UOI v. Tara Chand & Ors

ORDER %

08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. -7-T-~ni

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JULY 08, 2011 Is 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. . . ., . . : • • • . . . . . . . . i . . . ip4 . . .. . . . . .. : • • • •1 .I':n1 HIGH :COUT;QF OELHI AT NEW DELHI : ' • 5 t . . . , . . . . : . : • . . .. . ,. .. . . P/ DatepfbeCi510P 8th ji/y, 2O11 , . : • LApp78J2QQ.:

.. . .. S . . . . . .. . .. : • JAMNA Appellant Through Mr L B Ral, Advocate, Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, ' Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr K Sunil, Advocate, Mr Anuj Btiandafl, Advocate Mr Shadam FaraShat, Advocate p Versus UOI ORS Respondents & Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standing . . . . CoUnsel (LA), •GNCT Delhi with .. . Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawafli and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika Agnihotfl, Mr Kunal Sharma, . ....: . Mr.SUrner Sethi, Mr.B.BSharma, .. .. . Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun Brbal, Advocates for DDA AND . :. ......... LAAPP 879/205, LAAPP 880-881/2005, LAAPP 121/2006,143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Vitlage Mundka) • AND m + LAAPP 58/209, LAAPP 603/2009, LAAPP 604/2009, LAAPP 606/2009, LAAPP 610/2009, 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010, LA P 784/2005 & connected Page lot 19 AP

r 4qJ -c r . .1 . .. ...- . ., .. .., H LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAP!P 125/2010, LAAPP 164/2010 1 LAAPP 18512010, LAAPP 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LA APP 238/2010, LA APP 239/2010, LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP 24512010, LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPP 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPF 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPP 312/2010, LAAPP 324/2010, LA APP 326/20101 LAAPP 327/2010 LA APP 329/2010, LA APP 330/2010, 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, LAAPP 369/2010, LAAPP 371/2010 & CM APPL No20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP 45j2010,: LA;APP. 461/2010 LA.APP.• .472/2010• LA.APP. 694/20 10, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011, LA APP 697/2010;: LAAPP. 698/2010, &CM APPL. 1734/2011, LA..APP. • ' 706/20,1 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LA APP 707/2010, LA APP 708/2010, LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 254/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LAAPP715/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010, LA APP 766/2O, LA APP 796/2010, LA APP 797/2010, LA APP 798/20, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAARP 819/2&10\ LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 & CM APPL 6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP 842/2010, LAAPP 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/2010, LAAPP 879/2010, LA APP 880/2010, LA APP 881/2010 & CM APPL6505/2011, LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010, LAAPP . 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2219/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPP 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LA APP 894/2010 & No 23353/2010, LA AFP 895/2010, LA APP 896/2010, LA AIP 89712010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected (Relating to Notlflcati9n u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 13/2006-07, Viilage-Mundka) AND + LA APP 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA APP 426/20091 LA APP 428/2009, 442/2009, LA APP 611/2009, LA APP 616/2009, LA APP 278/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24 09 2003 & Award' No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND + LAA*'P 4029/2010 & CM No 5948/2011, LAAPP 1030/01, LAAPP 1031/2010, LAAPP 1033/2010 & CM No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CM • No6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010,LAAPP 1066/2010, 1067/2010, LA APP 11/2011, LA APP 122/2011 (Relathg to Nptftication u/s 4 'dated 17.06.2005 : & Awrd No 1/2006-07 Village-Bakkarwala) CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG I Whether the Repoters of locals papers may be allowed to see the judgment 2 To be referred to Reporter or not 3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J (Oral) I am deciding the above captioned appea,ls and relatable civil miscellaneous applications which are by way of cross objections, all of which have been listed hereinabove LA APP 784/2005 & connected . S S. 1t and 3 biswa of agricultirl land in village Mundka was sold as of

5.8.1996, for a sale consideration of 475,000I-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 4,46,000I-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 bigh 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 detrmined as of 25 2 1993, 213 2003 and 17 6 2005, I e the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Lnd Acquisition Act were issued pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing the price proressively, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum It is urged that on the same basis, land price should be determ4ineJ f o r the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, it was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguous villages, and in tact 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 LAAppeal and l,73,500/- for category B land, 2,35,850 for category A rand and 1,90,150I-for category B. land, 4,02,850/- for category A land and 3,24,850/- for category B land, respectively. I may nte there that in various land acquisition references, various parties h a v e,,proved a n u m b e r of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners have only, relied upon the sale 4deed Ex P-i Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative • sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the vhole For example, learned counsf would . ..... uge that if it has to be determined whether w,hat percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to be the grain of rice one would lead to the conclusion that the bag is 100% full of rice and if that one grain happens to be a piece of stone, one would reach to theconclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a A. fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, Js 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 before acquisitions are rrade, jand, in the area is surveyed Without a survey it would be difficult to issue even the notification under Section 4 LA APP 784/2005 & connected of the LanJ Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede that the reasons given bythe learned Réerence Court are not sound, but would urge that the two conntions adyanced by him should be considered by this Court astie reasons as to why Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to dete,mine the fair narket value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would futher urge that the four sale deeds Ex R1 to Rr4 referred to in the decision of the learned -. (l Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOl would show the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be èonidered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected therein is less than the minimum pricel notified by the overnment, 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 Laçd Acquisition Act An independen1 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 231J 5i'ngh Vs 1)01 The decision inJjSingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village ' -7 as Petitions for Special eaveto Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by either side have been dismissed Learned counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000I per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annum to determine the market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of vilIag Myndka 1 fair market value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25 2 1997, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, by giving 5% increase 22 With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 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 is 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 wtie,n this happens people in the area come to know that very soon there is every likelihpod that the lands would be acquired In Delhi, the large scale acquisition policy,

enjoins upon the Government to allot,, at pre determined rates, a plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LAAPP784/2005&connected Page 13of 19 ' acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persofl to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken tio b a representative measure of the fair market value of land as on the date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio and proportion as also the principles of averages and the principles of sampling tell me that to bE representative of the whole, a sample must bear at intelligible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market vue of the land couldbe determined: Therei.safl:add1ti0flal reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R-1 to Ex R-4, dated 6 1 1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.199.7 and 8 9 1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum pric for agricultural land in Delhi notified by' the Government Thus, the fai 4r market value of, the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court in Jj ngh's case (supra) or Pratap 5,ncih's case (supra) I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division • Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court The decision in J/ Sing/i case (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000/-per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof L APP 784/2005 & connected --, -. '1-/ --(9' would show that the Court assessed the fair, mad<et value with reference to sle deds executed between the yars 1990 till the year 1996 e i t he'i in Villag, Tkri Kalan or, Vt1age Mundka, apparently on the premise that beiiig contiguous Milagers, sale price of gicultural land in the 2 adjoining vilIaes would be indictiveof fair rnarketvalue ofiand in Vilae Bakkarwala. In Pratap Singh case (supra), the Dwision Bencft was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another a1jointng Village named Ghevra and pertaining to variou 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 -I am left with the notification dated 24 9 2003 perining to Village Bakkarwala and with reference to the fair met value assessed Ch,ranii Lal's case, I would require to in apeciate the price by ]0% per annum for a period of 201 days, thefigure comes to 4,25,64U-per bigha e 20 1 43 1 076 80 pr acre, which I determine to be the fair market value of land in Village akkarwala as of24 9 2Q03 Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require o be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same The appeaIs filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under -

i) For the land falling in Category A land in Village I Mundka the fair market value is fied at is 2,49,408 75 per bigha i e 11,97,162/- per acre and for Category B lands, the fair market value is fixed at 2,0117/- per bigha e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as ,1 on 25 02 1997 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425/- per bigha i e 19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21 03 2003 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair . market ivalue is fixed at 4,98,589I- 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 maçket value is fixed at T498,589/- per bigha i e LA APP 784/2005 & cçnnected .............. ........................ i s s.

................................ .. . . .. • . . •,•. - i . • . • . . 23 1 93 227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005

v) For the land situated n Village Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixe& at 4,25,641/- per bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003

vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatiurn and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLTI 569 Sunder vs (JO!, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree v1i) The appellant and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs

viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein - • • \j J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JU[ 08, 2Q11 Wim ' S LA APP 84/2OO,5 & connected - ,

tl' $-174 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.1058/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Ms.Deepika, Advocate versus TARA CHAND & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA S CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG