UOI v. Dalbir Singh

ORDER %

08.07.2011 CM Nos.10220-21/2011

¶1R-1 Dalbir Singh has died. Vide CM No.10221/2011 it is prayed that delay in re-filing CM No.10220/2011 be condoned, by which application, his legal heirs seek substitution.

¶2Both applications are allowed as prayed for subject to just exceptions.

¶3Amended memo of parties be filed in the Registry today itself by counsel for the applicants. LA.APP.889/2010 & CM No.2249/2011 (Cross Obiections) For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. JULY 08, 2011 mm 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. r % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DRtp of Ppri^ion: 2011 + JAMNA UOl Sl ORS I A APP. 784/2005 I Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai,Advocate, Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate, Mr.D.S.Lakra, Advocate, Mr.K.Sunii, Advocate, Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate Mr.Shadain Farashat, Advocate Versus Respondents Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,Standing Counsel(LA),GNCT Delhi with Ms.Deepika,Mr.SachinNawani and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates . Mr.AjayVerma, Ms.Kanika Agnihotri,Mr.KunalSharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharma, Ms.ShobhnaTakiarand Mr.Aruh Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND + LA.APP. 879/2005, LA.APP. 880-881/2005, . 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 fated 25 02.1997&Award No.2/1999-2000,VillageMundka) AND + LA.APP. 583/2009, LA.APP. 603/2009, LA.APP. 604/1009, LA.APP. 606/2009,LA.APP. 610/2009,74/2010,LA.APP. 78^010, LA.APP.784/2005&connected Page 1 of: •/* I. rl M' W LA.APP. 79/2010, LA.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010, OA.APP. 125/2010, 186/2010, 239/2010, V,245/2010, 252/2010, 273/2010, 312/2010, 327/2010, 331/2010, LA.APP. 164/2010, LA.APP. LA. APP. 200/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 243/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 247/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 274/2010; LA.APP. LA.APP. 324/2010, LA. APP. LA.APP. 329/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 332/2010, LA.APP. 333/2010 with GM APPL. No. 5524/2011, LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367/2010, LA.APP. 368/2010, LA.APP. 369/2010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & GM 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.APIf. 698/2010 & CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APP. 706/2010 & CM APPL. 17215/2010, LA.APP. 7p7/2()10, 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. I^Jo.7473/2010, LA.APP. 715/20iq, LA.APP. 717/2010, LA.APP. 719/2010, LA.APP. 766/2010, LA.APf. 796/2010, LA.APP. 797/201'0, LA.APP. 7^8/2010, 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, 879/2010, LA.APP. 880/2010, LA.APP. 881/2010 APPL.6505./2011, LA.APP. 882/2010, LA.APP. 883/2010, 884/2010, LA.APP. 886/2010, LA.APP. 888/2010, 88972MF'&''cM~7ppi^^ LA.APP. 890/2010, LA.APP. 893/2010 iv CM. APPL. 6750/20n, 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 185/2010, 238/2010, 244/2010, 251/2010, 267/2010, 275/2010, 326/2010, 330/2010, LA-APf*. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP .APP. 9O7/20I0, I^.APP. 938/2010, LA,APR, 9a©/2;^l% 1A.APP, 1034/2dl0 & GM APPL 3086/2011, LA.APP. 104^/20.10 & CM APPL. 5673/2011, L/\.APP. 1041/2010, LA.APP.* i043/2010, LA.APP. 104^5/2010, LA.APP. 1046/1010, 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 -I-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, Ia./VPP. 384/2010, LA.APP. 305/2O1O, LA.APP. 473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP. 586/201(^, LA.APP. 591/2010, lA.APP. 638/2010, LA.APP. 690/2010, LA.APP. 692/2010, , LA.APP. 711/201O, LA.APP. 716/2010, LA.APP. 763/2010, LA.APP. 872/2010, LA.APt^. 873/2010, lA.APP. 885/2010, LA.APP. 887/2010, LA.APP. 891/2010, "LA.APP. 892/2010, LA.APP. 898/201^; LA.APP. 906/2010 & CM APPL. No.4443/2010,, LA.APP. 93'7/20lO & 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, l^-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.5656/2011, 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.13/20Q6-07, 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 + 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?

¶3Whetherthe judglnentshould be reportedin the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. (Oral)

¶1I 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

¶2The preeent decision concerns issue of fi^cation of market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwaff and village Mundka. •3. The dates on which fair market value of the land has 1 . to be determined may be graphically noted as unden-S.No. Name of Villaae 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 tha^ the notification at serial No.2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the sahie 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 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 hJH-lO, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the Southern boundaryof revenue estate ofvillageMundka.

¶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.784/20054connected Page5of19 pursuantto a notificationdated 25.2.1997issued under Section 4 of the Lafid Acquisition Adt as per award No.2/1999/2000. Agricultural lands in tHe 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.V2005-06. Further lands in the revenuecestate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.20O5 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.

¶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.

¶10' For 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 dcre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected the price for one year @ 11.5% per annum. This 'price was adopted for category A lands. For lands in category the value was further discounted by ^90,000/- per acre. Pertaining to the notifications 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 the fair market value of the lands to be determined 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 Mupdka as of 17.6.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notificationfixing 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 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 agriculturallands 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 Page 7of19 Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural lands 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 Gpvernment had notified the minimum value w^s 1.4.1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was t 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/-fper 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.

¶14Pertaining to the notifications dated

21.3.2003 and

24.9.2003 whereunder agricultural lands in',village Mundka and. village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired, 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 Coprt 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

24.9.2003. The two sums arrived at were addei| and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.20^^, which I note comes to ^15,92,083.33 per acre (In some decifons I note the sum arrived at is ^15,92,215/-). For the date 24.9.2003 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 vahje 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 in sum of ^21,37,017.75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was ^20,35,255/- per,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, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today.

¶17With reference to evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 lamna 1/5. UOl & 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 1^2003 as also pnd 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of

5.8.1996 for a sale consideration of ^4,75,000/-. t38,000/- 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 woulcf come to ^4,46,000/- as of 5.8.1|996.- Learned counsel would urge that there is no 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, 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 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 Pratao Sinah (Deceased) Thr. LRs 1/5. UO! 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 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 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 yardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of the W'hole, the sample must bear somq 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 0 the Land Acquisition,Act. Learned counsel would concede t^t the reasorisgiven by the learned Ref4|enceCourt ^re not spuncj, but wo'pd urge that the two contentionsadva'nced by him ^h,ould be dbnsidered by this Court as thie 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 Bfkkai^wala. Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge tbat |he four sale deeds tx.R-i to R-4 referred to in the decision of learned Reference Cour;t pertaining to sale deeds dated 6,1.1995,

30.5.1997,

4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOI would 6how 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 i^rice notified by Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government which ismearest 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 laiSinah 1/5. UOL

¶21The decisionin laiSingh'scase (supra^concernsitself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village B^kkarwala which were acquired pursuar>t to a notification d^ted

15.10.1993 at ?1,32,000/- per bigha. Learned qounsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA.APP.784/2005 & connected as Petitionsfor Special Leave to Appeal filed beforethe Supreme Cpurt by either side have been dismissed. Learned counsel takes the argumentforward by urging that by adoptingthe fair market value of land in village Bakkarwalaas of 15.10.1993at ?1,32,000/- per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the 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 value of land in village Mundka should be dpt^erminedas of 25.2.1997,21.3.2003and 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 s^e is about7months priorto the date of the notificationissued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, which was issued on

25.2.1997. It is a matter of common knowledgethat preceding the publication of a notification un^er 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 fgr 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 Government to allot, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005;&connected Page 13 of19 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 marketvalueof land as on the date of the sale. Further,the principlesof ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and the principlesof samplingtell me that to be representativeof the whole, a sample must bear at inteiiigibie 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-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 6.1.1995,30.5.1997,46.1997 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 pricefor agriculturalland in Delhi notified by the Government. Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be requiredto be fixed eitherwith referenceto th^ decisiodof this Court in laiSingh'schse (supra)or PratapSingh'scase (supra).

¶24Ihighlightthat 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 I LA.APP.784/2005&connected would show that the Court ass|^sedthe fair market"value with reference to sale deeds execuj|pd between the years 1990 till I ^ 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 Pratao Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tjkri Kaian an^i another adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Sectiori 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

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,ai5/- 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 Pratao Singh's case (supra) I have decided 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, lands in VillageGhevra at t4,03,425/-per bigha as of 6.2 20 ^ on the issue of comparabilityof land in villageBakkarwalaw village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true a whereas village Bakkarwala does not abut NH-10, as d other Villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is njo proximateto the urban areas of Delhi vis-^-visGhevraaqdT Kaian and to that extent,qua said 2villages,has an advantage^ 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 e equivalent,unlessqua some land specialfeaturescan be shown Since the decision in Pratan Singh's, case -(supra) deals with notificationsmore proximatein point of time to the notificationswith which1am concerned,1am of the opinionthat it would be just, fair and proper to determinethe fair market value of lands with which 1am concernedin relationto the air marketvalueof landsdeterminedin PratapSingh'scase(supra). AS per the decision \n_PratapSingh'scase (supra) for the date 24 7.1995,for CategoryAlandsf^ir compensationassessedwas f2,15,160/-per bigha and n,73,50a(.per bigha for CategoryB land. The first notification with i^ch 1 am qoncerned is 25 21997 whereunderlands in Village Mundka were acquired. The time span sweeps 1year and 216 hays i.e. 5gi.days.In Pr^t^n.Singh'scase (supra) tha annualinaeasewas determined to be 1G% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining to Category A LA.APP.784/2005&connected / \ iaids, the fair marketvalue assessedi|*2,49.408:|fper bigha j.S. til,91,1621-per acre and for CategoryBiand^1assessthe fair market value at ?2,01,117/-per bi^a i.e. ?9,66,361.60per acre.

¶29• The next, notificationwith whiich I am concertied_^ dated 21.3.2662) pertainingto Village lytundka. In ChiraniiLa!s cas (supra),with ref^erenceto the decisipnin Praiap.binqh'scase (supra), for agriculturaUlandsin VillageGhevra pertainingto a notificationissued under Section 4 o;f the Land AcquisitionAct on 6.2.2003,the fair marketvalue assflri^edwas^4^03,425/-per bigha. This was uniformlyapplied. Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, Iam of the oa|nionthat|)ertajningto the notificationdated 21.3.2003, faiir Market value of land in Village Mundka should be ^4,03,425/-i.f. ^9,36,440/-per acre, which I hereby fix.

¶30I 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. 3]^ As noted hereinabove,in Chit^aniiLai's case (supra), pertainingto the notificationdated 6.2.2003,fair market value assessed by me was f4,03,425/-per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2years and 131 days, the figure comes to ?4,98,589/-per bigha, which comes to ?23,93,227^20per acre. The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwalaas of 17.6.2005.Idecree the same. ^ , LA.APP.784/2005&connected

¶321 am left with the notifiption dated 24.9.2003 pertainingto Village.Bakkarwalaand with referenceto the fair market value assesled in ChiraniiLai'scase, 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 determineto be the fair market value of land in Viildgebakkarwala as of 24.9.2003. Accordingly,the a-ppeaIs 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 ownersstands decreed as under:-

i) For the land falling in Category A land in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed; at is ?2,49,408.75per bigha i.e. ^ 11,97,162/-per dcre and for CategoryBlands, the fa-ir market value is fixed at T2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. ?9,65,361.60 per acre, as on 25.02.1997. ji) 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. LA.APP.784/2005&connected Page18 of 19 ^^23,93,227.20per acre, as on 17.06.^005. For the land situated in Village BakkarwaiaJ^he fair market value is fixed at ?4,25,'641/- per laflfha i.e. ?20,43,076.80 per acre, as on 24.09.2003.

vi)' Appellants and cross-objectors who have s,uf:ceeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per sta-tute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93'(2001) DLT Sunder vs. UOL 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. ^gi,Y 08, 20i; >Tlim § LA.APP,784/2005S^|fonnected (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG). JUDGE Page!|iiffl9 A

$-128 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.889/2010 & CM No.2249/2011 (Cross Objections) UOI Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate versus DALBIR SINGH Respondent Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate for the applicant/respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG