Union of India v. Manoj Kumar Khosla & Anr.

1. Whether the Reporters of local 'papes may be alIoed to se the judgmeht?......: • 2.. To be refrred to Reporter or not?

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral)

1 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

21. The present decision concerns issue of fixation of flr maket value of land in the revenue estate of ViHagaakkarwaIa and village Mundka

3 The dates on which fair market value of 1he land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under - S.No. Name of Village Date Of notification under • Section. 4 of the LA Act Bakkarwala 24.9.001 •• • • Bakkarwala 17.6.2005 •... Mundka. 25.2.1997 • •. 4. • Mundka. • 21.3.2003 •. 5: • Mundka • 17.6.2005

4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of • 4 •. • Village Muñdka; aper serial No.5 aboe. •. •.•

5. Abuttihg NH-10; leading from the city, of Qelhi to the • •.. township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villaes 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 iillaes is; whereas ib the land of village Mundka abuts NH-10, that of village • Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the • Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka • As we proceed from'the city of Delhi to the€Ownship. • of Rohtak, village Mundka -is. crossed ifirst, followed by village •. Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan • Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • • • • • • • pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2000 AriculturaI lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were.• further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 2. 1.3.2003 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 Acqui•sitioh Act as. per Award No.13/2006-07... •. 8. Agricultural lands in the revenue state. of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated • •. 4.9.003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisiti6n Act as: per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of 4 the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 6 2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 In a. nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value oftheacquired lands,under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi • • For clarity I may note that peftaihin.....to the: notificati•on 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 Iand notified •. • • with effect from 1.4.1997 @10 lacs per acre and since the date. •. of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted 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 90,000/- per acre Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 an,d 24 9 2003, the Land = Acquisition Collector relied upon the nQtification fixing.t.heH. minimum price of, agricultural land as of 14.2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with referehce to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated 176.2005 which require.d fair maket value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector 4 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

11 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, which are under challe nge in the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Referericeourt, and enhanced the fair market value

12 In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25.2.199.[7] 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 Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands i Delhi 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 value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the, minimum value was 1 4 1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25.2.1997. This was, the value fixed for category A lands and for category'•B lands;.with reference to the Values, for.' category A land depressed the same by 0,000I- per acre. 13.. Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @ Z[8],99,288/- per '.. acre

14 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 rates for agricultural lands Jn Delhi as of.1.4.2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of,NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted, the principle of mean average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value 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 Réferencé '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 arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3;2003; which ! note comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For,the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000I- per acre

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 hotified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect frim 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 N.H-10 gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17.6.2005.insun of 21,37,017 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 als.o that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today. 17.. With reerene to the evidence. led. in LAC No.384/2004 /amna Vs. 1JO/.& 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 Jgnoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder. 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 58.1996 for a sale consideration of Z[4],75,000/. 38,000I- was. incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5 1 13,000I- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000I- as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel vvould urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market 'value of agricultural lands in village 'Mundka was 4,46,000/- 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. 252.1993,.. 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 annumat least by 10% per annum It is urged that on the same bais, land price should be determined for the agricultural lrids in.vil!age.Bakkarwala. Alterhativejy,. it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villags, 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 Bakkarw.ala• with reference to the... judgment and decree; dated' 19.12.2008. deciding. a batchof Land Acquisition; Appeals, lead. matter,bing LA.Appal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs UO/ 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 2,15,164I- for category A land LA.APP.784/2005'&,COflfleCted.•. ' ' ' H and 1,73 1 500/- for category B land, Z[2],35,850 for category A land and i,9O,15O/- for category B land, Z[4],02,850I- for. category A land and 3,24,85OI- 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 hve only rel,ied:upon the sale deed.Ex.P-i.

19 Per. contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would trge that the sale price asper Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate 4 proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel wduld 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 hick only one grain 1 for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead to the cohclusion 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 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 difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected. Page liof 19 of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not 'sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered by this Courtas the reasons as to why' Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex ft-i to R-4 referred ltq in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995., 3051997 4.6.1997. and 8.9.1997 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,vith reference, to the: minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued under Section.[4] of the Land Acquisition Act. " '.• An independent and alternative argument is, also advanced by learned counsel for the Union. The same rests itself on a decison of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006(135)DLT231/ai5tngh Vs 1101. ' The deckion in /aIS/njh's case (supra)conc'ns'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 as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed' before the Supreme: Court by either side have 'been dismissed. Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascrtaind by increasing:the price' progressively by.10%' per annum to determine the market value of land Jh village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 003 a 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 25.2.1097, 213.2003 and 17 6 2005, by giving 5% increase I

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereundr 1 • land sold in Village bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural was 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 he Land Acquisition Act,'survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands,L comprised in which khasra: num bers and fields are required'tobe 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 pie determined rates, a • plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.A0.784/2005 &cdnnected • • • • •. • 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 trnsactiOflS are speculative 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 principles of sampling tell me that to be rrepresentative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reasoping advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for,the twih reasoning hit.heo-fOre noted, I hold that Ex.P-1 cannot be •good evidence wherefrom market vlue,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 agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government et value of the lands would be