; as und-er: S.No Name of Village Date of notification uhder Section 4 of the LA Act

1. Bakka-rwaa 24.9.2003. 2-. Bakkarwala 17.6.2005

3. Mundka 25.2.1997 Mundka. 21.3.2003 Mundka 17.6.2005

4 It may be highlighted that the notificatidn at séri[4]. '. No.2 hereiabove, pertaining toivillage Bakkarwala, is the same ' pusu.ant whereto land were'acquired in thd revenue estáth of 'iiIIageMundka; aper serial No.5 above.

5. Abutting NH-la, leading from the city of DelhI td the township of Rhtak in the State of Haryana, arevillages MUdka, -'j Ghevrä and Tikri Kalan. Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka. Th. '.difference between the topology of the two villages is; whereas • the land of village- Mundka abuts NH-10J that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side Of the • Southern boundary ofrevCnue estateof village Ivlundka. As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the.townshi of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, f011oed by villagej • Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan. Agricultural, lands in villae Mjndka were acquired LA.APP.784/2005 & tonected H; I... Ti 8' pUrsut to a notification dated 25.2.1997 issyed uhder.'Section f. the Land Acquisition Act as per award 4 Nq.2/1999/2000. Agric.ultural lands in the revente testate of village M;undka 'wer furtheracquirëd pursüant to a notification dated 21.3.200.: issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as peraard

1 Nb.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/2005-06. Further lands in th revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuanto a notification dated 17.6.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Lnd Acquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006-07... AgricultLtral lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkar.wala were acquired pursuant to a notification' dated • '24.9.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitibn Act as • perAwardNo..3/20.04-05. Furtheriands in the revenue estate the same iillage were acquired; pursuant to a notification dáte 17.6.2O,05 (the same:n.otiflcation•' under which lands in viMag;Muhdk were acquired) as per award No.1/206-07. 1. In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition 'Collect determined thfair market value of the acqyired lands, und all the awards., with reference to the minirnum'price for agricUltural '!and as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi. •10.., For clarity I may npte that peainin to the noti•fication dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learhed Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value'with reference to the minimum price for agricultural lahd notified ith eftect from 1.4.1997 @10 lacs per acre and since the dte of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discourfted LA.APP.784/2005 & con riected • • • • 1 I •,. •..•. • • •... • ••. • -• the price for one ear, @ 11 5% per annum This price, was adopted for ctegory A lands: For lands in cateoryB, th a1ue '! was further thscounted by 90,0'00/- IP acre. Pertaining to the notificatioñs' dated 21.3.2003 ' and' 2.4.9.2003, the,. Land • y • • Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing 'th minimum price of agricultural land asof 1.4.2001 and gaveno !benefit of enh.ancemnt with'reference to the fact that the fair • biarket vlue 6f the lands to be determined ws a of 21.k2003 and 24.9.2003. Ev.en pertajning to the notification dated 7.6.2005 which required fair market value' Of lafd to be determined ir the reven:ue estate of village BakkarwaIa and • ViIlage 'Mundka, as Of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing hiinirnum value of agricultural lands in. Delhi as of 1.4.2001' and k, gave no increase... Aggrjeved by: the determination of the fair market "alue of the lands by 'the Land Acquisition Collector, the land wners sought a reference under Section 18 Of the • Land 4cq,uisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vide 'arious judgments and decrees, which are under challenge 'in the. above captioned appeals, the Reference Court,tdok corrective actiOn, as per the view:0f the Reference Court, and'.énhanced the fair market value. '•.' '.. In a nut shell', pertaining to the.nótificaton dated 2:5.2.1997' vide which agricuItural Ind,s n village Mundká 'were cqufted, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as M/as adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which 'the; I •.. tA.APP.784/205 & connected • '. ', I: ':.. '• • • • •--.• --.••----.• S •': Go v. ernment of NCT Delhi had fixed the niinimurn valu&. fi agricultural lands in Dlhi i e 1 4 1997 but:as, against, the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11.5% for fUll. one year; adopting the percentage 11.5, decreased the Vakie by \only 34 days in.asmu1ch as the date with reference whereto • 'Governmént had notified the rninimLim valuewas 1.4.1997 and • thenotification under Section 4 of the Lánd;Acquisition Act was date.d 25.2.1997. This was tha value fixed fr category A.lnds sand 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 •Cburt deterrnined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/,- per acre and for. icategory B land the same was determined @8,99,288'- per acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21..2003 and '24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference CoUrt took note of the fat that after the Government had • notified they minimum rates for aricufturãl lands in Delhi. aof 1.4.2001 the next revision was as of 30.8.2005. Using th said dates and the minimum price notified by the Gbvriment of NCT Delhi, the Reference Cdurt adopted the principle of mean 1average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as ofrl.4.200a and increasing •the same by 10% per annum • determined the enhanced price as of 21.3.2003 as also 24.9.2003. Thereafter the Reference Court took the value.b i otifiecl as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10°/ per;LAAP784/2005 & connected.... nnun'determined the sum arrived at as of' 2.1.3.2003 asalso' 24.9.2003; Tfte two su?rns arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the men figure as of 21.3203, which 1note 'comes to 15,92,083.33 per acre (In, some decisions I noçe the 4 urn arrived at is 15,92,215/-). For the dat[6] 24.9.2003, the: price deternined was 20,41,000I.per acre. '15.. Pertain,in.g to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in vfllage rBkk ala and Mündka the learned Reference Court adopted 1' the minimum price for agricultural lands ' ñoified' 'by.the overnment 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, bein.g abutting. NH-10 gave 5%', more and •betermine'd the fair market value as of 17.62005 in sum of 21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was20,"35,255i- per acre. ' In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which; 'l have penhed profiled the reasoning bf the Land Acuisition ColIetor as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments adva'hced before me during hearing today. With 'reference to the evidence led in LAC • No.384/2004 /amna Vs. UO/& Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.BRai, Ieaned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/200,5, which argument' was adopted by other. learned counsel.who appeared 'for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was.flot justified in igrioring.thè sale deed Ex.P-1 whereunder I bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & connected.,., Page 9' of 19: d 3 biw.of agricultural land invillge Munçlka wassold as.of;J[8].19 9 6, fo r a sale consideration of 4,75;000F.. 38000I- was incrred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calcu'ated with referce thereto, land price per.,bigha wbuld come to 4,46,000/- as of 5.8.1996. Learned cunsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair narket value of agricultural lands in village M.undka was 4,46,000I- per bigha asof 5.8.1996. Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to. the saidprice, fair • market value needs to be determined s of 25.2.1993, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.200, i.e. the dates when notifictions under • Sction 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuaç 'Nhereto agricultural lands were acquired in village 'M.ündka, 4y • in'creasing the price progressiyel', if not by 12% per annum.tt last by 10% per annum. It is urged that on the same basis, land price'should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarw.ala. Alternatively., it was urged that since vjflages •Tikri Kalan, Mjndka and. Bkkarwala are contiguous villages,, and in fact viage Tikri JKalan is further towrds the township of Rohtak, some increase be mde 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 • Lnd Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being tA Appeal N.I93/2006 Pratap Singh Decesed Thr. LRS V. 110/ as per wF1ch fair market value of land, per biha, was determined in the revenue estate of village.Tikri Kalan as 1of 16.11.1995', 11.6.1996 and 17.12.2002 at.2,15,164/- for category. A land LAAPP.784/2005 & cornected •. -.. arid 1,73,500/ or category B land, 2,3,850 for category A lknd nd i,90,150/- for category B land;.4,02,850I-:for category A land an.d 3,24,850I- for category B' land, respectively.. I may note here that in várius Jand acquisition 'rfthencés, various paqies, have proved a number of s.le 'deeds xecutedfrom time to 'time, but during arguments today before rpe, learnd counsel for the land owrers have only rehed upon the sale deed Ex.P-1 • 19., Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counseI fothe •.UOI would uroe that the sale price as per Ex.-1 cannot be dopted' as the yardstick for the reason, to be a. representative sariple of the whole, the sample, must bear 'some adequate proportion to the whole. For example;' learned counsel would urge that if, it has to be determined whether what percentage of sones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe.metho'd 4 pick only one grain, for if' it happens to, be the grain of 1ce 'one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice ad'if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one wOuld 'rah to the' conclusion thatth'e bag is full. of'stones. At least a,' fIstful should be lifted and then checked.as a representative smpl, is- the example given. The secohd reason on viih Iarned counsel would ttack the sale deed as not being rprese.ntative of.the price is the reason that people do comèto k:now about pn'ding acquisition:insmuch as before a'cquisitiohs are made, land in the area, is surveyed. Without a survéyit, oUld be dricult to issue even the notification;under Section' 4 LA APP 784/2005,& couinected •.. J11 the Land Acqsition Act. Learned counsel wo!Jid conce,de et the reasons given by the learned Referencp Court are not und, but would urge that the two contentiops advanced by im shoulçl be considered by this Court as the reasons as to vvhy Ex.P-1:be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market.aIe of lands in village Mun'dka and Bakkarwala. Thirdly; lned counsel would further wige that the Thur sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned aefrrence Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995, 0.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOl would how the actual market value' of the land andthus learned..ounsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be on;sidered 1 but hastens to add, that since value reflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by. the Go'ernment, the 'price fixation should be' with reference to the. ririimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the,, point of time when the respective notification were. issued. under SectiQn 4 of the Larid Acquisition Act. An independent and alternative argument is also dvanced by learned counsel for the Union. The same rests Iself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 200.[6] (135) DLT 231 /a/Sinqh Vs. 1)0/; The decision in /aiSingh's.case ( supra) concerns itself /vith the determination of the fir.rnarket value of land in village akkarwala whicF were acquired pursuant to a notification 1•1, ' dated 15.10.1993 at. U,32,000/- per bigh. Learned counsel vJoLild urge that the said decision has attained fihaFfty inasmuch LA.AFP.784/2005 & connected.. I.. L.'..... I '... I •'... as:Petitibns for Special Leaveto Appeahfiled before.th'eSupçeple;çort by either side have been dismissed. Learned counsel tak'es the: argument forvard by urgin that by adopting the fair maket 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 vaIu of, land in village Bakkarwäl'a as of'24.9.003 as, also 17.6.2005.. Learned counel \would uçge that in view of the locatibnal 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 15% increase.

122. With respectto the sale deed.ExP[1], whereunder 1 biha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village 'Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it.wourd assume importance that the sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued uder Section 4 of the Land Acqisition Act, which was issued on )25.21997. It k:a matter of commOn knowledge that peceding the publication of a notification under Setion • 4 of the Land iAc'quisition Act, survey's are carried out with the objct of determining 'as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are required to be notifieç for'the 'prtposed acquisition and when this happens people in the area c'om to /know that very soon there is every likelihood that the: lands wbuld be acqufted. In Delhi, the lage scale acqUisition policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pe determined rates, a Fplot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005 & connected,.:DHC:14019 S •/-

S.NO. Date Village Price per Bigha 24.07.1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Blok J[6]. 11. 1995,. A& 1,73,5001-fpr Block B land..11.06.1996 Tikd Kalan '• & 2,35,815/- for Block Ghe\ra, 'A&' 1,90,156/- for Block B land 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block A& 3,24,850I- for BlockB land I-' would s,how that the Crt assessed the fair market va,lue Witfr t ref,erncë to sale deeds executed bet.we9i the yea1rs 1990 till It the yar 1996 either in Village Tikri or Village Mundk.a, parently on the premke.that being coniguous villagers, sale irite of, agricultural lafld in the 2 a.doiping; villages w, ould be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala.

26. In Pratap 5/nghs case (supra), the Division Bench as cOncerned with agMcultural lands in TikriKálan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various otifications issued under Sectio,,[4] of the. Land Acquisitior Act determined the fair market value of aricultural laHds inViliage S Tikri Kalañ and Ghevra as under:- 4 7.. Following the judgment in Pratap S/nqh'scse(supra) hvë decided the fair market value fbr the: land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquied pursuant U t tb notification dated 6.2.2003in the batch of appeals being Land LA.APP,784/2005 & connected H 18 cqu.isitiOfl Appeal No.48912009,.chiranhi.Lai vs. Union of Indi&,thr. oh 2.62011.[1] have determined the fair market value of the lads in Village Ghevra at 4,O[3],425Iper bha as of 6.2.200.3. On the issue of comarabihtY of land ivillageBakkarwIa with village M.undka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-10, as do the qher villages, but it ha to be highlighted that it i more 1.poxmãte o the urban areas of peihi visà-vi..qhera ad Tiri Klan and to that extent, qua saild 2 villages, has an advantage. Since 'exactness can never b achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is the broad probbiIitieS and sim,laritieS which matter. Thus, I hold all. 4, villages to be:euivent, unless qua some la'd special featr can be shown. i Ora) 8.. Since the decision in Pratap Sing[5] casë.(SU deals with notiicatiOnS more proximate in point o tietO the otifi'catiOriS with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be jut, fair and proper to determine,th Vair market ale of lands with which I am. concerned in 'relation to the fair market value.of lands determined in Pratap 5/ngh's case,(supra) As er the deciiofl in. PrataQ 5/nq case (supra) for the dat 24..1995, for Category A lands fair compeStiOfl assessed wa, 2,15,160I- per bigha and 1,73,5Q0I- per biha for CaeOrY B. concerred is lafld The first notification Nith which I arn;25.2.1997,whereunder lands in Village Munk,a were acquired The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 days 'i.e. 581 Ir IfLa case (supra) the annual /nea5e was deer.ifled 1.' to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to Categ:rY A LA.APP.784/2005 & connected......,.....•.. •..... I' I, I } lnds, the f a i r, market valpe assessed is 2,49,408 75 per, bigha •. iIe. 11,97,162/- per acre ándfOrCateOry B l:ands, I assssthe • t.fir market value at 2p11117I- per bigla i.e. 9,65,36I.60 per acre.. •

9. The next notification with which 1, am concerne&LS dated2L[3].2O03'.prtaini.ng to Village Mundkà. In chiranhi a/s ( as(supra), with reference to the decision in Prata,S/nqh's case ('supra), for agricultural-laids in Village GhevrapertaifliflgtO a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market valLe assessed was 4,03,425i pe igha This was unifá.rmly appled. Since thee is a time gap of jJst a little over 1 month, I am ofthe opinion that pertaining to the. notificationdated 21.3.2003j, fair market value of, land in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425R i.e. 19,36,440I- pr acre, which I hereby fix.

30 I propose to deal with the notification dared • 4.9.2003, after dealinig with the notification dated 176.2OO[5] Suruañt wt'iereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala •.

31. ' As rtoted hereinabove, in ch/ranh/La/'SCa 5e(SUPra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003, fair market value 1 ssesed by newas 4,03,425/- per bigha and. thus, increasing O 'the same by 10% for 2 years and 131. days, t'h figure corns to 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227.20 per Ocre. I Vhe same is held by meto be the fair market value of lad in Jillage.Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17.6.2005:1 decee hesme.... • • I [A APP 784/2005 & connected, • •... • I"? Fl --... I. •.': I am left 'pith the •r?otifiction dated 24.'92003 ertaI-nirg t'o 'ViNage.BakkarWala and with re-ference to, the fair market value asessed in Ch1ranii Lal's case I would requre to ppreciate the price by 10% per ahnum for a period of 201 days, he figure comes to 4,25,641I- per bigha i.e. 0,43,076.0.-Per.cre, which I determine to be the fair markt value of land in ilIage BaKkarwala as of 24.9.2003.

3. Accordingly,.the appeals filed by the Uhion'of India equire to be dismissed an,d I hereby, dismiss the same. The ppels filed by the land owners and the cross-objections fi!d by the land owners stands decreed as under:- • I For the land falling in Category. A, land in Vi'Iage • Murdka the. fair 'market value, fls fixed at is.S[1] 2,49,408.75 per bigha i:e. Z 11,97162/- per acre and for Category B lands, the pair market valUe is fixed at '2,01,117I- per bigha i.e.' 9,65,361.60 per,lacrf, as • ori25.02:1997. - - For the land situated in Village Mundk'a the' 'fair market val,ue is fixed;, at p,,er bigh'a-,'i.e 19,36,440I-. per acre, as on 21.03.2.003. For the land. situated in Village Mundka,the •fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha. i.e. )7 ) v-rnr tr mc,mr 1 7 flR '?fl('S -.LU 1JI UL.I[1] iv)- For the land situated in Vilag.é Bakkarwala the fair • • -market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- - er bigha Le. LA.AP.784/2005 &cdnnected •. ' -Page 18 of-i 3:. - •: - • -,; ( 2_\. '23,93,227.20 per acre, ps on 17.06'.200. v) 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. vi). Appellants and cross-objectors who have.succeedd' also be entitled to solatium;and interest as per k would statute and as clarified in the decision reported as • 93(200 1) DLT 569 Sunder vs. 110/, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced. by the present judgment and decree. vii) The appellant's and crôss-ohjectors who succeed wou!d also 'be 'entitled to proportionate costs. • viii) All pending applications stand disposed of.in terms of • the prayers made therein. • (PADEEP NAN DRAJ.OG) • JUDGE;, • ' 1L'08,2011, ' •, - I LAAPP.784/2005&onnected ' • ' • Page 19of19 ' •,