Jamna v. UOI & Ors.

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest 7 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral) I.. I am deciding the •above captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. 6).2. The present decision concerns issue of fix"a 'tion of fair market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala and village Mundka.

3 The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under - S.No. Name of Vi:JIage Date of:notification under Section[4] of the LA Act Bak•karwala 24.9.2003. Bakkarwala 17.6.2005... Mundka. 25:2.1997 Mundka 21.3.2003.

5 Mundka 17 6 2005 4... It may be highlighted that the notificatiOn at sédal No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to viliage Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka; asper serial No.5 above...•.

5 Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi to the townhip of Rohtak in the State of Hayana, are.villages Mundkà, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the othe:side of the Southern bouhdary of village Mundka. The difference between the topology of the two villages is; whereas the:and of village. Mu.ndka abuts NH-lU, that of village. Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka

6 As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan.....

7. Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA APP 784/2005 8 connected Pages of 19 H ' pursuant to a notification dated 25.[2] J997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquiidon Act as per award No.2/1999/2000,. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate Of village Mundka 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 Lahd Acquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006-07. AgricultUral lands in the revenue estate of vi!lage • ' Bakkarwala were acquired 'pursuant to a notifiction dated 24.9.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land' Acquisition Act as per AwardNo.3/2004-05. Further lands in the' revenue estateof ' the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which 'lands in village Mundka were acquire'd) as' per award No.1/2006-07. ' 'lh a' nut shell,, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair maket value of the acquired land, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Governmentof NCT Delhi. 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 time, discounted,LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' ' ' ' ' S the price for one year© 11.5% per annum. This price W adopted for category A lands. For, lands. in category B, the value was further, discounted by 90,000/- per acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated 213.2003 and ' 24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1.4.2001 and gave no benefit of enhancemeht with reference to the fact that the fair: market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 20p[3] and'. 24.9.2003. Even, pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 which required fair market 'ialue of, land to be determined in "the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and villge 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..Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, 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, whic'h are under challenge in the above:, captioned appeals, the 'Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhanc'ed the fair market value. 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 notiftcation as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Qy Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the mihimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but as against the Land Acquiition Collector depressing the price @ 11.5% for full One year; adopting the percentge 11.5, decreased the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference. wher&b Government had notified the minimurn value was 1 4 1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act vas • dated 25.2.1997. This was the value fixed for category A lards and for category B lands; with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre. Thus,.for category A lands the Refern.ce Cont determined the fair market value © 9,891288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- per acre. •. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rats for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates andthe minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Reference. Coxrt adopted.the principle of meah average. What the Reference Court did was to adopt the VaIu as of 1.4.2001 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 notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. •: annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21.3.2003 as also 24.9.2003. The two sums arrkied at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003, which I note comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sunarrived at is 15,92,215/-). For the date 24.9.2003 the price determined was 20,41,000!'- per acre.

15. Pertainin.g to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural iands were acquired in village I Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned. Reference Court adopted • the minimum price for agricultural lands notftie.d 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 locatioal •,$. •. advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum of •. 21,37,017.75 per.are and for village Bakarwal•the price d.etrrnined was 20,35,255/ per acre.

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which.[1] 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 refrence • to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 Jamna Vs. (JO! & 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 TriaF judge was not justified in ignoring the sale, deed Ex.P-1 whereunder 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of • 5.8.196 for a sale onsideration of 4,75;000/-. 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would,be[5],13,0O0!- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 446,000I- as of 5.8.1996:. Learned counselwould urge that there is ho reasonnot to hold thatfair 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, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. the dates when hotifications 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 Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since \fillages '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 No.193/2006 Prata,o Sinqh ('DeceaseW Thr.' 4R[5] Vs. UQI as per Which fair market 'value of land, per bigha,was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 6.11.1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/7 for category A land • LA.APP.784/2005 & connected 1, and 1,73,500/ for category B land;,35r850 for category A land and 1,90,150J- forcategory B land, 4,02,850I for category A land and 3,24,850I- for category B land,' respectively.

18 I may note here that in various land acquisition references various parties have proved a number of sale 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-i

19. Per contra, ShSanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sal e, price as per Ex.P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reaon, to be a, representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the whole For example, learned counsel would urg'e that if, it has to be determined 'whether what percentage of, ' stones are mixd 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 would 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 second reason on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being • representative of the prite is the rea,son that people do come to' know about pending acquisition ihasmuch as before'cquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without, a survey it. would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 W of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel wourd concede that the reasons given by the learned Refethnce Coprt are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by, him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why 1 Ex.P-1be not taken as the basis to determine the fair rnarket value of lands in village.Mundka. and Bakkarwala. Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds E.R[1] to.R-4 referred to in the dedsion of. the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995, 30I997 4.6.1997 and 89.1997• relied upon by UOl would show the actual 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 reflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by. the Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the minimum price notified by the GOvernment which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued nder Section 4 of the Land Aquisition Act.

20 An independent 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 2006 (135) DLT231JSingh Vs UOI 21 The decision in Ia' Sincjh'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.74/2005 & connected •. • •" 'S L: as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed befpre the'Suprern = Court by either side have been dimissed. Learned counsel 'takes the argument forard by urging that by adopting the fair market value ofland 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 deternine the market value of lard • in viIlae Bakkarwala 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 bigha 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 tothe date of the notification issued under Section 4ofthe Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25.2.1997. It i a matter of common kpowledge that preceding the publication of a nbtification under.Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Ad, survey's are, carried but with the object 'of determining' as to what lnds, 'comrised in which khasra numbers and fields are reuirëd to be notified for the proposed accuisition 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. enjoin's upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rtes, a plot of developed residential land to the ones,whoe lands are LA.APP.784/2005 '& connected ".,. ' S • acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place; these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to be a reprsentatiVe 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 princiles of avrageS and the principles of sampling tell me that to be repres.efltatiVe:of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proortion to the whole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex.P-1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market válde of the land could be determined. There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed. The sale deeds Ex.R- 1 to Ex,R-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 much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agricuiturl land in Delhi notified by• the Government. • Thug, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this (supra).or P22pfflca5e (supra). • I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supree Court. • The decision in Ja/S/ngh'scSe ( supra) determifled fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000I- per bigha as of 15 10 1993 and the perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & connected 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 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 land in Village Bakkarwala. 26.1.in Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with aghcultural lands in Tikri kalan. and another. adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertain'ng to various notifications issued under Sectior.[4] of the LandAcquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in VilIae Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:- S... S.NO. Date VWage. Price per Big ha

1. 2407.1995 & Tikri Kalan 2,15,160/- for Block 1611.1995 A & !1,73,500/7 for Block B land 11.06.1996 •Tiki Kalah & 2,35,815/-forBlock Ghevra,. A. & 1;90,156/- for, Block B land

3. 17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan 4,02,850/- for Block *. A & 324,850/- for Block B lnd 27.. Following the judgment in Pratap S!nghscse ( supra)