Union of India v. K.L.Katyal & Ors.

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 To be referred to Reporter or not?:3 Whether.the judment Shoul:d be reorted in the Diget? • PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J (Oral).4.

1 I am deciding the above captioned appeals and! relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way ofl cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove... -.....,-.......... 6, '2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of ffr market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarw and village Mundka

3 The date on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under - S No Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4•of the LAAd

1 Bakkarwala 24 9 2003 I 2 Bakkarwala 17 6 2005

3. H undka. 25.2.1997

5 Mundka 1,7.6.2005 * 4 It may be highlighted that the notificatcon at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above I 5 Abutting NH-b, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of, the Southern boundary of village Mundka The difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-b, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut, being on the other side of the & Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2/l999/20O0 Agricultural lands in the eyenue 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 Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated. 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which lands J n village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-0 9 In a nut shell, the Land 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 Goverhment of NCT Delhi

10 For clarity I may note that pertaining to the ntification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural jands in th revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector detern?ined the fair maket value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ T1& lacs per acre a n d since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted I A APP 784/2005 & connected 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 measure of the fair market value of taken to be a representative land ason the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and the principles of sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear, at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned wi -fore noted, I Reference Court, but for the tn reasoning hitherto hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional ed The sale deeds Ex Rreason not to rely upon the said sale de[4] 1 to ExR-4, dated 611995, 3051997, 1997 and 89 1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in P-i In fact, the zi sale price in te said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimim price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by 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 Jjgh'SCa5e (supra) or prata,o 5ingh'sca[5] (supra) Court in 5in I highlight that both desions, penned by the Division 24 ci Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court

29 The next notification with which I am concerned..i dated 2132003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chiranit La/'s... cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Prataø Sincjh's case (supra), for agricultural lands 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 4,03,425I- per bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of inion at pertaining to just a little over 1 month, I am of the op th the notification dated 21 2003, fair market value'of land in Village Mundka should be 4,03,425I- i e fl[9],36,4401- per acre, which I hereby fix 30 1 propose to deal with the qotification dated 24 9 2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2095 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala 31 As noted hereinabove, in Chiranhi Lal's case (supr), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market value assessed by me was 4,03,425I per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 per cre The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17 6 2005 I decree the same 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha ie 20 1 43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to soltium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs (10/, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would &so be entitled to proportionate costs All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein - (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG):, - JUDGE JLY O[8] 2011