Union of India v. Kishan Chand & Ors.

15. Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village 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-10 gave 5,% more and determined the fair market value as of 17.6.2005 in sum of T21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was ^20,35,255/- per acre.

16. In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today.

17. With reference to the fjvidence led ^ in LAC No.384/2004 lamna Vs. UP!& Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereunder 1 bigha Page9of19 Iid j ' )-I,f 1 ' J: fc i i i 1 i-r.. •i. -.v^ f r f; ?-44 T--4 k-. d u nn 44.^ 4;• i y I '. ■ » '1 ■ tJ ! dl } ^ i: i it '^4.( '. ^ ■41.4. i -f- U, ri •■•r;:4l I,Vy \r Tv' H-; •,; ••*.'v I n iV n •; ".■' ■ •i;f'':-p. 4-. r:' ( ■• -1. '■ ■ -h- J.v; S: t ■ ».■ I ♦ i -. '-•I ' IM-l'. ■Ir, and 3. biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of. 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of ?4,75,p00/-. ^38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be ^5,13,000A and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to ?4,46,000/- as of 5.8.19!96. Learned counsel would urge that there is np reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was ^4,46,000/- per bigha as 5.8.1996. Taking the argument forward, it is urged that wjlh reference tcr^ 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 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 viljage Bakkarwala. Alternatively,,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 iNq.193/2006 Prstao Sinah {Deceased) Thr. LRs I/5. UOI as per J I ■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 l.A.APP.784/2005 & connected f:T- S 1 f. ( • ! i,■1; • • 'ii '■ I t • ■' i- I i- - 'I ! 5 t ■i i ■■; - 1 « ■,f • '• I ■!i u. ■i • I » p ) 4.M ■ r. ■ f i ■ -■i ■'/ f. i -1 ■i i ji. I and ?1,73,500/- for category B land; ^,35,850 for category A land and ^1,90,150/- for category B land; ^4,02,850/- for category A land and 0,24,850/- for category B land, respectively.

18. 1 may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a number of sal^ deeds, executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-1.

19. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason; to be a representative sample 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 stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one wPuld 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 secorkd reason on wtiich 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 dijfficylt to issue even the notification under Section 4 V» I LA;APP.784/2005 & connected Page 11of 19^' i 'If !;;■ •, ■ 4;j ' ^ ' ■V c ■■*.V; S-;■ r' ».• " -. 'J • ■i- !■, ^ •i; f; ir'!' i 4: J.'ti • f- 1- u ■ [ ' ■■ - /St. r 1^.1.[4] ! I.v,.J J ? f k ^ the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel would concede that tilfie reasons given by the learned Reference Court ar^e not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him.should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex.R-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair niarket yaIlie of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala. T;|firdly, learned counsel would further urge that, the four sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision 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 UOI vyould chow the actuaj 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 refifcted therein is less than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be with reference,l||p thre piinimum pricie ipohfied by the Governrr^ent yyhich is n^ppt to the point of time when the respective notifications were Ifffue?) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. ' '

20. An independ^t and alternative argument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union. The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as ^006(135)DLT231 /aiSinah 1/5. UOL

21. The decision in laiSingh's case(supra)concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15.10.1993 at ^1,32,000/- per bigha. Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 12of19 <■[ 4/' •■.v: ^7v..■'Is 4: ^ ■ 'i-v • It i. t..:.. 'i' l '! I ■■ ■ 1;f ■,4' It ' ■ i ?':ii;' -J- •• f fv' •i. '■ t, ' 'i 7:1 i ri- H ■ul'.! I r r. /, svi-,i >.^.[1] i(. A'/ n n I ' i n....^4— f •' I; f: v. r t' -1: i M n i;• r '•? • ii as Petitio.ns for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either,side have been dismissed. Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging thet by adopting the faif market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15.10.1993 a^ ?1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should b| ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% pef annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003 as also 17.6.2005. Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage,of village f^undka, 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-1, whereunder 1 Ligha 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 kcquisition 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 notified for the proposed acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to know that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands would be acquired. In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, a l^lot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are (^.APP.784/2005 & connected i Page13 of19 ^.... L i k'. Li'-.' •• ''it'. V: ■i ■ j' j I.• f;,. L'. v.- -* lii s.. \ 5 •^'4 '^.'1 1,■ • ■it ri -I'

1. 2"^ I ? n i. I ' V'v". S: ^ ' 'i '■ ' i ' 'v-;V Iv->. V H:■ ■'a-;4, i'i V'^v ■■;!>:;• I i X: i ■ ■' j.:'■« I -'[k irc^ulred and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase Isrnali parceis of lands in arqas vxhere acquisitions are iikeiy to take place: these transactions ap specuJative and cannot be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of ! land as on the date of the sale. Further, the principles of ratio _ and proportion as also the principles of averages and the 'iprinciples of sampling ^eli me that to be representative of the. wnoie, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the i whole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned ■ '' Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, 1. hold that Ex.P-1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market I value ofthe land could be determined. There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed. The sale deeds Ex.Ri: rto ExtR-4, dated 6.1.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997^ are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price ' rriuch lower than the sale price recorded in Ex.P-1. in fact, the, sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than j el/en the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notifiedby '1 the Government. ' 23 Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be ' required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this rn,irt in l^/Sinah'scase (supra) ox Pratap Singh-s_case (supra).. i[4]. i highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

25. The decision in to/ S/natTs case (supra) 'determined.. fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwaia in sum of n,32,000/- per bighp as of15.10.1993, and the perusal thereof 'f t it ':v v-.if A i f t • f i. ' 'H' V • ^ -i ■ t f • \. ^ If. ^ f • T; *■.(.T. % it - i v'i vi hi" m i j fmm. A- ■-J, I i-"' 'i''!-r^,'--, ■ ■ \ *■..»-..'X- ' V ■i v-v I; I. ■! 1' ■!. W:'- ^ >:,[1] would shovy that the Court assessed the fair market vafue with Ireference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan 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 market value of Ijand in Village Bakkarwala.

26. In Pratao Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalah and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various hotifitations issued under SectioQ 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:-, ( ' <■ S.NO. Date Village Price per Bigha; 1. i i d ^ 24.07.1995 & 16:11.1995 Tikri Kalan ?2,15,160/- for Block A & ?1,73,500/- for Block ^ land 1 2- - I "I" 11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan & Ghevra. ?2,35,^15/- for Block A & n,90,156/- for Block B land i'3. i ! 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan ?4,02,850/- for Block A & ^3,24,850/- for Block B land ) ■f. ■::i. ' / ■.. " ■ '. i ■ '■. ■ ■ -, i ' ' ' i*. h i-:.:: ■r::f 2(7,' Fnllnwinn the judgment in Pratao Singh'scase (supra) I:have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant t[4] notification dated 6.2.2003 in the batch of appeals being Land •, i <y -: ■: 1: - 'f-., -,v C; ■■ "v ''f', ■ V- ■ ■ ■ c- i-. ■■■: ■' -i;' " V; ■' ■■I '.". f ■ > v-:i i !■ vr*- ' I: i ir; fi!; h::- •. - 1 ii ■!:;,r'i'e i' 'y ' f.., > "l V' ^ -V-rft':.-k ■ J.f- ■-. in ? ^ i' -,> ■ 'H M * i j-; iI A: llf- ■ ' h 'Acquisition Appeal No.489/2009, ChiraniiLa!vs. ihiionofIndia &. Ann on 2.6.2011.I hav^ determined the faii^market value of the iilnds in Village Ghevra at ^4,03,425/- per bigha as of 6:2.2003.;,oi the issue of comparability of land in Village Bakkarwala with ' viiiage Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas viiiage Bakkarwala does not abut NH-10, as do the I other villages, but it,has to be highlighted that it is more i| prUimate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-vis Ghevra and Tikri. ' Kaian and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an advantage. Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation, it is the broad probabilities and similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be equivalent, unless qua some land special features can be shown.

28 Since the decision in Pratap Smqf}s case,(supra) ■; deals with notifications more proximate in poipt of time to the notifications with which i am concerned, i am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market r value of lands with which i am concerned in relation to the fair •' market value of lands determinedin PratapSingh'scase (supra). As per the decision m Pratan Singh's case (supra) for the date 24 7.1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was ^2,15,160/- per bigha and n,73,500/- per bigha for Category B land. The first notification with which i am concerned is { •; t 1 25.2.1997 whereunder lands in Village:Mundka were acquired. i. ) H he time span sweeps 1 year and 216 ciavs i.e. 55i_days. in 'pr.fan SinahScase (supra) jtie annuaiinaease was determined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to Category A Page 15 pf 19 T ! rS.f.'-.'i. iKi; ?;.:t,. ":;v t ■ ' I ■;.r ■ ■ m ■M-.: '.5. t m j. ■ ■'I:• r E' ' /■ l:k-i i t, ■f' ■r i ^tr.: i f-/ ?' • il n'T f-" rf t \ -x.S -V; 9/ ^ '. j-' i f -f-1.> ll lands, the fair rn^rket value assessed is ?2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e..?11,971162/- per acre and for Category B lands, I assess the fair market value at t[2],01,117/- per bigha i.e. ^9,65,361.60 per acre. -

29. The next notification with which I am concerned_AS ^3ted 21.3.2^03, pertaining to Village Mundka. In Chiranjl Lai's GBS(supra), vyith reference to the decision in Prat^pSingh's (supra), for agriculturaMands in Village Ghevra/pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was ?4,03,425/- per bigha. This was unifPrmly applied. Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to tk notification dated 21.3.2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be ^4,03,425/- i.e. ^19,36,440/- per acre, which I hereby fix.

30. I propose to deal with the notification dated 24.9.2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17.6.2005 pjursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala. 3]^ As noted hereinabove, in Chiranii Lai's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003,fair marketvalue assessed by me was ^4,03,425/- per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days,the figure comes to ?4,98,589/- per bigha, which comes to T23,93,227.20 per acre. The same is held t^y me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of17.6.2005. I decree the same. i l|\.APP.784/2005&connected Page 17of19 n v;- I:;' r: n r': - ■f......... j ■ i ' ( ' 'f M T; ] ■iV ■■ i.' ' i 1 Ti ■ ' !4 i » vi ! f? ■,0:: ii f --H ■I.^vrtST'' ' VH|l { '{ ■^1 I i 3^ KI ^am left with the notification dated 24.9.2003 pertaining t® Village Bakkarwala and with reference-to the fair, market value assessed in Chiranii LaJ's case, I would require to appreciate ttje price by 10% per annum for a period of 201days, the figure co\nes to ?4,25,641/- per bigha i.e. ?20,43,076.80 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003.

33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:- I i) For the land falling in Category A land in Village

4. f ''.rh,[1] f ! 4- ri i,, n V-4 ■ -Sii': v' ' ' ■.: - ■i.X'.'j'.,- - 1-i 4..: LA.AP,p.784/2005 & connected i, 1 A I f Iriv;t^: '■r- I' I,. ■V- ■ f ■ ■} ( ■:/ M. J r ■ > 1 i.V ■ '^4 - i, i 4V -9'. r ? t-: ■ t r.:h' ". i t v,i ' t Z'i ' ■ ' ■ i ti' c f;■ 11 ■t (. ■:C y r-. >1 ^ • I.• ''4;. i[4]:..|]-t i -< V.. i! Cv H !