LA.APP./562/2011 of OM PARKASH & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW'DELHI

± LA.APP. 562/2011

OM PARKASH & ORS ..... Appellants

Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for DDA.

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

ORDER 29.08.2011

C.M. No.16103/2011 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M. No.16102/2011 (delay)

The present application is filed by the appellants praying inter al/a for condonation of delay of 260 days in preferring the accompanying appeal.

At the outset, counsel for the appellants states that in case the delay of 260 days in preferring the accompanying appeal is condoned, the appellants shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay as also the costs of the appeal.

Counsel for the respondent No. 1/Union of India and respondent

No. 2/DDA state that they have no objection to the aforesaid suggestion LAAPP. 562120,1 .1 Page 1 of 4

made by the counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 260 days in preferring the appeal as also the costs of the 1pj.IiP

The application is disposed of. LA.APP. 562/2011

By way of the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment 09.09.2010 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.67/08 arising out of Award No.01/DCW/2006-07 pertaining to village Bakkarwala passed pursuant to the notification dated 17.6.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act') and the declaration dated 31.5.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act. Counsel for the appellants submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APPNo.784/2005 entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' decided as recently as on 8.7.2011.

Counsels for the parties state that in the aforesaid batch of matters, apart from the land acquired in village Mundka , the learned Single Judge had also decided the cases arising out of the same Award covered under Section 4 of the Act dated 17.6.2005 pertaining to village LA APP. 56212011 Page 2 of 4

Bakkarwala. In this regard they draw the attention of this Court to the

operative para 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of

which are reproduced herein below

"33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:- require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:-

xxx

For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha i.e. 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005.

xxx

Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOI, 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 also be entitled to proportionate costs.

All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein."

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants are also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters, to which counsel LA APP. 56212011 Page 3 of 4 appellants are also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters, to which counsel LA APP. 56212011 Page 3 of 4

for the respondent/UOI has no objection.

5. Following the aforesaid decision dated 8.7.2011 in the case of Jamna (supra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellants as granted to the Jamna (supra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellants as granted to the appellants in the LAAPP.784/2005. However, it is clarified that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 260 days in preferring the appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in C.M. No.16102/2011 preferred by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 260 days in preferring the appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in C.M. No.16102/2011 preferred by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

AUGUST 29, 2011 anb'

HIMA KOH LI,]

LA.APP. 56212011

. .. ...

. [i• ]

. . * N THE. HIGH COURT OF DLHI AT NEW DELHI

. . . . . . .

. :. • • . . [;' ][.. ]. . [;' ][.. ]

Date ofQecisibn:8 lu/v.

. . : , [: ]

. . . .

. . : + .

LAAPP. 784/2005

. . . ..'.

. .. . JAMNA • •

• • . .. . . . . ., . Appellant .. [. Through: ][•Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate, ]. .. . .. . . Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate, . . : • Mr.D.S.Lakra,Advocate, . S . . ., Mr.Anuj Bhandar, Advocate. . [Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate, • ]

. .. . .. .

. .. . . . . . • j . . .

. . . . S

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . Mr.Shadam Farashat, Advocate

. .,... . .

Versus

. . . . . Respondënts . . .

.uoI & ORS ,

.. . . . . .

. . . . . & . . . . . : •.

.., Through: . Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing

Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with . Ms.Deepika, Mr.Sáchin Nawani and Mr. Siddharth panda AdvOcates . . . . Mr.AjayVerma, Ms:Kanika Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr Sharma, Ms.Shobhna Takiar and Mr.Ar.un. . Birbal, Advocates for DDA .•

AND

+ LAAPP [879/2005:, LAAPP ]880-881/2005, LAAPP 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s .4 dated . 25.02.1997 & Award No.2/1999-2000, Village Mundka) •:.

AND

+ LA.APP. 583/2009, [LA.APP. 603/20091 .LA.APP.. 604/2009, ]LA.APP. 606/2009, LA.APP. 610/2009, 74/2010 LA.APP. 78/2010, LAAPP.784/2005 & connected . Page 1 of 19

Page 1 of 19

• .,•...

..•• .:

. . . •, .

LA.APP. 79/2010, LA.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010, LA.APP. 125/2010, LA.APP, 164/2010, LA.APP. 185/2010, LA.APP. 186/2010, LA. APP. 200/2010, LA.APP. 238/2010, 239/2010, LA.APP. 243/2010, LA.APP. 244/2010, LA.APP. 245/2010, LA.APP. 247/2010, LA.APP. 251/2010, LA.APP. • 252/2010, LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. 267/2010, LA;APP. 273/2010, LA.APP. 274/2010, LA.APP. 275/2010, LA.APP. 312/2010, LA.APP. 324/2010, L.A. APP. 326/2010, LA.APP. 327/2010, LA.APP. 329/2010, LA.APP. 330/2010, LA.APP. • 331/2010, LA.APP. 332/2010, LA.APP. 333/2010 with CM APPL. No. 5524/2011, LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367/2010; LA.APP. 368/2010, LA.APP. 369/2010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & CM APPL. No.20099/2010, LA.APP. 374/2010, LA.APP. 375/2010, LA.APP. 377/2010, LA.APP. 379/2010, LA.APP. 423/2010, LA.APP. 452/2010, LA.APP. 461/2010, LA.APP. 47212010, LA.APP. 694/2010; LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No. 6340/2011, LA.APP. 97/2010, LA.APP. 698/2010 & CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APP. 706/2010 & CM APPL. 17215/010, LA.APP. 707/2010, LA.APP. 708/2010, LA,.APP. 709/2010, LA.APP. 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, LA.APP. 766/2010, LA.APP. 796/2010, LA.APP. 797/2010, LA.APP.. 798/2010, LA.APP. 799/2010, •LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.APP. 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, LA.APP. 834/2010, LA.APP. 842/2010, LA.APP. 871/2010, LA.APP, 874/2010, LA.APP. 87512010, LA.APP. 876/2010, LA.APP. 877/2010, LA.APP. 878/2010, LA.APP. 879/2010, •LA.APP. 880/2010, LA.APP. 881/2010 & CM APPL6505/2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP. 884/2010, LA.APP. 886/2010, LA.APP. 88812010, LA.APP. 88912010 & CM APPL.2249/2011, LA.APP. 890/2010, LA.APP. 893/2010 & CM APPL. 6750/2011, LA.APP. 894/2010 & CM No.23353/2010, LA.APP. 895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP. 897/2010 & CM APPL.728/2011, LA.APP. 903/2010, LA.APP.

LA.APP.784/2005 & connected

Page 2 of 19

907/2010, LA.APP. 938/2010, LA.APP. 939/2010, LA.APP. 1034/2010 & CM APPL. 3086/2011, LA.APP. 1040/2010 & CM APPL. 5673/2011, LA.APP. 1041/2010, LA.APP. 1043/20101 LA.APP. 1045/2010, LA.APP. 1046/2010, LA.APP. 1048/2010; LA.APP. 1049/2010, LA.APP. 1050/2010, LA.APP. 1056/2010, LA.APP. 1060/2010; LA.APP, 1061/2010, LA.APP. 1071/2010, LA.APP, 125/2011, LA.APP. 126/2011, LA.APP. 258/2011

(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award No.3/2005-06, Village-Mundka)

AND

+ LA.APP. 600/2009, LA.APP. 605/2009, LA.APP. 615/2009, LA.APP. 310/2010, LA.APP. 325/2010, LAAPP. 376/2010, LA.APP. 383/2010, LA.APP. 384/2010, LA.APP. 385/2010, LA.APP. 473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP. 586/2010, LA.APP. 591/2010, LA.APP. 638/2010, LA.APP. 690/2010, LA.APP. 692/2010, LA.APP. 711/2010, LA.APP. 716/2010, LA.APP, 763/2010, LA.APP. 872/2010, LA.APP. 873/2010, LA.APP. 885/2010, LA.APP. 887/2010, LA.APP. 89112010, LA.APP. 892/2010, LA.APP. 898/2010, LA.APP. 906/2010 & CM APPL. No.4443/2010, LA.APP. 937/2010 & CM APPL. 23299/2010, LA.APP. 1042/2010, LA.APP. 1047/2010

. 591/2010, LA.APP.

LA.APP. 1047/2010

(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award No.1/2005-06, Village-Mundka)

AND

LA.APP. 1003/2010, LA.APP. 1017/2010, LA.APP. 1019/20110, • [LA.APP; 1022/2010, ]LA.APP, 1023/2010, LA.APP. 1044/201'O, LA.APP. 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010, LA.APP. 1054/2010 .& • [LA.APP; 1022/2010, ]LA.APP, 1023/2010, LA.APP. 1044/201'O, LA.APP. 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010, LA.APP. 1054/2010 .& CM APPL. No.5656/2011, LA. APP. 1055/2010, LA.APP. 1057/2010, LA.APP. 1058/2010, LA.APP. 1059/2010, LA.APP. 1068/2010, LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. 124/2011, LA.APP. 127/2011, LA.APP. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2011 1057/2010, LA.APP. 1058/2010, LA.APP. 1059/2010, LA.APP. 1068/2010, LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. 124/2011, LA.APP. 127/2011, LA.APP. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2011 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 3 of 19 Page 3 of 19

Page 3 of 19

(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005, & Award No.13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka)

AND

+ LA.APP. 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA.APP. 426/2009, LA.APP. 428/2009, 442/2009, LA.APP. 611/2009, LA.APP. 616/2009, LA.APP. 278/2010

(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24.09.2003 & Award

No.3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala)

AND

• + LA.APP. 1029/2010 & CM No.5948/2011, LA.APP.

1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, LA.APP. 1033/2010 & CM No.6645/2011, LA.APP. 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM

Nfo.6943/2011, LA.APP. 1064/2010, LA.APP. 1066/2010, LA.APP.

1067/2010, LA.APP.. 11/2011, LA.APP. 12212011

(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award No.1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG

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

To be referred to Reporter or not?

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 havebeen listed hereinabove. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . • ' relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections; all, of which havebeen listed hereinabove. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . • '

• ' Page 4 of 19

2. The present decision concerns issue of fixation of fair market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bákkarwala an.d village Mundka.

4. It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were cquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka; as•pèr serial No.5 above.

5. Abutting NH-b, leading from the cityof Delhi to the

township pf Rohtak in the State of Haryana, arevillages 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.

• 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 & connected

Page 5 of 19

pursuant to notification dated 25.2.1997 issued under Section( 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/1999/2000. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate ofvillage Mundka were further acquired pursuant to 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 toa 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 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 notification dated 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No.1/2006-07. Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to 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 notification dated 17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No.1/2006-07.

9. ln 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 Government of NCT DëlhL 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 Government of NCT DëlhL

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 Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural lahd 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 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 lahd 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

Page 6 of 19

the price for one year @ 11.5% per annum. This price was adopted for category lands. For lands in category B,the value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and 24.9.20031 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 enhancement with reference 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 17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and 'iiIlage 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.

11, Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and on the reference being made, vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhanced. the fair market value.

12. In 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 was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP.734/2005 & connected

Page 7 of 19

Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in 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'notificatiori under Section 4 of the-Land Acquisition Act was dated 25.2.1997. This was the value fixed for category lands and for category lands; with reference to the values for category land depressed the same by 9O,000/- per acre. - Thus, for category lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for category 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 rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1.42001 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 Reference Court --took the value notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 8 of 19

annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21.3.2003 as also [,7 ]249.2003. The two sums arrived 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 sum arrived at is U5,92,215/-). For the date 24.9.2003 the price determined was 20,41,000/- per acre.

Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were Iacquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified 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 locational advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as Of 17.6.2005 in surn of 21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255/- per acre.

In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I 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.

With reference to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 Jamna Vs 1)0/ & Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/2005, which argument was adopted byother learned counsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereunder 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 9 of 19

Page 9 of 19

and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5.8.1996 for sale consideration of 4,75,000/-. 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel would 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 25.2.1993, 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 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 villages 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 Bakka,rwala with •reference to the . judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No.193/2006 Prata10 S/ngh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. 110/ as per 5.8.1996 for sale consideration of 4,75,000/-. 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to 4,46,000/- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel would 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 25.2.1993, 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 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 villages 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 Bakka,rwala with •reference to the . judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No.193/2006 Prata10 S/ngh (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. 110/ 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, the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16.11.1995, 11.6.1996 and 17.12.2002 at 2,15,164/- for category land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 10 of 19 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 10 of 19and fl,73,500/- for category land; Z2,35,850 for category land and 1,90,150/- for category land; 4,02,850/- for category land and 3,24,850/- for category land, respectively. land and 1,90,150/- for category land; 4,02,850/- for category land and 3,24,850/- for category land, respectively.

I may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved 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-1.

Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be representative • sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage of stones are mixed in bag of rice it would not be safe method topick 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 piece of stone, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones. At least fistful should be lifted and then checked as 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 cq.uisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification -under Section 4 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 11 of 19

of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned cou'nsel 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 Court as the reasons as to why Ex.P-1 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, 30.5.1997, 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 rflected 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 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 decision of Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 Ia/Sing/i Vs. 1)01.

The decision in/a/Sing/i'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 date.d 15.10.1993 at fl,32,000/- per bigha. Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . Page 12 of 19

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 ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.003 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. S

22. With respect to the sale deed Ex.P7[1, 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 mànths 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 matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of 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 which khasra 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 policy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . Page 13 of 19

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 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 representative of the •[a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the ]whole, 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 value 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 sale price 3-1. In fact, the much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex.1sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum 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 Prata Sincih's [case (supra). ]Court in Ia/ S/ncih ['S ][case (supra) or ]

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 Ja! S/ncjh's case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of fl,32,000I- per bigha as of 15.10.1993, and the perusal thereoPage 14 of 19 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 Kalanor 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. In PratapS/nqh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with aghcultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:-

27. Following the judgment in Pratap S/ngh's cse (supra) I have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6.2.2003 in the batch of appeals being Land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 15 of 19 I have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6.2.2003 in the batch of appeals being Land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 15 of 19

Acquisition Appeal [No.489/2009, C/i/ran/i La! vs Union of India & ]on 2.6.2011. I have determinec the fair market value of the lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425/- per bigha as of 6.2.2003. On the issue of comparabilitY of Land in village BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village Bakkarwala does not abut NH-10, as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-à-viS. Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said villages, has an advantage. Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compeflsati0n it is the broad probabilities and sirnilaritieS which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be equivalent, unless qua some lad special featureS can be shown. case .(supra) 28. Since the decision in [PrataP Sihc7hL.5 ]deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just1 fair and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair case (supra). market value of lands dterrnifled in rtap 5ig case (supra) for the date As per the decision [inrataQ 5incifi ]24.7.1995, for Category lands fair compensation assessed was 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73,500/- per bigha for Category land. The first notification with which .1 am concerned is 25.2.1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired. days. In The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 [days I.e. 581 ]was determined case (supra) [the annua!Ii2rea5e ]Pratap S/npJi to be 10% per annum (flat). ThuS, pertaining to Category Page 16 of 19 LA.APP.784/20[05 ][ & connected ]

lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B. lands, l,assess the fair market value at 2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. 9,65,361.60 per acre

29. [The next notification with which I am concerned..J. ]dated [21.3.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. In ][Chiranhl Lal's ]cas (supra), with reference to the decision in [Pratap Sinqh'scasc ](supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to 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 time gap of just little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21.3.2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be [4,03,425I- ][i.e. 19,36,440/7 pr acre, ]which I hereby fix.

I propose to deal with the notification dated 24.9.2003, after dealing with the notification dated 17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultUral lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala.

As noted hereinabove, in Chiranhi Lal's [case (supra), ]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 4,98,589/- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227.20 per acre. 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.

. Page 17 of 19 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected

I am left with the notification dated 24.9.2003 pertaining to Viflage Bakkarwala andwith reference to the fair market value assessed in C/i/ran/i Lal's case, I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for period of 201 days, the figure comes to 4,25,641/- per bigha i.e. 20,43,076.80 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003.

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:-

I,) [For the land falling in Category land in Village ]Mundka the fair market value is fixed at is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. 7 11,97,162/- per acre and Mundka the fair market value is fixed at is 2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. 7 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category lands, the fair market value is fixed at 2,01,1I7/- per bjgha 'i.e. 9,65,361.60 per acre, as 2,01,1I7/- per bjgha 'i.e. 9,65,361.60 per acre, as on 25.02.1997.

For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value, is fixed at 4,03,425i- per bigha i.e. 19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003. market value, is fixed at 4,03,425i- per bigha i.e. 19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003.

For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha i.e. 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005 market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha i.e. 23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005

For the land situated in Village Bakkarwa!a the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha ie. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 18 of 19

23,.91[227;20 ]p r Ca c.re, as on 17.06 .2005:

For the land situated in Village Bakkarwä1.a the'fair ma rkt value is fixed at T41[2][per bigha ][i.e. ]1[5,641/- ]as on 24.09.2003. ' 20,43,076.80 per acre,

Appellants 'ard cross-Qbjectors who 'have, succeeded vVoul.d also be éntitld to solatium an interest s per statute and as clarified in th.e decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569. Sunder [vs. ][UQI, ][for ][the ]compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference CoUrt and'finally onthe sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree.

• S • .

The appellants and [cross-objectors ][who ][succeed ]would also be en •t .[tled to. proportionate costs. ]

vii')

All pending applications stand disposed .ofin,terrns of, the prayers made.therein. • . ' '

viii)

• ''' (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) • JUDGE '

jULY 08, 2011 -nrn

A.APP.784/2005&connected. '