Attar Singh v. Union of India & Ors

ORDER %

08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. JULY 08, 2011 mm

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. % m THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI At NEW DELHI % • + • jAtyiNA UOI & ORS, of ppcision: 2OH IAAPf. 784/2005 ... . Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai,Advocate,.. Mr.l.5.Dahiya, Advocate, Mr.D.S.Lakra, Advocate, Mr.K.Sunil,',Advocate, Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate Mr.Shadam Farashat, Advocate Versus Respondents Through;. ' Mr;SanjayPoddar,Standing Counsel (LA), GNGT Delhi with^ Ms.Deepika,Mr.SachinNawani and Mr. Siddharth.Panda Advocates . Mr.AjayVerma, Ms.Kanika Agnihotri,Mr.KunalSharma., Mr.Sumer Sethis, Mr.B.B.Sharma,' •Ms.Shobhna Takiar and Mr.Arun Birbal, 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 dated

25.02.1997 Award No'.2/1999-2000,fVillageMundka) 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, ' Page1of19 IJil iSTTii vw ! •id .W , I' m LA.APP. 79/2010, LA.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010, LA.APP. 125/2010, 186/2010, 239/2010, 245/2010, 252/2010, 273/2010, 312/2010, 327/2010, LA.APP. LA. APP. . LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 164/2010, 200/2010, 243/2010, 247/2010, 266/2010, 274/2010, 324/2010, 329/2010, 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. 472/2010, LA.APP. 694/2010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No. 6340/2011, LA.APP. 697/2010, LA.APP. 698/2010 & CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APP. 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LA.APP,. 707/2010, LA.APP. 708/2010, LA.APP. 70.9/2010, 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, i-AiAPP. 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. 875/2010, 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 APPL.6505./2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP. 884/2010, LA.APP. 886/2010, LA.APP. •88.8/2010, LA.APP. 889/2010 & CM APPL.2249/2011, LA.APP. 890/2010, LA.APP. 893/2010 & CM APPL. 6750/2011, LA.APP. 8,94/2010 & 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. A.APP. la^apf:~ .LA.APP. - LA.APP. LA.APP. L.A. APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected -^-5/201 238/2010, 25^2010, • 267/2010, 275/2010,. 326/2010, 330/2010, ;APP. •LA.APP. LA.APP. :LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. Page 2 of 19 , 907/2010, LA.APP. 938/2010, LA.APP. 939/2010, LA.APP. .1034/2010 & CM APPL. 3086/2011, L/^.APP. 1040/2010. & CM APPL. 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 & Award No.3/2005-06, Village-Mundka) ; AND 4-LA.APP. 600/2009, LA.APP. 605/2009, LA.APP., 615/2009, LA.APP.'310/2010>, LA.APP. 325/201.0, LA.APP. 376/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & CM APPL. 23299/2010, 383/2010, LA.APP. 384/2010, LA.APP. 473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP. 591/2010, LA.APP. 638/2010, LA.APP. 692/2010, LA.APP. . 711/2010, LA.APP; 763/2010, LA.APP. 872/2010, LA.APP. 885/2010, LA.APP. 887/2010, LA.APP. 892/2010, LA.APP. 898/2010, LA.APP. 906/2010 No.4443/2010, LA.APP. 937/2010 & CM APPL. LA.APP. 1042/2010, LA.APP. 1047/2010 385/2010, 586/2010, 690/2010, 716/2010, 873/2010, 891/2010, (Relating to, Notification u/s dated

21.03.2003 ' Award No.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. 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 LA.APP.784/2005& connected % (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

17.06.2005 St Award ;N6.13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundl<a) AND ^ + LA.APf. 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA.APP. 426/2009, LA.APP. 4^8/2009, 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-Bakk'arwala) AND + LA.APP. 1029/2010 & CM No.5948/2011, -LA.APP. 1030/201.0, LA.APP; 1031/2010, LA.APP. 1033/2010, S. 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 to Notification u/s 4 dated

17.06.2005 &. Award No.1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala) • • CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG . 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allovyed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?; .

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I. (Oral) ,

¶1V I am deciding, above captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections; all of which have been listed hereinabove. ' Page4 of 19

¶2, The present decision conqerhs issue of fixation of fair , marl<etvalue of land in the revenue estate of.Village Bakkarwafa : and village Mundka.

¶3The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as unden-SJMo. Name of Village Date of notification under

¶1Bakkarwala Bakkarwala Mundka • Mundka' Mundka Section 4 of the LA Act

24.9.2003

17.6.2005 • .

25.2.1997

21.3.2003 : .

17.6.2005 4-It may be, highlighted that the notification at serial No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were'acquired in the revenue esta,te of'^ Village Mundka;.as per serial No.5 above.-

¶5Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi'to the township pf Rohtak in ,the State of Haryana, are villages 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-10, that of village, Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate pf village Mundka. 6' As we proceedfrom the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is crossed first, foJIowed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan'. Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired Page5of19 ' % pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.1997 issued under Section 4 of tlie Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/1999/2000., Agricultural lands in ttie revenue estate of village Mundka were ' further acquired pursuant to a notification dated,

21.3.2003 ;; issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/2005-06. Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a , notification dated 17.6.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land/ Acquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006-07.

¶8Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated.

24.9,2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.3/20b4-05. FurtherlandsUnthe revenueestate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated ,

17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands in village •, Mundka were acquired) as per award No.1/2006-07.

¶9In a 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 Delhi.

¶10For clarity I may note that pertaining-to notification dated

25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collectordetermined the fair market value with 'reference to the minimum price for agricultural .land' notified • with effect from 1.4.1997

(g) ^10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of tirne, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected , • • % % the price for one year (§> 11.5% per annunn.; This price was adopted for category A lands. For lands in category B, the value, was further,discounted by ?9.0,000/- per acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated

21.3.2003 and

24.9.2003, Land Acquisition Collector relied upon:'the: notification fixing the. minimum price of agricultural land as of 1.4.2001 ai^d gave no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair market value of the lands to be d,etermined was as of 21.3.2003 and

24.9.2003. Even, pertaining to notification dated

17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala 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.

¶11Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought a reference under Section of Land Acquisition Act 1894 and . on the reference being made, vide • various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in , above captioned appeals, ..Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair market value. 12-In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated

25.2.1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the . Page 7of19 % • " ; : w Government of NCT Delhi/had fixed 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 3,4 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 A lands and for category B lands; with, reference to the values for : category A land depressed the same by ?90,000/- per acre.

¶13Thus, for category A lands Reference Court, determined the fair market value @ ^9,89,288/- per acre and for • category B land the same was determined @^8,99,288/- per '. acre.

¶14• 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

1.4.2001 the next revision was as of 30.8.2005. Using the said , dates and the minimum price notified by the Government of NCT • Delhi, Reference Court adopted 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 erihanced price as of

21.3.2003 /as also

24.9.2003. Thereafter Reference Court took, the value notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per , Page8 of 19 % annum determined the sum arrived, at as of 21.3..20'03 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 1 note comes to ^15,92,083,33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is ^15,92,215/-)- For the date

24.9.2003 . price determined was ^20,41,000/-per acre. .15. Pertaining to notification dated

17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village-Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted : minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.2001 and giving®! increase @10% per an^num determined the value, and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational' advantage, . being abutting NH-10 gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17-6.2005 jn sum of m,37,017.75 per acre and for villa,ge Bakkarwala the . price determined was ?20,35,255/-per acre.,

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

¶17With reference, to evidence led in LAC No.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, which argument was adopted by other 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 and 3 biswa.of agricultural land in vijiage |VlundI<a was sold as of

5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of ^4,75,000/-. ^38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thils 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 nnarl<et value of agricultural lands , in village IMundka was ^4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5.8.1996. .Taking 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 annunn 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 Ti'kri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards 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 .a ±atch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal ..No.193/2006 Pratap Sinah (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. UP! as per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16.11.1995,

11.6.1996 and

17.12.2002 at ?2,15,164/- fpr category A land LA,A'PP.784/2005&connected . Pagel0ofl9 and ^1,73,500/- for categQry ..B land; ^2,35,850 for category. A land and ^1,90,150/- for category B land; .?4,02,850/- for category A land and ^3,24,850/- for category B-la.nd, respectively.

¶181 may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a 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.

¶19.Per contra, Sh.SanjayPoddar'learned counsel for the UOI would urge, that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a. 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 a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick 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 a piece of stone, one would i;;. reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stone's. At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a. representative sample, is-the example given. The second reason on which, learned counsel would attack sale deed as not being • representative of the price is the reason that people do come to . know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before a'cquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section LA.APP.784/200S&connected . ' . Page11of19 % of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned l?leference Court are not •i-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 decision of learned Reference. Court pertaining to sale deeds dated

6.1.1995,

30.5.1997,

4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOI 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 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.,, )

¶20An independent and alternative argument is also, advanced by learned counsel for the Union. The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 7006 (135\ DLT 231 laiSinah Vs. UOI.

¶71The decision in faiSingh's (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated

15.10.1993 at ^1,32,000/- per bigha. Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch ' as Petitions foi^ Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme • Court by eitheir.sidehave been dismissed. Learned counsel, takes the argumentforward by urging that by adoptingthe 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 market value of land in village 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. village Mundka should be ' determinedas of 25.2.1997,21.3.2003and 17.6.2005,by giving 5% increase. , ' .

¶22With respect to the sale,.deed Ex.P^. 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 mo,,nths priorto the date of the notificationissued underSection4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, which was issued on

25.2.1997. It is a matter of common knowledgethat preceding • the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the. Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra . numbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposed acquisitionand 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 Governmentto allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residentialland to the ones whose lands are ' .Page13 of19 acquired and thus, it is not uncomnnon,for persons.topurchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitionsare .likely to take place; these transactionsare speculativeand ca.nnot be taken to be a representativemeasureof the fair marketvalue 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 representativeof the - whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the. whole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned ReferenceCourt, but for the twin reasoninghitherto-forenoted, I hold that Ex.P-l cannot be gpod 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-. , ^ 1to Ex.R-4, dated 6.1.1995,30.5.1997,4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 •, are also pertainingto Village Mundka and reflect a sale price, much-lower than the sale price recorded in Ex.P-l.; In fact, the , sale price in. the said 4, sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agriculturalland in Delhi notified by; . the Government. . ,

¶23Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be " requiredto be fixed eitherwith referenceto the decisionof this , rni.rt-in L5//7a/7^case(supra) ov P/m^Sin^case (supra).

¶24- Ihighlightthat both decisions,penned by the Division. Bench of this Court have been upheld by the SupremeCourt.

¶25The decision in fa/ Singh'scase (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of ?1,32,000/-per bigha as of 15.10.1993,and the perusalthereof ' . Page 14 of19 % ii would show ,that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to: sale deeds executed between the years 199D til;l the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or 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.

¶26In Pratap Singh's case (supra), Division Bench was concerned with agricultural 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:- S.NO. Date Village •Price per Bigha i

1.

24.07.1995 &

15.11.1995 , tikri Kalan ?2,15,,160/- for Block A. & f1,73,500/- for Block B land

2.

11.06.1996 , Tikri Kalan & Ghevra " ?2,35,815/- for Block A & ?1,90,156/- for. Block B land .

3.

17.12.2002 Tikri Kalan ^ -^4,02,850/- for Block A & ^3,24,850/- for-Block.B land

¶27Following the judgment in Pratap Smah's c^se isuDVdi) 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 AcquisitionAppeal No.489/2009,•mmUaLvS.MmMMM Anr on 2.6.2011.Ihave determinedthe fair marketvalue ofthe lands in Village Ghevra at ^4,03,425/-per bigha as of 6.2 2003. on the issue of comparabilityof land in Village Bakkarwalawrth villageMundka, Ghevra and Tikrl Kalan, it is, no doubt true tha whereas village Bakkarwala does not abut NH-10; as do e, • other Villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is n^re proximateto the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-vis.Ghevra and Tikn Kalan and to that extent,qua said 2villages,has an advantage Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters p assessing fair compensation,it is the broad probabilitiesand •similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be % . equivalent,unlessqua some landspecialfeaturescan be shown Since the decision in Pratap Singh's case-(supra) deals with notificationsmore proximatein point of time to the notificationswith which Iam concerned,Iam of the opiniontha it would be just, fair and proper to determine.thefajr.market value of lands with w.hich Iam concernedin relationto the fair marketvalue of lands determined,in case (supra). AS per the decision In^a'SfiJVQfiA^case (supra) for the date 24 71995,for CategoryAlandsfair compensationassessedwas. d 15 160/- per bigha and n,73,500/-.perbigha for categoryB ^ lahd. .The first notification with, which 1am concerned is ^ 25 21997 whereunderlands in Village Mundka were acquired. The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 dayste^JSTJi^^^-m Pr^tanSingh'scase (supra)fflff annual/ncreasewas determined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining-toCategory A • . % lands, the fair market value assessed is ?2,49,408.75per bigha i.e. ?11,97,16.2/-per acre and for CategoryBlands,/!assessthe fair market,value at ?2,01,117/-per bigha i.e. ?9,65,351^60pep acre,

¶29The next notificationwith which 1 am concerned__/5 dated 2i.J.2003 pertainingto Village Mundka. In Gjiiranji cas (supra),with referenceto'thedecisionin PratapSingh'sCBse (supra), for agricultural.landsin Village Ghevra pertainingto a notificationissued under Section 4 of the Land, AcquisitionAct • on 5.2.2003,the fair marketvalue assessed was^^4,03,425/-per. bigha. This was unifdrmlyapplied. Since there is a.time gap of just a little over 1 month, 1am of the opinionthat pertainingto the notificationdated 21.3.2003, fair market yalue of land .in Village Mundka should be ?4,03,425/-i.e. ?19,36,440/-per acre, which ,I hereby fix. ....

¶301 propose to deal with . the notification dated

24.9.2003, after dealing with the notificationdated,17.6.2005 pursuant,whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala.

¶32As noted hereinabove,in ChiraniiLai's case (supra), pertainingto the notificationdated 6.2.2003,fair market value assessed by me was ^4,03,425/-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 ?23,93,227.20per pcre. The same is held by me. to be the fair market value of land in VillageMundka and Village Bakkarwalaas of ,17.6.2005.Idecree . the same. ' , Page 17 of19 VP • r %

¶32. I am left vyith the notification dated 24.9.2,003 pertainingto'VillageBakkarwalaand with referenceto the fair market value assessed in ChiraniiLai's case, 1would require to appreciatethe.priceby 10% per annum.forapenodof 201 days; the figure comes to ?4,25,641/-per, bigha i.e. ^2:0,43,076.80per acre, which I determineto be the fair market value of land im Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003.

¶33Accordingly,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 ownersstands decreed as unden-

i) For the-land falling in Category A land in Village Mundka fair market ^value is fixed, at is ?2,49,408.75per bigha i.e-. ? 11,97,162/-per acre and • for CategoryBlands, 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. , '

ii) For the land situated ;in Village Mundka the, fair, market value is fixed at ?4,03,425/- per bigha i.e. , n9,36,440/-per acre, .as on 21.03.2003,.

iii) 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-.

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

v) For the land, situated in Village Bakkarwaia-the fair market value is fixed at ^4,25,641/- per bigha i.e.. ^20,43,076..8D per acre, as on 24.09.2003.

vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be. entitled to solatium and inteirest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT Sunder i/s. 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.

vii) . The appellants and cross-objectors who -succeed • would also be entitled to proportionate costs.

viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein. v U" •• •• (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected "i-r

$-32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.238 /2010 ATTAR SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG