$-90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.711/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Ms.Deepika, Advocates versus MAHINDER KUMAR \ (AID & ANR. Respondents Through: None S CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG ORDER % 08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005. PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JULY 08, 2011 OF mm Digitally Signed By:AMULYA 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. Signature Not Verified . .. . ' ,. : . : . . • • . : : • • • • . . : •• • : . . • • • . . .;• -r IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI .,'. . : • • . .. . . :. .• :•L ••: :!; •. : % Date, pfDecLthOfl 8th /u!y,201.L 4- LkAPP. 74J2005 . . . .. .; . ; . . . .-. : • JAMNA I Appellant Through Mr L B Rat, Advocate, Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, Mr 0 S Lakra, Advocate/ Mr K Sunil, Advecte, Mr Anuj Bhandarl, 1AdVOcate Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate •r Versus u01&ORS Respondents. . Through Mr Sanjay Poddar,t Standing ' Counsel (LA), GNCT DeIh with I 0 Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika Agnihotri, Mr KnaI Sharma, Mr Sumer Seth', Mr B B Sharma, Ms Shobhna Ta1iar nd Mr Arun a Birbal, AdvocateSfor DDA AND . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. + LA APP 879/2005 LA APP 880-881/2005, LA APP 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated , 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, VilIageMundka) • AND I + LAAPP 583/2009, LAAPP 603/2009,LAAPP 604/2009 LA APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009, 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010, 04 . LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 1 of 19 ITO / • . • • . _; -: H ; .. .. .. .. '. ... .- .. •1 •, ... . , . ' '1 LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/20101 L1X APP 122/2010, LAAPP 125/2010, LA APP 164/2010, LA APP 185/2010, LA APP 186/2010, LA APP 20012010, LAAPP 238/2010, LAAPP 239/2010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP 245/2010 LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPP 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP 273/2f10, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPPc 312/2010, LAAPP 324/2010, LA APP 326/2010, LAAPP 327/2010, LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP 331/2010, LA APP 332/2010, LAAPP 333/2010 with CM APPL No 5524/2p11, LAAPP 335/2010, LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP 368/2010, LA APP 369/2010, LA APP 371/2010 & CM APPL No 20099/2010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP 452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP 694/20101 LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011, LA APP 697/2010, LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP 706/2010 & C M,.APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010, LAAPP 708/2010, LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/20 11, LA APP 713/2010 with Cf'1 APPL No 7473/2010, LA APP 715/2010, LA APP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010, LA APP 766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP, 797/2010, LAAPP 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LA APP 829/2010, LA APP 83112010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 & CM APPL 6392/2011 1 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, LAAPP 880/2010, LAAPP 881/2010 & CM APPL6505/2011, LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010, LAAPP 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/20101 LAAPP 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LAPP 894/2010 &CM No 23353/2010, LAAPP 895/2010, LAAPP 896/2010, LAAPP 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAI4P 903/2010, LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 2 of 19 907/2010, LA APP 93812010, LA APP 939/2010, LA APP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LA APP 104012010 & CM APPL 5673/2011, LAAPP 1041/2010, LAAPP 1043/2010, LAAPP 1045/2010, LAAPP 1046/2010, LAAPP 1048/2010, LA APP 1649/2010, LA APP 1050/2010, LA APP 1056/2010, LX APP 1060/2010, LA APP 1061/2010,1 LA APP 107112010, LAAPP 125/2011,LAAPP 126/2011, LAAPPt 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 3/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND + LAAPP 600/2009, LAAPP 605/2009, LAAPP 615/20091 LA APP 310/2010, LA APP 325/2010, LA APP 376/2010, LA APP 383/2010, LAAPP 384/2010, LAAPP 385/20101 LAAPP 473/2010 1 LAAPP 492/2010, LAAPP 586/2010, LAAPP 591/2010, LAAPP 638 10 AAPP 690/2010, LAAPP 692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010 LAAPPt 716/2010, LAAPP 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/20101 LAAPP 885/2010, LAAPP 887/2010, LAAPP 891/2010, LAAPP 892/2010, LAAPP 898/2010, LAAPP 906/2010 & CM APPL No4443/2010, LAAPP 937/2010 & C4 APPL 23299/2010, LAAPP 1042/2010,LAAPP 1047/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) I AND LAAPP 1003/2010, LAAPP 1017/2010, LAAPP 1019/20101 LAAPP 1022/2010, LAAPP 1023/2010, LAAPP 1044/2010, LAAPP 1051/2010, LAAPP 1053/2010,LAAPP 054/2010 & CM APPL No 5656/2011, LA APP I 1055/2010, LAAPP 1057/2010, LAAPP 1058/2010, LAAPP 1059/2010, LAAPP 1068/20101 LAAPP 1069/2010, LAAP 124/2011, LAAPP 127/2011,LAAPP 128/2011,LAAPP 259/2011 LAAPP7S4/2005&connected Page3ofl9 • ri I' .• •• •. • (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award No 13/2006-0, Viilage-Mundka) AND + LA APP 40/2009 & Cross Objections, LA APP 42612009, LAAPP 428/2009, 442/2009, LAAPPL 611/20091 LAAPP 61612009, LA APP 278/2010 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 09 2003 & Award No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No 5948/2011, LAAPP 1030/2010, LAAPP 1031/2010, LAAPP 1033/2010 & CM No 664572011, LAAPP 1062/2010, '1063/2010 & CM No€943/2011, LA APP 1064/20L0, LA.APP. 1066/2010, LA APP 1067/2010,LAAPP 11/2011,LAAPP 122/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated lTi06.2005 & Award No 1/2006-07 Village-Bakkarwala) CORAM QNBLE MR JUSTIçE PRADEEP Ni\NDRAJOG 1 Wther the Reporters of local paper may be allowed toeethejudgment 2 To be referred to Reporter or not? 3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest 7 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, I (Oral) 1 I am deciding the above captioned 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 Page 4 of 19 I' pursuant to a notification dated 25 2 1997 issued under ection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per a'ward No 211999/2000 Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were further acquired pursuant to a notifcaion dated 21 3 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per award No 3/2005-06 as also award No 1/2005-06 Further lands 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 1312006-q7 8 Agricultural 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 Acqwsition Act as per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of the same village were acquired pursuant Lo a notification dated 17 6 2005 (the same notification under 'vhich lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/2006-07 9 In a nut shell, the 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 10 For clarity I may note tht pertaining to the notification dated 25 2 1997 under whith agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined the fa'ir market value with reference to the minimum price for agricltural 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 time dicounted IAAPP784/2005&connected Pageof 19 IL annum determined the sum arrived at ds 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 12 which I note comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was 20,41,000I- per. acre 15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified y the eff giving Government of NCT Delhi with ect from 1 4 2001 and increase 0)10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands nvillage 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, acçe and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20 1 35,255/- per acre 16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario Jn which I have penned profiled the resoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today 17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /amna Vs 110/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh L B Rai, learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/205, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who ppeared for the other , appellants, that the learned Trial Judg was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha LA APP 7a4/2005 & connected Page9 of 19 -i : '. ... '•'': . ....: '• 1 • •. .i: H. .•. . . - ---- - and 3 biswa of agricjltural lard in village Mundk was sold of 5.8. 1996 for a sale consideration of 4,75,000/- 38,OOO/J 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 4,461000/- as of 5.8.1996. Learned counsel 1would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka ws 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the agument forward, it is urged that with reference t6 the said price, fair market value needs to be determined as of 25 2 1993, ,21.3.2003 and i7.6.2005, i e the dates when notifications under. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act wre issued pursuant S whereto agricultural lands were acquired ir village Mundka, by increasing the price progressvely, if not b 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 1ands in village Bakkarwata Alternatively, it ws urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkarwala are contiguou villages, and in fact village Tikri iKalan is further towards the township of Rohtak, some increase be mad 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 Pratap S,ngh (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs dO! as per which fair market value of land, per bigha,' was determined in the revenue estate of villag4e Tikri Kalan as of. 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/- for category , A land LA APP 784/2005 & connected P age lOofl9 I • . . .;•. . .. ... •... / and 1,73,500/- for category, B. land, T2,35,850 for category A land and 1,90,150/- for category B land, 4,02,850I- fork category A land and 3,24,850I- for' category B land, respectively 18 I may note here that in various land acquisition references, various parties have proved a flumber of sale deeds executed from time to time, but during arguments today before me, learned counsel for the land owners save only relied upon the sale deed Ex P-i 19 Per contra, Sh Sanjay Poddarlerned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as pr Ex P-i cannot be adopted as the yardstick for the reason, t be a representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some adequate proportion to the whole For example, learned counsel would urge that if it has to be determined whether what percentage or stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would rot be a safe method to pick only onQ grain, for if it happens tar 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 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 secohd reason on which learned counsel would attack the saledeed as not being representative of the price is the reason tht 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 notificaion under Section 4 LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 11 6f19. * ... .. .. . .... .. . . . I 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 considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of land,s in village Mundka and BaikarwaIa Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the foiir sale deeds' Ex R4 to R4 referred to in the decision of the learned Feterence Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6.1 1995, 30 S. 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOI would show the actual market value of the land and thus learned counsel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be but hastens to add, that since value reflected • considered, therein is less than the minimum price notified by the dovernment, the price fixation should be with reference to the the Governmnt wch is nearest to minimum price notified by e hi the point of time when the respective notifictions were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 20 An independent and alternative argument is also Al 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 /aiSIngh Vs (JO! 21 The decision in /aiSinghs case (supra) concerns itself 0 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 1,32,0O0/- per bigha Learned counsel would urge khat the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA APP 84/2OO5 & connected Page 12 of 19 77 ® to urchase acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons p small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitiOns are Iike to take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to be 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 o averages and the principles of sampling tell me that to be epresentative of te 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 tw in reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P 1 cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional .................................................................................... not to rely upon the said sale deed The sale deeds Ex R- reason S 1 to Ex R-4, dated 6.1.19.95, 30 5 1997, 4 6 1997 a n d 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, he sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than even the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi notifid by the Government 23 Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be req uired to be fixed either with reference to the decision of this Court in j Lnh'sCaSe (supra) or pratap Sinqh's Case (supra) 24 I highlight that both decisions, enned by the ivision' Bench of this aourt have been upheld by the Supreme Court 25 The decision in j/ 5ing/cae (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sum of 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, nd the perusal thereof LAApP784/2005&connected I Page14of19 t .:.. 3 3 2. ... . . . .. ..... .. ....., no 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair 4 J market value is fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha i e 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatiurn and interest as per d; rted as statute and as clarifie in the decision repo r 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder iYs (10/, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed wouldalso be entitled to proportiohate costs All pending applications stand disosed of in trms of, the prayers made therein p C (PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG) JUDGE JULY 08, 2011 0 0 • •0 •0 •0 LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 19 of 19 r