Union of India Thr Lac West v. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors

ORDER %

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

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. % JAMNA THE UOV.&ORS COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI jth n DPita-of Ppcision: 8' I A APP. 784/2005 ... Appellant; Thrduah' Mr.L.B.Rai,Advocate, • , .|vir.l.S.paPiya,Advocate, ; Mr.D.S.Lakra, Advocate, , ' ' Mr.K.Sunil,.Advocate, ,y ..Mr.AnujBhandari, Advocate . Mr.S.hadamFarashat;,Advocate Versus • ' • • Through: Respondents ^Mr.Sanjay>oddar,Standing; : ^ Counsel.(LA),;GNCTDelhi with^ . Ms.Deepika,Plr.SachinNawani and-Mr. Slddharth Panda Advocates ' •- Mr.AjayVerma, .Ms.Kanil^a j .Agnihotrl,Mr.KunalSharrna, ; 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. ii. . 121/2006, 1.43/2007' (Relating to Notification u/s .4 dated

25.02.1997Si Award No.2/1999-2000,VillageMundk^) ! . . • 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/|010, LA.APP.784/2005&connected , Pagel.ofl^ i "i m 'fM-ii "i Si.' i i .J •ill' Mi ftSi' •lit ill •ifell 'LA^APP: 79/2010, LA;APP.,121/2010;,:LA.APP^122/2010, .iLA-Am 125/2010, , LA;APP: ,164/2010, ' LA^APP. ^85/2010,' ;LA:APP; LA. APPy 200/20l'0,/ LA.APP.-238/2010, 186/2010, .239/2010, .245/2010, ' 252/2010; .273/2010, : 312/2010, 327/2010, LA:APP. :;la.app. iLA.APP, lA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 243/201.0, : 247/2010, ^266/2010;; 274/2010, LA.APP. 244/2010, LA.APP. .',251/2010, L/^.APP. .267/2010; LA.APP. 275/2010; :326/2010,: lA^APP; 330/2010; 324/2010,. ;L.A." APP. ; 329/2010, ' la;APP. . 331/2010,. LA.APP. 332/2010, LA.APP. 333/2010 with;.C!^ APPl.; No. 55.24/2011, LA.APP. 335/2QlO, LA.APP.; 367/2010,;;LA.APP. 3,68/2010, LA.APP. 369/2010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & GM APPL. • ;:Np.20099/2010, LA.APP.' 374/2010, LA.APP.; 375/2pl0, lA.APP. ,377/2010,. LA.APP. .;;379/2010,, LA.APP. 428/20io, .lA.APP.' .452/2010,. LA.APP. Z.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. 698/20:10 & CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APP. 706/2010 1, CM APPL. 17215/2010, LA.APP.: 707/2010, 1a.APP: :708/2010/ LA.APP.: 709/2010,;l/!^.APP. 710/2;010 with;CM APPL. Nb.2568/2011;/LA.APP.-713/2010with, CM APPL. 'No;74.73/201-0, LA.APP. 715/2010, LA.APP.;717/20,lO,LAAPP; 719/2010, OA.APP. .766/2010), LA.APP. 796/2010, LA.APP. 797/20101 SLA.APP; 798/2010, : LA.APP. .799/2010, >LA.APP. 818/2010^ LLA.APP. 819/2010, LAAPP. 829/2010, LA.APP. 831/2010 & :CM, ;APPL . 955/2011, LA.APP.. 832/2010;iLA.APP.r 833/2010 & CM .APPL. 6392/2011,: LA.APP.:; 834/2016, ; LA.APP. 842/2010, LAAPP.' 871/2010, :LA.APP. ::874/20l0, LA.APP. 875/2010, .LAAPP; ,876/2010, .LAAPP. .877/2010, |A.APP. 878/20ia^gAAPP. 87;9/2010, lA.APP ^8-80/2010, (lXX^ :^l/2Qiy^:^^Xi^"3 AFQISSI^^'ICCaPP.882/20 LA.APP..;883/2010,lAAPP. ,884/2010, LA.APP. .886/2010, LA.APP. •888/2010, :LA.APP; 889/2010 &•. CM APPL.2249/2011, LA.APP. .8.90/2010, LA.APP. 893/2010 & CM APPL. 6750/2011,; LAAPP. 894/2010:j & 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. j ^la.app: lA.APP; . lA^App.;;; LA.iAPP." LA.APP.784/2005 &-.connected Page 2 o.f19 , i ; i •] ..•907/2010,, LA.APP. '93.8/20:10, LA.APPi 93:9/2010, .lA.APPv 1034/2010 ,& CM APPL..3086/2011, LA.ARP, 1040/201(1 CiVl^ APPL. 567.3/2011, LA.APP. 10,41/2010,' LA-APP- 'lOli/^QlO,, LA.APP. 1045/2010, LA.APP. :i046/201(i,^ LA.APP-.1048/2010,: LA.APP, 1049/2010, LA.APPl 1050/2010/ [^;APPA.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 NotiflGation u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & ,Award •No.3/2005-06,Villagd-I^undka) ; A " ^ lA / •- '• • AND-A; . ^ • :a'. A- + LA.APP. 600/2009,. LA.APP. •605/2C)09,. LA.APP. 615/2009,: LA.APP.'310/2010, LA.APP..325/2010, LA.APP. 376/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. & cm' APPL. 23299/2010,' 383/2010, 473/2010, 591/2015, 692/2010, 763/2010, 885/2010,. 892/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. ' LA.APP. LA.APP. : LA.APP. LA.APP. 898/2010, LA.APP. No.4443/2010, LA.APP. 937/2010 & LA.APP. 1042/2010, lA.APP. 1047/2010 384/2010, 492/2010, 638/2010, :711/201.0, . :872/2010, ,887/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 385/2010, 586/2010, ;690/2010, 716/2010, 873/2010, 891/2010, 906/2010 CM APPL. (Relating to Notification u/s dated ••21.0,3.200,3 6; {Award NO.1/2005-D6, Village-Mundkal : r , ^ AND LA.APP.- 1003/2010, {LA.APP. {1017/2010, LA.APP. 1019/2010, LA.APP:, 1022/2010, XA.APP.' 1023/2010, LA.APP., 1044/2010, •{ :LA.APP. 1051/2010, LA:APP; 10531/2010, LA.APP.'1654/2010;&' CM-APPL No.5656/2011, \-A. APR. : 1055/2010, LA.APP; 1057/2010,' LA.APP. • 1058/2010, LA.APP.

10.59/2010, LA.APP. '1O6B/2OIO, LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. 124/2011, LA.APPL 127/2011,.LA.APP, 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2011 LA.APP.784/20O5.,.&connected ' 'f • . Page Sofll . (Relating td Notifica,tipn u/s 4 dsted Award No.13/200.6-07,, yijlage-M.undka)i .'•'k'. . /• ^ ' • ••AND. ••"• • • -f' LA.APR. 40/2009 & Cross QbjeGtions, iLA.APP. 426/2009, .LA;.APP. 428/2009, 442/2009, LA.APP. 611/2009, . LA.APP. : 616/2009; LA..APP. 278/2010 : /(.Relating td;., Notification ui/S 4 'dated

24.;09.2003 &/Award •No;3/2004rd5, Village-Bakkarwdla) ; , .. V . • AND-V -I-LA.APP. ; 1029/2010 , & CM No.5948/2bll,,^ LA^APP: 1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, LA.ARR. ,1033/2010 ;i& : CM Noi6645/20ir, LA.APP. W62/20W, ; 1063/2010 & / CM No;:6943/20il, LA.APP. 1064/2010, LA.APP. lCi66/2010/ :f./V.APP. ; 1067/2010, LA.APP. 11/2011, LA.APP.'122/20ll . •. d • • ; • (Relating to. Notification .u/s dated 17/06.2005 & •Award' No.1/2006-0,7, Village-Bakkarwala) . coRAM:'.' , .: ' i" ' •; ' , : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJQG . ;. 1. Whether the .Reporters of Ideal papers may be allpwdd: to see the judgment? ; ;-

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not? • - . '

3..-Whether the judgmept shdujd be reported in the Digest? .; PRAD.EEP NANDRAIQG, I. (Oral) . A: .

¶1'. r,,am deciding the' above captioned appeajs-and / jt • reiatable civil, miscellaneous applications which are by vyay of /cross objections; all of which have been listed, hereinabove., • L-^LA.APP.TSVZOOS'&tConnected Page 4 ofd9.

¶2^The present dfecision coricerns issue of fixatid^ri i marketvalue of land in the revenueestate of Village Bakkarwdl'l :and. village Mundka. .• • 3. • . The dates, on which fair market value of the land had' . to be determined may be.graphicallynoted as upden-I • •' y v : •N0:. : Name of .Villaq.e. . Date of notification under.' . : ' • ' ; V ^ Section .4 of the LA Act : t l,.- , cBakkarwala '24v9.2003; i ; • ' • 2. • Bakkarwala '

17.6.2005 ' ' ; '

¶3jyiundka :

25.2.1997: ; . ' V .• •.4...;.,: ^Mundkat"; ; 21.3.2003i -i ; ^ ^ .I 7, • ST Jviundka:,.y Vl7:6.2005:- V, V . 'i:: • 't may be, highlighted that themotification vat seHal ..'No.2 hereinabove,pertainingto ivijiage Bakkarwala,is tbeisanie pursuantwhereto landS'wereacquiredj'n the revenue estate qf . Village Mundka; as per serial No.5 abdVe.

¶5. Abutting NH-IO, leading.fromthe ;city of Delhi,toth.e townshipof RohtakIn.theState pf Haryana/afevillagesMundka, Ghevra and^Tikri Kalan. Village Bakkarw/ala lies towards the other side of the Southenn boundary of village Mundka. The differencebetween the topoiogy pf the two villagesIs;-whereas the land of village Mundka ,abuts /NH-10, that of;'village Bakkarwala doeS^ not so. abut; being on. the'.other side of the ,• :Southernboundaryof revenueestate ofvillage.Mundka.r As we proceed from .the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak, village Mundka is ,crossed first, followed by Village Ghevra and then villageTikri Kalan. • b ^ ^ ' 2,- • Agricultural lands in village IMundka were' acquired. LA.APP.784/20Q5&connected/: kt-i. . pursuant'to a notificationdated;25.2.1997 issued under Section ,4 ,of the Land AGquJsition Act' as per award. No.2/199.9/2000.• ' Agriculturallands in the revenue estate of viHage Mund.Ra.wefe, .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:.l/2005-06. Further lands in the> revenue estate of the. sanqfe;village were acquired pu.rsqant tp.a.. notification dated 17;6.2O05 issued under Section 4 of the.Land lAcquisition Act as per Award No.13/2006^07. vi ; L :8. Agricultural-lauds in the; revenue estate ofLvillage .. Bakkarwala :were acquired pursuant to a hol^ification':dated, 24,9.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.3/2004-05. Furth-er lands in the revenue estate of ' the .same village''were acquired, pursuant to 0 notification dafed

17.6.2005 (the same notification under which lands,in; village Mundka were acquired) as per award No.1/2006-07. L ; . 9.- In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Gbllector 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 1 rnay . 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 w,Tth reference to' the minirnum..'price ' for •agricultural land "notified with effect.from

1.4.1997 '@ 7^10 lacs.per acre' and since the date of Section 4 hotificat.ion was .anterior in pdint of time, discounted LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' ' ' ; • ; • •: , ' iiiih the ^price fof one year @ per an;num; Tlhfe pf^ice was adopted for category A lands. For lands in .tategory B; the'valu'e was -further discounted by^gO.OOG/- per, acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated ,21.3.2003'and

24.9.2003, the Land. Acquis,ition tOoIlector relied upon the notification' fixing the ;:nninini,urn price of agricultural la.nd as o|i 1.4.2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference t;o the. fact thatrthe fair • market value of th^ lands to be determined, was as of 2r.3.2003 and

24.9.2003. Even pertaining to the: notification' dated.

17.6.2,005 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 Gpllector 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;: .' ; ' y . . .r • .11, . Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market value of the. lands by the Land Acquisition .Collector,,the, land Owners sought a ;reference under Section! i8\of. the iLand • Acquisition Act 1894 and, on the'reference'being made','vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challenge in.. the, 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 inotiflcationfdated :

25.,2.1997 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka.were , acquired,the ReferenceCourt adopted the same hotificatjohas was adopted, by. the Land AcquisitionCollector under vyhich.the .LA,APP.784/2005.&connected ; . •. , •Pageyof^Q' GQyernment of NCT Delhi had fixed th^ minimum value fo.rr agriculturalfands in Delhi i.e..1.4.1997,IdSt ;as againstthe Land; Acquisition Collector depressing the price, @ 11.5%,for .full, one year; adopting .the percentage

11.5,. ddcreased the value by , only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference .yvhereto Government had notified the minimum ydlue :was 1.4.199'7 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25.2.1997. This was the value-fixed fo,r category; A lands • and for category B lands; with reference, to the values for , , category A land depressed the^sahie by T90,000/-:per ache. • '13. .jfius, for category A lands, the ;Reference Court;; determined the fair.market value .(a) t9,89,288/- 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 .; 24.9.2ip03-,whereunder agricultural lands in ivillage MUnd.ka,:ahd . village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired,' the •.Reference . Court took, note of the fact that after the Government had notified the. minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of . 1..4.2001 the next revision was as of 30.8.20,05. Using theisaid dates and the minimum price nodfied by the Government of NCT ^ Delhi, the Reference Court adiopted the "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 a;nnum determined the, enhanced price as of

21.3.2003 as, also , 24.9.2003. .•Thereafter the Reference Cdurt took the value ; notified as of .30.8.2005 and .depressing the same by 10% per LA.APP,784/2005&connected , Page'8 of 19 arinum determinsd the sum, arrived at as of 21,'3-2003 as also ,

24.9.2003,; The two sums arrived at were adyerf and divided by twe to arrive at ^he mean figure as of 2,1.3.2003, which i note , comes to T15,92,083.33 per acrd (In some dedsiods 1, note the \ sum arrived, at is ^15>92,215/-). For,the date 24.9.20.03 the , , , price determined!:was'^20,41,OO0/-'peracre. ' ; •

15.- Pertaining, to' the . notification , datdd

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 WCT Delhi with effect fram 1.4;2001 and giving - increase '@10%. per annum determined the value, and. with fespect to the lands jn village Mundka, on account of locational ; advagl^ge, being abutting NH-l.O gave 5% .rrtof.e and detef-|nined the fair market;value as of 17.6.2005. in sum of ; .^21,37,017.75,per acre and for village.Bakk|rwafa-the ;• price deterrnined Was ^26,35,25.5/-per acre, r

¶16In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in whicfri i have penned profiled, the reaso;nii|g; of.' the ^Land . .Acqul^S^ion.Collector as also that of the Reference' Court, ! delve - into th,e arguments advanced before me during hearing todiay. .

¶17'.. . With reference, to the. evidence led. in LAC , N0.384/2004 lamna. Vs. UP! & Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai,, • learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.No;784/2005; which ' • . argurnent wds 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-l whereunder 1';bigha lA.'A'PP.7;84/2005& connected ; . ., Page'9 of l,9-h;-f T"- • ! pind 3 biswa otagricultuFal landinwas sgfi-^asof , ; 5.8.199^ for a: sale CO,nsideratidnopf^4,75,000/-.; ^38,009:/^was . : incurFedtowaFdssale duty:and, thu^s, the price of the land wpuld ' " be ?5A3,000/-and calculated with-reference thereto, lanict price per bipha would come to ^4,46,000/-as of 5v8.i996., Learned i cdunself would urge that there, is no reason not tp hol^ that.fair ;• • . 1. market' value of agricultural lands dn village Mandl^^; Was ^4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5'.8.r996. .Taking the argument : forward, it ,is urged that with reference to the, said: price; fair - market value needs tp be defprmined as; of 25-.^A993, I 21.3;2003'and:i7.6.2005,i.e. the dates when notificationsftinder ' Section 4 of the Land Acquisition' Act were issued: pursuant , . f ,, whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by ; ' increasing the price progressively, if not by 12% per annunl at ' least ,by 10% per annum. It is urged'that on the same. baSis, land pri'ce-should -be determined;for the.- agriculturalJahds in / i vklage Bakkarwala. Alternatively,' it wjas /urged that/since: ;• . f viliagesyTikri Kalan, Mundka and;,:Bakkafwaiaere contiguous ; villages; and ;in fact village TikriA<alan is further Towards/the k township of Rohtak, some increase be.made in the value.ofthe i fand .in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with; reference tp the I judgment and:,decree/dated :19:i2.2008 deciding, a-batch of : Land: Acquisition -'Appeajs, .leady matter being: LA /Appeak •J. No.193/2006 PraiaD Sinah fDeceased).Thr. LRs'^ Iksi <7(9/ aS'per i : which fair market value' of land/per bigha, was determined in. the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16.11.1995, : 11.6.1996 and 17,12.2002 at ^2,15,164/-/forc|tegory A land /•: LA.AP.p:7:84/2005&connected •/ : ' / y: PagelOof-lS ind^ ^1,73,500/-for category B latndr^2,35,850for ;cafegt)ryA; land and n,90,150/-, for category B , land;, i,^4,0f,850/- for category A land and f3,24,850/- for category B land, respectively. ,

18.: I may note here that in various land adquisition references', various parties have proved a number of sale deeds . ; executed frorh time to time, but during arguments today before, mei learned counseTfor the land, .owners have only relied upon . the sale deed Ex.P-l: ;

¶19• • ' .per contra, Sh.SanjayPdddar learned counsel for the , UO.l, would : urge. that ,the sale price .es per Ex.P-1 cannot be . r adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a. represehtative. sample of the, .whole, the sample must jbear some adequate, proportionto :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 rriethbd to pick. pnTy one grain,.for if it happens to be the' gram. of .rice:, one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is :100% full•'of,rice and if that ope grain happens to be a,,piece of stone, ohe;would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stpnes. At least a , fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative p sample,, is-the example given. The second' reason on which learned counsel would attack the sale: deed as not'being' representative of the price is the, reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as defore acquisitions, are made,...land in the area: is. su.rveyed.; vyithout a survey it, .would be difficult to issue even the notification ender Section 4 LA.APP.784/2605'&connected. . ' . . , Page 11 D.f19 , • ;•!! • the land Acquisition Act. learned eounsel: weujdccon^de Ithat the reasons given by the learned Reference iCo.urt are not ;Sound, ,but would urge'that the two contentions; advanced by ^liim should be considered by tbis lourt as the reasons as to;why Ex.P-libe not taken as the basis to determined the fair'market, value of dands •in village Mundka ond Ba-kkerwala. Thirdly, : , learned counsel would-further urge that the four sale .deeds .lx.;R-i;; to R-4 referred lo in the •decision oh the learned. • Reference Codrt perta to saje deeds dated

6.T.19R5:,.

30.5.1997,

4.6.1997 and 8.9.19,97 relied upon by UOI would show, the; actual market value pf>.the land and (thus learned counsel would urge thdt the .said four sale deejds, should be considered, but hastens toRadd, thatoince valuer reflected therein is less-than the minimum price 'botifie,d by ' the CBdverpment,the price fixation shduid be with reference, to .the nfj.nimum'price notified by the Government which,us nearest to, -the'point of time when the respective nptificationa.werejssued • uhder Section 4of the Land Acquisition Act.,! r 2b. An .Jndependent and alternative! argument js also advanced by learned counsel for the Union. The same rests itself on a decision of a,Division Bench of this Couft reported as 2006 (1351 DLT 231 /a/5//7a/7l/s. UOI. ' / ; O ^ ; ,21. The decision in laiSingh's case (sgpra) concernSv itself -wjth the determination of the fair market value of land in.viilage ..fiakkarwala which were ..acquired pursuant td a notification /dated

15.10.1993 at Tl,32,000/- per bigha, Learned counsel would urge that the said decision .has attained finality inasmuch , lA.APP.784/2005&connected; A: ( lage12 ofWy1 •j-t. .'I as Petitionst^r SpecialLeave to Appeal fiied beifotetheiSUpreme Co.urt by either side have been, dismissed; iLearped counsel . / takes^^eargumentforward by urging that by.adoptipg,the fair?. • ' market value of land in village Bakkarwalaas of l5.10,1993 at ' ^1,32,000/-. per bigha, the fair market value should be . ascertained by increasing the pfice,proji^ressiyelyby 1,0% P^l !; annum to determine the market .va|iU.f'. of: land in village ^^ Bakkarwalaas of.24.9.2'0:03as also ly.e^gQOS.'Learned counsel • would urge that in vieW-of the locational advantage of; village ; Mundka, fair marketvalue of land in viltp,e Mundk^,-shouldpe . determined as of 25.2.1997, 21.3.2003'anp

17.6.2005, by,giving , ' ,5% increase.: ' . ; ' . V

¶22With respect to the,sale deed Ex.P;-l,::where.under1 • bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in. Village ^' Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importance ,that the, saie 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'Seption 4 of the Land Acquisition;Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to .what' lands, comprised jn whiph. khasra-numbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposed : acquisitionand when this happens people in the area come to .; Ar know that Very soon there is every likelihood that the. lands' ; . ' .would-be acquired. In Delhi,-the large scale acquisition policy ,, enjoins upon the GOvernmeritto allot, at pre determined rates, a •, plot of developed residential land to: the ones, whose iands are • LA.APP.784/2005'&connected^-.. Page 13 of19 - . :acquired is;not uncommon,forj^dQr^stopurGhasB^ small parceimoflarids in areas-whereaccjffitionsare 'take place; tb,ese transactions'arm specul^ativemnd. cannot be • ttkkento be a riepresentativemeasure,of the^fairmarketyaj^e of ria;nd:ason the date of the sale, further,the pilndples'of ration 'and proportion as also the principles of averages anm.:the• • principles of. sampling tell me that to be representativebf the , whole, a sample must bear dt intelligible proportion;to: the whole. Thus, not forthe reasoning advancedmy the; learned ; ReferenceCourt, but for the twin reasoninghitherto-forenoted,1 hold that Ex.P-l cannot be good evidence wherefrom market •value of the-land could be determined.There lisVan additional , reason not to rely upon the said sale deed. The sale deeds Ex.R- .1 to Ex:R-4,'dated6.1.1995/30.5.1997,m.6.1997and 8.9.1997. Z; are,also pertaining to Village Mundka and.reflect:a saieprice ;much lower than the male priceyecordedunEx.P-1: In Tact, the salelpricein.The. said 4 sale deeds averages much less, than even the minimum price'foragriculturalland in ;Deihi notified by • hthe Government. , , = •••.I,

¶23Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be requiredto be fixed eitherwith referenceTothe decisionof this ; '-.rnMrt:in/^^/S/hoh'scasejsupra)or PratapSinWs c^se (sgpra). . T:24. , ^highlightthatiboth'decisions,penned by the Division. . Bench of this Court have been upheld by the SupremeCourt.. 25_ The Hpri':;inn'In 7,9/' Singh'scase (sUpra) determined, fail market value mf land in Village Bakkar^ala'in sum of tl,32,000/-per bigha as of 15.10.1993,and th'|perusalthereof ,

¶4j' • '1 . Page 14.of 19 . LA.APP.784/2005&connected • r would show that the Court assessed thO fair market, value with: reference to ,sale deeds executed between-the ye^rs 1990 till the. year 1996 either in. Village;,Tikri. Kal.an on Village Mundka;. apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, safe price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in yinage Bakkafwala:

¶26In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division. Bencfi was. concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Xalan and another adjoining Village' named Ghevra and pertaining.to various • notifications issued under Section.4 of the Land Acquisition Act; determined the.fair market value of agricultural lands in.Village Tikri-Kalan and Ghevra as under:- S.NO.. , Date;' Villag'e Price per 3igha 1,.

24.07.1995^ &

16.11.1995^ Tikri Kalarl ?2,15,160./-for Block A & ?1,73,500/- for Block B land

2.

11.06.1996 Tikri Kalan & Ghevra ; ^2,3.5,8157-for Block A. & ?1,90,156/- for Block B land,

3.

17.12.2002 , Tikri. kalan ?4,0,2,850/- for Bipck A'& ?3;24,850/- fbr Block B land. .. . .

27.: Following'the iudament in Pratap Singh's case (supra) . ,1 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:784/2b05&connected .Pagel5 of.l9 AcquiSitfonAppeal.No.4S9y200?,ChMmsJv': ofindj^,. on 25-.20n.I:tiavedeterminedthe fair marketvaloeof the , rWs in Village Ghfevra at W,03,425/-perbig of.6.2.200^ •on the issue of cofnparabiiityof land in villageBakkarwaiawith • iviilageMundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubttrue that,- Awhereas:village Bakkarwaia does not abut NH-10, as.do the •; •i other viiiages, but It has to be; highlighted that,it is ^more . ;•proximateto the urban areasof Delhi vis-a-vis,Ghevra an,d;Tikri , xalan and to that extent,qua said:2 viiiages,has an advantage. Since' exactness can never 'be achieved in the matters of -assessinlrfaircompensation,it IS the broad probabiiitigsand ; ' simiiaritilsWhich matter.; Thus, 1hoidAal) 4 villagesTo be • :: equivalent,unlessqua some iahd specialfeaturescan beshown,, ' 28 i 'Sinee the .decision in Pmtap. Singh case-(supra , deals with notificationsmore proximate,Inpoint of time,to the , notificationsWith which1am concerned,1am-;ofthe opinionthat :'it would;be just, fair and prppefTo det^mineThefair market IA value ofJandswith which'iam |oncerriedin;relat!ontoThe fair i marketvalue,of lands determinedin PratapSinqh'scase(supra). 'AS per the decisionmPratapSinqh'scase (supra) for the,date I 24.7,1995,for CategoryAlandsfair compensationassessedwas ' T2,15,1^0/-perbigha and n,73,500//per bigha Jorqategory_B ' t land. The first notification with which;1;aim concerned is •A25 21997 Whereunderlands in VillageMundka were acquired,:; I •The time span ,sweeps1year and 216;daxsiie.J%days.:,:im V: PratanSingh'sCase (supra); determined, ;.to, be iO°/o per .annum'(flat).Thus, pertaining'toCategory A ' ., ' • - s ,, , . ; . ' lA/APP.784/2005,&connected a , ' , ;. , ; .' • / • lands/ thfe fair, iTia,rket:;y.alu^assGSSGd is ?2,49,408.^75,psr biQha i.G. f11,^7,162/-pGr acrG andfor CatGgpry,Bland^ j||asSGSs'thG •fair ma.rk'Gt vaiiiG at ^2,01,117/-par bigha i-G. f9,6i^,^61.60per acrG. .

¶29• ' ThG HGxt notification with which 1 am G(|nCGi|nGd_/s. ,; dated2i:3.2003 p'GrtainLng to Villagg Mundka.In tfyiranjiLai's cas (Supra),with rafGCGncGto thG dGcisidn'in Pr^tap.Singh'sc-^se (supra), for agricultural.landsin VillagG Ghavra portainingto a notificationissued under SGCtion 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct ' on 6^2.2003,the fair market value assessed waa?4,03,425/- per bigha. This was unifPrmlyapplied. Since there,1sa time,gapof ® justalitde over Tmonth, Iam of the opinionthatpertainingtO ; the notification dated 21.3:20:03, fair market value of fand in- , Village Mundka should be ^4,03,425/-i.e.^l9,36,440/-p.eracre, which I hereby fix. t-30 i propose to deal with' the notifications,dated > , 3 24.9.2003, after dealing with the notification.dated 17".6;2005 ^ pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in. yillage : MuldkaiandVillage Bakkarwala. V • ^ AS noted hereinabove,;in ChiraniiLai's case '(supra), : pertainingtoithe'notificationdated 6:2.2003,fair market:,value lH ,•assessed by me was ^4,03,425/-per bigha and thus, increasing ' the same by 10% for;2 years and 131 days, the figure comes.to, ?4,98,589/-per bigha, which comes to ?23,93,227.20per acre.. The same. iS held by me to be the fair market value of .land in . VillageMundka and VillageBakk|ryvalaas of 17.6.2095.Idecree .the sanqe. • .. •. •T ' "PSEB 17 of'19 • LA.AP,P.784/2005-&connected'., , • ' • ' . . •• • ; 1 am left .with the inptification dated 2,4;9.2O03•• pertainingto Village Bakkarwaiaand with reference-to the fair market vaiue.assessedin Chiran£Lai's Iwould require to ... appreciatethe price by 10% perinnumforaperiodof 201 days, , ; the: figure comes,to:?4,.25,641/-per bigha i.e. 00,43,076.80per acre, which i determineto be the fair market value of land in VillageBakkarwaiaas of.24.9.2003.

¶33; /^ccor.dingiy,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-objectionsTiled . by.the land ownersstands decreed as under:- : :. .. •• • 1) For the land failing in Category A-land-in .Village Mundka the fair market value .is fixed , at is .. ' :. v.. O,49;408:75per bigha i.e. 1 11,97,162/-per.acreand - ' for CategoryBlands, the fair marketvalue is fixed at O,01,117A per bigha .i.e. 0,65,361.60 per .acre,"as on 25.02.1997. ji) . For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair, market value is fixed at .0,03,425/- per bigha i.e.., ?19,36.,440/-.per acre, as on 21.03.2003. iij). For the land situated in Village IVIundka the fair market value is fixed at 0,98,589/- per bighq. i.e. , v .03,93,227:20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005'. . .

iv)' For the land situated in Village Bakkarwa-ia'thefair . market value is .fixed, at 0,98,589/--per bigha i.e. • .' • WA.APP.784/2005&connected' .. Page18.of19 . • ^23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17^06.2005. ' \/J Forthe land'situated' in Village Bakkarwala lhe; fair^ ipistket value is fixed at ?4,25',641/- per bigha. i.e. •?20,43,076.80 per acre,' as oh 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: VOL for the compensation, paid originally and :as-enhanced by the ikeference Court and.finally 6,n the.sum enhanced •by the present judgment and decree. yii). .The appellants and crpss-objectors iwho s'ucGeed would also be entitled to proportionate.costSi

viii). All pending applications stand-disposed of in terrhsmf the prayers made therein. i. A piY 08, 2011 (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE } P if,,. ' 'LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' Page 19 of 19-

$-120 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.881/2010 & CM No.650/2011 (Cross Objections) / UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate versus MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.Sumer Sethi, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG