Mange Ram v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

30.09.2011 CM 18367/2011 (for condonation of delavl This application is filed by the appellant praying inter alia for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the accompanying appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, particularly paras and 4 thereof, the same is allowed. The delay of 5 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. LA.APP. 651/2011

¶1By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment dated

31.05.2011 passed by the Reference Court in LAC LA.APR. 651/2011 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. No.79/10 arising out of Award No.l3/DC(W)/2006-07 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated

17.06.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short ^the Act').

¶2Counsel for appellant submits that present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APP.784/2005 entitled Jamna vs. UOI & Ors. decided as recently as on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly draws attention of this Court to operative paras and of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:- "31. As noted hereinabove, in Chiranii Lai's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.2.2003, fair market value assessed by me was ?4,03,425/- per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for years and days, figure comes to ?4,98,589/- per bigha, which comes to ?23,93,227.20 per acre. The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17.6.2005. I decree the same. XXX XXX XXX

¶33Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and 1 hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:-

i) XXX LA.APP. 651/2011

ii) XXX

iii) For the land situated in village Mundka the fair nnarket value is fixed at ?4,98,589/- per bigha, i.e. ?23,93,227.20 per acre, as on 17.06.2005.

iv) XXX V) XXX

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 569 Sunder vs. UOI. for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree." ( >

¶3It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that appellant is also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters.

¶4Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of Jamna Tsupral. the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant as granted to the appellants of village Mundka, covered by notification dated 17.06.2005 in the LA.APP.784/2005. HIMA KOHLI,J SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 rkb LA.APR. 651/2011 ' * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 8^^ fuiv. 2011 + LA.APP. 784/2005 JAM'NA ... AppeHarit Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate,' Mr.l.S.Dahiya, Advocate, Mr.D.S/Lakra, Advocate, Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate, ; : / ' ' " Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate. / . ; Mr.Shadam Farashat, Advocate, Versus • ^ UOi & ORS \ ... Respondents" Through: MrSanjay Poddar, Standina • Counser.(LA),GNGT Delhi with Ms.Deepika/Mr.Sachin^Navvaniand Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocate's Mr/^ay Verma,' MsvKanika ; Agnihotri., |V]r.Kunal Sharnf^a,:• M.r.SumerSethi, Mr.B.B.Sharrna, • Ms.Shobhna Ta.kiar and ^4^.Ar.cm Birbal, Advocates for DDA • and' , . ' ., ^ • -!- LA.APP. 879/2005^ . 1:A.APP. SSO^Sai/ZaOS, LA.APP. 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification-iii/s :4 dated

25.02.1997&Award.No.2/1999--20Q0>i![ageMundka) v ; AND • \ • •+ LA.APP. 583/2009, LA.APP.. 603/20D9, :lJ\;APP;.®4/2009, LA.APP. 606/2009, LA.APP. 610/2009^74/2010, LA.APP.78/2010, . ' ' • Page.rof3,9 li '1/ •' Sc-r LA.APP. 79/2010, LA.APP. 121/2010, LA.APP. 122/2010, LAIAPP. 125/2010, LA.APP. 164/2010, LA.APP. 185/2010, LAiAPP. LA. APP. 200/2010, LA.APP. 238/2010, LA.APP. 243/2010, LA.APP. 244/2010, LA.APP. 247/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 274/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP, 324/2010, L.A. APP. LA.APP. 329/2010, LA.APP. 331/2010, LA.APP. 332/2010, LA.APP. 333/2010 with CM APPL No. 5524/2011, LA.APP. 335/2010, LA.APP. 367/2010, LA.APP. 368/2010, LA.APP. 369/2010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & CM APPL No.20099/2010, LA.APP. 374/2010,, LA.APP. 375/2010, LA.APP. 377/2010, LA.APP. 379/2010, LA.APP. 423/2010, LA-APP. 452/2010, LA.APP. 461/2010, LA.APP. 472/2010, LA.APP. 694/2010, LA.APP. 696/2010 & CM APPL. No. 634Q/2011, LA.APP. 697/2010, LA.APP, 698/2010 & CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA.APP.

70.6/2,Q10^& CM APPL. 17215/^010, LA.APP. 707/2010, LA.APP. 708/2010, LA.APP. 709/2010, LA.APP. 710/2010 with CM APPL. No.2568/2011, LA.APP. 713/2010 with CM APPL. NO.7473/201Q, LA.APP. 715/2010, LA.APP. 717/2010, LA.APP. 719/2010, LA.APP. 766/2010, LA.APP. 796/2010, LA.APP. 797/2010, LA.APP. 798/2010, LA.APP. 799/2010, LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.APP. 819/2010, LA.APP. 829/201O, LA.APP. 831/2010 & CM APPL. 955/2011, LA.APP. 832/2010, LA.APP. 833/2010 & CM APPL 6392/2011, LA.APP. .834/2010, LA.APP. 842/2010, LA.APP. 871/2010, LA.APP. 874/2010, LA.APP. 875/2010, LA.APP. 876/2010, LA.APP. 877/2010, LA.APP. 878/2010, LA.APP. 879/2010, LA.APP. 880/2010, LA.APP. 881/2010 & CM APPL.6505/2011,LA.APP. 882/2010, U.AFJP. 883/2010, LA.APP. 884/2010, LA.APP. 886/2010, LA^^m' -^^0® 889/2010 & CM APPL.2249/20il, LA.APP. 890/2010, LA.APP. 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA.APP. 894/26l0 & CM No.23353/2010, LA.APP.,"895/2010, LA.APP. 896/2010, LA.APP. 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LA.APP. 903/2010, U.APP. Page2of19 186/2010, 239/2010, 245/2010, ' 252/2010, 273/2010, 312/2010, 327/2010, 251/2010, 267/2010, 275/2010, 326/2010, 330/2010, I_A.APP. U.APP. LA.APP. LA-APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 907/2010, LA.APP. 938/2010, LA.APP. 939/2010, LA.APP. 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011. LA.APP. 1040/2010 & CM APPL. 5673/2011, LA.APP. 1041/2010, LA.APP. 1043/2010, LA.APP. 1045/2010, LA.APP. 1046/2010, LA.APP. 1048/2010, LA.APP. 1049/2010, LA.APP. 1050/2010. LA.APP. 1056/2010, LA.APP. 1060/2010, LA.APP. 1061/2010, LA.APP. 1071/2010, LA.APP. 125/2011, LA.APP. 126/2011, LA.APP. 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21.03.2003 & Award No.3/2005-06, Village-Mundi<a) AND ' + LA APP. 600/2009, LA.APP. 605/2009, LA.APP. 615/2009, LA.APP. 310/2010, LA.APP. 325/2010, LAAPP. 376/2Q10,LA.APP. 383/2010, 473/2010, 591/2010, 692/2010, 763/2010, 885/2010, 892/2010, (Relating to Notification u/s 4 No.1/2005-06, Viliage-Mundka) LA.APP. 384/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 638/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 711/2010, LAAPP. LA.APP. 872/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. 887/2010, LA.APP. LA APP. 898/2010, LA.APP. 906/2010 & CM APPL. No.4443/2010, LA.APP. 937/2010 CM APPL 23299/2010, LA.APP. 1042/2010, LA.APP. 1047/2010

38.5/2010, 586/2010, 690/2010, 716/2010, 873/2010, 891/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. dated

21.03^2003 & Award . AND LA.APP. 1003/2010, LA.APP. 1Q17/2Q10, LA.APP. 1019/2010, LA.APP. 1022/2010, LA.APP. 1023/2010, LA.APP. 1044/2010, LA.APP. 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010, LA.APP. 1054/2010 & CM APPL. No.5656/2011, LA. APP. 1055/2010. LAAPP. 1057/2010, LA.APP. 1058/2010, LAAPP. 1059/2010. LA.APP. 1068/2010, LA.APP. 1O69/2O10, LA.APP. 124/2011, LA.APP. 127/2011, LA.APP. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2011 . Page3of19 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

17.06.2005, & Award No.13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka) AND + LA.APP. 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA.APP. 426/2009, LA.APP. 428/2009, 442/2009, LA.APP. 611/2009, LA.APP. 616/2009, LA.APP. 278/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s dated

24.09.2003 & Award No.3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) B. AND + LA.APP. 1029/2010 & GM No.5948/2011, LA.APP. ^1030/2010, LA.APP. 1031/2010, LA.APP, 1033/2010 & CM IMo.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 dated

17.06.2005 & Award No.1/2006-07, VillageTBakkarwala) 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?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP IMANDRAIOG. I. (Oral) !

¶1I am deciding above captioped 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 present decision concerns issue of fixation of fair marketvalue of land in the revenueestate of VillageBakkarwala and village Mundka.

¶3The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphicallynoted as under:- S40. Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4 of the La Art

¶1Bakkarwala

24.9.2003

¶2Bakkarwala

17.6.2005

¶3Mundka ' ^25.2.1997

¶4Mundka

21.3.2003

¶5Mundka 17:6.2005 may be highlighted that the notification at serial No.2 hereinabove, pertainingto village Bakkarwala,is the same 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 pf Delhi to the townshippf Rohtakin the State.ofHaryana,are villagesMundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan. Village Bakkarwala lies towards the ,# other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka. The differencebetween the topologyof the two villagesis; whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-IO, that of village Bakkarwala does not so abut; being on the other side of the Southern boundaryof reyenue estate of villageMundka.

¶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. ' _

¶7Agricultural lands in village Mundka weres acquired Page5of39 • . . ' r' . .. , i pursuant to a notification dated 25.2.1997 issued ynder Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 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 AcquisitionAct as per award No.3/2005-06 as also award No.1/2005-06. Further lancis in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17.6.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No.1372006-07.

¶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.

¶10For clarity I may note that pertaining to notification dated

25.2.1997 under which agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market value with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from 1.4.1997 @ ^10 lacs per acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of tijne> discounted Page6of19 § price for one year

(g) 11.5% per annum. This price was adopted for category A lands. For lands in category B, the value was further discounted by ?90,000/- per acre. Pertaining to the notifications dated

21.3.2003 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 Mundka as of 17.6.2005, the Land 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 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 vievvf of the Reference Court, and enhanced the fair market value.

¶12In a nut shell, pertaining to the notification dated

25.2.1997 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 ; • ..'W/ --/t';; Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agriculturallands in Delhi i.e. 1.4.1997,but as againstthe Land AcquisitionCollectordepressingthe price @11.5% for full one year; adopting the percentage 11.5, decreased the value lay only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Governmenthad notifiedthe minimum value was 1.4.1997and the notificationunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct was dated 25.2.1997. This was the value fixed for categoryAlands and for category B lands; with reference to the values for categoryAland depressedthe same by ?90,000/-peracre.

¶13Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determinedthe fair marketvalue @^9,89,288/-per acre and for category Bland the same was determined (a) ?8,99,288/-per acre. ' '

¶14Pertaining to the notificationsdated 21.3.2003 and

24.9.2003whereunderagriculturallands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwaia respectivelywere 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

1.4.2001the next revision was as of 30.8.2005. Using.thesaid dates and the minimum price notifiedby the Governmentof NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean average. What the ReferenceCourt did was to adopt the value as of 1.4.2001 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21.3.2003 as also

24.9.2003. Thereafter the Reference Court took the value notified as of 30.8.2005and depressingthe same by 10% per Page8of19 annum determined the sum arrived at as of 21.3.2003 as also

24.9.2003. The two sums arrived at were added and divided by two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21.3.2003, which I note comes to ^15,92,083.33 per acre (in some decisions I note the sum arrived at is ns,92,215/-)., For the date. 24.9,2003 the price determined was ?20,41,000/-per acre.

¶15Pertaining to notification dated

17.6.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural Iannis were acquired in village Bakkarwala and i^iundka 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 vajue. 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.

¶16In the aforesaid backdrop of the factua! scenario in which 1 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.384/2004lamna Vs. UO! &Ors.. it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.Mo.784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned couhse! wh© appeared for the other appellants,, that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex.P-l whereunder 1 bigha '! i ^ • i and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village |Vjundl<awas sold as of

5.8.1996 for a sale consideratipn of 75,000/-; ?38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be ?5,13,000/- and calculated with reference thereto, land price per bigha would come to ?4,46,000/- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel would urge that there is 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 Kaian, 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 PraiaD Sinah {Deceased) Thr: LRs Vs. VOl as per which fair market value of lanci, per bigha, v*/as 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 Page10of19 •< .. . f'. i • t 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 pnd ?3,24.850/- for category B land, respectively.

¶18I may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a nunnber of sale deeds executed fronn 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 whole, the saniple must bear some adequate proportion to the whole. For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one wpuld 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 pn 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 . Page11 of19 'iv. of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two contentions advanced by him should be consideredby this Courtas the reasons as to why Ex.P-1 be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala. Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the fo,ur sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-4 referred ^to Jn decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated

6.1.1995,

30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and 8.9.1997 relied upon by UOI would show actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected therein is less than minimum price notified by Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶20An independent and alternative argument is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union. The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 laiSinah 1/5. UOI.

¶21The decision in laiSingh'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 dated

15.10.1993 at ?1,32,000/- per bigha. Learnecl counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finallt-yinasmuch Page12 of19. » [/' as Petitionsfor SpecialLeave to Appealfiled beforethe Supreme Court 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. Learnedcounsel would urge that in view of the locationaladvantageof village Mundka, fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determinedas of 25.2.1997.21.3.2003and 17.6.2005,by giving 5% increase.

¶22With respect to the sale deied Ex.P-1, whereunder1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5.8.1996, it would assume importancethat the sale is about7monthspriorto the date of the notificationissued underSection4 of the 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 wbi.Gh khasra numbers and fields are requiredto be notifiedfor 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 acquisitionpolicy enjoinsupon the Governmentto allot,at pre determinedrates,a plot of developed residentialland to the ones whose lands are , . /i . , P^gelSoflS 'VCf ... jj, , "i" • V?1L .- . — -» acquiredand thus, it is not uncommon,for personsto purctiase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitionsare likely to take place: these transactionsare speculativeand cannot be takento be a representativemeasureof the fairmarketvalue of 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 intelligible proportion to tlie whole. Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned ReferenceCourt, butfor 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 saledeed.The saledeeds Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4,'dated 6.1.1995,30.5.1997,4.6.1997and 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 notifiedby the Government.

¶23Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be requiredto be fixed eitherwith referenceto the decisionof this ... Courtin /aiSingh'scase(supra)or£ra£a£4Sjs6icase(supra). Oi

¶24Ihighlightthat bothdecisions,pennedby the Division Bench of this Courthave been upheld by the SupremeCourt.

¶25The decision in/sL«22fii.«se(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 ^ . Page14 of 19 would show that the Court assessed the fair mari<et value with reference to sale deeds executed between the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Ka|an 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), Pivision Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan 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 agriculturai lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:- jS.NO. , Date Village Price per Big ha

¶1!

24.07.1995 &

16.11.1995 Tikri Kalan 15,160/-for Block A & n,73,5G0/- for Block B land

2.

11.06.1995 Tikri Kalan & Ghevra , ^2.35;8l5K for Block A & n,90,156/- for Block B land

¶3L ^ _j

17.12.2002 Tikri, Kalan ?4,02,850/- for Block A & ?3,24,850/- for Block B land

¶27Following the judgment in Pratao Sinoh'sC'Sise (supra) i have decided the fair market value for the land situated in revenue estate of Village Ghevra, which was acquired pursuant to notification dated 6.2.2G03 in the batch of appeals being iand LA.APP.784/2005 & connected , : , VA AcquisitionAppeal No.489/2009,rhiranfiLa/ vs..UnionofIndia& fijTn on 2.6.2011.1have determinedthe fair marl<etvalue ofthe lands in Village Ghevra at ^4,03,425/-per bigha as of 6.2.2003. On the issue of comparabilityof land in villageBakkarwalawith villageMundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village Bakkarwala does not abut NH-10, as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximateto the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-visGhevra and Tikri 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 probabilitiesand similarities which matter. Thus, 1hold all 4 villages to be . equivalent,unlessqua somelandspecialfeaturescan Be shown. Since the decision in Pratap Sihqti'scase•(supra), deals with notificationsmore proximatein point of time to the notificationswith which Iam concerned,Iam of the Opinionthat it would be just, fair and properto determinethe fair market value of lands with which Iam concernedin relationto the fair marketvalueof landsdeterminedin case(supra). As per the decision case (supra) for the date ) 24 7.1995,for CategoryAlandsfair compensationassessedwas ?2,15,160/-per bigha and n,73,500/-per bigha for CategoryB land The first notification with which I am concerned is 25 21997 whereunderlands in Village Mundka wece acquired. The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 cfe^5.ae.^days.in ftgtefiSffiMicase(supra) thp annuaiinaeasewas determined to be 10% per annum (flat). Thus, pertaining"to Category A Page16 of 19 LA.APP.784/2005&connecte(j lands,the fair marketvalue assessedis ^2,49,408.75per bigha i.e. ni,97,162/-per acre and for CategoryBlands,Iassessthe fair market value at ?2,01,117/-per bigha i.e. ?9,65,361.60per acre.

¶29The next notificationwitli which I am concerned_A| rlatpd2i.5.2003 pertainingto Village Mundka. In ChUMUiJSLi cas (supra),with referenceto the decisionin pratapSingh'scase (supra), for agriculturallands in Village Ghevra pertainingto a notificationissued under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct: on 6.2.2003,the fair marketvalueassessedwas ?4,03,425/-per bigha.This was uniformlyapplied.Since there is atime gap of justalittle over1month, Iam of the opinionthat pertainingto the notification-dated 21.3.2003,fair market value of land it? Village Mundka should be ?4,03,425/-i.e. n9,36,440/-_p.eracre, which Iherebyfix. ,

¶30I propose to deal with the notification dated

24.9.2003,after dealingwith the notificationdated 17.5.2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired In .Village Mundlo and VillageBakkarwala. As noted hereinabove.in ChmuLL^rss^se(supra), pertainingto the notificationdated 6.2.2003,fair marketvalue assessedby me was t4,03,425/-per bigha and thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2yearsand 131 days,the figurecomesto ?4 98 589/- per bigha, which comes to ?23,93,227.20per acre. The same is held by me to^be the fair marketvalue of land in VillageMundkaand VillageBakkarwalaas of l/.6.200b,Idecree the same. • Page17 of 19 . •f-. • "• t,'. i' • ' r • - V

¶32I am left with notification dated

24.9.2003 pertaining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair market value assessed in Chiranii Lai's case. I would require to appreciate the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 days, the figure comes to ^4,25,641/- per bigha i.e. ?20,43,076.80 per acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala as of 24.9.2003.

¶33Accordingly., .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-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as unden-

i) For the land falling in Category A land in Village Mundka fair market value is fixed at is ^2,49,408.75 per bigha i.e. ? 11,97,162/- per a'cre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at ^2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. ^9,65,361.60 per acre, as on 25.02.1997.

ii). For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at ?4,03,425/- per bigha i.e. ^9,36,440/- 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 f4,98,589/--per bigha i.e. Page18of19 ?23,93,227,20 peracre, as on 17/06.2005," • •vj For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at ?4,25,641/- per: bigha i.e. f20,43,076.80 per acre', as on 24.d9;2003. • - •

vi); Appellants and cross-objectors who have..suGce^ would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute .and ,as clarified, in. the decision, reported as 93(2001) DLT Sunder vs. UOJ. for . compensation, paid originally and as .enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum. enhahGed. ,by the present judgment and decree.

vii) The appellants, and cross-objectors v\iho .succeed would'also .be entitled to, proportionate costs.

viii) All pending applicationsstand dispos.edofln.terms of, the prayers made therein. . .. ~ ,, 2011 lA.APP.784/2005 & connected (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 1-0 of 19 •,V

>) 22. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 651/2011 MANGE kAM Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Vats, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for respondent No. 1/UOI Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI