Smt Premlata v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER(ORAL) : REVA KHETRAPAL J CMNo.4302/2ni^ Exemptiongrantedsubjectto alljustexceptions. Applicationstandsdisposedof. CM No.4303/2ni3

¶1By way of the present application, the Appellant seeks condonationof 409 days delay in re-filingthe Appeal on the groundofillnessofthe counsel. The applicationis supported by theAffidavitofthe counselShriL.B. Rai,Advocate.

¶2For the reason statedin the application,delay in re-filingthe Appeal is condoned. LA. APR S7/2nn Paee 1 of3 •J

¶1CM No.4301/2013

¶1By way of the present application, the Appellant seeks condonationof 615 days delay in filing the Appeal. The Appellanthas statedon Affidavitthat she was unawareofher legalrightto file an Appeal and on comingto know abouther rightto file Appealfrom othervillagers,she immediatelyfiled the same.

¶2For the reason stated in the application,delay in filing the Appeal is condonedsubjectto the conditionthat the Appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the aforesaid period.

¶3Application stands disposedof accordingly. LA.APP. 57/2013

¶1The learned counsel for the Appellant states, and it is not disputed by the Respondents, that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in ^Jamna Vs. Union of India and Ors^ in LPA No.784/2005 rendered on July, 2011 and that compensation in this Appeal can reasonably be assessed in terms of the said judgment.

¶2The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the presentcase is dated 21®' March, 2003 pertainingto village Mundka, Delhi which has already been dealt with by this Court in Jamna's case (Supra). The relevantportionof thejudgment in Jamna's case is reproducedherein:- "33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I herebydismissthe same. The appealsfiled by the LA. APP. 57/2013 Pase2of3 land ownersand the cross-objectionsfiled by the land owners stands decreed as under

ii) For the landsituatedin VillageMundka the fair market value is fixed at Rs. 4,03,425/-perbighai.e. Rs. 19,36,440/- per acre, as on21.03.2003 Hi)

iv) "

¶3In view of the aforesaidthe appeal is allowedin terms of the judgmentofthis Courtin the caseofJamna(Supra).

¶4LA.APP. 57/2013standsdisposedof in the above terms. REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) March 12, 2013 k LA. APP. 57/2013 Pase 3 of3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI o/q Date ofDecision;8"' luly, 2012_ + 1A.APP. 784/2005 JAMNA Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai,Advocate, Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate, Mr.D.S.Lakra, Advocate, Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate, Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate Mr.Shadam Farashat, Advocate Versus U0I&0R5 ••• Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel

(LA), GNCT Delhi with Ms.Deepika, Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Kanika Agnihotri, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharn-ia, Ms.Shobhna Takiar and Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND + LA.APP. 879/2005, LA.APP. 880-881/2005, LA.APP. 12T./2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

25.02,1997 & 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, IA.APP.784/2005 & conncclcd Pa^^c 1 of 19 •J LA.APP. 79/2010, l_A.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 164/2010, LA.APP. 185/2010, LA.APP. LA. APP. 200/2010, LA.APP. 238/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 243/2010, LA.APP. 244/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 247/2010, LA.APP. 251/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. 267/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 274/2010, LA.APP. 275/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 324/2010, L.A. APP. 326/2010, LA.APP. 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. 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. 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. 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. 888/2010, LA.APP. 889/2010 & 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 125/2010, 186/2010, 239/2010, 245/2010, 252/2010, 273/2010, 312/2010, 327/2010, 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. 1043/2010, 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 + 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. 385/2010, 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. 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 & 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 Award No.13/2006-07, Village-Mundka) AND + LA APR 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 -t-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 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

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? j PRADEEP NANDRAIOG.1. (Oral)

¶1I am deciding the 'above captioned appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections; all of which have been listed hereinabove. LA.APP.784/2005 & connected \ \

¶2The present decisionconcernsissue of fixation of fair market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwala and village Mundka.

¶3The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as unden-S.No. Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act

¶1Bakkarwala

24.9.2003

¶2Bakkarwala

17.6.2005

¶3Mundka

25.2.1997

¶4Mundka

21.3.2003

¶5Mundka

17.6.2005

¶4It may be highlighted that the notificationat serial \ No.2 hereinabove, pertainingto village Bakkarwala,is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka; as per serial No.5 above.

¶5Abutting NH-10, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan. Village Bakkarwala lies towards other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka. The difference between the topology of the two villages is; whereas 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 of village Mundka.

¶6As 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.

¶7Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired LA.APP.784/2005& connected pursuantto a notificationdated 25.2.1997issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/1999/2000. Agriculturallands in the revenueestate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21.3.2003 issued under Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct as per award No.3/2005-06as also award No.1/2005-06. Furtherlands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notificationdated 17.6.2005issued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct as per Award No.13/2006-07. Q Agricultural 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 AcquisitionAct as per Award No.3/2004-05. Furtherlands in the revenueestateof the same village were acquired pursuantto a notificationdated

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, 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 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 land notified with effect from 1.4.1997 @ ?10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was,anterior in point of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected f the price for one year @11.5% per annum. This price was adoptedfor categoryAlands. For lands in categoryB, the value was furtherdiscountedby ?90,000/-per acre. Pertainingto the notifications dated

21.3.2003 and

24.9.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agriculturalland as of 1.4.2001 and gave no benefit of enhancementwith referenceto the fact that the fair marketvalue of the lands to be determinedwas 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 village Mundka as of 17.6.2005,the Land AcquisitionCollector "i determined the same with reference to the notificationfixing \ minimum value of agriculturallands in Delhi as of 1.4.2001and gave no increase.

¶11Aggrieved by the determinationof the fair market value of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought a 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 above captioned appeals, Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair market value.

¶12In 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 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected A \ Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agriculturallands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997,but as against the Land AcquisitionCollector 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 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 t90,000/- per acre.

¶13Thus, for category A lands Reference Court determined the fair market value @ t9,89,288/- per acre and for \ category Bland the same was determined @18,99,288/-per acre.

¶14Pertaining 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 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 enhanced price as of

21.3.2003 as also

24.9.2003. Thereafter Reference Court took value notified as of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per LA.APP.784/2005 & connected annum determined the sum, arrived at as of 21.3.2003 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 ?15,92,083.33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is ^5,92,215/-). For the date 24.9.2003 the price determined was ^20,41,000/- per acre.

¶15Pertaining 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 annum determined the value and with \ respectto the lands in village Mundka, on accountof locational advantage, being abutting NH-10 gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17.6.2005 in sum of ^21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was t20,35,255/- per acre.

¶16In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I 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 today.

¶17With reference to evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 lamna Vs. 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 agriculturalland in village Mundka was sold as of

5.8.1996 for a sale considerationof ^4,75,000/-. t38,000/- was incurredtowards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be ^5,13,000/-and calculatedwith referencethereto, 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 M,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 agriculturallands 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 Bakkarwala with reference to the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No.193/2006 Pratap Sinah (Deceased) Thr. LRs 1/5. 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/- for category A land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Cage 10 of 19 \ h and ^1,73,500/- for category B land; 72,35,850 for category A land and 71,90,150/- for category B land; 74,02,850/- for category A land and 73,24,850/- for category B land, respectively.

¶18I 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.

¶19Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot be adopted as the yardstickfor 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 reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones. 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 acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed. Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Page H of 19 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-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 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 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 2006 (135) DLT 231 laiSingh 1/5. UOI.

¶21The decision in laiSingh'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 dated

15.10.1993 at n,32,000/- per bigha. Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality' inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ''agt-12 of 19 u as Petitionsfor Special Leaveto Appeal filed beforethe Supreme Court by either side have 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 tl,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 determined as of 25.2.1997, 21.3.2003 and 17.6.2005, by giving 5% increase. \

¶22With respect to the sale deed Ex.P-1, whereunder1 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 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 a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in 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, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are IA.APP.784/2005 & connoctcd 7' /r acquired and thus, it is not uncommon,for personsto purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitionsare likely to take place; these transactionsare speculativeand cannot be taken to be a representativemeasureof the fair marketvalue of land as on the date of the sale. Further, the principlesof ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and the principlesof 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 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 pertainingto Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex.P-1. 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.

¶23Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court in laiSingh'scase (supra) or Pratao Singh'scdiSQ (supra).

¶24I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

¶25The decision in lai Singh's case (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 perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & connected I 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 Kalan or Village Mundka, apparentlyon the premisethat being contiguousvillagers,sale price of agriculturalland in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala.

¶26In PraiaD Singh's case (supra), the 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.

1.

2.

¶3Date

24.07.1995 &

16.11.1995

11.06.1996

17.12.2002 Village Tikri Kalan Tikri Kalan Ghevra Tikri Kalan & Price per Bigha ^2,15,160/- for Block A & n,73,500/- for Block B land ^2,35,815/- for Block A & n,90,156/- for Block B land ^4,02,850/- for Block A & ^3,24,850/- for Block B land

¶27Followingthe judgment in Pratap Singh's case (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 AcquisitionAppeal No.489/2009,Chiranil La! vs. Union ofIndia & Apr, on 2.6.2011. I have determined 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 comparabilityof land in village Bakkarwalawith 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 proximateto the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-visGhevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an advantage. Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation,it is the broad probabilitiesand I similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be equivalent,unless qua some land specialfeatures can be shown.

¶28Since the decision in Pratao Singh's case (supra) 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 just, fair and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in Pratao Singh's case (supra). As per the decision in Pratao Singh's case (supra) for the date

24.7.1995, for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was ?2,15,160/- per bigha and H,73,500/- per bigha for Category B land. The first notification with which I am concerned is

25.2.1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired. The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 days i.e. 581 days. In Pratao Singh's case (supra) the annual //7(Tease was determined to be 10% per annum

(flat). Thus, pertaining to Category A LA.APR.784/2005&connected If lands, the fair market value assessed is ?2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. ^11,97,162/- per acre and for Category Blands, I assess the fair market value at ?2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. ?9,65,361.60 per acre.

¶29The next notification with which I am concerned_/5 dated 2i.J.2003 pertaining to Village Mundka. In ChiranjiLai's cas (supra), with reference to the decisionin Pratao Singh's case (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.2003, the fair market value assessed was ^4,03,425/- per bigha. This was uniformlyapplied. Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertainingto the notification dated

21.3.2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka'should be ?4,03,425/- i.e. ^9,36,440/- per acre, which I hereby fix.

¶30I propose to deal with 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.

¶31As noted hereinabove, in Chiranji Lai's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 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 T4,98,589/- 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. LA.App.784/2005 &connected '^36^ 17 of 19 I -7^

¶321 am left with the notification dated

24.9.2003 pertainingto Village Bakkarwalaand with referenceto the fair market value assessed in Chiranii Lai's case, I would require to appreciatethe price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days, the figure comes to ?4,25,641/-per bigha i.e. ^20,43,076.80per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in 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-objectionsfiled by the land owners stands decreed as under:-

i) For the land falling in Category A land in Village Mundka fair market value is fixed at is ^2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. X11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B 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.

ii) For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at ?4,03,425/- per bigha i.e. ?19,36,440/- 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. LA.API'.784/2005&connected ''^ge 18 of19 ^23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005.

v) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at ^4,25,641/- per bigha i.e. ^20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 24.09.2003.

vi) 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 Sunder i/5. UOI. for 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. JULY 08, 2011 mm (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE LA.APP.784/2005&connected sd/-

•I' •i * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 57/2013 SMT. PREMLATA Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai,Advocate, versus UNIONOF INDIA&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SanjeevSahay,Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEREVAKHETRAPAL