Mahinder Kumar Vaid v. Union of India & Ors.

4 HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER % 08.07.2011 CM No.9459/2010 There is a delay in re-filing the appeal. The delay is condoned. Application is allowed. LA.APP.No. 492/2010 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JULY 08, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:14937 H • •....,......,........................... '.;..... i k 1c- tt;j! IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DLH i •.................,. 'H..: •::*:: •.. IIIt..:, •.: LP1APP.7.84IZOO 5 •;.: JAMA •...... '.... ppant / Through Mr L B Ral, Advocate, ( Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, ' t Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, J ' MrKSunhI,Advocate, Mr Anuj Bhandarl, dvqca p Mr Shadam Farashat, dv'cate... I •: • •.... p..,.........,. Versus /4c.....: •... uO & ORS Respondents, Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standing S Counsel (LA), GNCT Del.hi with Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawani and; Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika ç P Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Sharma, j Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sharma, Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA.{...:. 'S •:•. AND LAAPP 879/2005 LAAPP 880-881/2005, LAAPP 12 /2 0 0' 6 1 43/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s, 4 dated 2 02.1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village Mundka) • AND + LAPP 583/2009, LA APP 603/2009, LA APP 604/2009, LAAPP 606/2009, LAAPP 610/2009, 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010, LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page lof 19 TIT- RX....... h •-w.5r:; LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 12112010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAPP t 25/2010, LAAPP 164/2010, LAAPP 18512010, LAAPP j 46I2010,:t LA APP 200/2010, LAAPP 238/2010, LAAPP 239/2010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP ' 245/2010, LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 250010, LAAPP c 2521'010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPP, I 12I2OO, LAAPR 324/2010, LA APP 326/2010, LAAPP 327/2010 LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP 331/2010, LAAPP 332/2010, LAAPP 333/2010 with CM APPL No5524!2O1l, LAAPP 335/2010, LAAPP 367/O1O, LAAPP 368/2010[1] LAAPP 369/2010, LAAPP 371/2010 & CM APPL No20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP J 377/2010, LA APP 379/2010, LA APP 423/2910, LA APP,452/2010, LAAPP 46112010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340Q011, LA APP 6970010, LA APP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LA APP • 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LA APP 707/2010, LA A P P... 708/2010 LA APP 709/2010, LAAPP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LA APP 715/2010, LA APP,717/2010, LA APP 719/2010 1 LA APP 766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010, LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LA APP 829/2010, LA APP 831/2010.& CM APPL 955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 & CM APPL 6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2plo, LAAPPH 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/2010, LAAPP 8792010, LA APP 880/2010, LA APP 81/2010 & CM APPL 6505/20 11 LA APP 882/2010, LA APP 883/2010, LA APP,j 884/2010, LA APP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LA APP A 889/2010 & CM APF?L2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPP 893/2010 & CM AP!ft 6750/2011, LAAPP 894/201tJ & CM N1023353/2010, LAIAPP 895/2010, LAAPP 896/2010, LAAPP 8'97/2010 & CM APfL 728/2011, LAAPP 9Q3/2010, LAAPP..,.,......................: •• •..;••:,:... •H....:, T 17' j: ' e::e.. f..,. I %.. •.. 907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 939/2010, LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LA APP 1040/2010 & CM APPL 5673/2011, LAAPP 1041/2010, LAAPP 1043/2010, !LAAPP 1045/2010, LAAPP 1O46/2010, LAAPP 1048/2010, LIAPP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050/2010 LAAPP 1056/2010, L/APP 1060/2010, LAAPP 1061/2010, LA APP 1071/2010, tLA APP 125/2011, LAAPP 126/2011, LA APP 258/2011 I % (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No /2005-06, Village-Mundka)

AND LAAPP 600/2009, LAAPP 605/2009, LAAPP 615/2009, LA APP 310/2010, LA APP 325/2010, LA APP 376/2010, LA APP 383/2010, LA APP 384/2010, LA APP 385/2010, LA APP 473/2010, LA APP 492/2010, LA APP 586/2610, LA APP 591/2010, LAAPP 63812010, LAAPP 690/2010, LAAPP 692/2010, LA.AP. 711/2010,.LA.APP. 716/2010, LAAPP.. j 763/010, LAAPP 72/201, LAAPP 873/2010, LAAPP 885/2910, LAAPF 887/2010, LAAPP 891/201, LAAPP I 8212010, LA APP 89$/2010,LA APP 906/2010 & CM APPL No443/2010, [LAAPP 937/20 I0 & CM APPL 23299/2010, LA APP 1042/200, LA APP 10772010 (Relting to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 1/2005-06, Viflage-Mundka) H H AND t

1. LA APP 1003/2010, LA APP 1017/2010, LA APP 1019/2010, LAAPP 1022/2010, LAAPP 1923/2010, LAAPP 1044/2010, • LAAPP 1051/2010, LAAPP 1053/2010[1] LAAPP 1054/2010 &: CM APPL No 5656/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LAAPP 1057/2010, LAAPP 1058/2010, LAAPP 1059/2010, LAAPP ( fc68/2010, LAAPP 1069/2010, LAAPP 124/2011, LAAPP 127/2011,LAAPP 128/2011,LAAPP 259/2011 I t f i I T[9] 1 ' (Relating to otificatton u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka);f AND + LA APP 40/2009 & Cross Objectipns, LA APP 42/2009, LA APP 428/2009, 442/2009, LAAP 611/200 1 t LAAPP 616/2009, LA APP 278/2010 Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24 09 2003 & Award EJo 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No948/2011, LAAPP 1030/2010, LAAPP 1031/240, LAAPP 1033/2010 & CM No645/2011, LA APP 10'€2/2010, 1063/2010 & 1CM • No643/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP 1066/2010,,LAAPP 1Q6/2010, LA APP 11/2011, LA APP 122/2011 1(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 1/2006-07 Village-Bakkarwala) CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG I t 1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be, allowed to seethe judgment[2] I

3 Whether the judgment should be[4] reported in the Digest? FFAD4EEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral) w ]± 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 LAAPP784/2O5&connected Page4ofl[9] I I II S The present decision concerns isueof fixatiop of nrket val9e of land jn the revene u estate of Village Bakkarwa? and villae Mundka 3 the dates on which fair market value of the land ha to be determined may be graphically noted as under - S No Name of Village Date of.mtifitation uder Section 4 of the LA Act

4 Mundka 21 3 2003 Mundka 17 6 2005 C 4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial C No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of J C Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi to the

4. ownship of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the otherside, of the Southern boundary of, village 'Mundka The 'difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of village Mundka abuts 1\11-1-10, that ofvillage Baid<arala does not so abut, beingon the other side of the ( ?Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka

6. As we proceed fromthe city of Delhi to the township of qhtak, vilage Myndka is crossed firt, followed by vilage Ghvra and then village Tikri Kalan 7 Agricultural jands in village Mundka were acqLlred LA4AP84/2005&connected Page5oH[9] ft I pursuant to a notification dated 25 7 1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2000 AgrculturaI lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were ftkther acqLlired pursuant to a nttification dated 21 3 2003 f[1] issued upder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award I I No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuantto a hotification dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section[4] of the Land Acqu)sltion Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village I Bak<arwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as hr I7fl4-fl Further lands in.the revenue estátë of ---------------------------------------------------------;fkm c-rv,ilIri.,-rii uirrI ri irc iznf Fr nnftfir fir'r' dhc[1], ' •': - - ---- t__• tPe pice for one year @ 11 5% per. annum This price was dbpted for tegory A lands For lands ncategory B, the Iue was fjrther discounted by 90000/-. 5er acre Pertaining t the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the m minium, price of agricultural Iand'as of 1 4 2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair j &arA<et value of the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 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 Bakkarwäla and 1 'illage Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the 1Land Acquisition Collector 'detmined the same with reference to the notification fixing -mti value of agricultural lands in belhi as of 1.4.2.00L and gav no increase

11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair markeL value of the lands by, the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Larid ' j 1Acqu4sitlon Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vide variojs judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in th laboVe captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Referenc Cdurt,r and. enha ced the fairmarketvajue

12 In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 252 I997 vide which agricultural lands in Village undka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notificationas was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LAA44/2oo[5] & conne cted.,..... j-...............: ---:- -- ---'--••-..: • ••.. i. •......,:!:'• •...•.. l • •....•.............., '.. •1 • •1 • t......,.'.... Goerrrnen of NCT De?h had fixed the rhfnimuM vaua for agricuttural sands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997, but as against the lian, d '\ccusttion Collector depressing t h e pricd @ 11 5% for fullone, 'ear, adopting the percentage 11 5, de&eased the value by onl 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Go'4'ernment had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and M } lenotification under, Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was 7 dated 252 1997 This was the value fixe for category A ands and for category B lands, with reference to the values for ategory Aland depressed the same by 90,00/- per acre

13 Thus, for category i. lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for fátegory land the same was determined @ T[8],99,288/- p e r arè

14 Pertaining to Xhe notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder a9rlcultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Referencej • ••.:. Conrt took note of the fact tlat after the Government had ç notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in pelhi as of 14 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Usig th said dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean aerage What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value s of, 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as o? 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 LAAPP 784/2005 & connected * 3 • • • • •• • •. •.., ';.. 1 ••..:-,....... '..... ' -t p rd 3 biswa of agricultural and in vUlage Mundka was sold as of 1996 for a sale consderatior of 4,75,YOO/- 38,OOO/- was c iricured towards sale duty and thu the rice ofthe laqd would be Z[5],13,0O0I- and calculated with Irefereoce theretà, 'and price per bgha would come to 4,46,000I- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural Aand,s in village Mundka was 446,000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument fowad, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair I mrkt value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, I e the dates when notifications under Secion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant wFiéreto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by inreasing t h e price progressively, if not by 12% per annumat least by 10% per annum It is urged thdt on the same basis, 4 4 land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged[4] that since I,iliages Tikri Kalan, Mundka a n d'. Bakkarwala are contiguous viIiags, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of 4 the lard 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..A Appeal i No 193/2006 Prtap Sincjh (Deceas,ed) Thr LR[5] Vs up/ as per whih fair mark?t value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalar as of. 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category A land LA APP 784/2005 &connected Page lOof 19 i 4 I 2....... 2 2 '1. • N. -.. ••,.•.. pf 1 the Land Acuisition Act Learned counsel woulçi 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 Court as the reasons as to why 2 fEX 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 R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995, 3O[5] 1997, 4 6 1997 and.8.9.1997 relied upon by U011 would show the actual market value of the Iand and thus learned ounel would urge that t h e sa i d four sale deeds should be. onsidered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected therein 4 is less than the minimum price notified by the overnment, the priFe fixation should be with reference to the 1ipInum price s notified by the Government which is nearest to hpoint2ortime when the respective notifications were issued Lner Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 4

0. 1 An independent and alternative argument is also by learned counsel for the Union The same rests pdvar7ced tselfd a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006.(135) DLT 231 Ia! Stngh Vs (JO! 21 2 The decision in IaiSingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of, the fair market ialue of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated, 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel S I,....: •:• • • ( t 4 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 fam rnaket value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at fl,3,000I- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per anum to determine the market vilue of land in viIlage Bakkarwala as of 24.[9] 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned couns& 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

2 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bga, and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in ViIlage, 1....... Mudka as of 5 8 1996, it, would assume importance that the hale Is about 7 months prior tothe 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 Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of, determining as to what lands, comprised in yvhich khasra numbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposed acquisition and when this happens peqple in the area come to khow that very soor there. is every likelihood that the lnds •:) • would be acquired In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA APP 784/2OO[5] & connected Fage 13 of 19:.. •: •::.. t H IacqUired and tbus, it is not uncommon, for persons to pyrhase I smaIl prceIs of lands in areas where, acquisitions are hkely to I cake place, these transactions are specuatiVe and cannot be of the fir market value of 'taken to be a representative measure land as on the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio; and proportion as also the principls of averages and the L prnciples of sampling tell me that to be representative of he * hbIe, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus,' not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reerence Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I holi that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market There is n additional valJe of theland could be determined a reson no to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex Rl'to Ex R-4, dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 197, 4,.i[6].[1] 997 and 8 9 1997 ar also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale pnce mich lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the j j sal'e phce i the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even'the minimum price for agricultual land in Delhi tified by th Government