Ramesh Chander & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation Qf fir market value of land in the revenueestate ofVillage Bakkarwaja and yillage Mundka I 3 The dates on which Jair market value of the land has to be, determined may be graphically noted as under - S.No.. Name of Village Date of notfica.tion under Section 4 of the LA Act 1Bakkarwala 24 9 2003 2 Bakkarwala 17 6 2005 3 Mundka 25 2 1997 A Mundka 21 3 2003 '5 Mundka 17 6 2005

4 It may be highlighted that the notification at seria' No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the Same 'pursuant whereto, lands were acquired in the revenueestate of, ge Mundka, as per serial No 5 above r 5 Abutting NH-iD, leading from the city of[1] Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the, State of Haryana, are vilIges Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala liestowards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka The difference between the topology of th two villages is, whereas

I. the lnd of:llage Mundka abuts NH-10, that of vtlage Bakkarwaia 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 Robtak, village Mundka is '&o8secI[4] first, followed by village Ghevra. ad then village Tikri Kalan I 7 t Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired I 4..,.. ••• '•- • ••..,. -.-- --.T.. ---7,. c 1: I: pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under Section t of the Land Acuisition Act as per award No 2/199912000 Agricultural ands in the revenueestate 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 notifiction 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 2,0031issued und e r Section 4 of the, Land Acquisition Act a 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 in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collectoç determined the fair market valueof the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi

10 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 • LandAquisitibn.Colector determined th fai' markt.Val.ué. ith reference to the minimum price for agricultural land 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 A PP 784/2005 & connected I t •.....,l 4 1..... t: • • •.'c•.:' ••... t - - •:• '. • •:....; L 1 the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum This price was adopted for category A lands or lands in category B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertaining ito, the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the L.and Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the Jands to be determined was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2O[3] Even pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala ard village Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing S, minimum vlue of agricultural lands in Delhi as of. 1.[4] 2001 and jgave no increase Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector,theland owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land kAcqu i s i ti o n Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vide siarious judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in he above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and nhanced the fair mrket value 5 12 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 notification as as aopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA APP 784/OO[5] & connected....,;:• -::, •• •:: • -:•..[1] \ I: and 1,73,500I[7] for category B land,,35,85O forcatego4y A Aand and 1,9O,15O/ for category B Iarid, 4,02,850I- for land d 3,24,850I-, for category B land, category, A ap 4espectLvei'

18 I may note here that in varios land acquisition references, various parties have proved a number of sale deds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon I S • S S.. the sale deed Ex P-i 19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per 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 • proporti9n to the whole For example, learned counsel would yrge that if, ithas to be determined whether what percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method ro pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice ne 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 çeach tOe the conclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a ' 5 ' •, ',•,:. 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 epreseative of the price is the reason that people do come to S know abb[1] pending acquisition inasmucui as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey it iould be dfficult to issue even the notification under Section 4. 5.' LAPP784/2OO5&connected Pagellofi.[9] • • ':. • ' '• • • • • • • • • • • • • • '-[,' •.'' ''' '- • 5_...e' •.5., ' S. ••• ',S•.' 5,. yfithe Land Acquisition Act Learned coLins& would concede *,lt th'è reasons given by the learned Referenae Court are not sbtJnd, but would urge that the two ckntentions advanced by t; rn should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why H xP-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, larned cdtjnsel would further urge that the four sale deeds xR-1 to; R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Iference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.11995 305 1997, 4 6.1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOl would show the actual market va lu e of the land a n d thus learned doiinsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be dosidered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by the Goiernment, 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 Uner Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 20 An irdependent and alternative argument is also ad''anced by, learned counsel for. the Union The same rest itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported a 20O6(135)DLT231/ai5inghVs UQI 2U The decision injj5ingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village alkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 101993 at 1,32,000/-per b,ighal. Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attaned finality inasmuch - I • i •• •.•.••.•.. -..• •....

'I. i..... •.••.. •...-,. '.I ••: '....,.....: •... • i ••,::: '...,.:., H.:: as Petiions for Special Leave to Appeal fi before the Supreiie ! 'Court by either side have been dismisd Learned counsel; ttakes the agument forward by, urging tha[4] by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,d00!- per bigha, the fair marke value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by. 10% per annum to determine the market value of land in village akkarwaIa as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned couøisel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundk, fair market value of land in vdlage Mundka should be determined as of 25' 2 1997, 2,11.3.2003, and 17 6 2O[5], by giving 5% increase

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder • bigha a,nd 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Villagq 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 25.2.1097.It is a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Lnd Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra i:. 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 s policy enjoins, upon the Government to allot, a pre determined rates, a plot ofdeveloped residential land to the ones whose lands are LAAPP78/2005'&connected J: t: acquiredand thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase smafl pakels of lands in areas where acquisitions re likely to take place, these transactions are spec ilative and cannot ibe taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of. •1' land as on the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio nd proportion as also the principles pf averages and the principles of sampling tell me that to be representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the hoie Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned eference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I Iold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market 'alL 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 re pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price ç also hiuci lover 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 he Government Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court in jj IntL's case (supra) or Pratap Sincjh's case (supra)

24 I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court •

25 The decision in Ji Sing case (supra) determlr)ed fair market's value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,00O/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof r. LAAPP784/2OO5&C0t Pagel4Ofl[9] t ~ woyId shcw that th Coprt assessed the fair market value lth reference to sale deeds executed between the years 199O till ' I the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Ka!ar or Village Mjndka, apprently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, ale,price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be' indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala

26 In Pratap S,nghs case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in TiKri Kalan and another ç adjoinin'g Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various 1notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ' determined the fai market value of agricultural lands in Village I Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under -;s NO Dat Village Price per Bigha 1 2i 07 1995 & fkri Kalan 2,15,16O/- forBlock 16 11 1995 A & U,71500/- for

4. AquiSitIOfl Appeal No 489/2009, Qjraj' on 26 2011 I have determined the fair market value of th lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425I per bigha as of 6 2 2003 On the issue of coparabiLItY of land in village BakkarWala with village M!undka, Ghevra and Tikri Ka1an,L is no doubt true that T reaSvilIage BakkarWala does not abut NH-lU, as do th dther villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more çr6ximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-vls Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, has an advantage Since etñeS[5].ca née.r be achieved in the matters of assessin fair compensation, it is the broad probabilities and Ii! imilaritieS which matter Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be quivalent[1] unless qua some land special features can be shown

28 Since the decision in Pratap S,igh'5 case (supra) peals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the iotIficatio15 with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that, it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in PatP case (supra) As per the decision inJ'ratP Sincihis case (supra) for the date 24 7 1995, fr Category A lands fair compensation assessed was I 2,15,160i- per bigha and 1,73,500I- per bigha for. Category B land Th first notification with which I am concerned is 25.2.,1997. whereunder tands in Village Mundka were acquired - n[7] i•:•;. •. 3 ! ' i fair tn arket v.2.,49,4O[8];75 per bi1a' Iands the aIue. asseSsed.15......,..:• •'• • '. I e 11,97,162!- per acre and for CategOry B lands, assess the tair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 0 per cre,

29 The next notification with which I am concerned_is dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chiranhi Lal's ca (supr), with reference to the decision in Prata 5ing/'s case (supra), jor agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a S issued under Sectior 4 of the Land Acquisition Act potification bn 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 just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to t h e notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in • jVillage Mundka should be 4,03,425/- i € 19,36,440I- per acre, whic hij hereby fix