LA.APP./164/2010 of DAYARAM & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ LA.APP.164/2010 DAYA RAM & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA& ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1 Mr.B.B.Sharma, Advocate for DDA

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG

ORDER % 08.07.2011

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

JULY 08, 2011 mm

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.

,......

* . . INTHE HIGH CQUaT OF. DELHI AT NEW DEH I

Date ofDecLSIOfl 8th [LUIY 221 ]

uAPP784L2QO5..

: . [: ]. [[. ]]

[[. ]]. . JAMNA

. . .. :

.. , . . ..

,. (Joi & ORS

± LA.APP. 879/2005 , [LA.. ]AP: [880-881/2005, ][LA..APP. ]121/2006, 143/2007 (R&ating to Notification u/s 4 dated

& [25.02.1997 & Award No.2/1999-2000, ViHage Mundka) ]

AND

+ [LA APP 583/2009, LA APP 603/2009, LA APP 604/20091 ]LA APP 606/2009, [LA APP 610/2009, 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010, ]

Page 1 of 19

LA APP 784/2005 & connected

Arr a"

LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAPP 125/2010, LAAPP 164/2010, LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LAAPP 238/2010, LAAPP 239/ 0 AAPP 243/2010, [LAAPP ]244/2010, LAAPP 245/2010 .LA;APP 247/2010, ,.LA.APP. 251/2010, [. ]LAAPP..' 252/2010, . LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. 267/20101 LA..APP. 273/2010., LA;APP. .274/2010, .LA.APP. [. ]275/2010, LA.APP. 312/20101 LA.AP. 324/2010, L.A.APP. 326/2010, LA.APP; 327/2010, LA.APP. . 329/2010,. LA.APP. 30/2010, LA.APP 331/2010, LA.APP. 332/2.010, LA.APP. 1333/2010 with CM APPL No. 5524/2011, LA.APP. 335/20.10, LA.•APP. 367/2010, LA:APP. 368/200, LA.APP. .369/2010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & [CM ]APPIr . 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.AP. 461/2010, LA.APP. 472/2010, LA:APP. 694/2.010, LA.AP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No.. 6340/2.01, LA.APP. 697/2010, LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010, LAAPP 708/2010, LA APP 709/2010, LA APP [710/2010 with Cv'1 APPL ]No 2568/2011, tLA.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, LAAPP. 798/2010, LA.APP. 799/2010, .LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.APP.. 819/2010, LA.APP. 829/2010, LA.APP. 831/2010 & 1CM. APPL. 955/2011, LA.APP. 832/2010, LA.APP . 833/2010 & CM APPL. 6392/2011, LA.APP. . 834/2010, . .LA.APP. • 84212010, LA.APR 871/2010, LA.APP. 74/2010, LA.APP. 875/2010, LAAPP .. 8715/2010, LA.APP 877/2010, LAAIP. 878/2010, LA.APP. .879/2010, LA.APP. 880/2010 •LA.APP. .881/2010 .....1CM. APPL6505/2011 LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010,LAAPP 884/20101 LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPP • . 893/2010 & CM APPL. .6750/2011, LA.APP. 894/2010 &CM • , . No.23353/2010,. LA.AP1. 895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP. . 897/2010 & CM •APPL 728/2011 LA..APP: 90312010, LA.APP.. LA;APP.784/2005 & connected. Page 2 of 19 •• , . : ' • . ' .

Page 2 of 19 •• , . '. ...,

907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 939/20101 LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LA APP 1040/2010 & CM APPL 5673/2011, LA APP 1041/2010, LA APP 1043/2010, LA.APP. .1045/201:0, LA.APR. 1046/2010, LA.APP. 1048/2010, LA.APP. 1.049/Q10, L.A.APP. 1050/2010; LA.APP. 1056/2010, LA.APP, 1060/2010, LAAPP. 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 No3/2005-0, Villáge-Mundka) . . . . [. ..: ]

AND

+ LA.APP. .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.APP. 385/010, LA.APP. • 473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, •LA.APP. 586/20101 LA.APP. 591/200, r LA.APP. 638/2010, LA.APP. 690/2010; LA.APP. , 69.2/2010,, LA.APP. 711/2010, : LA.APP. 716/2010 LA.APP 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/20101 LAAPP 885/2010, • LA.APP. 887/20101 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 20O3 & Award No.1/200506, Vi!IageMundka.) . • • • . ..• .• ..•

AND

LA.APP. 100.3/2010, LA.APP. 1017/2010, LA.APP. 1019/2010, . LAAPP. 102.2/2010, LA.APP. 1023/2010, LA.APP. 1044/2010, LAAPP.. 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010, LA.APP: 1034/2010 & 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. 106912010, .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

_•• • •

_________

(Relating to Notification u/s [4 ][dated ][17 06 2005 ][& ][Award ]No.13/2006-07, ViHge-Mundka)

AND

+ LA.APP.. 40/2009 & Cross :Objections, LA.APP. [426/2009, ]LAAPP 428/2009, 442/2009, [LAAPP ][611/2009, ][LAAPP ]616/20091 LA:APP. 278/2010 . .

(Relating to Notification u/s [4 ][dated ][24.09.2003 ][& ][Award ]No.3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala)

AND

+ LAAPP 1029/2010 & [CM ]No 5948/2011, [LAAPP ]1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, [LA.APP. ][1033/2010 ][& ][CM ]No.6645/2011, LA.APP. .1062/2010, 1063/2010 [& ][CM ]No.6943/2011, LA.APP. 1064/2010, LA.APP. 1066/2010, LA.APP. 1067/2010, LA.APP. 11/2011, LA.APP. 122/2011

(Relating o Notification u/s [4 ][dated .17.06005 ][& ][Award ]No 1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala)

ç0RAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAD.EEP NANDRAJOG

1. Whether the Reporters of löcl papers may be allowed to see the juciQrnent? . . • : . .• •• •. •. .. •

2 To be referretO Reporter or not?

3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

[• ]• • • . PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, j. (Oral) PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, j. (Oral)

1. I am deciding the above cptioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are byway of . cross objections; all of which have been listed hereinabove, LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 4 of 19

LA APP 784/2005 & connected

2 The present decision concerns issue of f'xation of faIr market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwaia and village Mundka market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwaia and village Mundka

3.' The dates.on whichfa?jr market value of the lnd has to be determined may be graphically neJ as under - to be determined may be graphically neJ as under - S.No,. Name of Village Date of notifiction under

Section 4 of the LA Act

1. . Bakkarwala 24.9.2003 •' 2 Bakkarwa!a 17 6 2005 .3.. . Mundka 252.1997

. It may be highlightd that the notification at serial No.,2 hereinabove, pertaining to .viUage Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands wre"acquired in the revenue.estte of Villag.e•Mundka; asper serial No.5 aboVe.

. Abutting .NH-10, leading from the ity of Delhito the township of Rohtakin the State of Hary.na, are villages 4ündka, G.hevra and Tikri KaIap. Village::. Bakkarwata lies towardthe other, side of the Southern boudary of villge MpØka; The :difference between the topology of the two villages is; whereas' the land of village Mundka abuts. NH-lU, that of village Bakkarwãla does not so abut; being on the other side of the Southern boundary Of revenue estate of village Mundka.

As we proceed from the city..of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, :Village M.dndka is croSsed.. first, follbved by vIIlge 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 N'o.2/1999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of .viflage Mundka.ere further acquired pursuant [to ][a ][notification ][dated ][21.3.2003 ]issued under Section 4 of thle 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 acquird pursuant to :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 revenup estate [of 'village ]B'akk.arwala. were acquired pursuant [to ]a [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 rvenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to notification dated under which lands. in village • [17.6.2005' (the same notification ]Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 9 In nut sheli, the Land Acquisition [Collector ]determined the fair rnarketvalue of the acquiredlands, under all the avard's, with reference: [ to the minftnum price for agricultural ]Iand.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'vitlage Mundka were acquired, the learned • • ' Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land 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 50/(o per 'annum This price was adopted for category lands For lands irtctegory B, the value was further discounfed by 90,000/- per adre Pertaning to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2Q.03, Ie Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as Of 1.4.2001 and gave no benefit of enhncemnt with reference to the fct that the fair market value of the lands to bed.etermin.ed was às of21.3.200.3 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated .17.6.2005 which reqired fair n.. arket value of land to be -determined in the reienue estate of village Bakai ala. and village :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 CoJlctor, the land owners sought reference under Section 1& 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'fairhiarket value. .• . . , value of the lands by the Land Acquisition CoJlctor, the land owners sought reference under Section 1& 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'fairhiarket value. .• . . ,

12 In nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference C. adopted the same notifFcatlon as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the APP 784/2005 & connected

Page 7 of 19

Govrnment of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands in Delhi i 1.4.1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ [11 5% for full one ]year, adopting the percentage 11..5, decreasetd the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1.4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for category lands and for category lands, with [reference to the values for ]category land depessed the sahie by90,000I'per.acre,.. ' 13 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 8,99,288/7 [ per ]acre

14 Pertaining to the notifications daç 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in vifl'ae Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, the Reference Court took note of the fact that [ after the Gbvernment], had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates, and. the minimurii.price notified by the Governrrent of NCT•. Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean a,ierage. . What the Reference Court did, was to adoptthe value of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21 3003 as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the sane by 10% per LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' . . . Page 8 of 19 '

annum determined the sum arrived at as of 2,1A.2003 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003, which I note comes to U5,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-). For the dãt 24.9.2003 the price deterrnined was 20,41,000/per acre. . •...

15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acqirèd in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands hbtffied by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.2:001 and giving1 increase @10% per annum. det.ermided the va.lue and ith respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational avantage, being abutting NH-lU davp 5% more and determihéd the fair market value as of 17..29O5 in•sum of, . 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village B4akkariala the price determined Wa5, Z20,35,255/- per. acre. . . . .

16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today.

17 With reference to the evidenc led in LAC N.384/2004 Jain.na Vs. 1)0/ & 0s., it.. 'vas urgd by Sh.L.BRai; learned counsel for the appeftant in LA App No 784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for the other appellants, that the learhed Trial judgé was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 9 of 19

Page 9 of 19

pnd 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mund was sold as of 5.8,1996 for sale consiceration of 4,75,000/- 38,00O/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price otthe [ land would ]be 5,13,0O0/- and calculated with reference thêeto, land price :[per bigha. would come to .4,46,O00/- as of 5.8.1996. Learnéd ]counsel would urge that there is no reason not tq hold that fair • market value of agricultural lands in village .Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5.8J996. ' Takind 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, 213.2003 and' 17.6.2005; i.e. the dates when notifiatio.ns under, Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Actwere 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, Jt 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 Bakkarwala 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 Pratap Sincjh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs LIQI as per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11 6.1996 and 17 12 2002 at Z2,15,j 164/- for, category land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . •• Page 10 of 19

• •• ;.. '.•.•' •••.''•

and U,7.3,500/- for catagory Bland; t2,35;50 for category land and 1,90,.150/-' for [category ][B ][land; ].4,02,850I- for 'category land and 324,850/. [for ][category: ][B ][land; ]respectively.

I may note here that in [\farious ]['land ][acquisition ]referenés, various parties have proved'a numbe of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before' me, learned counsel for the land owners have only relied upon thesale deed Ex P-i

. ' Per cbhtra, Sh.Sanjay,Poddar.learned.ounsl.forthe UOl would urge that the sale price [ as, per Ex.P-1 ][c:annot ][ 'be' ]adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be representative s3mple 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 whetherw'hat percentage of stones are mixed in bag of rice it would not be safe method to 'pick only one g'rain, 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, dne would reach to the cohclusion that the bag is full of stones. At least . fistful should [b.e lifted and then checked as a. representative ]sample, is the example given The second reason on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed [as ][not ][being ]representative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made, land in .,t.he area is surveyed. Without survey it wQuld be difficult td issue even the.notification under Section 4 LA'.APP.784/2005&conhectd ; . ' ' Pae±1of19

Pae±1of19

of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would, concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be considered .by this Court as the reasons as:to why Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four, sale' deeds Ex R - 1 to R4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deds 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 reflected 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 SectiOn4pf the Land. Acquisition Act.

20. , ' [An independent and alternative argument is also ]advanced byr learned counsel for the Union The' same rests itself'on decision of Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 /aiS/nqh Vs. UO/ 21 The decision in /a' Sincjh's case (supra) concernts itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to notification dated 15 10 1993 at U,32,000I- [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 [Learned Icounsel ]Court by either side have been dismissed takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fain [akkarwala as of 15 101993 at ]market value of land in village 1,32,000!- per [bigha, ][the ][fair ][market ][value ][should ][be ]ascertained by increasing the price progressiyly b. 10%.. per. annum to determine [the ][market ][vlu.e ][of•••land ][in. viIIge ]Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003 '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 viIag'e Mun dk should be determined as of 25.2.1997,. 21.3.2003and 17.6.2005, by givin 5% increase

22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa . of agricultural land [was ][sold ][in ][village ]Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would vassurne importance that the sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 25 2 1997 [It is matter of common knowledge that preceding ]the publiaion [of .a ][notifiction ][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 fbr 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.'acquiredi, In [Delhi, the large scale acquisition ]policy enjoins upon. the Govenment to allot, at. pre .detèrmind rates,a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are

Page 13 of 19

LA APP 784/2005 & connected

acquired and thus, it is nQt uncommon, for persons to purchase small pares of lands in areas where acquisitiOflS are likely to these transactiOn ar specuiatiVe cannot be take pIarf taken to ti representative measurç of the fair maiket value of land as on the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio and poportion as also the principles of averages :a the me that to be representative of the principles of sampling tell whole, sample most bear at intelligible proportion to the whale. Thu, 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 vlue of the land could be determined. There is an additional deeds Ex R-reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale 1997 and 8.9.1997, 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4.6. are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P1 In fact, the sale price in the said 4. sale deeds averages: much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notified by the Government

Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be 23 required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this ratap5/ngh.'s'CaSe.(5Up). COurt:in ja! Sinq [c s (supra) or p]24 I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Iivisiofl Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25. [.•. The decision in ]ja! S/nh [ae (supra) dtrmined ]in su, f' [H ]fair' market value of land in Villagë BakkarwaIa 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 193, and the jerusal thereof, Pagel4ofl9 LAAPP784/2005&conflect

. '.',. , ..,, . . ' . ' .

would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed betvveen the year 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kálan or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous vllaçers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala 26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kaln and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Sectiorj 4. of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village TikriKalanandGhevraasunder-

S.N.Q. Date •. VillageS Price per Bigha 24.0.7J995 & Tikri Kaian 2,15,160/ for Block 16 11 1995 & 1,73,500/- for Block land. 11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan. "& 2,35,815/- forBiock Ghevra & 1,90156/- for. • . ••. . • . . Block.B land :3 17.12.2002 Tikri Kälan • . 4,02,850/-: for Block • . • • : & 324,850/- for, Block land

AcqulSitIOfl [Appeal No 489120090 ]1 have determined the fair market value of the Anr on 2 6 2011 per bigha of [6.2.2003 ]lands in Village G'hévr, t [4,03,425/ ]On the 9ssue of comparabilitY of land in village BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that hereaS village BakkarWala does not abut NH-lU, do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi -a-vIS Ghevra and Tikri vis avafltage: Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villageS, [has ]Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation1 it [Is ][the broad prbabilitieS and ]4 [villages to be ]similarities which matter. Thus, I hold. al.l equivalent1 unless qua some lad spciai features can be shown. [case ..(supra) ]28. [Since the deisiOn in ][Pratap Siflg ]deals with notifications more prbximat in point of time to. the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just, fai 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 deterHned in [.?raaP S!O4 ]case (supr fo r the date a) As per the decision in [pratap..SincJhiS ]24 7 1995, for Category lands fair compensation assessed was per bighafOr CategorY B. 2,15,160!- per bigha.afld 173,500I- land The first notification with which I am concerned is 25 2 [1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired ]5&daYS. In Th time sansweesl year and [216., ]was determined Pratp Sing's [case (supra) ][theaOnLJaHflaea5e ]to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Category, LA.PP.784/2005 conncted ;, . [Page 16 of ][19 ]lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 p er bigha i 11,97,162/ per acre and for Category lands, I assess the 'fair market valu at2,01,11.71 per;bigha i.. 9;6,361 60 per. acre. is 29.: [The next notification with' which I am concened ]Chiranli. La/s dated [213.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. In ]Pratap Singh's case cas (supra), with reference to the decision in (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra 411 to notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.200.3, the fair arket value assessed was 4,03,425I- per bigha This was uniformly applied Sinc& there is time gap of just little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to thenotification dated 21.12003, fair market value of lnd in i.e. 19,36,44oI-: pr acre, Village Mundka should be.4,03,425I- which I hereby fix

30.' [I. propose •to deal with the noificatiQn 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

31. ['As nOted hereinabove, in ]'Chiranhi La/ cae (supra)1 pertaining to'the' ntificatiofl dated '6.2.2003, taft market value assessed by me was 4,03,425t'. per -bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days,.the figure comes to 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to T23,93,227.20 per. acre. The same' is held by me to be the fair market value of land in , Village' Mundka and'VillageBakkarWala 'as of. 7.6.2005. J decree' the same

Page 17 of 19

LA.APP.784/2005 & connected

- �- �--- �-

32 I am left [with ][the ][notification ][dated ][2003 ]pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference t&tie fair market value assessed in Chiranit Lal's case, I would reuireto appreciate the price by 10% per annum for period of 21 days, [4,25,641I- ][per bigh ][i.e. Z20,43,07640 per ]the figure comes to acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003... 33. Accordingly, [he appeals ified by the Union of India ]The require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stand's decreed as under: . . .

For the land [falling ][in ][Category ][A ][land ][in ][Village ]Mundka the [fair ][market ][value ][i ][s ][fixed ][at ][is ]2,49,408 75 per bigha I [11,97,162!- p r. acre and ]for Category lands, the fair market value is fixed at 2,01,117/- per bigha i.e; [9,65,361.60 per acre, as ]on 25 02 1997

. For the land [situátëd ][in ][Village ][MÜndka ][the ][faft ]market value is fixed at 403,425I- [per bigha ]i .: 19,36,440I- [per acre, ][as ][on21.03.2•003. ][. . ]

iii). For the [land ][situated ][in ][ViHage ][M][ 1][undka ][the ][fair ]market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- [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 4,98,589I- [per bigha ][i ][e ]LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 18 of 19