Pehlad v. Union of India & Ors

ORDER %

20.03.2012 CM No.5123/2012(Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of CM No.5121/2012 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act for delay in refiling) Upon notice, learned counsel for the respondents state that for the period of delay, the interest be denied to the applicant/appellant. For the reasons stated in paragraph no. 2 of the application, which is accompanied by affidavit of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the delay of 95 days in re-filing the accompanied appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of subject to denial of interest for the period of delay. LA.APP.74/2012 page 1of2 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. CM No. 5122/2012 (Condonation of delay in filing the appeal) The reason put forth for delay of 6 days in filing the accompanying appeal, is the illness of learned counsel for the appellant who has filed affidavit in support of this application. Upon notice, learned counsel for the respondents state that for the period of delay, the interest be denied to the applicant/appellant. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned subject to denial of interest for the period of delay. LA.APP. 74/2012 ^ Learned counsel for the appellant states that in LA APP No. 784/2005 titled as 'Jamna Vs. Union ofIndia; rendered on 8th July, 2011 , for the land situated in Village Bakkarwala, the fair market value is assessed at ?4,98,589/-per bighai.e. X23,93,227.20per acre as on 17"^ June, 2005 and further states that the case of the appellant is at par with the decision in Jamna (supra). Upon notice, learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute it but state that respondents are intending to file an appeal against Jamna (supra) pertaining to Village Bakkarwala. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in terais of decision in Jamna (supra) as noted herein above while denying the interest for the period of delay of 100 days. However, the appellant shall be entitled to proportionate costs. JNIL GAUR (JUDGE) MARCH 20, 2012 hk LA.APP.74/2012 page2of2 IN tofe HIGM COURT OF DELHI M NEW DELHI. nf DecisiohrS^LlMly^M-- -I '.^ - - • •" . :• .! A APP. 784/2Q05_' • • Appellant ; . • Mr.CB.Kal,.Advocate, . ivir.l.S.Da.hiya, Advocate, • Mr.D.S.Lakra, Advocate,: ^ Mr;K.Sunir,-Advocate)i. : .. Mr.Anuj Bhandari,Advocate -ivir.ShadamFarashat, Advocate > , j . • Versus • :, Respondents • • Mr.SanjayPoddar, Standing :• Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with_ Ms.Deepika,Mr.SachinNawam and • Mr. Siddharth Panda.Advocates _ ' Mr.AjayVernna, Ms.Kan ka, • Agnihdtri,Mr.Ku'nal5h'a||nj|a, .•.+•• ••• JAMNA, Th^riough;:. I .UO! Si ORS: Th rough i t.- Mn.Sunner SethJ,' Mr.B.B Ms.Shbbhna Takiar a'n,d St|.arma, Mf.Arun •Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND LA.ARP. •879/2005, LA.APP.;- 880r881/2005, LA.APP. ^121/2006, 143^007 '(ReJating to .Notification u/s 4 dated

125.02.1997^&Award No;2/1999-2000,VillageMundka) V::'; AND. •' +• .LA.APP. 583/2009,.LA.APP. 603/2009, LA.APP. 604/2009, j'LA.APP.'606/2009,LA.APR. 610/2009,74/2010, LA.APP. 78/2010, iLA'.APP.784/2005& cpnnected '.k: r • • '•! - i ^.LA•A^P^7%'20.1.0,Ia.APP. 121/2010, LA./\PP.'122/2010, LA.APP. 125/2'OliO,' LA,APR-.. 164/20]/b, ' LA.APP: 185/2010, LA.APP. ISe/iolO, LA. APP. • 2p'O/20:lO, LA.APP. ^239/2010, LAAPP. 243/2010, ' LA.Al^P. ^245/26il0, -LA.APP. "247/2010, .lA.APP. ' 252/2010, ;[iA.APP. 266/2010, LA.APP. ^273/2010, LA.APP-.','274/2010, LA.APP. ' 312/2010, LA.APP. 324/2010, ,L.A. APP. 327/2010, •.'LA.APP, ' , 329/2010, LA.APP. ' 331/2010, LA:APP. 332/2010, LA.APP. 333/2010 with CM APPL. ; No, .55;24/|011, LA,A1^P. 335/2010, LA.ApP: 367/ioiO, LA.APP. ^368/2010,-LA.APP,.3^9/2010, LA./^PP.. 371/2P|.Qj & CM APPL, ; No.20099/2010,'LA.APP, 374/2010, LA.APP., 3l|5/2010, LA.APP. • 377/2010, 1A.APP-. 379/2010, LA.APP, •423/2010, LA.APP. •' 452/2010, ,- LA.APP, ,.461/2010, LA,APP, 472/2010, LA.APP. •6'94/2010,, LA.APP-696/2010.&CM APPL. .No. ,6340/2011, LA.APP, ; 697/2010, •LA.APP,' 698/2010 .& 'CM /|PPL. 1734/2011,. LA.APP. '• 706/2010.CM APPL.-'17215/2010,LA.APP.. 707/2010, LA.APP, : 708/2010, LA:AP'P. 709/2010, LA.APP.^710/2010Awith QVl APPL, •' N'o.2568/2,oil,'LA.APP,713/2010-withCM APPL. No.74.73/2010., CLA.APP:'715/2010, :J_A.APP.'717/2010, LA.APP. 719/2010, LA.APP. '• 7.66/2010,• LA.APP,.' ..796/2010,',. LA,APP. 79772010, LA.APP. -.798/20,10, 'LA.APP,,..799/2010,'. LA.APP. 818/2010, LA.APP,

81.9/2010, LA:,APP, 829/2010, LA.APP. 831/2010, CM APPL, ; 955/2011, LA,APP, 832/2010, LA.APP: 833/2010. .'& CM APPL, '• 5392/2011, ., iLA,APP, 834/2010, - LA.APP,- 842/2010, .LA.APP, :8.71/2010, LA.APP: 874/2010,,.-, LA.APP. 875/2010,' LA.APP. ; 876/20-10, .. -LA.APP, :877/2010," "LA,APP, 878/2010, , LA,APP. .' 87.9/2010, LA.APP, "880/2010,: LA.APP. •.8'81/2010.' CM' ' APPL.6505./26lli LA.APP, 882/2010, .LA.APP.'883/2010, -LA-APP. •884/2010, ,,LA,APP: '886/2010,'" LA.APP,,.'888/2010, LA.APP. 889/2010 &• CM' APPL.2249./2011, LA.APP, .890/2010, LA.APP, •893/2010CM. APPL. 6750/2011, LA.APP. '894/2010 & CM •Np.23353/20'10,. LAA'PP, 895/2010, LA.APf^. -896/2010, •LA.APP. ' 897'/20l0' &: CM-. APRL.728/2011, LA.APP. .903/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP.784/2005,&'connected 238/2010, 244/2010; 251/2010, 267/2010,,' •275/2010, 326/2010, 330/2010, LA..APP, LA.APP: LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP.' LA.APP'. la.app: -I, {•907/2010; 1A.APP, 938/20iq, .LA.APP. ' 939 !1034/2010^: CM/APPL 30a6/20il, 'LA.APP. 'p IaPPL.^ 567.3552011/',LA-.APP. 1041/2010, LA.A, :.LA.APP.^ 1045/2O.1Ov LA.APP. .1046/2010,' LA.A' LA.APP.: .lC)4Sfe01Q, LA.APP. LA.APP,' 1060/2010, LA.APP. 2|10, LA,APP; 4O/2QJ0."& CIV[ 'P: ^1043/2010, 3p: 1048/2010, 1050/2010; .LA.APP. 1056/2010, 1061/2010, LA.APP. .1071/2010, LA.APP,;125/2011, LA:APP. 126/2011,'LA.APP.258/2011 (Relating to' I'Notificatiori u/s 4 dated 21;p3.'^003 •'& Award :No.3/!2Q05-06lWillage-Mundl<a.) •• • • •• i , ^ '• . • , AND : • r • i ' . "+ LA.APP.' 600/2009, LA.APP.•605/2009, LA APP. 615/2009, •:LA.APP.blG/20r0, LA.-APP. 325/2010, LA.APP, 376/2010, LA.APP. 383/2010, LA,APP, "384/2010, ' LA.APP. 385/2010, LA:APP. LA.APP. 492/2010, LA.APP. LA.APP..- 638/2010, ''LA.APP. l^.APP. 711/2010, LA.APP. .LA;APP. 872/2010, /"LA.APP. •LA.APP.':• 887/2010, ' LA.APP' LA.APP.'. 898/2010, LA.APP. -906/2010 •No.4443/2010, LA.APP. 937/2010 & "CM APPL. XA.APP,' 1042/2010, LA.APP. 1047/2010 473/2010,. •^591/2.0i0, .692/2010, '763/^Oip, ;'885/2010, .892/2010, •586/2010, 690/2010, .716/2010, .,873/2010, , 891/2010, LA.APP, .LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. 'LA.APP. & CM APPL. 23299/2010, '('Relating to. ' Notification u/s ' 4 .dated

21.0.3.2003 & Award .:No.l/2005-06;:Vill,age-Mundl<a) • • AND LA.APP. 1003/2010,; LA.APP, 1017/2010; LA.APP. 1019/2010, ^LA.APP.' 1'02'2/201C),.LA.APP. 1023/201,0, LA.ARP. 1044/2010, 1A.APP.: 1051/2010, ;LA.APP. 1053/2910, LA.APP. :1054/2010 & ;.C:iV| APPL..- No.5656/2011, • LA'. ' APP., 10,55/ '1057/2010, lA.APP, 1058/2010, LA.APP. 1059/ /IO68/261O, "LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. 124 '127/2011, LA.APP. 128/2011, LA.APP. 259/2011 ,LA.APP.784/2005'& connected ' , • 2010, LA.APP. LA.APP. LA.APP. C \ I j \ • f '(Relating to J'Notification'u/s 4 dated 17'.p6.2q05; & Award- • INb.13/2006^07,Viilage-Mundka) ' , : ^ i • . •• • ' ' AND .. • ' • • N- ^LA.APP'.:,:40/2.009;•& Cross ^Objections, lA.APP. 42672009, r ILAAPPi • 42:87200.9,. 442/2009,- .LA.APP; ' •611/2009;,• LA;APP. i ^615/2009, LAIAPP. 278/2010' ' , - • • , ' . ^ • I !(Relating to..;^Notification.u/s 4^:dated 24.i09..2003 & Award ' l\lo.3/2Q04-0$, Village-Bakkarwala) . . • • . . ; • . '• ' • AND - • ^ •• iA-ARpH' 1029/2010 'CM No.5948/2-011, ' LA.APP. ;1030/26i0,^';LA.APP. :1031/2010,- LA.APP. 1033/201Q .E,' CM^ V;No.6645/20il,- LA.APP. • 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & QM •,No.6'943/201L, .LA.APP: 10,64/2010, LA.APP. 10-66/201.0^ LA.APP. :1067/2010,'LA-APP.11/2011,.LA.APP. 122/2,011• (Relating to ; Notification u/s dated \No. 1/2006-07:,-Viilage^BakkarwaJa)

17.06:2005 & Award CORAM-fHpN'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAIMDRAJOG ,1. VVhether^theRep,orters'oflocal pap.ers may.;be:allowed to see t^ie jud'gnnent? . '

¶2To be referred to Reporter,or not? ' '3'. Whether the judgment should' be reported in the Digest? ^.PRADEEPMA^DRAIOG,I. (O.rai) : . ^ . ' . , - il.- • l iam :deciding the above captidned appeals, and • relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of .,cross-:objecti'ons; alt,of which have been-listed' be •\LA.APP.784/2005 St connected -' ' . • ' einabove.' • i. o . \ 1' ;r \

¶2; ; , :The present decision cbncerns issiie of fixation of fair market vaibe of land in the revenue estate, of Village Bakkarwal'a and villagerMundka. , . • • •

¶3; 5 • i The dates on which fair market .value of the jand has • t€ be determined may be graphically noted-as'iunsiier:- S.No.; --Name of Village Date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act' •1. • Bakkarwala '2. ; '.Bakkarwala,

¶3' Mundka 4, , -iyiundka - .5. r ^Mundka '; 24,9.2003

17.6.2005 •

25.2.1997 : •

21.3.2.003 ^

17.6.2005 ,4. • ; if may be highlighted that the nolifi -,i\lo..2 herei.n|abo.ve,pertainingto .villageBakkalk .1 . > • ' ' • ' pursuant .whereto lands were "acquired in the revenue es|ate of yillagp Mu'ndka; as per serial No.5 above. • •• '5- •.Abutting NH-10,'leadingfrom the c^ty of Delhi'^tothe towns,hippf l^ohtak in the State'of Haryana,.'arevillages Mundka, . .Gh,evra and Tikri Kalan. .Village, Bakkarwala'lies towards fhe other side .of the. Southern boundary of village Mundka. The , differencebetween the topology,of the.two-villagesis; whereas the..-1and of. .village Mundka abuts NH-10, that of village Bakkarwala-doeS' not so abut; ;bei,ng on the .other side of the Southernboundaryofrevenueestate of-village.Mundka. • • As'.we.proceedfrom the city'.ofDelhi to the.township of Rohtak, yillage Mundka is grossed first,'foJIowed by village .Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan. • ' : i Agricultural lands in'Village'Mundkawere'acquired ^LA.APP.ysVzOOS^a-connected^• , ,; p^gg5 jg cation at serial wala, is the same \ >• - \ pursiUai'ntto 'a. notificationdated 26.2.1997'issuedunder SeGtion Land Acq.uiisitiQfp:Acii.as per. award. N.O.2/1999/2Q00. f-Agrfeiuitural-l.a 'tjievenueestate of village Mundka were •further •a.cqU'ii'ed pursuant to a notification ca^ed 21.3.2003 •issued"under:Section4of the Land Acguisitioni./jict asperaward No.3/:2.005-06.as also .awafd.No.l/2005-d6. Further la'nds in the .' revenue estate of the sarnie-village w.ere acquired pursuant to a ; notificationd,at'ed 17.5.20105'issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award-No.13/2006-07. . ; 8." . Agricultural-landsin'the revenue estatd of village I Bakk.arwala.>were acquired' pursuant to a, notification dated ; 24,9.:2003issued under Section4 of the Lan.dVcquisi^tionAct as ' per Award n6.3/2004.-05.'"Further lands in the revenue estate of the sarne village were,acquired pursuant to a nptificationdated ' 17.6.26o5- (the same': notification under which ;,lands in village ; Muhdka were acquired) as per award No.'.l/2006-07. •9. • in: a nut'.shell, the-Land Acquisition Collector •! d^ternnjne.dthe fair market value ofthe ,acqui-redlands, under all ^the aw^ds,Mithreferenceto the.minimumprice for agricultural : land as-notified by the:Government of NCT Delhi;

¶10• For clarity' 1 may .note that pertaining to the notification dated,

25..2.19.97 under which agricultural lands in ' the reven-ue'estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned fLand'Acqu-isitiori Collector determi-ned the fair market value with ; referente-to.l.the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from-1.4.19:97 @ ?10 lacs per acre and since the date .of Se.ctioh 4 n'oti.fication was anterior in pojnt of time, discounted LA.APP,784/2005 connected ' the price, for ^one. .ye^''11.5% per annum..: This price wa-s • '0|clO;pteclfor category A lands. For lands in category B, tlie, \/;9lue •was.further:c|iscountedby ^90,0^0,0/-per acre. Pertainingto. the •; notifications. I, dated : 21.3,2003 ' and

24.9.2603, the Land j, Acquisi:tipn 'Ebileictdr relied upon the .notification'.fixing' the ^minimum pnte of'agricuitUfralland as'of 1.4.-20pi and gave'no ' benefit'of en-hancernent with reference to the fact that the fair marl<et:value;of the lands to bexLetermined was;as of 21.3.2003 ••and -24.9.2003..' Even pertaining to thenotification dated •; 17.6.2005 which ^required -fair :marl<et valDe rOf" land to be i^determjned :..in .the - revenue, estate, of. village Bakkarwala and 'vTllage .Mu.ndl<a as'of 17.6.2005;; the Land Acquisition Collector .determined the. same-with reference to the notification fixing minimum, val'ue of-agricultural lands in Delhi as. of.1.4.2001 and ..gave no increase. \, . Aggrieved by the deteri]iifnalion 6f the fair market •value; of: the; jands:by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners : soug.ht a., reference ' undet^ Section"'18 of the -Land .Acquisition Act 189.4 and,, on the reference being made, vide various .judg.-ments and decrees, wh^ich are under; challenge in 'Court took the above ^.captioned appeals, ,the Referend |Correctiveaction,'as/per the view of-the ReferJ ,enhanced the^fairmarket value. •> . ' . Ln ,a nut-shell, pertaining to the ^notification dated

25.2.1997 vide which agricultural laridsrin village Mundka were ,acquired,the. ReferenceCourt adopted tipe same;notificationas was adopted iDy the Land AcquisitionCollector under which the LA.APP.784/2005 & co'nnected e ice Court, and-r 'V! -A . ... • ; • GoverFimentI-df NCT Delhi had fixed th'e mihiiTium vaiue for r • agridultural.'lands :in Delhi, i.e. 1.4.1997/'bLit :as against the Land ' ; Acquisitionfldliector depressing the price @ 11.5% for full, one • J '• year; adopting ,the .percentage •ll,5/;;decrea5ed the value by only'3'4 day|s inasmuch.-a.s the'date with •reference,whereto } ^-Governmentjhad notified the minimum value was 1.4.1997 ^nd I the notification.underSection 4 of the Land;AcquisitionAct was , dated 25.2.1097. This w&s the value fixed for category A lands . ri band ^fdr category''B lands; with reference.:to .'the values for .if .category Aland depressed the same by ?90,000/- per acre. ! -13. .p Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined^'thefair marketvalue @?9,89,288/-|peracre,and for i ;. category B Tand the same wa.s determined @ ^8,99,288/- per . - ' ' ' • I . • • • ' • ..acre. ; •• i; - . " . • ^ ' M 14.:. Pertaining to the notifications datec: ' .1 24.9;20O3 w'hereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and ? • village :;Bakkarwa.la respectively : were; acquired,, the Reference ; . Court to-dk note of the fact that after the. Government had ; notified the minimum.rates;for agricultural lands in Delhi as of f. : 1.4.'2001 .the'next revision was as of 3P.8.20.05. Using, the said • j ;. dates a:nd the minimum price notified by the Governmentof NCT : Delhi, .'the Preference Court adopted^ the pri - : average: What the Reference Court did was'to • as of 1.4.200,1 and." increasing the same by 10% per annum : ' determined, the enhanced price as of

21.3.2003 as also ,; :24,9.20p3, -r,Thereafter the Reference, Court took the •value i. 'notified;'as of.-30.,.8:,20;05and depressing the'same by 10% per LA.APP784/2005•&'connected' '• ' • ' PageS'oflD'

21.3.2003 and iciple of niean adopt the value i • • 'annum'determined.the:su amved'atas of 21.3.2003'as alsD, i24.9.2Q'03'..The two sun^is'arrived,at were,added and di\/ide.c|.by ltwo to4mve;k;t:hi,;nleati,figureas of 21..3;2003,which 1hote !i.domesto-^l492,083i.33per acre^m somd (decisionsI note the :sum arrived'iatis 92,215/-).•. For'the date 24.9.2003 the •price determined was'^20,41,000/? per acre. ted

17.6.2005 .15. • i • Pehtaining, /to- • the •. notificgtion• da ^-pursuant whereto.agricultural lands were acq /Bakkarwala and Mundka th.Q,. learned ReferencI the minimurn , price for -agricultural lands notified by the Government"\OfNCT Delhi with effect from 1.4.2001 and giving i;'; ,increas,e @10%, per, annum .determined the value, and with .respectto the lands in village Mundka^ pn accountof locational i-advaptage, obeing ,.'abutting ^NH-IO , gave;- "5% more and' ^determined the fair riiarket value, as-'of 17,:6.2005 in sunn'of T21,37,017.75 per. acre and fol' village Bakka-rwala the. price .•'determined Was^20,35,25,5/-pe.racre. • • , !' '16. : ) In-ithe aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in •which I havfe pehh.ed profiled-the reasoning ' of -.the Land Ucquisition.Gotlectdrjas-also.that .of the Reference Court, 1delve :' into .the^arguments advanced before me during hearing tod.ay. il7. -, • -With reference : to -.th.e evidence, led in LAC No.384/2004 -i/^g/T?/?^.l/s. UOI & Ors., it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai, - ilearned; counsel for the appellant in LA'App.No.784/2005, which ::ar^ume,nt was,adopted by other,learned counsel'.who appeai'ed ••for the other!.appellants, that, the learned Trial Judge -was-not ' justified in ighoring the sale deed :Ex.P-I wHereunder 1 bigha LA.APP.784/2005'& connected ' •, . ' - Page 9 of19 jir ; . 5 ' ! • \ ed in village dourt adopted ari'd Bbiswa of agricultuFalland in v:il.lageMundka was sold a^ of

5.8'.1996'for a sale consideration of ^4,75,000/-. .•?38,00,0/- was ihcurredtowards sale duty and thus the price of the land would , be ?5,13,000/-and^ calculatedwith' referencethereto, land price per bigha would c6:me to ?4,46,0(!)0/-as. of 5.8.1996. Learned •counsel'would'urge that there is; ho reason not to hold that fair market value-'of. agricultural lands in .village Mundka was ^4,46,0007-per bigha as of 5.8.1996. : Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the" said price,,fair nnarket value" needs' .to •be determined as of

25.2.1993, '21,3.2003 and;l'7.6.2005:, i.e. the dates when notifications-under ^••^Section 4 of'^the Land-AcquisitionAct were-, issued pursuant : whereto agricultural lands were .acquired in vi-llage 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 agricultu.ral lands in ^ ; village:.Bakkarwala. Alternatively,, it was urged that since • •'villages-Tikri Kalan,. Mundka ahd; Bakl<;arwala are contiguous ; v-illages,.and in fact, village Tikri K^lan is further towards the ' township of R'ohtak, sornie increase-be made in the value of the Jand in vUlage ^Mundka -and Bakkarwala with reference to. the ,ju.dp-ment Snd ,-decree dated 19.12.2008'decid.inp a .batoh of LA Appeal UO! as per Land Acquisition Appeals,' lead . -matter being No.193/2006 Pratap Sihah (Deceased) Thr. LRs ifc. whi-ch fair market value of land, per bigha, was'[jiejerminedin the;-, revenue estate' of •village Tikri Kalan as' of 16.11.1995, i:i.6':1996 and 17.12.2002 at ^2,15,164/- for-category A land ' LA.APP.784/2005&coRnected ! . ' ' , ' - Page10 of 19 • ^ stones a;re mixied in:a;.bag of rice it would not;be to-pick only one grain, for ifjt happens, to be'th one'would lead to the conclusion that the bag. isl' and if that oQe^grainhappens to be a piece of ston^,.one would reach ;to:the conclusidn that-the bag is full of stones. At l^ast a fistful-.should; .be lifted , and then checked as. a representative ,sample, ?is-the.:.example given. The second-reason on which learned cdunsel would attack .the-sale deed as' not being represeritativei of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as before acquisitions are made,' land' in t;he-;area.is surveyed.- Witho^ut a survey, it wo;uld be'diffi'ciult to issue even the notification .under Section' 4 L-A.APP..784/k005&.connected •, • Page 11of19 •, / I and ^^1,73,500^-for'category;B| l'and;•^2,,36,85-0ror categoryA land arid- ?i:,90,150/-:for. categpry B, land; .^4,02,850/-;for category' A, land and , f3,24,850/- for category B land, • ' • ••! • >-1 •• • _ • • . _ • y.;e. •respectively. ; ' • > './• ]_g, .• I may 'note ,here that-in various'land acqui,sition references, various'parties-have proye'd a; nunhberof 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-l:; . ; ' igi, Peritontra,.Sh.Sanjay-Poddarlearned.counselfor:the Udl woLjId utge that:the sale price' as per :;Ex';P-l cannot .be adopfed'as the. yardstick for the reason, to be a. representative sample :of the 'whole,.'the sample "niust'bear some ac;lequate proporfion to'- j:he whole. For example^ .learned counsel would urge that if if has to. be:determined,whetherwhat percentage of a safe method grain of rice % full of rice el i. I- '" i /0f;the-LandAccjuisition Aqt,' Learned-cou'nsel-.wo^!|fconcede •• tftab the-reasons;'given by learned:;Referenc-eCQ|jft are not sbi>ind, .bjijt would urgeUiiat;th^ tw0> contentions^^^anced by-him should be G-dhsidere:d,bythi's-Court ,aS-the reasorfisvasto why Ex-;P-,1 b.e not ta'ken as the basis to determine the f^ir market Value of ifends !in .village ivi;undka.:and Bakkarwala.^ Thirdly, • . Ifearned counsel IWould further urge, that the four $,^je deeds • -Ex^R-1 tp:VR-4 .-Ireferred'^to in'" the' decision of learned ; Reference i Court-. pertaining-to sale deeds dated '6.1.1995, 30,5'.1997;54.6.%97^and 8.9.1997 relied ui^on b show the .actuall'.market Value of •the land andl-; counsel would :urge that the said four sale deed%'should be consideredi, but.;;hastens •to add, that since valifl. reflected .. ' therein -'is' less..Lthan .the minimum price -notifl;!,^: by the. ^Government, ttt^fpnicefixation should be with refef^^nfeto the. ••• /rriinimurtiprice.:]1ptifiedby the Government;which ..isjparest tO' the point of tim'e-when.the respective notificatio.ns.p^pje.issued under Section 4of the'Lan,d Acquisition Act, •• ^ •

20.-. An i-nd'ependent and alternative argumg.Af''Is also ' •|- f- ; • -'•• • ^ • .'. -• : -v ' • •• .: - ; -1. , :. advanced by lea-rned counsel for the Union. The. •s.$;:!|ie rests itself'ona. decisionofa Division Bench.ofthis Court.re^rted as .• 2006-(135);DLT;2blaiSinghVs.'UOL • -21.: • The'decision in fai Singh's case (su.pra)'c.o'ii^ceipnsitself -' •with the de^ermir)ation of the fair market vct'lue of.iaridiir^'Village. ^lakkarwala whidh-were .acquired' piUrsuant to-;;a ngfification dated -15.1'0.199'3 at .?1,32,000/- per bigha. • LeaVripd-counsel w.ould urgevthat.t:he-said .decision has attained finari||f;iP)'asmuch LA.a'pp..784/2005&connected i. i--.' i / •1 •• •• r..- would hds learned ' s-||vofl9 • H; • ti:'' •••I ;asiPetitionsfor.3peeia.r'Leaveto Appeal^nled befofifeheSupreme iCQurt^iby either side have been; dismissed,. . la^^jiipd gounsel ;tal<es the argument forward'by urging'that by, ' marl<et v'alue^::ofland iii village Bakkarwala as; ;?i,32,000/-,.per bigha, the.'fair market-..fvalue should be ;• ascertained.by Increasing the price progressivelyby-10% per ;annum" to determine the market value of land in village. •Bakkarwala'^sof 24:9.2003:as^also;17.6.2005.•Learned counsel "would urge that in 'view of'the locational advantage of village •Mundka, fairimarket'valueof land' in-viHage'.Mundka.should he. ^determined^a;sof;25.2^1997,2r.3:2003and.17:6.2005,by giving : 5-% increase:.'. ,. ^ • ' ' ' " " • , I •22. With respect to the-sale deed Ex.P-1;, whdreunder1 •bigha and •3 biswa' of agricultural land was .sold in Village. . Mu-ndka aS ' Of 5.8;1996, it wo'uld assume, importance that'the , •. sale is about \J months priorto.the date ofthe notificationissued , , • under'Section,4.of the. Land Acquisition Act, which w.as issued on , • : 25.'2;i997. itiis a ..matter of'comm.on 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::fielcls'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 likeliho.od that the. lands "would be acquired.'In Delhi, the large scale, acquisition policy er]joinsupon th.e Governmentto allot, at pre determined rates, a '• p;lot-.of:devei6p,ed residential land to the otnevwh i La!aPR.78V2005'ai^connected i ,)|pjD!ting(the fair ff5.lO.l993at pse lands' are iacquireiandthus, it is not uncommon,for personsto purchase small Jrcels oT lands In areas where acquisitionsare likely to •••take place: these transactionsare speculativeand cannot be :• taken to.be arepresentativemeasureof the fair marketvalue of : land as ^^nthe dateofthe sale.Further, the .principlesof ratio ^ i.and. proportion as also the principles of -averages and the ' principlesof Sampling tell me that to be representativeof the •whole, a-sample musf bear at intelligible proportion to the whole; Thus,;not for the reasoning advanced by the learned ReferenceCoui-t, butTorthetwin reasoninghitherto-forenoted,1 • hold that Ex.P-l cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value:ofthe land could-be determined.There is an .additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed.The sale deeds Ex.B- . 1 to Ex.R-4,.dated 6.1.1995,30.5.1997,4.6,1997 and 8.9.1997 i are also: pertainingto yillage Mundka and reflect a sale price much-lower than the sale price,recorded in Ex.P-1. In fact, the i 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- : rni irj-in' laiSingh'scase (.supra) or PratapSingh's

¶24•" •Ihighlightthat-bothdecisions,penned'bythe Division Bench of this Court have beep upheld by the SupremeCourt.

¶25• , The decision in iai Singh'scase (supra) determined ; Tair"market-value''of'.land'in Village Bakkarwala in' sum of ;t,l,32,000/-per bigha as of 15,10.1993,'and the perusal thereof LA.APP.'784/2005&' connected cision of this, se (supra). tie i Cc Page 14 of 19. •would .sl^Gw^th•a:t.t:heGqurt asse.ssid |he. fair market value with •^reference ito. Saile, deeds executed' betw.&en the years l99Qltill ' 'the year 1--9.96 either in Village Tikri Kalan or..Village Mundka, ^apparentl^oh.the;prenriise.that.being contiguous villagers, sale price'of .agridultu.ralla;nd in, the-.2 adjoining-villageswould be Indicative of fair market value of .land in Village Ba.kkarwala: ^25. •• i \n'^PratajD 5iliah'sca^e (supra), the Division Bench :Was. coricerned with'agricultural lands in Tikri.Kalah and another ^;adjoining Village •npmed..: Ghevra and pertaining to various • I _ t ' • • • ^notjfi.cations,issued tnder Section,.4 of the Land,Acquisition Act .'determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as Under:-' ,5.MO. •Date Village Price' ; i 1pe r Big ha \ ,!• ;24.07ll995-&'

16.11!i995 • •,'••• 1 . •' •Tikri Kalan . i' . ?2,I5 A.' & • Block ,1'60/- for Block ^1',73,500/- for B land ;. 2, • \ ai.06i-19^6 • •TikriKalan •• Si Ghevra • ^2,35,815/- for Block A & ?1,90,156/-..for Block^B land ; . ' • •

¶3il7.12.2002 ; : l" ' ' -Tikri Kalan • ?4,02 A & Blo'.ck ,850/- for Block G,24,850/-. for B land i 27;; FoUowiha the judgment m Praiap 5/'/7t7/7''5case.(supra) 1 have.cjecideGl the-...fair market value for the^ land situated in .revenue-estate of Village Ghevra', which was ^acquired pursuant to :notification dated 6.2.2:003 in the batch of .appeals being Land LA.APP.784/2005 & connected ' Page 15 of 19' lU .l,rtBv|aetermineame,fair™rk^va^e^ lands in-Village^GHey^a'att4,03:425/-'perbigh^as

6.2. . ^dn'heis,ueatcomparabilityof "nd in viiiage^k.arwaia»th i^villageMwndkS Ghevra.andTikri Kala,n, it.is no:d-bttruetUa ;whiaslviilageBakferwaia does;not abut as do the i'other vi.nages;!^butit has 'to be-;higb,ighted^a,Mt.s ^re :proximateto tfe urban areas of Delhi vis-a-vis.Gheyraand Tdx. iKalan andto that extent,qua said2vii^g^s.-has an ad^^ ge^ Since exactness can never be-3chieved.mthe matters 5assessing fairlcompensation,it is the,broad^probab,l,t,esa|.d i sirniiaritlesw^ich matter:. Th.s.1hold aii v.liages to be I equivalent,urrlessqua sqme landspecialfeatufpUnbe Shown ^^5 • . :sinb the :didsion-in case-(supra) : aeals with n6tificatio,s:.fePreproximatein pointjoftime to:me : notifications^Withwh;ci#amconcerned,Iam of the opiniont a i' ft :would':beiiist,fair a^^ proper to determine.the.fairr.atet ; Valueof lands,with which^l am concernedmrelationto the fair ; imarketvalueOf lands-determinedin case(supra). • As per the decision tn^mmSImlllScase (supra) for the date . 24 71995,for CategoryAlandsfair compensationassessedwas i?2,15,160/-perbi.gHaand a,73,500/-perbigha for CategoryB '• Mand The first 'notification with which 1 am concerned is •i ^25 21997 wrtereujnderlands in Village Mundka were acquired. The time span sweeps 1year'and 216 cfejitie^MI-days.In • case (supra) meMmusUnsrfhsewas determined 5'to be 10%;per annum Xflat). Thus, pertaining to Category A ; • . •: i .1 f LA^APR784/20p5:-&connected Ian|:s",|i?ie faiir^m^rKetvalue assessed is ^2,49;408.75per bigha • i.e.';?;|,|,97,162;/-;per0cre and for Category-Blanes,;Iassess the ^•fair j^^rketvalue at ^2,01,117/-per bigha i.e, d 6;i,361.60per ; acre...;^ ' , •. , •' ' ' i 29, • The-next notification with which I.ann concernfed^ dated:2i.3.2Q'03.pertainingto Village Mundka. \n ^ijMLlJJ=iL5 ? cas (supra),with referenceto thedecision in PraiapSinqJTsc^se ' (supra-),-foradricultural.landsin Village Ghevra'pertainingto a ! notifidationissued'under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct ;• pn 6.2.2;003,'the fair,marketvalue assessedwas-t4,03,425/-per 'i bigha/Thiswa^s .unifdrmlyapplied.Since:there is a time gap of ;• just a. little over .1 mdnth, Iam of the opinion that pertainingto ; the notification-dated21.3.2003, fair market value of land in • Village Mundka should be ^4,03,425/-i.:e. ^19,35,440/-p.er acie, •J which'Ihereby fix. !: ;2o 1 propose to deal with the notification dated

24.9.2003, after dealing with the notificationdated 17.6.2005 :pursuarit whereto agricultural-lands were acquired in Village ^-.-Mund-kaand Village Bakkarwala. - ' • - ; •:3]__ , As no^edChiranii Lai's case, (supra), •i >pertaini.hg.^tp--the notification-dated '6.2.2003,,'fairniarketvalue ;.'^assessedby'me'was?4,03,425/-per bigha-and thus, increasing • the same by-.lo%for 2 years and 131 days, t,he figure comes to •f4,98,589/- per bigha,:which comes to ^23,93,227.20-per pcre. The same is held by rine to be the fair market \|alue of land in 'Vinage'iMundkaand Village Bakkarwalaas of 17,^.2 'the same. •. • .LA.APP.784/2005'&connected

¶005I decree J-32_ :• 1 am' Left' with the notifiG.atiori dated 24.9.2003. pertaining,to\yillage;Bakkarwala and with referenceto the fair market-value;assess,ed-in required appreciatetheOpriceby 10% per annul^.foraperiod of 201 days, the figure comes to ^4,25,541/-per bigha i.e. ?20,43,076.80per acre, which I'determinertobe the fair:,marketvalue of land in Village Bakkarwalaas of 24.9.2003, 33, Accordingly,the appeals filed by bhe Union of India require to be' dismissed and I hereby dismiss'thesame. 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 Vi.llage • ^ Mlindka' -the:., fair: market '^falue is fixed, at' • ; .. ^2:49,408.75.perbigha i^e. 11.^,97,162/-per,acreaftd for^CategoryBlands, the fair marketvalue is fixed at • ••?2,01,117/,- per.big..ha i.e'. ?9,65,361.60,per acre, as on-,25.02.1997. ' ; • ii). For the land situated in Village-Mutidka the fain market, .value is fi.xed at .t4,03,425/- ^19,36,440/•; per acre, as on 21.03.20 P er bigha i.e.

iii)' . For-the land situated in Village' Mujidka the. fair market value-is fixed'at ^4,98,589/-. per bigha i.e. - • • -?23,93,227,20 p.er acre,' as on 17-,06.2005-. •'

iv) . Fbr'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' Page:l8-ofl9 ?••• • t23,:93,227..20-.per acre;;'a® 0n l7.06.2005'.

v) . For-the"-ianti:situated in iVillageBal<l<:^aJp,thefair . ma'rl<et'value is-fixed at ?4;,25,641/-.per bigha i.e.,, ; ^20,43,076:80 per acre, as on 24,09.2003. .vi). Appellants and .cross-objectors-..wlio 'have succeeded , would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per " - statute and. as-clarified' in the decision reported as'" •93(20.01) - DLT 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.

vii); The appellants and cross-objectors 'who succeed •; would aiso be entitledto proportionate costs. • :vi'ii) Aill pen-ding'applications stand disposed of in terms of -. the ,pi'ayers .made therein. ' • •' |JLY;-G8,.2011-L:A.APP^,7:84/2005 & connected." t (PRADEEP NAIMPRAJOG) . JUDGE. • Page 19 of IS- •r%

$-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 74/2012 PEHLAD Appellant Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for respondent/UOI/LAC Mr. Parmahans, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR