Union of India v. Risalo & Ors

ORDER %

08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. JULY 08, 2011 mnn T—7

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. i" 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. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI n^i-p of Deri^inn: lulV.J£lL % . + .• JAMNA 1 A APP. 784/2005 Through: UOI Si ORS Through: Appellant ^ Mr.LB.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 - ... Respondents Mr.SanjayPoddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with_ • Ms.Deepika,Mr.SachinNawani and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates . Mr.Aja'yVernna, Ms.Kanika Agnihotri,Mr.KunalSharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi, 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,VillageMundka) 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, LA.APP.7S4/2005&connected Page 1 of. 19 /A'Ih V)''^ ['<1 mm fMM "li-pi PHi 1-LA.APP. 79/2010, LA.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010, LA.APP. 185/2010, 238/2010, 244/2010, 251/2010, 267/2010; 275/2010, 326/2010,: 330/2010,. LA.APP. LA.APP. la: APP.• LA^APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 125/2010,. LA.APP. .186/2010, LA. APP. 239/2010, LA.APP. 245/2010, LA.APP. •252/2010, LA.APP. 273/2010, i^.APP. 312/2010,ClXAppr^324/2010., 327/2010,. 164/2010, 200,/2010, 243/2010, 247/2010, 266/2010, 274/2010, LA.APP. 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/^010, LA.APP. 707/2010, LA.APP. 708/2010, LA.APP. 709/2010, LA.APP. 710/2010 with CM APPL. No.2568/2011, LA.APP. 713/2010 with CM APPL. No.7473/201Q, LA.APP. 715/2Q1Q, LA.APP. 717/2010, LA.APP, 719/2010, LA.APP. 766/2010,- 'LA.A|P. 796/2010,' LA.APP. 797/2010, LA.APP. 798/2010, LA.AfP. 799/2010, LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.APP. 819/2010, LA.APk 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 APPL728/2011, LA.APP. 903/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP.784/2005&connected LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. .APP. L.A. APP. LA.APP. 907/2010, LA.APP. 938/2010, LA.APP.

93.9/2010, 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, Viliage-iviundka) , ^ • " 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 (9 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 & Award Nd.13/2 006-0 7, ViiIage-Mund ) •:| ^ • ' • -l\ND + LA.APP. 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA.APP. 426/2009, LA.APP. 428/2009,' 442/2009, LA.APP. 611/2009, LA.APP. 616/2009, LA.APP. 278/2010 . ' (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24.09.2003 & Award No.3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND • . + LA.APP. 1029/2010 & CM No.5948/2011, LA.APP. 1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, ' LA.APP. 1033/2010 & CM No.6645/2011, LA.APP. 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM 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 allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should'be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I. (Oral) .1. 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. . •LA.APP.784/2005 & connected Pag'e4ofl9

¶2The present decision, concerns issue 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 under:- 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

5.. Mundka

17.6.2005

¶4It 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 estate of Village Mundka; as per serial No.5 above. '

¶5- ; Abutting 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 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 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. Agricultural lands in village Mundka, were acquired LA.APP.784/2005&connected,, Page5of19 pursuantto a notification.dated25.2.1997issued under Section 4 of tlie Land Acquisitioh Act as per award. No.2/1999/2000. Agriculturallands in the revenue estate of village,Mundl<a were further acquired pursuant to a notification dated 21.3.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award Nb.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.3/2004-05. ' Further lands in the revenue estate 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. .;9. In a nut shell, land Acquisition Collector, determined the fair market value of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimu.m 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 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 ;Page6ofl9 '•'•y price for one year @ 11.5% per annum. This price was • adopted for category A lands. For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by ?90/000/- per acre, Pertaining to the notifications dated

21.3.2.003 and

24.9.2003, Land Acquisition Collector relied upon notification fixing minimum price of agricultural land as eif 1.4.2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair marl<et 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 aghcultLjral 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 the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and. on the reference being made, vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in above captioned appeals, the, Reference Court took corrective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair market value. ' . 12. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated •25.2.1997 vide which agriculturallands in village Mundka we.re acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as waS'adopted by, the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA.APP,784/2005&connected Page 7of19 •(.3. Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agriculturallands in,Delhi,i.e. 1.4.1997,but as againstthe liand AcquisitionCollectordepressingthe 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 ^90,000/- per acre..

¶13Thus, for category A lands Reference Court determined the fair market value @ ^9,8.9,288/- per acre and for category B land the same wa,s determined.© ?8,99,288/- per acre.

¶14Pertaining to the notifications dated

21.3.2003 and

24.9.2003, whereunder agricultural-lands in village Mundka and village. Bakkarwa.la 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.APR'784/2005 & connected . annum determinedthe sum arrived at as of 21.3.2.003as 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 decisions1note the sum arrived at is ^5,92,215/-). .For the date 24.9.2003 the price determined was ^20,41,000/-per a'cre.

¶15Pertaining to notification dated

17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired, in village Bakkarwala and jVjundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands: notified; by the . Government'of NCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.2001 and giving||: increase @10% per annum determined the value, and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational advantage, being abutting NK-IO 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 ^20,35,255/-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 tod.ay.

¶17With reference to evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 lamna l/s. UO! & 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 learnet;:] 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 Page9 of 19 and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village'^Mundkawas soldias of •5.8.'19'96' for a sale consideration of ^4,75,000/-. f38/000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would' be ?5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to ^4,46,000/- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel would urge that there is ho reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was ?4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5.8.1996. Taking 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 17.5.2005, 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% peir 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 dNas 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 Pratao S/'nah (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. UOI 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 ' . Page 10of19 and ?1,73;500/-for .category B land;^2,35,850 fon category A-, land and tl,,90,150/- for category B land; .^4,02,850/- ,fof category A land and f3;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 yardsticl<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 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 a'cquisitions are made, land in the area, is surveyed, Without a survey it. would be difficult to issue even the notificatepn .under Section 4 LA.APP,7.84/2005&connected Page 11of19 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned. Reference Court are not •^ound, 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 the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated

6.1.1995,

30.5.1997,

4.6.1997 and 8.9.19,97 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 7006 n .-^5) DLT 231 laiSinah \/s'. UOL " , ^1. The decision in laiSingh'scase (supra)concernsitself yvith the determination of the fair market,value of land in village, feakkarwala 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 ,l.A.APP.784/2005&connected ' . , ' Page 12 of19 as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed. Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of .15.10.1993 at ?1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine 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-l, whereunder bigha and 3 bisvya 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 commion 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 LA.APP.784/2005&connected ' Page13 of 19 acquiredand 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 ReferenceCourt, but for the twjn reasoninghitherto-forenoted,I hold that Ex.P-l cannot be good evidence wherefrom market, value of the land could be determined.There is an acjditional reason notto rely upon the said sale deed.The sale dee^s Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4, dated 6.1.1995,30,5.1997,4.6.1997 and S.9.1997 are also pertalnihgto Village Mundka and reflect a sale price . much lower than the sale price recorded In Ex.P-i: In fact, the : sale price'in the said 4sale deeds averagesmuch less,than | ^• -even the minimumpricefor agriculturalland in Delhi notifiedby ' . the Government. • '

¶23Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be requiredto be fixed eitherwith referenceto the decisionof this 'rnurfm iaiSingh'scase (supra)or pratapSingh'sQsse (Supra). Ihighlightthat both decisions,penned by the Division Bench of this Court have been upheld by the SupremeCourt.

¶25The decision In lai Singh'scase (supra)-determined •fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of n,32,000/-per bigha as of 15.10.1993,and the perusalthereof . ' LA.APP.784/2005&connected would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale, deeds executed between the, years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri 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 Gh.evra. 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 Vilfege Price per Bigha

1.

24.07.1995 &

16.11.1995 Tikri Kalan ^2,15,160/- for Block A & n,73,500/- for Block B land^

2.

11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan & Ghevra . ?2,35,815/- for Block, A & n,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 Singh's c^se. (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 AcquisitionAppeai No.489/2009, ^ on 2,6.2011.Ihave determinedthe fair marketvaiu _ lands in Village Ghevra at ?4,03,425/-per bigha as o on the issue of comparabilityof land in villageBakkarwala^th village Mundka,Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true tha Whereas village Bakkarwala does not abut NH-10, as do tl^e other villages, but it has to be-highlightedthat ,t -mo ,.proximateto the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-vis,Ghevra and Tikr Kalan and to that extent,qua said 2villages,has an a van age^ Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters o assessing fair compensation,it is the broad probabilitiesand similarities which" matter.. Thus. 1hold all 4 villages to be equivalent,unlessqua some land specialfeaturescan be shown Since the decision in Fm^B.-Singh!scase-(supra) deals with notificationsmore proximatein point of time to the notificationswith which1am concerned,Iam of the opiniontha it would be just, fair and proper to determine,thefair market value of lands with which iam concerned,in relationto the fair marketvalue of landsdeterminedin Pratap5wt?/7'^case (supra . As per the decision mjratapSinqhlsz^s^(supra) for the date 24 7.1995,for CategoryAlandsfair compensationassessedwas- ?2,15.160/-perbigha and ?1,73,500/-per bigha for CategoryB land. The first notification with which-I am concerned is 25 21997 whereunderlands in Village (Mundka were acquired. The time span sweeps 1 y^ar and 215 ^a^sie^days. In 'Dinah'scBse(supra) theMrmUme^^^was determined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to Category A LA,APP^784/2005&connecte(d • . lan^s, the fair marKet value,assessed is ^2,49,408.75per bigha i.e/^11,97,162/-per acre and for CategoryBlands, !assessthe fair market value at ?2,01,117/-per bigha i.e. ^9,65,361.60per acre. . . , . . _

¶29The next notificationwith Which 1am concerned_/? dated2i.J.2003 pertainingto Village Mundka. In ChiranjiLais cas (supra),with referenceto the decisionin PratapSinqh's,case (supra), for agriculturalJandsin Village Ghevra .pertainingto a notificationissued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct on 5.2.2003,the fair marketvalue assessedwas^?4,03,425/-per bigha. This was uniformly:applied.Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, Iam of,the opinionthat pertainingto the notificationdated 21.3.2003, fair marketvalue of land in Village Mundka should be ^4,03,425/-i.e. ^9,36,440/-p.er acre, which I hereby fix. , •30. "I propose to deal with jihe 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. . - 32. As rioted hereinabove,in ChiranjiLai's case (supra),, pertainingto the notificationdated 6.2.2003,fa,ir market value assessed by me was ?4,03,425/-per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2years and 131 days, the figure comes to f4,98,589/-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 VillageBakkarwalaas of 17.6.2005.1decree the same. . • LA.APP.784/2005&connected ^; ... ; .• : • \ ^ 32_ 1 am left with the notification dated 24.9.2003 •pertaining to Village Bal<l<arwalaand with referenceto^ the fair market value assessed in ChiraniiLai'scase, 1would require to -appreciatethe price by 10% per annum for aperiod of 201 days, •the figure comes to ^4,25,641/-per bigha i.e. ^20,43,076.80per acre, which 1determineto be the fair market value of land in VillageBakkarwalaas of24.9.2003.•

¶33Accordingly,the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and 1hereby,dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objection'sfiled by the land ownersstands decreedas under:- i} For the land falling in Category A lapd in Village Mundka the fair ^market value is fixed at is • , ,?2,49,408.75per bigha i.e. ? 11,97,162/-per.a'creand. ^ . for CategoryBlands, the fair marketvalue is fixed at 'f2,01,117/- 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. . tl9,36,440/-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.tiigha 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 ^4,98,5.89/-• per bigha i.e.. LA,APP.784/2005&connected . ' ' . m fr' • ^23,93,227.20 pfer acre, as, on. 17.06.2005.

v) For the land, situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market .value is fixed at t4,25,641/- per, bigha i.e. ^20,43,075.80 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 vs. UOI. for compensation,, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally oh 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 LA.APP.784/2005 & connected (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE : 2^1

$-48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.324/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate versus RISALO & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.LB.Rai, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate For DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG