Union of India v. Smt Bala & Anr

ORDER %

08.07.2011 CM No.12366/2010 There is a delay in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned. Application is allowed. LA.APP.No. 694/2010 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, 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. : • • • . . . . . . . . ,.. ., . ;N THEHIGft COURT OF DELHI. T NEWDELH. . I t L ' : • ' : •. . . . . . . . ., fl ... P Date ofDcjsiQfl 8th J/y,2Ofl I VA + 784]200 5. ; r IAMNA AppeLlant Through Mr L B Ral, Advocate, OR . . . . ( Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, MrD:S.Lakra,AdVOCat, . Mr K Sunhl, Advocate, MrAriuj handafl,Advcat;e Mr Shadm Farashat, dvocate Versus c UO & ORS : Respondents Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, StandIng Counsel (LA), GNCTDelhI with • Ms Deepika, Mr Sain Nawanlpnd ch Mr Siddharth Panda Advocated Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika ja Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sharm, Ms Shobhna Takia q and Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA' AND + LAAPP 879/2005 LAAPP 880-88112005, LAAPP 121/2006, 43/2Ob7 (Relating to Notifictjofl •u1 4 dated. 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village undka) SAND + LAAPP 583/2009, LAAPP 603/2009, LAAPP 1 604/2009, LA APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009, 74/2010, LAA9P 78/20101 LA APP 784/2005 & connected : ...... ..; ., .. . .,': • • .., .... . : • •• I : • j LA APP 7912010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122)2010, LAPP 125/2010, LA APP 164/2010, LA APP 185/2010, LA APP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LA APP 238/2010, LA APP 239/010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP 245/2010, LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPP 25212010, LA APP 266/2010, LA APP 267/2010, L A. -AP4P 273/2010 1 LA APP 274/2010, LAAPP 2115/2010, LAAPP 312/2010, LA APP 32412010, LA APP 326/010, LAAPP 327/2010, LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP 331/20101 LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 333/2010 with CM APPL No; 55.24/2011, LA.APR. 335/2010 ; LA.APR 367/2010, .LAAPP.. 368/2010, LA APP 369/2010, LA APP 371/2010 & CM APPL No 20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, LA}rPP 379/2010, LA APP 423/2010, LA I2Q1 ,kAPP 461/2010, LA APP 472/2b10, LAAPP 694/2019A APP 69612010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011, LA APP 77öio, LA APP 698/2010 & CM APPL' 1734/2011, LAAPP • 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010, LAAPP 708/2010, LA.APP, 709/2010,. LA.APP. 710/2010 with M APPL. . No2568/2011, LAAPP. 7:13/2010 with CM APPL. c. 74.73/2OiO LA APP 715/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LAAFP 719)2010, LAAPP 766/2010, LA APP 796/2010, LA APP 797/2b10, LA APP 798/2010, LA APP 799/2010, LA APP 818/2b10, LAAPP 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, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2t0101 LAAPP 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LÀ APP 877/2010, LA APP 878/2010, LA APP 879/2010, LA APP 880/2010, LA APP 881/2010 & CM APPL.6505j2011,. LA.APP. 882/2.010, LA.APP. 883/2010, LA.APP.. S 884/2010, LA APP 886/2010, LA APP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/010, LAAPP 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA APP 894/2010 & CM No23353/2010, LAAPP 895/2010, LAAPR 896/2010, LAAPP 897/2010 & CM APPL 728/2011, LA APP 1 903/2010, LA APP LA APP 784/2005 & connected , • I I j . . I I I . I I I I 907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP '9392010, LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/20111 LAAPP 104012010 & CM APPL 5673/2011, LAAPP 1041/2010, LAAPP 1043/2010, LAAPP 1045/2010, LAAPP 104672010, 1LAAPP 1 1048/2010? LAAPP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050/2010. ,LAAPP 1056/2010, LAAPP 1060/2010 1 LAAPP 1061/2010, LAAPP 1071/2010, LA APP 125/2011, LA APP 12612011, LA APP 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No.3/2005-06,VilIa-Mufldka)' . . F . . . . AND 4- LA APP 600/2009, LA APP 605/2009, LA APP 615/20091' LAAPP: 310/2010, LA.APP..325/2010; LAAP. 376/01.0., LA.APP.. 383/2010, LAAPP 384/2010, LAAPP '385/2010, LAAPP 473/2010, LA.APP., 492/2010, LA.APP. 586/2010,, LAAPP:. 91I2010, LAPP. 638/2010, LA.APP 690/2010, .A o 92/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP 73/2010, LA APP 872/2010, LA APP 4 873/2010, LAAPP' 885/2010, LAAPP 887/2010, LAAP p891/2010, LAAPP 892/2010, LA APP 898/2010, LA APP Y06/2010 & CM APPL No 4443/20 10, 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, LAAPP 1022/2010, LAAPP 1023/2010, LAAPP 1044/2010, LA*APP 1ç51/2010, LAAPP 1053/2010, LAPP 1054/2010 CM APPL No5656/211, LA APP 1G5/2010, LAAPP 1057/2010, LAAPP 108/2010 LAAPP 1o59/2qlo, LAAPP 1068/2010, LAAPP 1069/2010, LAAPP 124/2011, LAAPP, 127/2011, LA APP 128/2011, LA APP 259/2011 LA APP 784/2005 & connected }Page 3 of If I ............... .......................... ....................................................................................... .4 . . . .. .,. .... ,.. . .....:

¶1. '1 .. . (Rlating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 % 2005 & Aw6r1 No 13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka) A1ND I + LA A P P 4012009 & Cross Objectioris, LA APP 42%612009 LAAPP 428/20091 442/2009, LAAPP 611/2009, LAAPP 616/2009, LA APP 278/2010 . . . (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24 09 2003 & Award No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND ç I + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM F'o548/2011, LAAPP 1030/2010, LA APP 1031/2010, LAAP 1033/2010 & CM No 6645/2011, LA APP 1062/2010, 163/2010 & CM No 6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP 1066/2010 % LAAPP' 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 ViHage-Bakkarwala) CORAM HON.1BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDAJOG

1 Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allow 4ed to see thejudgment 2 To be referred to Reporter or not 3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,.! (Oral) I am deciding the above captioned )appeals and relatable civil miscellaneous applications vhich are by way of cross objections all of which have been listed hereinabove LA APP 784/2005 & connected • ; ., I . . ... ..,.... . :4 .j .. . . . .

¶4. & I I j the price for one year, @ 11 5% per anhum 1hi price was adopted for category A lands For lands in cat'egory B, the value was further discounted by 90,000/- p e r atre Peftaininto the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the nQtification flx)ng the p-unimum price of agricultural land as of 14 200] and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference tohe fat that the fair market value of the lands to be determined was as of 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notif1cation dated 17 6 2005 which required fair market value of land to be determined in the revenue estate of viIlge Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17 62005, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in DelIi as of1 4 2001 and gave no increase Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market •; • alue of the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land dwners sought a reference under Sectidn 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and -,00 'l the reference bei ng made, vide various judgments and decrees, which are ç under challenge in the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court toQk corrective action, as per the view of the Rferende Court, and enhancedthefairmarketvalue

1.2.. In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated

25.2.

119.0 17 vide which agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired, the Reference Court adopted the same notification as was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LAAPP 784/2005 & connected age 7 of 19 I . .. . . . . - .. . .... . . . . 1- .. . • . .,. 'Government of NCT Delhi had fixed t!he minimum value for' agricultural lands in Delhi i e 1 4 1997 but as ag 4airt the Land I Acquisition Collctor depressing the price @ 11 5% for foil one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased, th value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with refeerce wheretà .1• , . .. .. . Government had notified the minimum val 1ue was 1 44,1997 nd the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisiton Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for, caegpry A lands and for category B lands; with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by Tsl q,00Oi-per acre

¶13Thus, ftr category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9189,288/- per acre and for categkry B land the same was determined @ 8,99,288/- per acre. .. .. . Pertaining to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 a n d 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in viflago Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively , were acqLiired, the Reference Court-took note of the fact that after the Goiernrnent had notified the minimum rates for agriculturai landsin 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 th Govenment of NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean average What the Reference Court did was to aqopt the v . alue as of 1 4 2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 a5 4 also

24.9.2003. Thereàfterl the Reférence Cburt - took the iaI-ue t . • 4, 1 • - notified as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per. LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 8 of A. i .,,. . • I I 1 t V - . •- . • - .4 . . - V • .4 . • . .V - -. V - ... ..• • . . . ., . - . .. V ... -. . . . . • . . . . ,. - . -,.- . . . V • .••.. .•..• j annum determined the sum arrived at as bf 21 3 2003 as aIso 24 9 2q03 The two sums arrived at wre added a n d di\ided by two toarriv at the meanfigure as of 21 3 2003, which I note comes to U5,92,083 33 per acre (In sdmedecisions I note th sum amved at is 15,92,215/-) For thedate 249 2003 the price determined was 20,4l,000/- per 15 Pertaining to the notificatior datd 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala nd Mundka the learned Reference court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCTDèlhi with effect from:14.2001 and givihg increase @10% per annum determined he: value and witF respect to the lands in village Mundka, on accbunt of locationaf advantage, being abutting NH-10 ga\e 5°/ more and determined the fair market value as of 17 & 20b in sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was Z 20,351255/- per acre 16 In the aforesaid backdrop of . ,the factul scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector, as also that of the Refrence Court, I delve into the agurnents advanced before me during hering tody. * * I 17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No.384/2004 lamna Vs. UOI& Ors., it was urged.by Sh:LB.Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, wiiich a'rgument was adopted by other learne1 counsel ho appeared for the f other appellants, that t h e lerred I TrialJdge was n o tf justified ir ignoring the sale deed Ex P4 yvhereunder 1 bigha S ...' . •. .. . : •.•: : •: nd 3 biswa of agriultu'ral land in villa9p ¶1iridka s sold as of

¶518. 1996 for a sare consideration of 4,7,O0O/- 38,QO0/- was incurre1 towards sale duty and thus the iç of the land would be 5,13,00/- and alculated with refeetce thereto, land price per bgha would come to 4,46,000I-a f 5 8196 Learned N counsel would urge that there is no reaso not to hold that fair j market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 6 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to be determined 1as of} 25 2 1993, 21 3 2003 and 17.6.2005, i e the dates when notifithtions under Sction 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issud pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired Jn iilIageMundka, by increasing the price progressively, if not by per annum at lest by 10% per annum It is urged that on the jsame basis, 1 land price should be determined for the aricultLiraI land in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since ' I villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka 1 and Bakkarwala are1 contiguous , J viIlags, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is firther towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be made?ln the fralue 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 Prata,o Singh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs1 LiOl as per wiich fair market value of land per bigha, was determined Ifl the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan 4as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at Z 415,164/- for cateory. A land LA APP 784/2005 & connected r I I nd 1,73 1500!- for category B land, Z2,35,85O for ctegory A category B nd, 4;O2M5OI- for land and 1,90,150/- for la category A land and 3,24,850/- for 1category B land, respectively.

18 I may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a nLmber f sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before A.

. me, learned counsel for the land owners haie only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i 19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-ti cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a rpresentative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate, W . rroro;rtionto the whole.. Fbrexarnple, learned counsel would: • . : urge that if it has to be determined whetheriwhat percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be asafe method tc pick only one grain, for if it happens to b e thegrain of rice oh'é wóiiild'lead to the conclusion thatthe ba6 is100% 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 rpresentative sample, is t h e example given The secorki 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 . kiow , about pending acquisition inasmuch Ei S. b efo re acquisit1ons are made, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey it would, be. difficult to issue evn the notificátion.un.der Section. 4 • LAAPP.784/2005 & connected. • ,. • • • • • • H • I - .. .f•: .i- ; - ... . - ---• •-- - .. .. • • . . - . . .. ... '.., ,. .: • -Ic I . • - I- - . . - . -. - •.- . - - - . . . • .4 • . .• • 4 • . . . •:: . - - 1 • r . . . . . 1 •• . .. . . .. . . Of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel woulbii!cede that the reasons given by the learned Refereçice Court rnre not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by himshould be considered by this Courlas the easons as'to why EX -1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market ' 'alue of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex R-1 to R-4 referred to in the decic,ion of th ee learned !efcrence Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 611995 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 a n d 8 9 1997 relied upbn by Uoi would show the actual market value of the land and thus tarned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds 1shld be considered, but hastens to add, Jhat since value rtected therein is less than the minimum price 4 notified 4y the G9vrnment, the price fixtion should be with reference the minimum price notified by the Government which is neatest to the point of time when the respective notifictions were tssued

¶4under Section, 4 of the Land Acquisitiop Act An independent and alternative a'rgument also advanced by learned counsel for the Union The sm$ rests itself on a dcision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 006(135)DLT231JjSinghV5 110/ The decision in /a! Sinc,th's case (supa) conerns itself yvith the determination of the fair market va)ueof land in village Bakçarwala which were acquired pursuant to a notification 4 dated 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000/- per bigha' Learned counsel 'vould urge that the said decision has attained finality inamuch LA APP 784/2005 & connected Pae 12 o19 I I _ ..._:._ or eme as Petitions f Special Leave to Appeal iled befor te Supr Court by, either side have been dismissed Lerned couns& takes the argument forward by urging tha by adopting the fair hiarket 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 progressivel' bY 10% per annum to deter'mine ithe market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned cpunsel would urge that in view of the locational 'advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in villae Mundka 8hould. be

determined as of 25 2 1997, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2p05, by giving • . .5% increase. '. . . With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder big and 3 biswa of agricultural land sbld in Village ha 1undka s of 5 3 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 i a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with The object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers and fields are required to be notified for the proposed acquisition and when this happens people ) in the area come to know that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands wouldbe acquired In Delhi, the large scale accuisition 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 • a I • • - . - 7 • . • • -. . . •. • -• .... • .-t I - • I'

L $-81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.694/2010 UOI Appellant Through: Ms. Deepika, Advocate versus SMT.BALA & ANR. Respondents Through: None CORAM: lie HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG