UOI v. Ravi Raj & Ors

ORDER

08.07.2011 CM No.20100/2010 Inasmuch as notice of admission of the appeal has not been served upon the respondents, limitation for filing cross-objections has not commenced. Cross-objections have been filed. It is prayed that delay in filing cross-objections be condoned. Since there is no delay in filing cross-objections application stands disposed of as infructuous. LA.App. 371/2010 & CM APPLNo. 20099/2010 (Cross Obiection) 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. % % the .HICJH COURT 0F DEiH) AT NEW OELHI , n^tp^.nfDeri^inn-lulv, 20M. jAMNf I A APP. 784/2005 Appell^int Through: .Mr.LB.Rai,Advocate, ^ ' , ''lyir.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate, ,; Mr.D.S.Lakra,/^dvocate, Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate, .• .Mr.AnujBhandari,Advocate . Mr.Shadam Farashat>Advocate Versus v - Respondents Through' Mr.SanjayPoddar,Standing ^ Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with_ , Ms.Dee'pil<a,Mr.SachinNawani and. ; • Mr. Siddharth; Panda Advocates . ' Mr.AjayVernna, Ms.Kanika. Aghihotri,Mr.KunalSharnna, Mr.Sumer Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharma.,:,^ Ms.ShobhnaTakiarandMf.Arun,. • Birbal,Advocates fbr DDA AND • \ m\ & ORS O' • ^ LA.APP. ' 879/2005, LA.APP. 880-881/2005, 121/2006 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 date ' 25.02.1997Sc Award No.2/19-99-2000,VillageMundka) : AND • + -LA.APP. 583/2009, LA.AP'P-603/2009, LA.APP. 604/2009, LA.APP. 606/2.009,LA.APP. 610/2009,74/2010, LA.APP. 78/2010, ' •' LA.APP.784/2005&connected . r; ' 'p ( •" 1' (Jj'l ' llii LA:ARP/ 79/2010, LA.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010, LA.APR,. ; 125/2010, LA.APP. 164/201,0, LA.APR. 185/2010, LA.APP; 186/2ai:0,/LA. APP. .:.2O0/2dlO, LA.APP. 238/^010, iLA.APP.,:;

2.39/2(110, LA.APP. 243/2010^, LA.APP. .24.4/2010, LA.APP: 245/2010, LA.APP. 247/2010,, LA.APP. ; 251/2010, LA.APP. . • 252/2010, LA.APP.. 266/2010, , LA.APP. , 267/2010, LA.ARP, 273/2010, LA.APP.. .274/2010, , LA.APP. . 275/2010, .LA.APP. , 312/2010, LA.APP. 324/2010, L.A. APP,, 326/2010, LA.APP. 327/2010, LA.APP. .329/2010, LA.APP. 330/2010, LA.APP. , : i 331/2010, LA.APP. 332/201^0, LA.APP. 33372010 with CM. APPL. No. 5524/2.011, LA.APP. 335/20Jil,UJUVPE,^£7/^Ql^LA.APf.^ 368/2010, LA.APP. 369/2010,(^.APP. 371/2010 &CM APPL.' >^1^10^20099^^ 374/201^, LA.APP. .iyb!/2UlU, LA.APP ^-^^77720l07n:^PP., 379/2010,. LA.APP. 423/2010,, L/\.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. :, t 697/2010, LA.APP. 698/2010 &CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APP. , ,706/?010 & CM APPL. 17215/2010, LA.APP. 707/2010,. LA.APP.. 708/2010, LA.APP. ,7.0,9/2010, LA.APP. 710/2010 with,;,CM APPL. • No.2568/2011, LA.APP..713/2010with CM APRL. No.747,3/2010, ^ LA.APP. 715/2010, LA.APP. 717/2010, LA.APP. 719/2010, LA.APP. ^ 766/2010, LA.APP. 796/2010, LA.APP. 797/2,010; LA.APP. ', 798/2010, LA.APP. . 799/2010, LA.APP. 818/2010,. LA.APP., . 819/2010, LA.APP. 829/2010, LA.APR. 831/2010 CM APPL. ' 955/2011, LA.APP;, 832/2010, LA.APP. 833/2010 & CM APPL. 6392/2i011, LA.APP. ;834/2010, LA.APP. 842/2010, LA.APP. 871/2010, LA.APP. 874/2010; LA.APP. 875/2010, LA.APP. . 876/20^10, 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. ^03/2010, LA.APP. ^

8.84/2010, 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. 895/2.010, LA.APP. 896/2,010, LA.APP.. ; 897/2010 & CM APPL.728/2011, LA.APP;. 903/2010, LA.APR. 't \ • LA.APP.784/2005&connected . ' .Page,2 of19 ; , ,W % 907/2010, LA.APP; 938/2010,' LA.APP- ^3.9/2010, 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. 1,045/2010, 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 Nd.3/2005-06,Village-Mundka) .. /, • AND ;• -f 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. §73/2010, LA.APP. 885/2010, LA.APP. -887/2010, LA.APP. |91/2010, 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;1042/20;L0,LA.APP. 1047/2010 . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated': 21.03.2003 & Award. No.1/2005-06, Village-M.undka) • • ' • AND' ; ; ; LA.APP. .1003/2010, .LA.APP. 1017/2010, .1-A.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.5656/21011, 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&connecte.d. . .. ; . ' Page.3ofi9 !i •} (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.0;6.2005 Award NO..13/2006-07, Viijage-Hundka) 'AND + LA.APP. 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA.APP. 426/2009,! LA.APP., 428/2009, 441/2009, LA.APP. • 611/2009, LA-APP. 616/2009, LA.APP. 278/2010 .' ^ , (Relating tb Notification u/s 4 dated 24:09.2003 & Award N,0.3/2004-05, Viliage-Bakkarwala)- • -AND + LA.APP.

102.9/2010 . & CM No.5,948/2011, LA.APP. 1030/2010,' LA.APP. 1031/2010, LA.APP. 1033/2010 & CM ^ No.6645/2011, LA.APP. 1062/2010, 1063/2010 ^ & .CM' V No.6943/2011, LA.APP. 1064/2010;, LA.APP. 1066/2010, LA.APP.

10.67/2010, LA.APP. .11/2011, LA.APP. 122/2011 / (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17.06.2005 .& Award No.1/2006-07, Viliage-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? • '3. Whether the judgment should be repbrted in the Digest? ^ PRADEEPNANDRAIOG,I. (Oral) : 1... I am deciding above captioned 'appeals and,, relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of •i • ' • . ' I " . . , • , cross objections; all of which have been listed hereifiabove. • ••LA.APP.784/2005 &connected • ' %

¶2.. The pFesent decisipn co'ncems issue of fi}<ation of f%ff marketvalue of land.in the revenueestate,ofVi'll|g|Ba,l<i<arw,§|a . and viifag.eMundka.t ? I . V'? •3. The dptes ,on which fair m^rl^etvalue of the land has to be determined-may be graphically aoted as under:- • S.No. Name of \^illaae Date .of n0tificati;0h under :, . Se,cti.fn 4 of the LAIAct

¶1'.Bakkarwala . - . 24,9.2003 •

¶2Bakkarwala ' 17/6.2005 ' ' 3: Mundka : 25l2.lfe97 .•

4.- Mundka' . 2l!3.2b03

5.' jviundka ' ; . 17;6.20'05

4.- It may be highlighted, that the notification at serial /Nb.2 hereinabove, pertaining to .village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were 'acquifed in the revenue estate o.f 'VJHage'Muridka;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 the other s:i|de of the Southeirn boundary (of village Mundka. The y . • . • ' differencebetween the topologyof the; two villages is; whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-IO, that of village Bakkarwala.,does not so abut; being pn the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Miindka. proceed from! the city of D;.eil,hi to the township of Rohtak, vtllage Mundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri-Kalan. , . : •

¶7, Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acqulrecl LA.APP,784/2005,&connected Page5of19;' pursuantto a notificationdated.25l.2:i997issuied.underSection 4 of ;the Land Acquisition Act as per award No.2/1;999/2000. ' ' •, Agricultural,lands in the revenue estate of'villageMundka w,ere further;acquired pursua,nt to a notification'dated 21.3.2003, . issued'under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition-Actas per aWard No.3/2005-06as also award No.l/2005-p6.,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 AcquisitionAct as per Award No.13/2006-07.

¶8. 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 Acq^uisitionAct as ; per A,ward No:.3/2004-C)5. Furtherlands in the revenueestateof the sanne village were a|:quiredpursuantto a notificationdated 17!6.2005 (the same notification under which,lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award N-o.1/2006-07.. • 9; In a nut shell, Land Acquisition , Collector determined ithe fair market value of the acquired lands, under all :, the awards; with reference to the minimum price for aigritultural 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 AcquisitionCollectordetermined 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 •.l'a.'APP.784/2005&connected . ' ; Rage 6 of19 % % the-price for one year @ 11.5%' per annum/ This price wa^ adopted for category A lands. Foriands in category B, the valae was.further discounted by ^90,00Q/- per acre. Pertaining to the . ndtifitations dated

21.3.2003 and

24.9.2003, Land Acquisition Collector relied upon notification fixing minimum price of agricultural land as of 1.4.2001 and gave'no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact that jthe fair market value of the 'tends to be determined was as of 21.3.2003 and ^4.9.2003. E^/en 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 La,nd' 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 18 pf 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.

¶12, In a nut shell-, pertaining tO;. the notification dated •25.2.1997 vide which agricultural lands 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 ' ' • • % GDvemment of NCT Delhi had fixed the. minimum; value; for agricultural lands in. Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997, but as, against the Land Acquisition!Collector depressing the'[^f:if:e@.11.5% for full, one y^ar; adopting the percentage 11.5, decrgasefi. the, value .by pnly. 34' diays-inasmuch as the date with, reference wheretq Government had notified the minimum value was 1.4.1997 and. ' the notification under Section

¶4of the Land Acquisition Act was .; 'f: . . ' - dated 25.2.1997, This was the val:iie fixed for category A lands and for. category ,B lands; with reference to the values for • category Aland 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.• • • • • "f.

¶14Pertaining to the, notifications dated 21.3.2005 and •

24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mijndka 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 , i;.4.'200i the .next revision, was as of,30.8.2005. Using the said dates and"the minimum price notified."by the Goverhment.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 the. enhanced [Drice as of 21.3.200k as also

2.4.9.2003. : Thereafter, Reference^ Court tobk, the value . notified as of ,30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per LA.APP.784/2G05&connected. Page'8 of 19 % •< • annum determined the sum arrived at.as'of 21.3;2003 as also •

24.9.2003. The two. sunns arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003,' which 1 note / • comes to^l5,92,083.33 per acre (In, some decisionsil note the sunn arrived at is ?15,92,215/-)- For the date 24.9;.2003 the price determined was ^2p,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 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 advahtage,', being abutting IMH-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 .Ba.kkarwala the, price • determined ,w.as^20,35,255/- par.acre. • '

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

¶17With reference tb evidence led. in-, LAC N0.384/2004 lamna l/s.. UO! & Ors.. it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, ilearned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No.784/2005,; which . argunieht 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.7^4/f005&connected. 'Page-9ofi9 % ;|Bnd 3 biswa of•agricu'lturaMandin village Mundka was soldias of . ; 5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of .?4,75,000/-. ?38,000A was ^ ' incurred towards sale duty and' thus the price of the land vyould be ^5,13,000/-and calculatedwith referencethereto, land price ' . per bigha would come to ?4,46,000/-as pf 5.'8,.1996. Learned ..poijnselwould 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 the argument , , , ' ' ' •forward, it is•urged that with reference to the. said price, fain., . 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 annum at ?: least by 10% .per annum. It is urged that on the sarne basis,. ; lan:d. price-should be .deternhinedfor the a:griculturalJands in-village Bakkarwala. Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka.,and Bakkarwala,are contiguous ^ villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalah .is further towards,the . townshipof Rohtak, some increase be made ip 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 Pratao Sinah (Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. UOI^s per which .-fair market value of land, per bigha, was deterrpined in .the revenue,, estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16.11.1995, • •11.6.1996 and 17,12.2002 at T2,15,164/-tor category A land. • LA.APP.784/2005&connected . Page 10of19 i % and fl,73,500/.-for category'B land; ri,35,85© for category A, • land and n,.90,150/- for category B land; .^4,02,850/- for category A land and ^3,24,850/- for ^ategpry B ;land> ; respectively. . .

¶181 may note here that irt various land acquisition references,various parties have'proveda num.ber of sale deeds executed from time to ti,me, but during arguments today before: me, learned counsel for the, land owners have only,relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-1. 1^., Per contra, Sh.SanjayPoddar learned counsel f9r the UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex.P-1 cannot be , adopted as the,yardstick'forthe reason, to be a, representative sample,of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportio.nto the whole. For example, learned counsel, would ut;ge'thatif it has to be determinedwhetherwhat percentageof 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 acq.uisitioninasmuch 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.784/2005&connected , • • - • . Page 11 of 19, % ff the Land Acquisition ,Act. Learned counsel would conc^ede ithat the reasons given, by the learned Reference-Court are not spund, but would urge .that the two contentions advanced by bim should be considered; by this Court as the reasons as to why. :Ex.P-l be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and-Bakkarwalav. Thirdly, :learned counsel would further urge that the. four sale deeds .Ex3-1 to R-4 referred ,to in the decision of the learned lileference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated

6.1.1995,

30.5.1997,- 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOI would 5;how 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 Governriient which is nearest to the pojnt of time when the' respective notifications were, issued under Section 4 of.the Land Acquisition Act. , 2,0. • • An independent a^nd .'alternative argument is also :ad,yanced by learned counsel for the .Union. The same rests i.tself on a decision of a .Division Bench of this. Court reported as ?nnfi (T35) PIT 231 /a/S/noh 1/5. UP/.

21., The decision in /a/Singh'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 i^jiated 15.10.1993 at fl,32,00;0/- per bigha. Learned counsel yvoul;d urge that the ^aid decision has attained.fi,nalit-y inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005&connected Page 12 of19 as Petitions^6r Special Leave to Ap;pealfiledbefore,the,5wprem^ , Court by either side have been dismissed. Learned counsel takes the argumentforward by urging that by adoptingthe fair market value of larid in village Bakkarwala.asof 15.10.1993at ,^1,32,000/- per bigha,. the fair market value should be ascertained by-increasingthe price progressivelyby 10% per annum to. determine the market .value of land in village Bakkarwalaas of 24.9.2003as also 17.6.2005. Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair: market'i/alueof land in village Mundka should be determinedas of 25.2.1997,j21.3.2003and 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 priorto the date of the notification,issued. 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-numlDers and fields are required to be notified for the. proposed acquisitionand when this happenspeople 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 •LA.APP,784/2005 &connected ' ^Pagel3ofl9 ' ii: r •i . acquiredand thus, it is not uncommon,for personsto purchase •' small Rarcels of larfds-inareas where acquisitionsare likely to; :take place; these tra'nsactionsare speculatiye.and cannot be •takento be arepresentativemeasureof the fairmarketvalueof . land as on the date of the sale. Further,the principles-ofratio. •and proportion as also the principles of averages^and the principlesof sampling tell me that to be representativeof thp whole, a sample must bear at intelligibleproportion to the : Whole. Thus, itiot for the; reasoning advanced by -the'learned '• ReferenceCourt, butfort|ietwin reasoninghitherto-forenoted,I hold that Ex.M cannot be good evidence wherefrom marl<et 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- : I'to Ex.R-4,.dated6.1.1995,30.5.1997,4.6-.1997 dnd 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 : saie pried-in the said 4 sale deeds averagesmuch less than even the minimum pricefor agricultural-landin Delhi notifiedby the Government. 23,- Thus, the fair market value of the.lands would be : requiredto-be fixed eitherwith referenceto-thedecisionof this, c-nnrtin /,9/5OTg/>'5case(supra)or PratapS/nqh'sssse(supra). ,

¶24• ' l.highlightthatboth decisions,penned by the Division Bench of thisCourthave been upheld by the SupremeCourt, ,25. • The decision in tai 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 • • , - , • Page'l4 of 19 LA.APP.784/2005'& connected ~ i V. wQuid show: that the.i^ourt assessed the fair market vaIu;^ witln refjereraGeto sale deeds executedbetvyeen the years, 19,90 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kato or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise,;that being conjtiguous villagers, sale •price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining vjllages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Vlllage Bakkarwala. 2,6. , In PraiaD Singh's case (supra), Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalah-and another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under,Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair mat^ket value of agricultural lands jn Village Tikri Kalan.and Ghevra as under:- s.:no. , •Date Village Price per Big ha ., 1• 24,07:1995

16.11.1995 • Tikri Kalan ^2,15,160/- for Block A & ^1,73,500/,-, for.; Block B'land

¶2•• 'f. ,11.06.1996 . , Tikri -Kalan Ghevra . T2,35,815/-ifor, Block A & ^i;90,i56/- for Block B land

3. I '

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

¶27Fc^|owingthe judghnentin PratapSingh's..case(supra) 1have idecid^ the fair market value for the. land situated in revenue esta,te of Village Ghevra,, which was acquired pursuant to notificatipnsdated 6.2.2003 in the batch of appeals b^ing Land ,LA.APP.784/2005&4onnected ' P.ageliBofig I —i • • J AcquisitionApp.eai No.489/2009, •

2.6.2011.Ihave deternninedthe lands in VillageGhevra at ^4,03,425/-per bigha as of 65 200 on ,|e issue of comparabilityof land in villageBak.arwala»th •vlllSe Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it Is no doubt t^ue tte ; whereas village Bakkarwala does-not abut NH-10,.as.do •other Villages, but it .has to be:highlighted that rt .s ; proximateto the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-v,sGhevraandTk : Kalan and to thatextent,qua said 2villages,has an advantage Since exactness can never-be achieved in the matters of •assessing fair compensation,it is the broad pro,babilit,esand • sirr,ilaritieswhich' matter. Thus,. I hold .1) 4 villages to be equivalent,unlessqua some land specialfeaturescan be shown Since the decision in case .(supra) deals with notifications^more proximate.inpoint of time to the • notificationswitii whichIam concerned,Iam of the opjnio • it would be just, fair and proper to determine,th,efair market. : value of lands with which Iam concernedin relationto the fair marketvalue of lands determinedin PmtapSingh's,case (supra . AS per the decisionin_a3Sfi-«^22^case (supra)for the date ^ 24 7ids, for categoryA.^andsfair compensationassessedwas « 15 160/- per bigha and n,73,500/-per tigha for CategoryB land The first notification with which 1 am concerned is 25219^7 whereunderlands in Village Mundka were acquired.. The time span sweeps 1year and 216 c^i^^e^clays. In . • case (supra) rtei™7iWia£reasewasdetermined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to Category A LA.APP.784/2005&connected •' • ' ' lands, the fair market value assessed is ^2,49,408.75per bigha, i.e. ^11,97,162/-per aere and for CategoryBlands,.1assess the. : fair'marketvalue at ^2,01,117/-per bigha i.e. ?9,65,361.60per ' acre, ; ,•29, Th.e next notificationwith which I am concerned.^' dated 21.3.20Q3 pertainingto Village Mundka. In OjiranjiLais cas (supra),with referenceto the decisionin PratapSinqh'scase; (supra), for. agriculturaljandsin Village Ghevra pertainingtq a^ notificationissued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct •rf I ' ' ' ' ' on 6.2.2003,the fair marketvalue assessedwaS'^4,03,425/-per • bigha. This was unifdrmlyapplied. Since there,is a time gap of , ' jijsta little over 1 month, 1am of the opinionthat pertainingto A ' the notificationdated 21.3:2003, fair market value of land in Village Mundka should be ^4,03,425/-i..e. n9;36,440/-p.eracre,. • which I hereby, fix. • 3D. I propose to deal vyith the notification dated

24.9.2003, after dealing with the notificationdated 17.6.2p05 pursuant whereto agriculturaVlands w.ere acquired in Village • Mundka and Village Bakkarwala. , ; 3]^ - As noted hereinabove,in ChiraniiLaTs c^se (supra), pertainingto the notificationdated 5.2,2003,fairniarkefvalue ' assessed by me was ?4,03,425/-per bigina and tiius, increasing the'same by 10% for 2years and 131 d^ys, the figure comes to ?4,98,589/-per bigha, which comes to ?23,93,227.20-persere. ' ' The same is held by rae to be the fair market value of land in •village Mundka and VillageBakkarwalaas of 17.6.2005.Idecree the same. Paee l7 of 19 • lA.APP.784/2005 &connected . . , \' i •I •i. >J ; h-, rfn- 'left:|fith ttie; njptificatioh: cfate# ^.9;:2^ -f[,:^rt?ringR0:;¥itla9fe;Bakka«al^ :.;: 'r|atietyalije:assessedin Ippreciatetheprice:by:i:0%per:annumipra'p^ • : Ihefigut-e•comes to ^4,25.641/-per Mfha i.6.:*20,^,076.80^er i acre,.whichIdetermineto:be the faij" market Val|ie of ^nd in , • VillageBakkarwalaas of:24.9.2G03. ^ ^ , / ;

¶33^ "^ ' :AcGordmgiy,ithe appeals filed by the; i f-eijuire to be disrtiiss^ciandU here^ same.,:the:• appeals.^filed by the.(arid Owners and the crossrobjectionsfiled^ • by the land owners,staridsdecreedas Qn;den- ,. :y .,

i): ' -For'the'land :la(nd .:in Yill,age . I'Mi:mdka: -the^ fair^^ valiJfe ;:js . ;'v; ;V ?2:y,408^75^ ^11,97,0:62/-per^cre^a^ Vy:r.fo?Category'B lands, the.fair m NAajue is fixed at;: , . '• i•^2>0i,117/- per bigha,:i.'e.<?9,65,361.60;per acre, as/ ' •: •oa^25:02.1997; •' v-'","' liv• For the land situated in ,Viliage.,ivi^r|dka the .fair- :f: ' ;market vaIus is fixed at ^4,03,425/- per bigh^- lie. i. ; X" ^ • •; ^19;36>44Q/^pe ; . , ;, ' iii.) : For the (and situated in Village;MiUridka^ the'fa^^ m^rketvaltie is;fixed..at per Sjl^ina.:i.e.. re,,; as on: 17vO6;.2Q05v. . -" / ' : . ivyr ; .For the iknd^^situatedin'Village Balkkarwal^ ./ market valueJS'fixed/at ^4,98,58#-per,ybigto^^^ LA;/Vl^P.784j/2005&connected' " - :,.Pa,ge:18qtf 19, ••l . "IV % % >r ^23,9:3,227,20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005. ]/) • for the land situated in Village Bakkarwala'the fai^r market value is fixed, at ^4,25,641/- per bigh-a i.e. ?20,43,075.80 per acre, as on 24.09.2003.. •vi) Appellants and cr0ss:0bject0rs who have succeeded would also be,entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(20.01) DLT . 569 Sunder i/5. UOL for compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced-by the present judgment and decree. . • . . ; • ; _ • • • viiy 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. |ULY 08, 2011 'mm .LA.APP.78.4/2005 & connected M • (PRADEE-PNANDRAJOG) JUDGE

% a $-61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.371/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate versus RAVI RAJ & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.L.B. Rai, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG %