LA.APP./124/2011 of UNION OF INDIA Vs MAHABIR SINGH & ORS

$-189*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+LA.APP.124/2011UOI AppellantThrough: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, AdvocateversusMAHABIR SINGH & ORS RespondentsThrough: None

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

ORDER%08.07.2011

CM No.4158/2011

1. There is delay In filing the appeal.2. The delay is condoned.3. Application is allowed.LA.APP.124/2011

For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

JULY 08, 2011mm

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AMULYACertify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

n^tp nfnp.cision: 8^^ julv. 2.011

I A.APP. 784/2005

... ■ AppellantThrough". Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate,Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate,Wr.D.S.Lakra, Advocate,Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate,Mr.Anuj Bhandari, AdvocateMr.Shadann Farashat, Advocate

jamna

Versus

Respondents

UOI & ORS

Through"

Mr.Sanjay Poddar, StandingCounsel (LA), GNCT Delhi withMs.Deepika, Mr.Sachin Nawani andMr. Siddharth Panda Advocates .Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.KanikaAgnihotri, Mr.Kunal Sharma,Mr.Sumer Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharma,Ms.Shobhna Takiar and Mr.ArunBirbal, Advocates for DDA

AND

+LA.APP. 879/2005, LA.APP. 880-881/2005, LA.APP.121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated25 02.1997 Award No.2/1999-2000, Village Mundka)

AND

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

rlI

4'' «[w]

I:..iif

907/2010, LA.APf. 938/2010, LA.APR. 939/2010, LA.APP.1034/2010 & .CM'APPL. 3036/2011, LA.APP. 1040/2010 & CMAPPL. 5673/2011, LA.APP. 1041/2010, LA.APP. 1043/2010,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 & AwardNo.3/2005-06, Village-Mundka)

AND

-}- LA APR. 600/2009, LA.APP. 605/2009, LA.APP. 615/2009,LA.APP.'310/2010, LA.APP. 325/2010, LA.APP. 376/2010, LA.APP.383/2010, LA.APP. 384/2010, LA.API^. 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.763/201.0, LA.APP. 872/2010, LA.APP. 873/2010, LA.APP.885/2010, LA.APP. 887/2010, LA.APP. 891/2010, 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

(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & AwardNo.1/2005-06, Village-Mundka)

AND

LA.APP. 1003/2010, LA.APP. 1017/2010, LA.APP. 1019/2010,LA.APP. 1022/2010, LA.APP. 1023/2010, LA.APP. 1044/2010,LA.APP. 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010., LA.APP. 1054/2010 &CM APPL. No.5656/2011, LA. APR. 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

iA.APP.784/2005 & connected

Page 3 of 19

(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & AwardNo.l3/2006-07/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 & AwardNo.3/2004-05, Vilfage-Bakkarwala)

AND

-I- LA.APP. 1029/2010 & CM No.5948/2011, LA.APP.1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, LA.ApP. 1033/2010 & CMNo.6645/2011, LA.APP. 1062/2010, 1063/2010. & CMNo.6943/2011, LA.APP. 1064/2010, LA.APP. 1066/2010, LA.APP.1067/2010, LA.APP. 11/2011, LA.APP. 122/2011

(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & AwardNo.1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala)

CO RAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

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

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digests

PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I. (Oral)

1. I am deciding the above captioned appeals andrelatable civi l miscellaneous applications which are by way ofcross objections; all of which have been listed hereinabove.LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 4 of 19

2. The present decisioni concerns issue of fixation, ofmarket value of I'and in the revenue estate of Village Bak^arwaiaand village Mundka.

3. The dates on which fair market value of the land ha^to be determined may be graphically noted as under:-

4. It may be highlighted that the notification at serialNo.2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the sam^pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate ofVillage Mundka; as per serial No.5 above.

5. Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi to thetownship of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka,Ghevra and Tikri Kaian. Village Bakkarwala lies towards theother side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka. Thedifference between the topology of the two villages is; whereasthe land of village Mundka abuts NH-10, that of villageBakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of theSouthern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka.6. As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the townshipof Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by villageGhevra and then village Tikri Kalah.

lands in Mundka were Agricultural village acquiredLA.APP.784/2005 & connected Pgg^ 5

pursuant to notification dated 25.2.1997 issued under Section4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/1999/2000.lands in the revenue estate of Mundka wereAgricultural village further acquired pursuant to notification dated ^13.2003issued under Section 4 of tfie Land Acquisition Act as per awardNo.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/2005-06,. Further lands in therevenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to anotification dated 17.6.2005 issued joinder Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006-07.8. Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of villageBakkarwala were acquired pursuant .to notification dated24.9,2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act a^per Award No.3/2004-05. Further lands in the revenue estate ofthe same vi llage were acquired pursuant to notification dated17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in villageMundka were acquired) as per award No.1/2006-07.9. In nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collectordetermined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under al lthe awards, with reference to the minimum price for agriculturalland ds notified by the-Government of NCT Delhi.10. For clarity I may note that pertaining to thenotification dated 25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands inthe revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learnedLand Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value withreference to the mihimum price for agricultural land notifiedwith effect from 1.4.1997 @ ?10 lacs per acre and since the dateof Section 4 notificatlorr was anterior in point of time, discountedLA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 6 of 19the price for one year @ 11,5% per annum. This price wasadhptfed for category lands. For lands >in category B, the valuewas further discounted by ?90,000/- per acrfe^ Pertaining to thenotifications dat^d 21.3.2003 and 24.9.2003, the LandAcquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing theminimum price of agricultural land as of 1.4.2001 ar^d gave nobenefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fairmarket value of the lands to berdetermined was as of 21.3.2003and 24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the notification dated17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land to bedetermined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala andvillage Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition, Coliectordetermined the same with reference to the notification fi)^ingminimum value of agricultural lands In Delhi as of 1.4.2001 andgave no increase.

11. Aggriev^ by the determination of the fair rparketvaiue of the lands by ,the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners sought fceference under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act I8I4 and on the reference being made,, videvarious judgments and decrees, which are under chalienge in■ipe above captioned appeals, the Reference Court tookCorrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, andenhanced the fair market value.12. In nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated,25.2.1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka wereacquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification aswas adopted by the Land Acquisition Coliector under which theLA.APP.784/2005 & connected Pagg 7

Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimi^ value foragricultural lands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but as against the LandAcquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11.5% for full oneyear; adopting the percentage 11.5, decreased the value byonly 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference wheretoGovernment had notified the minimum value was 1.4.1997 andthe notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act wasdated 25.2.1997. This was the value fixed for category landsand for category lands; with reference to the values forcategory land depressed the same by ?90,000/- per acre.13. Th.us, for category lands the Reference Court'determined the fair market value @ ^9,89,288/- per acre and'forcategory land the same was determined @ ^8,99,288/- peracre.

14. Pertaining to the notifications dated 21.3.2003 and24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka andvillage Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the ReferenceCourt tool^ note of the fact that after the Government hadnotified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of1.4.2001 the next revision was as of 30.8.2005. Using the saiddates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCTDeihi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of meanaverage. What the Reference Court did was to adopt the valueas of 1.4.2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annumdetermined the enhanced price .as of 21.3.2003 as also24.9.2003. Thereafter the Reference Court took the valuenotified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% perLA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 8 of 19

annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21.3.2003 as also^4.9.2003. The two sums arrived at were added and divided bytwo to arrive at the mean figure 'as of 21.3.2003, which I notef■comes to ns,92,083.33 per acre (Ir. some decisions i note-thesum arrived at is ^15,92,215/-). For the date 24.9.2003 theprice determined was ?20,41,000/- per acre.15. Pertaining to the notification dated 17.6.2005pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in villageBakkarwala and Mundk'a the learned Reference Court adoptedthe minimum price for agricultural lands notified by theGovernment of NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.2001 and givingincrease @10% per annum determined the value and withrespect to the lands in village Mupdka, on account of locationaladvantage, being abutting NH-10 gave 5% more anddetermined the fair market value as of 17.6.2005 in sum of?21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the pricedetermined was ^20,35,255/- per acre.16. In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario inwhich I have penned profiled the reasoning of the LandAcquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delveinto the arguments advanced before me during hearing tod.ay.17. With reference to the evidence led in LACNo.384/2004 lamna 1/5. UP! & Ors.. it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai,learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/2005, whichargument was adopted by other learned counsel who ap^pearedfor the other appellants, that the learned Trial Judge -yvas notjustified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-1 whereunder 1 bighaLA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page ,9 of 19

9nd 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mun.dka was sold as of5.8.,1996 for sale consideration of ^4,75,000/-. ^38,000/- wasincurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land wouldbe ^5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land priceper bigha would come to ^4,46,000/- as of 5.8.1996. Learnedcounsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fairmarket value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was^4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5.8.1996. Taking the argumentforward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fairmarket value needs to be determined as of 25.2,1993,21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, i.e. tlie dates when notifications underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuantwhereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, byincreasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per annum atleast by 10% per annum. It is urged that on the same basis,land price should be determined for the agricultural lands invillage Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that sincevillages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguousvillages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards thetownship of Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of theland in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with reference to thejudgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding batch ofLand Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA AppealNo.193/2006 Pratao Siaah (Deceased) Thr. LRs 1/5. UP! as perwhich fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined inthe revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16.11.1995,11.6.1996 and 17.12.2002 at ^2,15,164/- for category landLA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 10 of 19and ?1,73,500/- for category land;^2,35,856 for,category Aland and ^1,-90,150/- for category land; ^4,02,850/- forcategory ^and and ^3,24,850/- for category ',B land,respectively. ^18, I may note here that in various land acquisitionreferences, various parties have proved number of sale deedsexecuted from time to time, but during arguments today beforeme, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied uponthe sale deed Ex.P-1.

19. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for theUOI w©uld urge that the sale price as per Ex,P-l cannot beadopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a, representativesample of the whole, the saniple must bear some adequateproportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel wouldurge that if it has to be deterjmined whether what percentage ofstones are mixed in bag o.f|rice it would not be safe methodto pick onlyione grain, for if it happens to be the grain of riceone would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of riceand if that one grain happens to be piece of stone, one wouldreach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones. At least afistful should be lifted and then checked as representativesample, is- the example given. The second reason on whichlearned counsel would attack the sale deed as not beingrepresentative of the price is the reason that people do come toknow about pending acquisition inasmuch as,before acquisitionsare made, land in the area is surveyed. Without survey itwould be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 11 of 19

0■the Land Acquisition Act. Learned coimsel would concedethat the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are notsound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced byhim should be considered by tjiis Court as the reasons ^s to whyEx.P-1 be not taken as the basis to determine, the fair market■value of lands in villa,ge Mundka and Bakkarwala. Thirdly,learned counsel would further urge that the four saie deedsEx.R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learnedReference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1.1995,30I5.1997, 4.6.1997 and §.9.1997 relied upon by UP] wouldS|bow the actual market \|alue of the land and thus learnedctunsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should beconsidered, but hastens to add, that since value reflectedtherein is less than the minimum price notified by theGovernment, the price fixation should be with reference to the,minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest tothe point of time when the respective notifications were issuedunder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.20. An independent and alternative argument is alsoadvanced by learned counsel for the Union. The same restsitself on decision of Division Bench of this Court reported as2006 (135) DLT 231 laiSinah Ws. UOL21. The decision in lai Singh's case (supra) concerns itselfwith the determination of the fair market value of land in villageBakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to notificationdated 15.10.1993 at ^1,32,000/- per bigha. Learned counselwould urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuchLA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 12 of 19

gs Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal fjled before |Ke SupremeCowrt by either side %ve been dismissed, j^eamed counseltakes the argument forward By .urging that by ado-pti'ng the fairmarket value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15.10.1993 at?1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should beascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% perannum to determine the market value of land in villageBakkarwala as of 24.9.2003 as also 17.6.2005. Learned counselwould that in view of the locational. of urge advantage villageMundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should bedetermined as of 25.2.1997, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, by giving5% increase.

22. With respect to the sale deed Ex.P-1, vyhereunder 1bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold iri VillageMundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume 'importance that thesale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issuedunder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on25.2.1997. It is matter of common knowledge that precedingthe publication of notification under Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object ofdetermining as to what lands, comprised in which khasranumbers qnd fields are required to be notified for the proposedacquisition and when this happens people in the area com'e toknow Iha^ soon there is likelihood that the landsvery every woqid be acquired. In Delhi, the large scai,e acquisition policyenjoins upfin the Government to allot, at pre determined rates, aof residential land to the ones whose lands areplot deyeloped LA.APP.)84/2005 & connected , Page 13 of 19

acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchasesmall parceis of lands in areas where acquisitions are iikely totake piace; these transactions are spkulative a,nd cannot betaken to be representative measure of the fair market value ofland as on the date of the sale. Further, the principles of ratioand proportion as aiso the principles of averages and theprinciples of sampling tell me that to be representative of thewhole, sample must bear at intelligible proportion to thewhole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learnedReference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, ihold that Ex.P-1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market.value of the land could be determined. There is an additionalreason 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 8.9.1997are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect sale priceI much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex.P-1. In fact, the' sale price in the said 4 s^ie deeds avera.ges much less thaneven the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified bythe Government.^23. Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of thisCourt-in case (supra) or Pmtap Singh'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 Ini Singh's case (supra) "determinedfair market value of land in Village Bakkarwaia in sum ofn,32.000/- per bigha as of 15.10.1993, and the perusal thereof,Page 14 of 19LA.APP.784/2005 & connected

would show that the Court assessed the fair market value 'withreference to sale'deeds executed between the years 1990 tillthe year 1996 e^ither in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka,apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, saleprice of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would beindicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala.

26. In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Benchwas concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and anotheradjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to variousnotifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Actdetermined the fair market value of agricultural lands in VillagefTikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:-

27. Following the judgment in Pratap S' ingh'5 case (supra)Ihave decided the fair market value for the land situated inrevenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuantto notification dated 6.2.2003 in the batch of appeals being LandLA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 15 of 19

Acquisition Appeal No.489/2009,^on 2.6.2011. I hiva determined the fair mprket value of the rands in Ghevra'at as of 6.2.20 ^Village ?4,03.42a/- per bigfia on the issue of comparabiiity of iand in viilage ^akkarwaia withViliage Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Ka,lan, it ,s 1*0 doubt true awhereas Bakkarwaia does not abut as^ do theviiiage ^H-10, other villages, but it has to be highiightpd that ,t ,s moreproximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-Vfs Ghevra and TiknAlan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an advantagegince exactness can never be achieved in the matters 0issessing.fair compensation, it is the broad probabilities.andsimilarities which matter. Thus, i hold all 4 villages to beequivalent, unless qua some land special features can be shownn 28. Since the decision in Pratm-Shmh:^ case .(supra)deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to thenotifications with which I am concerned, i am of the opinionit would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair marketvalue of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fairmarket value of lands determined in .Lratap Sinqh:sczse (supra AS the decision case for the dateper m.Pratap Singjys (supra) 24.7.1995, for Category lands fair compensation assessed wasT2,15,160/- per bigha and a,73,500/- per bigha for Category Bland. The first notification with which I ^ concerned is25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Viiiage Mundrt»| were acquired.The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 J,e. 581 days. In^Pr;,tan Singh's case (supra) the annual /pa-ease was determined to be 10% per annum (fiat). Thus, pertaininfl to Category APage 16 of 19LA.APP.784/2005 & connecte(J

lands, the fair market vajue assessed is ^^2,49^8.75 per bighai.e. ?'11,97,'162/- per acre and for Category laiilds. I assess thefair market value at ?2;01,117/- per bigha i.e. ^,65,361.60 peracre.29. The next notification with which I am concerned_/?dated 21.3.20Q3 pertaining to Village Mundka. In Chiranii La!scas with reference to the decision in s case(supra), Pratap Singh for Jands in Ghevra to a(supra), agricultural Village pertaining notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Acton 5.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was ?4,03,425/- perbigha. This was unifbrmly applied. Since there is time gap ofjust little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining tothe notification dated 21.3.2003, fair market value of land inVillage Mundka should be ^4,03,425/- i.e. ^9,36,440/- per acre,which I hereby fix.30. i propose J) deal with the rrftffication .dated24.9.2003, after with the notificatiort 'lieted 17.6.2005dealir|p lands were afff^ired in pursuant \;^her|to agrfeyltural VillageMundka and Village Bakkarwala.3]__ As noted hereinabove. In Chiranii i^k's case (supra),pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003, fair market valueassessed by me was^4,03.425/- per bigha an^fhus, increasingthe same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, « figure comes towhich comes to acre.^=4,98,589/- per bigha, ?23,9|b^7.20 per The same is held by me to be the fair marWValue of lapd inVillage Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of l|,6.2005. I decreethe same.

LA.APP.784/2005 & -connected.

Page 17 of 19

32. 1 am left with the notification dated 24.9.2003pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fairmarket value assessed in Chiranji Lai's case, I would require toappreciate 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 peracre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land inVillage Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003.33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of Indiarequire to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. Theappeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filedby the land owners stands decreed as under:-

i) For the land falling in Category land in VillageMundka the fair market value is fixed at is^2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. ? 11,97,162/- per acre andfor Category lands, the fair market value is fixed atMundka the fair market value is fixed at is^2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. ? 11,97,162/- per acre andfor Category lands, the fair market value is fixed at■?2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. ?9,65,361.60 per. acre, ason 25.02.1997,on 25.02.1997,

i\) For the land situated in Village Mundka the fairmarket value is fixed at ?4,03,425/- per bigha i.e.fl9,36,440/-per acre, as on 21.03.2Q03.market value is fixed at ?4,03,425/- per bigha i.e.fl9,36,440/-per acre, as on 21.03.2Q03.

iii) For the land situated in Village Mundka the fairmarket 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-:

iv) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair■ market value is fixed at ?4,98,589/--per bigha i.e.■ market value is fixed at ?4,98,589/--per bigha i.e.LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page 18 of 19

?23,93,227,20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005.

1// n for the land situated in Village BakkSrwala the fairmarket value is fixed at ?4,25,641/- per biigha i.e.market value is fixed at ?4,25,641/- per biigha i.e.^20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 24.09.2003.

vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeededwould also be entitled to solatium and interest as perstatute and as clarified in the decision reported aswould also be entitled to solatium and interest as perstatute and as clarified in the decision reported as

fii:

93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOL for the |compensation, paid originaHy and as enhanced by |, the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhancedby the present judgment and decree.compensation, paid originaHy and as enhanced by |, the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhancedby the present judgment and decree.

vH) The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed nifwould also be en|;itled to proportionate costs. ■'would also be en|;itled to proportionate costs. ■'

viii) All pending applications stand oisposed of in terms ofthe prayers made therein.the prayers made therein.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)JUDGE

LY 08, 2011

y\.APP.784/2005 & connected